>I think I've figured it out, but if someone could verify my results, that >would be great. I think I need to design at 1365x768. Using the >information from the VCD stills page and other pages I found, I built a >little aspect ratio converter that, given the number of pixels high and >wide the destination platform is, and the display aspect ratio, it will >calculate what width/height you should design at. > >If anyone wants to offer comments, that would be great, as dealing with >the various aspect ratios has me tipping on the edge of insanity.
Hiya, My first instinct is to refer you to http://www.mir.com/DMG/aspect.html (which I myself am now turning to...). width DAR 1024 16/9 16 * 768 4 -------- = ----- --> ---- = ----- --> SAR = ---------- = - height SAR 768 SAR 9 * 1024 3 So, you're target material has a sample aspect ratio of 4:3 (which evokes a big retrospective "Duh", because you are taking a standard 4:3 screen and stretching the pixels by 4:3 to create a 16:9 screen). The options that I can think of: 1) Use y4mscaler to do the scaling. This should do it: ... | y4mscaler -O size=1024x768 -O sar=4:3 | ... You can start with any input and it should scale it to look correct on that funky screen, but "1365.3-x768" is an ideal source size (with a 1:1 SAR) if you want to fill the whole screen. 2) You are rendering an animation, right? If it is a decent renderer, you should be able to specify both the frame size and the sample aspect ratio. This is ideal, because the machine only renders the pixels that you actually need and you can avoid any post-process scaling. If the screen/stream is going to be interlaced, you will want to avoid any vertical scaling. If the renderer is classy enough to synthesize an interlaced output, then (2) should be a viable option, anyhow. (Although, if this is going through Windows Media Player, I guess interlacing is probably not anywhere in the equation.) Another thought --- are you saying that the Windows running through this big wide screen looks widened? I would think that Windows sees the screen as 1365x768, outputs a 1:1 SAR frame of that size, and a scaler built into display actually smooshes the pixels together to put it on the glass. Or does Windows actually produce a non-1:1 SVGA output? I would think "No way" --- and every display on the market is going to assume that its *input* is 1:1 pixels, just because nobody understands non-square pixels anyway. If all this is the case... just render at 1365x768 with 1:1 pixels and you are done. (Phew!) -matt m. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN's Audience Survey. Help shape OSDN's sites and tell us what you think. Take this five minute survey and you could win a $250 Gift Certificate. http://www.wrgsurveys.com/2003/osdntech03.php?site=8 _______________________________________________ Mjpeg-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
