Disappointed with Aspect Ratio controls

[TwistedMelon]

The HD200 is wonderful, but it's not simply plug and play if you want the best video out of it. Depending of course on the rest of your equipment and the content you're trying to play.

That said, I'll be in the market for a new TV within a couple of months and will be revisiting this whole ball of wax again.

I'm currently recording from analog cable (therefore SD) and have a lot of stored video at various resolutions and various aspect ratios (that obviously don't match the 4:3 of the SD analog recordings). I'm testing on a 16:9 Sony RPTV via HDMI-to-DVI and on a 16:10 BenQ LCD monitor also via HDMI-to-DVI. I am not using the option to auto-change resolution to match video. Testing done with fixed 720p and 1080i output resolutions.

The discussion below assumes one has already set the Display Aspect Ratio setting (4:3, 5:4, 16:9 or 16:10) to match the ratio of your TV screen.

The customization options for Aspect Ratio are quite detailed even if presented in a UI that isn't designed to make it easy nor intuitive to make correct settings. I've managed to make a custom fill mode for use with 4:3 analog cable source when output to a 16:9 TV. But I'm left wondering why one of the existing modes didn't already take care of this.

The main issue I have with AR settings is that it's trying to solve two issues with one concept and isn't doing a fantastic job at automating either of them.

Aspect ratio is the ratio of width to height of video content. Any particular video only has one correct aspect ratio. If your video is using pixels that are the same aspect as your display device (square pixels for pretty much anything) then to achieve the correct aspect ratio you would always use a setting of "SOURCE" - that is, do not reformat the relationship of width to height.

Now the other issue that needs to be solved is VIDEO SCALING. The aspect ratio settings in Sage are also performing scaling. They always have, so this is not unique to the HD200 nor HD100. What's different now is the more complex UI (previously you had more limited controls but could set easy percentage based scale factors for width and/or height).

You can set one of the predefined AR modes or a custom setting to be your default, both old and new methods fail when it comes to dealing with source material at different resolutions.

That's because it will apply the same default to all video, regardless of its source resolution. The only setting that will not corrupt the aspect ratio is SOURCE, but it will not deal with SCALING. If you make any customizations to deal with SCALE however, they will not work correctly for sources of different resolutions.

Ideally I'd like to preserve source aspect ratio and scale based only on a single dimension: width.

SOURCE currently seems to work by preserving the video aspect and filling the screen's resolution until the first dimension maxes out. That means that a 4:3 source on a 16:9 screen will max out on the vertical orientation first, leaving black bars on the sides. The same would apply to anything taller than 16:9. Anything wider than 16:9 (like many movies) would max out on the width, leaving black bars on the top and bottom.

I'd like to see a couple of "FIT" options that would maximize on one specific orientation while also maintaining the source aspect ratio. This is basically a scale/fill/zoom while maintaining the source aspect. FIT WIDTH and FIT HEIGHT. When applying FIT WIDTH to a source narrower than the display it's the equivalent of letterboxing the video (chopping top and bottom). When applying FIT HEIGHT to a source wider than the display it's the equivalent of applying a PAN&SCAN to the video (chopping left and right).

For normal use I'd then leave my AR/Zoom settings to FIT WIDTH which would allow me to watch 4:3 content aspect-correct zoomed (as I can do now with my custom AR mode) AND it would also still allow me to watch wider videos without having to make any manual AR adjustments - they would max on out width and have black bars top and bottom of a varying size depending on how wide the video is in relation to the screen/display.

I thought that setting the SCALE method for the custom AR modes might be a way to achieve this, but so far that hasn't been any help...

If anyone is still reading this far, I have a couple of additional notes. If you plan to use an external line-doubler/scaler, such as a product from DVDO (AnchorBay), then you might want to make sure to enable all resolutions supported by the extender, even if your display device doesn't support them (the scaler will output to the specific setting you desire to match what your TV requires). You might also need to make some custom modes to match your source video as long as your scaler supports them. This way with the Native Resolution switching option, the extender should switch resolutions for the video and with a SOURCE setting for Aspect ratio, your external scaler will hopefully get the original content and handle all the zooming/scaling on its own. Which will hopefully also solve the issues I've described above since some of the scalers have detailed setups per input/source mode for automated scaling/switching.

I suppose you can also use the same type of setup for a TV with a built-in scaler, changing only the requirement for setting only modes your TV accepts in the extender's resolution list.

[TwistedMelon]

Following up to myself due to a more recent discovery. In case it wasn't clear, the goals here are to preserve the aspect of the source such that nothing looks distorted, while being able to scale the video proportionally to fit within your output resolution in a consistent manner, regardless of the input file's resolution.

I managed to get the Scaling Mode to work. This setting works properly when the other settings are at their defaults (ie. SOURCE aspect ratio).

The only settings that seem to do anything however are Letterbox and PanScan. They do what I described previously, which can means one or the other can be used to properly deal with content that's wider than the display or narrower (respectively). But neither one can be used as a fixed setting to deal with both types of content.

Letterbox works by scaling the video while both the horizontal and vertical fit within the display. This will usually produce black bars on either the left or right or top or bottom, depending on the dimensions/ratio of the video content. If the content aspect were an exact match for the resolution you would see no bars.

PanScan works by scaling the video until the full display area is covered. This will usually crop either the top and bottom or left and right, depending on the dimensions/ratio of the video content. If the content aspect were an exact match for the resolution you would not see any cropping.

The results on a 16:9 display are as follows:

4:3 source with Letterbox scaling: height fits the display, black bars on left and right
4:3 source with PanScan scaling: width fits display, top and bottom get cropped (aka "Zoom" on most widescreen TVs)

Source wider than 16:9 with Letterbox: width fits display, black bars on top and bottm
Source wider than 16:9 with PanScan: height fits the display, left and right get cropped.

As you can see, the "fit" of these two scale modes alternates between height and width depending on the source video.

So as per the initial discussion what we need are two new Scale Modes that work with a limit of a specific and constant dimension only, instead of area coverage as the two existing modes do (which causes the alternating).

"Fit Width" and "Fit Height" as described in original message.

I'd also go so far as to say that "ZoomA" and "ZoomB" are solutions in search of a problem and should both be replaced with a single "Zoom" that is simply the PanScan mode with other settings off. This is a proper zoom that has an effect on all source video, unlike the current A and B which may or may not do something for a given source, but don't seem to do anything desirable.

[paulbeers]

Obviously this is a personal preference thread. I personally never want to stretch or skew my videos in anyway. I would rather have black bars than have fat squatty people when watching SD content on a widescreen television. Further, I don't want tall and skinny people when watching a movie in 1:2.35 content on a widescreen television. I really recommend you switch to native resolution switching. I for a long time kept my output at 720P, but switching to native resolution really impressed me when watching varoius content because my television did a better job of scaling than my HD100 (HD200 on the way). This is just my opinion.

[TwistedMelon]

Paul, please read my post again, it is all about preserving the aspect ratio by scaling proportionally, not causing distorted features.

It is not simply a matter of personal preference, it is the only way to have a proper proportional scale that works across video sources of different dimensions, regardless of output resolution.

You can see my other thread about the problems with native resolution switching - it won't work properly because Display Aspect doesn't follow the output resolution automatically. My future setup will consist of a 1080p LCD with likely an Anchorbay (DVDO) scaler between the HD200 and the TV. So I will most definitely be using the native resolution switching abilities to make sure the scaler gets to do its job and properly.

[valnar]

Just to play devil's advocate, could you also say it's the TV's fault for not scaling the video to your liking?

Do you own any other source devices (DVD, Blu-ray, Popcorn Hour, HTPC, Betamax ) which work in this way?

I've never had a need to do what you want, since I prefer to always have every bit of video information on the screen. But I am curious if you're asking Sage to reinvent the wheel.

Does any other product do what you ask? I am not being facetious, I really want to know.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

You can see my other thread about the problems with native resolution switching - it won't work properly because Display Aspect doesn't follow the output resolution automatically. My future setup will consist of a 1080p LCD with likely an Anchorbay (DVDO) scaler between the HD200 and the TV. So I will most definitely be using the native resolution switching abilities to make sure the scaler gets to do its job and properly.

As I noted in my response to your other thread (and for the future, fewer threads is usually better), Native Output Switching and DAR does work correctly, and I am using an external video processor, not just postulating about how it might work.

[TwistedMelon]

Originally Posted by stanger89

As I noted in my response to your other thread (and for the future, fewer threads is usually better), Native Output Switching and DAR does work correctly, and I am using an external video processor, not just postulating about how it might work.

So when outputting 480 content at 480 but with a Display Aspect of 16:9 you don't get black bars on the sides of your video with a playback aspect of SOURCE (which defaults to Letterbox scaling)?

Maybe this is just an effect of outputting 480i content at 480p? If so then that's still a potential issue.

To the previous poster, I'm not suggesting Sage reinvent the wheel. Other devices don't have the output formatting capabilities of SageTV and the Extenders. The issue being mentioned is that the setting created by Sage for Display Aspect is fixed while the resolution is not. Those two need to move in tandem for each mode switch to be proportional.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

So when outputting 480 content at 480 but with a Display Aspect of 16:9 you don't get black bars on the sides of your video with a playback aspect of SOURCE (which defaults to Letterbox scaling)?

It depends on the content. For 16x9 DVDs I get no bars, for 4:3 recordings/DVDs I do. But IMO that's acceptable, if not correct. The reason being I have a fixed AR display (happens to be 2.35:1) so 4:3 needs pillarboxing anyway, so if Sage adds it, it's automatic. If Sage didn't add it, I'd have to manually switch AR modes on my display/processor.

My DVD player doesn't pillarbox 4:3 and it's a constant annoyance. Actually with my 2.35:1 display and limited VP, if the source (HD200, DVD Player, whatever) doesn't pillarbox 4:3, it's impossible to display it without it being stretched.

[TwistedMelon]

I'd really prefer to use option 2 for cases where you're running a fixed output resolution with Sage. So in this case you wouldn't be using a scaler and your TV would only ever see the resolution you have set as default (no native switching).

The proposal for option 2 is precisely so that Sage will handle all scaling duties and will work for all video formats using square pixels (the scaling is proportional)

As mentioned in the last message I had posted advocating the solution, it's really just two more scale modes to complement the existing PanScan and Letterbox. Those two either always crop or never crop. The two I suggested would do one or the other depending on the source dimensions.

It's in fact similar to how some widescreen TVs handle their fill or zoom/stretch modes. Terminology varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. I'm talking about the mode which does not distort the aspect ratio of the source.

I had designed such a scaling scheme for a PVR/Media player project a few years ago specifically to deal with marrying any source video file dimensions and any aspect ration display (4:3, 16:9, 16:10, 5:4 etc..)

[TwistedMelon]

This is content cut from the Display Aspect thread which is about something else, not the playback Aspect we're talking about here.

The current "Fill" distorts aspect ratio, so it's not what I want. It's impossible to configure a custom AR mode to accomplish what I've proposed because all custom AR modes must all use a scale method (check the edit settings on any custom AR mode and you'll see that there will always be a scale mode selected) - and the two scale modes, Lettterbox and PanScan don't work the way I outlined for the "Fit" scale modes I'm advocating be added. Remember, I'm not looking for a custom AR setup, but rather two fundamentally new scale modes.

Right now I've got a simple PanScan Source mode which scales 480 to crop the top and bottom and then for wider content I just use Source Letterbox (which is the normal source mode). I'm trying to avoid pillarboxes on 480 content. Especially since so much of the recorded content I have at 480 is really a 16:9 image within a 4:3 video frame (widescreen shows padded on SD channels).

I'd also like a way, even if only for my own manual editing, to remove ZoomA and ZoomB. Hopefully that can be done with some file editing. I'd also love to move the "add custom" option to the bottom of the AR list instead of having it at the top where it's easy to accidentally press when manually switching modes.

[TwistedMelon]

More text that was previously posted in the wrong thread:

With regards to the scale modes, I've worked on testing and designing capture and playback software since 1996. Quite a few years ago when I specified some source handling options for playback I had 3 aspect playback modes, which in the design and our software at the time, were called Fill (same as Sage's "Source with PanScan"), Normal (same as Sage's "Source with Letterbox") and Wide (which is the same as the "Fit to Width" feature I'm advocating for Sage). This handled all captured video from broadcast sources as well as custom and ripped DVD content when played back on any aspect ratio display. As long as the source video itself looked fine in a window it would look fine fullscreen.

These modes were on a three-way toggle or selectable from a menu without the ability to modify them. We also had a custom ratio adjustment that allowed altering the the relationship of width-to-height for fixing the odd problem video file or things like anamorphic content that need to be stretched out (wide content within a 4:3 frame which looks too tall when played back normally). On top of that we also offered a simple interface for cropping the source video on the fly (any top-left coord to any bottom-right coord).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

The current "Fill" distorts aspect ratio, so it's not what I want.

No, Fill doesn't distort the aspect ratio, at least not with Native switching enabled and not with all the required resolutions/formats enabled. Some examples are the best way to show this:

1920x1080i source -> 1920x1080i60 video timing
1280x720p source -> 1280x720p60 video timing
720x480i source -> 720x480i video timing

In every case, the mapping is 1:1 source to output. Nothing is changed pixel wise between source and output. DAR is completely ignored when you choose fill. In each case you're retaining the source exactly as-is, and it's up to the display/VP to interpret the AR correctly. Now this is also why I say that the "should 480i be pillarboxed?" question is not a simple yes no. There's no way to pass the AR info on to the display/VP, so there's no way to distinguish 4:3 480i from 16:9 480i once passed from playback device, so either the source device needs to handle the pillarboxing, or the user needs to manually pick the correct AR on the VP.

Now if you've not got native switching enabled, or don't have all the needed resolutions enabled (eg if you've got HD content, and only 480i output) then yes, Fill does screw up the aspect ratio. However this is not the situation you're worried about.

I'm just going to say this now, since it seems that you've only been able to test with a 480i/S-Video dispay, it seems you've got a few misconceptions/bad assumptions about how aspect ratio handling actually works.

It's impossible to configure a custom AR mode to accomplish what I've proposed because all custom AR modes must all use a scale method (check the edit settings on any custom AR mode and you'll see that there will always be a scale mode selected) - and the two scale modes, Lettterbox and PanScan don't work the way I outlined for the "Fit" scale modes I'm advocating be added. Remember, I'm not looking for a custom AR setup, but rather two fundamentally new scale modes.

Yes you can, I just made a VFit custom AR that crops the sides off video that would normally be letterboxed. All I had to do was copy Source, and change "Max Black bar size that can be added" to 0 for the horizontal (ie horizontal bars). This crops the sizes off (for example) 16:9 video making it fill a 4:3 screen.

Doing the same but by setting Vertical to 0 would be your "H Fit" custom AR.

Right now I've got a simple PanScan Source mode which scales 480 to crop the top and bottom and then for wider content I just use Source Letterbox (which is the normal source mode). I'm trying to avoid pillarboxes on 480 content. Especially since so much of the recorded content I have at 480 is really a 16:9 image within a 4:3 video frame (widescreen shows padded on SD channels).

See, now you're getting into added complexities. Things like this need somewhat special handling. I'm thinking you're going to need to make clear exactly what problems you're trying to solve. They seem to be buried behind your proposed solutions that are getting hung up on terminology.

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

With regards to the scale modes, I've worked on testing and designing capture and playback software since 1996. Quite a few years ago when I specified some source handling options for playback I had 3 aspect playback modes, which in the design and our software at the time, were called Fill (same as Sage's "Source with PanScan"), Normal (same as Sage's "Source with Letterbox") and Wide (which is the same as the "Fit to Width" feature I'm advocating for Sage).

See, I think you're getting hung up on terminology. If you could say what exactly those ARs do ("Fill", "Normal", "Wide") then we could point out how to do that in Sage.

This handled all captured video from broadcast sources as well as custom and ripped DVD content when played back on any aspect ratio display. As long as the source video itself looked fine in a window it would look fine fullscreen.

Like I implied above, I've got an HD200, feeding a video processor, and the combo correctly handles everything I've thrown at it, with one exception. I haven't figured out how to unstretch video that's been stretched from 4:3 to 16:9 by the networks.

On top of that we also offered a simple interface for cropping the source video on the fly (any top-left coord to any bottom-right coord).

That exists as well, you can adjust that by manipulating the Source Area to be displayed settings.

[TwistedMelon]

I don't think we're on the same page at all here unfortunately. Maybe I've been in software design too long, but I thought I was pretty clear with the last few messages. Even going so far as to explain my terminology by using precise equivalents currently in use in SageTV.

Originally Posted by stanger89

No, Fill doesn't distort the aspect ratio, at least not with Native switching enabled and not with all the required resolutions/formats enabled. Some examples are the best way to show this:

1920x1080i source -> 1920x1080i60 video timing
1280x720p source -> 1280x720p60 video timing
720x480i source -> 720x480i video timing

All your examples are 1:1 - of course fill will work in those instances. I specifically mentioned using fill on 4:3 SD content while outputting to a 16:9 TV at a 16:9 resolution (such as 720p or 1080i/p). Fill works by stretching the horizontal and vertical image to fill the output resolution. If the video AR doesn't match the output resolution's AR then you'll see the image is distorted. Vertically squished in the case of 4:3 content onto a 16:9 output resolution.

You need to look at all the details behind how each pre-defined AR works to see how it's doing its thing. I have.

Please remember I'm trying to suggest creating a couple of scaling modes. This is not to be confused with AR presets of which "fill" is one. There are currently only three scale modes available and only two that seem to do anything (Letterbox and PanScan) - all presets must use one of the modes in addition to the other optional parameters which can be used to massage the image in other ways. The "Letterbox" scale mode is the default and will show up as no selection when looking at the UI (it's the only thing used for SOURCE AR preset). Scale mode incidentally is the last configurable option in the AR edit UI. It's actually called "Scaling Mode" even though I've often written it simply as "scale mode."

OT: ARIB is the other scaling mode available, but I don't know how it works as I can't see that it has any effect on any of the content I have when used with the outputs I have.

In every case, the mapping is 1:1 source to output. Nothing is changed pixel wise between source and output. DAR is completely ignored when you choose fill.

DAR is the other topic in the other thread, please let's not cross the two threads as I've talen some time to move my posts around so they're on topic.

Now this is also why I say that the "should 480i be pillarboxed?" question is not a simple yes no. There's no way to pass the AR info on to the display/VP, so there's no way to distinguish 4:3 480i from 16:9 480i once passed from playback device, so either the source device needs to handle the pillarboxing, or the user needs to manually pick the correct AR on the VP.

Again, this isn't relevant because as it is now, you've pretty much got to make manual aspect ratio changes anyway. That would always be a possibility. I'm merely suggesting two scale modes that would allow a different type of scaling to occur. Scaling that could actually be left alone for differing content in many cases, avoiding having to manually switch.

Now if you've not got native switching enabled, or don't have all the needed resolutions enabled (eg if you've got HD content, and only 480i output) then yes, Fill does screw up the aspect ratio. However this is not the situation you're worried about.

Yes, we're only talking about not switching resolutions here. Outputting at a fixed resolution for people who don't have a scaler. This will actually be a lot of people.

I'm just going to say this now, since it seems that you've only been able to test with a 480i/S-Video dispay, it seems you've got a few misconceptions/bad assumptions about how aspect ratio handling actually works.

No, I think I've been using SageTV long enough (over 4 years) plus enough experience with computer based capture and video to know what's happening now and to know what I'd also like to be able to do.

Yes you can, I just made a VFit custom AR that crops the sides off video that would normally be letterboxed. All I had to do was copy Source, and change "Max Black bar size that can be added" to 0 for the horizontal (ie horizontal bars).

Maybe you're not sure how the AR works? You don't need to do anything but make a copy of the SOURCE AR and change the scale mode to PanScan to achieve this. There's no need to make custom adjustments to any of the other parameters if you want to keep your pixel aspect like the original.

Doing the same but by setting Vertical to 0 would be your "H Fit" custom AR.

By whatever means, in the end you've now made TWO AR modes that must be manually chosen. My suggestions would allow you to keep a single setting to achieve the results mentioned in both of the two different sources. No need to manually switch except to cover an unwritten third case.

See, now you're getting into added complexities. Things like this need somewhat special handling. I'm thinking you're going to need to make clear exactly what problems you're trying to solve.

1. Being able to set one single AR setting that will scale proportionally the source to fit the width of your display. For 4:3 source displayed on 16:9 output resolution that means the top and bottom get chopped. For wide content (16:9, 1.85:1, etc..) it means you will see letterboxing on top and bottom.

2. The inverse of the above. Being able to set one single AR setting that will scale the source to fit the height of your display. For 4:3 source displayed on 16:9 output resolution that means thee left and right get pillarboxed. For wide content (16:9, 1.85:1, etc..) it means the left and right will be chopped.

Do you see the difference between this and the current Letterbox and PanScan modes? The desires I posted above work by testing a single dimension at a time and cropping or leaving the other one as-is. This has the possibility of creating a boxed display for one format and completely full (but proportional) for another. The current built in scale modes will either ALWAYS box or always crop.

My "personal" desire is to use the first mode (fit to width) because I'm fine with losing the top and bottom off SD 4:3 content while being able to have a perfect widescreen source without having to change AR settings when moving from SD TV watching to movie watching (imported videos).

See, I think you're getting hung up on terminology. If you could say what exactly those ARs do ("Fill", "Normal", "Wide") then we could point out how to do that in Sage.

I've already stated that the suggestions aren't for AR presets but for scale modes to compliment the two existing ones.

In reference to the modes I designed for other software in the past, I presented the end-user terminology we used (not important) along with the SageTV terminology it's equivalent to. I wrote that just to illustrate that we had designed something that worked cleanly and simply using only 3 toggled settings.

Here's what I wrote:
in the design and our software at the time, were called Fill (same as Sage's "Source with PanScan"), Normal (same as Sage's "Source with Letterbox") and Wide (which is the same as the "Fit to Width" feature I'm advocating for Sage).

In braces next to each of "Fill" "Normal" and "Wide" is a description. The first two have exact equivalents in SageTV now. The last one is #1 of what I just wrote above that I'm looking for.

Like I implied above, I've got an HD200, feeding a video processor, and the combo correctly handles everything I've thrown at it, with one exception. I haven't figured out how to unstretch video that's been stretched from 4:3 to 16:9 by the networks.

I believe you. However, Sage's AR modes are primarily for people using a fixed output resolution. When changing the resolution, unless there's an oddity with the video as you mentioned in your stretched case, you don't want SageTV altering its AR at all - you'll want a clean SOURCE AR setting. This is why I started the other thread. This one for fixed resolution output and playback AR and the other for resolution switching where DAR is a primary concern.

That exists as well, you can adjust that by manipulating the Source Area to be displayed settings.

Absolutely. I was just pointing out that there's a lot of history in this topic. When I started that job in 1996 there was already 1.5 years of work into the initial software. Things 10 years later were vastly different, but everything I'm discussing here has already been done in one place or another by someone.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

I don't think we're on the same page at all here unfortunately. Maybe I've been in software design too long, but I thought I was pretty clear with the last few messages. Even going so far as to explain my terminology by using precise equivalents currently in use in SageTV.

The problem is I think you're missinterpreting what some of the knobs in SageTV do. I think your "precise equivalents" aren't.

All your examples are 1:1 - of course fill will work in those instances. I specifically mentioned using fill on 4:3 SD content while outputting to a 16:9 TV at a 16:9 resolution (such as 720p or 1080i/p). Fill works by stretching the horizontal and vertical image to fill the output resolution. If the video AR doesn't match the output resolution's AR then you'll see the image is distorted.

That is true.

Vertically squished in the case of 4:3 content onto a 16:9 output resolution.

OK, here's where you sort of lost me. 4:3 SD content is 720x480i60. NTSC output timings are 720x480i60. Whether the source is 4:3 or 16:9 (anamorphic) it's still 720x480i60. So choosing Fill will not distort either one of these in the player device.

Choosing Fill will cause Sage to not pad the 4:3 SD like you are asking, but it will also prevent it from letterboxing (and thus drastically reducing the vertical resolution) 16:9 anamorphic SD.

You need to look at all the details behind how each pre-defined AR works to see how it's doing its thing. I have.

I have played with them all quite a lot as well.

Please remember I'm trying to suggest creating a couple of scaling modes. This is not to be confused with AR presets of which "fill" is one. There are currently only three scale modes available and only two that seem to do anything (Letterbox and PanScan) - all presets must use one of the modes in addition to the other optional parameters which can be used to massage the image in other ways. The "Letterbox" scale mode is the default and will show up as no selection when looking at the UI (it's the only thing used for SOURCE AR preset). Scale mode incidentally is the last configurable option in the AR edit UI. It's actually called "Scaling Mode" even though I've often written it simply as "scale mode."

OT: ARIB is the other scaling mode available, but I don't know how it works as I can't see that it has any effect on any of the content I have when used with the outputs I have.



DAR is the other topic in the other thread, please let's not cross the two threads as I've talen some time to move my posts around so they're on topic.

The problem is, no matter how much you want to separate the issues, they are all intertwined. You have an end result you want on your display. DAR, and AR modes (all the settings there of) work together to achieve that, you can't talk about one without at least considering the other.

Again, this isn't relevant because as it is now, you've pretty much got to make manual aspect ratio changes anyway. That would always be a possibility. I'm merely suggesting two scale modes that would allow a different type of scaling to occur. Scaling that could actually be left alone for differing content in many cases, avoiding having to manually switch.

Again, you can do that right now. You can setup Sage and your TV so that you don't have to manually change AR modes for all but the odd cases (or if you're willing to live with cropped video, never have to).

Yes, we're only talking about not switching resolutions here. Outputting at a fixed resolution for people who don't have a scaler. This will actually be a lot of people.

OK, that you totally didn't make clear.

No, I think I've been using SageTV long enough (over 4 years) plus enough experience with computer based capture and video to know what's happening now and to know what I'd also like to be able to do.

But not the extenders, it doesn't seem like.

Maybe you're not sure how the AR works? You don't need to do anything but make a copy of the SOURCE AR and change the scale mode to PanScan to achieve this. There's no need to make custom adjustments to any of the other parameters if you want to keep your pixel aspect like the original.

I'm pretty sure I know enough. The fact is I created custom AR modes that do exactly what you suggest, scales an image to fit the width or height of the display, cropping off the edges and maintaining the aspect ratio.

By whatever means, in the end you've now made TWO AR modes that must be manually chosen. My suggestions would allow you to keep a single setting to achieve the results mentioned in both of the two different sources. No need to manually switch except to cover an unwritten third case.

No they don't, you'd pick either HFit or VFit depending on your display. I don't see how your your "Fit" ARs would work any differently.

1. Being able to set one single AR setting that will scale proportionally the source to fit the width of your display. For 4:3 source displayed on 16:9 output resolution that means the top and bottom get chopped. For wide content (16:9, 1.85:1, etc..) it means you will see letterboxing on top and bottom.

That's exactly what the HFit AR I created does.

2. The inverse of the above. Being able to set one single AR setting that will scale the source to fit the height of your display. For 4:3 source displayed on 16:9 output resolution that means thee left and right get pillarboxed. For wide content (16:9, 1.85:1, etc..) it means the left and right will be chopped.

That's exactly what the VFit AR I created does.

Do you see the difference between this and the current Letterbox and PanScan modes? The desires I posted above work by testing a single dimension at a time and cropping or leaving the other one as-is. This has the possibility of creating a boxed display for one format and completely full (but proportional) for another. The current built in scale modes will either ALWAYS box or always crop.

Scaling mode are only one small part of the AR controls available, and frankly they're one of the less important ones.

My "personal" desire is to use the first mode (fit to width) because I'm fine with losing the top and bottom off SD 4:3 content while being able to have a perfect widescreen source without having to change AR settings when moving from SD TV watching to movie watching (imported videos).

I think you should try the HFit custom AR I described above then.

I've already stated that the suggestions aren't for AR presets but for scale modes to compliment the two existing ones.

OK, well first off, I'm about 99% sure that the Scaling modes are the ones built into the SOC the HD200 is built on, so there's no way to change them.

Second, Scaling Mode is only one small part of how the HD200 determines how to display something, Black Bars setting, Cut settings, Source area to be displayed settings, all come into play. Scaling Modes are worthless in isolation, they work in conjunction with all the other settings to place video on the the screen.

In reference to the modes I designed for other software in the past, I presented the end-user terminology we used (not important) along with the SageTV terminology it's equivalent to. I wrote that just to illustrate that we had designed something that worked cleanly and simply using only 3 toggled settings.

Here's what I wrote:
in the design and our software at the time, were called Fill (same as Sage's "Source with PanScan"), Normal (same as Sage's "Source with Letterbox") and Wide (which is the same as the "Fit to Width" feature I'm advocating for Sage).

In braces next to each of "Fill" "Normal" and "Wide" is a description. The first two have exact equivalents in SageTV now. The last one is #1 of what I just wrote above that I'm looking for.

There is no "Source with PanScan" AR mode in Sage, that's the problem, it may be possible to make a "Source with PanScan" custom AR mode, but it doesn't exist. I don't want "end user terminology", I want a technical description of what it actually does, because "end user terminology" (Fill, Stretch, Normal, etc) is far to ambiguous.

[TwistedMelon]

Something I forgot to ask and don't have to to search for right now. Are you using the latest 6.5.5 beta with an HD200? If you're not then it might make some sense as to why you believe certain things work while I don't. More details within the reply.

Originally Posted by stanger89

The problem is I think you're missinterpreting what some of the knobs in SageTV do. I think your "precise equivalents" aren't.

You can ignore that part of the reply because as I mentioned it was just to shed some background information on my experience by comparing some software I had previously designed to what's possible in Sage today - and that some of the functionality was in fact the same.

re: FILL squishes video

OK, here's where you sort of lost me. 4:3 SD content is 720x480i60. NTSC output timings are 720x480i60. Whether the source is 4:3 or 16:9 (anamorphic) it's still 720x480i60. So choosing Fill will not distort either one of these in the player device.

Remember that when I described these actions that I was talking about running a fixed output resolution. So the output is 16:9 with a DAR of 16:9. Sage's behavior as you've demonstrated you know, takes into account DAR and resolution when figuring out how to deal with the AR settings.

If your out resolution is 16:9 and you FILL 480 4:3 video, the video will be stretched to fit within the 16:9 display with no cropping. It will therefore be distorted (vertically squished in appearance or horizontally stretched if you prefer it described that way).

Choosing Fill will cause Sage to not pad the 4:3 SD like you are asking, but it will also prevent it from letterboxing (and thus drastically reducing the vertical resolution) 16:9 anamorphic SD.

I'm not testing with any anamorphic content - the problems I've described exist with non-anamorphic content. Of which all my captured TV and ripped movie content is.

The problem is, no matter how much you want to separate the issues, they are all intertwined. You have an end result you want on your display. DAR, and AR modes (all the settings there of) work together to achieve that, you can't talk about one without at least considering the other.

In considering both sides, I have presented settings for DAR when talking about this thread, and settings for AR when talking in the DAR thread. For the subject of AR in this thread we are setting an output resolution and DAR of 16:9. For the other thread we are using AR of "Source"

Again, you can do that right now. You can setup Sage and your TV so that you don't have to manually change AR modes for all but the odd cases (or if you're willing to live with cropped video, never have to).

Let's try your settings given the fixed output and DAR I mentioned.

I'm pretty sure I know enough. The fact is I created custom AR modes that do exactly what you suggest, scales an image to fit the width or height of the display, cropping off the edges and maintaining the aspect ratio.

I'll look back through the thread to see if you have posted exact settings. As far as I can tell, there's no way to accomplish such a setting because the offered controls simply don't allow any created AR mode to work across a different assortment of video resolutions and ratios. The scale modes, which you mention you think aren't so important, I maintain are critically important because they provide the basis for how the source video is treated upon which the other settings are applied.

No they don't, you'd pick either HFit or VFit depending on your display. I don't see how your your "Fit" ARs would work any differently.

We agree about what these settings should do. My suggestions should do what you're saying your settings will. The issue then at stake here is about whether or not your settings will actually accomplish the results. I know that my suggestions will.

Scaling mode are only one small part of the AR controls available, and frankly they're one of the less important ones.

It's the basis for the other settings. My evidence is empirical at this time because I don't have the source code for the extender software to look at of course.

OK, well first off, I'm about 99% sure that the Scaling modes are the ones built into the SOC the HD200 is built on, so there's no way to change them.

No need to change them to work the other scaling modes I suggested. Even if the other modes are completely handled by the same internal mechanics as any other dimensioning setting.

Second, Scaling Mode is only one small part of how the HD200 determines how to display something, Black Bars setting, Cut settings, Source area to be displayed settings, all come into play.

They can all come into play if you want them to. But they don't need to.

Scaling Modes are worthless in isolation, they work in conjunction with all the other settings to place video on the the screen.

This is incorrect. They work as the basis and therefore have definitive effect without any other options set. Try them while making sure all the other settings are at defaults (not used). Basically make a copy of SOURCE and then toggle the Scaling Mode between its values.

There is no "Source with PanScan" AR mode in Sage

There's just no preset. That's not a problem though.

I don't want "end user terminology", I want a technical description of what it actually does, because "end user terminology" (Fill, Stretch, Normal, etc) is far to ambiguous.

Didn't I already describe what the current Scaling modes do? I'd have to go back and read to see if I did or didn't. Don't have the time for that right now since I'm stepping out again.

Anyway, I will try the settings you mentioned creating, but please take this opportunity to run through the tests I've mentioned to you as well. And please make sure to default your external scaler and/or display so that you can clearly see what's coming out from the Extender (being produced by Sage) as well.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

Something I forgot to ask and don't have to to search for right now. Are you using the latest 6.5.5 beta with an HD200? If you're not then it might make some sense as to why you believe certain things work while I don't. More details within the reply.

Yup, 6.5.5 and the 20081230 firmware on the HD200.

Remember that when I described these actions that I was talking about running a fixed output resolution. So the output is 16:9 with a DAR of 16:9. Sage's behavior as you've demonstrated you know, takes into account DAR and resolution when figuring out how to deal with the AR settings.

If your out resolution is 16:9 and you FILL 480 4:3 video, the video will be stretched to fit within the 16:9 display with no cropping. It will therefore be distorted (vertically squished in appearance or horizontally stretched if you prefer it described that way).

Sorry, your two threads are so closely related it's easy for me to confuse them. Yes if you've got Sage doing the scaling then Fill is bad for 4:3 content on a 16:9 display.

I'm not testing with any anamorphic content - the problems I've described exist with non-anamorphic content. Of which all my captured TV and ripped movie content is.

In considering both sides, I have presented settings for DAR when talking about this thread, and settings for AR when talking in the DAR thread. For the subject of AR in this thread we are setting an output resolution and DAR of 16:9. For the other thread we are using AR of "Source"

Fair enough, I'll try to keep that strait.

Let's try your settings given the fixed output and DAR I mentioned.

I'll look back through the thread to see if you have posted exact settings. As far as I can tell, there's no way to accomplish such a setting because the offered controls simply don't allow any created AR mode to work across a different assortment of video resolutions and ratios. The scale modes, which you mention you think aren't so important, I maintain are critically important because they provide the basis for how the source video is treated upon which the other settings are applied.

We agree about what these settings should do. My suggestions should do what you're saying your settings will. The issue then at stake here is about whether or not your settings will actually accomplish the results. I know that my suggestions will.

I suggest you try them before stating that Sage can't do it. That's a large part of the issue, is that rather than asking for help with your new device you create several new threads stating that it doesn't work right. Not a good way to gain goodwill of the forum.

It's the basis for the other settings. My evidence is empirical at this time because I don't have the source code for the extender software to look at of course.

And my experimental evidence is that it's the blackstrip and cutstrip settings that are the ones that really control what gets cut and what bars get added.

No need to change them to work the other scaling modes I suggested. Even if the other modes are completely handled by the same internal mechanics as any other dimensioning setting.

I'm saying I don't think SageTV can add new scaling modes, that would require Sigma Designs to.

This is incorrect. They work as the basis and therefore have definitive effect without any other options set. Try them while making sure all the other settings are at defaults (not used). Basically make a copy of SOURCE and then toggle the Scaling Mode between its values.

I did, and changing scaling mode had no effect.

Anyway, I will try the settings you mentioned creating, but please take this opportunity to run through the tests I've mentioned to you as well. And please make sure to default your external scaler and/or display so that you can clearly see what's coming out from the Extender (being produced by Sage) as well.

I have, I played with many of the settings during these threads. The TV I tried them on has no AR controls whatsoever.

[stanger89]

Re V and H Fit ARs (from above):

Originally Posted by stanger89

Copy Source, and change "Max Black bar size that can be added" to 0 for the horizontal (ie horizontal bars). This crops the sizes off (for example) 16:9 video making it fill a 4:3 screen.

Doing the same but by setting Vertical to 0 would be your "H Fit" custom AR.

[TwistedMelon]

I'll post an update later tonight on how this deals with arbitrary aspect ratio content.

I'm next to positive these are the settings I've already played with though and they only work as a solution to content at specific aspect ratios (namely those exactly matching the output resolution). Since you're using source videos that are already padded, you wouldn't see it fail.

[stanger89]

I think it would help if you could post specific examples of source format (resolution, AR) and display format (resolution, AR) that you can't get to work right.

[TwistedMelon]

I'll do the exact same thing as I did in the other thread, list specific dimensions of multiple files along with the current output resolution of the HD200 and any other relevant information. I thought about making a matrix, but 3 or 4 specific examples will have to do for now.

Written in the DAR thread with regards to having Sage pad out a video where necessary to preserve its source ratio:

Originally Posted by stanger89

Isn't that exactly what "Source" does?

Yes absolutely. And that's why I said I too use that feature. Sage handles this correctly. I've never mentioned that I couldn't achieve a Sage-padded source-aspect output.

I do have a number of 1080p QT trailers and I've had no issues with them.

If you look at the video properties of the HD trailers, you'll see that for the most part they're the same or similar aspect to their non-HD counterparts (when they exist). I've downloaded some 1920x1080, 1920x800 and 1920x1056 trailers recently ("Real Time," "Astro Boy" and "Good" being three examples respectively)

We're in agreement that using the built-in AR FILL preset will transform video of one aspect to the aspect of the display resolution, so we know that the first and third trailers mentioned will be skewed when output to a 1920x1080 display. The second will fill the output perfectly and not require any stretching at all with or without FILL.

So as mentioned, I'll provide setup details, movie details and then specific results for the movie files already mentioned along with a few others, including recorded NTSC 720x480 content and arbitrary resolution unpadded video for the two custom AR settings you have described.