resizing to 640 by 480

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by k, Jan 9, 2004.

  1. k

    k Guest

    I captured a 320 by 240 uncompressed avi video clip from my tv. I
    checked and its data rate is around 8 meg per second. I was reading
    the states on dvd's and it said that most dvd mpeg-2 files at 740 by
    480 have a data rate of around 8 meg per second. My first question
    is, is 8 meg a second right for dvd's? My other question is, if I
    were to convert my 320 by 240 uncompressed avi video clip into a
    mpeg-2 video clip at a resolution of 740 by 480 would I wind up with
    a clip the same quality as i would have gotten if I had captured in
    mpeg-2 directly from the tv?


    THanks a hole heap to any body willing to tackle this brain buster.
     
    k, Jan 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. k

    DarkMatter Guest

    On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:02:33 -0800, k <> Gave us:

    >I captured a 320 by 240 uncompressed avi video clip from my tv. I
    >checked and its data rate is around 8 meg per second. I was reading
    >the states on dvd's and it said that most dvd mpeg-2 files at 740 by
    >480 have a data rate of around 8 meg per second. My first question
    >is, is 8 meg a second right for dvd's? My other question is, if I
    >were to convert my 320 by 240 uncompressed avi video clip into a
    >mpeg-2 video clip at a resolution of 740 by 480 would I wind up with
    >a clip the same quality as i would have gotten if I had captured in
    >mpeg-2 directly from the tv?
    >
    >
    >THanks a hole heap to any body willing to tackle this brain buster.
    >
    >

    WRONG GROUP
     
    DarkMatter, Jan 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "k" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I captured a 320 by 240 uncompressed avi video clip from my tv. I
    > checked and its data rate is around 8 meg per second. I was reading
    > the states on dvd's and it said that most dvd mpeg-2 files at 740 by
    > 480 have a data rate of around 8 meg per second. My first question
    > is, is 8 meg a second right for dvd's? My other question is, if I
    > were to convert my 320 by 240 uncompressed avi video clip into a
    > mpeg-2 video clip at a resolution of 740 by 480 would I wind up with
    > a clip the same quality as i would have gotten if I had captured in
    > mpeg-2 directly from the tv?
    >
    >
    > THanks a hole heap to any body willing to tackle this brain buster.


    Resizing up from 320x240 to 720x480 will be horrible. Just try it with a
    picture, now imagine that picture moving.

    DVDs have around 6Mbit/s for the movie, usually less...somewhere in the
    upper 4Mbit/s to middle 5Mbit/s region. Notice, that it is Megabits. Here,
    it is refering to 1,000,000 BITS, not the conventional MB which is 1,024,576
    BYTES. The MB would have over 8,000,000 BITS, so to use 1 Mbit is not using
    much at all.

    Since the source is uncompressed, this is the first compression and it will
    turn out the best. Resizing up is bad, and doing it by 4x (320x240x4 =
    720x480) is really bad. The most I would up-scale this AVI to is 480x480,
    for a SVCD disc, or a 352x480 CVD disc. Oddly, you will probably end up
    with left/right bars, not the standard top/bottom bars. This is mainly
    because it should have been captured in 352x240. You could just resize it
    to 352x240, changing the aspect, because that's all that setting does, I
    think. Then again, if I capture VHS @ 352x240, the video is in a 320x240
    box, so there are left/right bars....
     
    Anonymous Joe, Jan 9, 2004
    #3
  4. k

    k Guest


    >Resizing up from 320x240 to 720x480 will be horrible. Just try it with a
    >picture, now imagine that picture moving.
    >
    >DVDs have around 6Mbit/s for the movie, usually less...somewhere in the
    >upper 4Mbit/s to middle 5Mbit/s region. Notice, that it is Megabits. Here,
    >it is refering to 1,000,000 BITS, not the conventional MB which is 1,024,576
    >BYTES. The MB would have over 8,000,000 BITS, so to use 1 Mbit is not using
    >much at all.
    >
    >Since the source is uncompressed, this is the first compression and it will
    >turn out the best. Resizing up is bad, and doing it by 4x (320x240x4 =
    >720x480) is really bad. The most I would up-scale this AVI to is 480x480,
    >for a SVCD disc, or a 352x480 CVD disc. Oddly, you will probably end up
    >with left/right bars, not the standard top/bottom bars. This is mainly
    >because it should have been captured in 352x240. You could just resize it
    >to 352x240, changing the aspect, because that's all that setting does, I
    >think. Then again, if I capture VHS @ 352x240, the video is in a 320x240
    >box, so there are left/right bars....


    But if I rescale a uncompressed avi at 320 by 240 with a 6 meg per
    second data rate wouldn't I end up with a to 640 by 480 clip at 6 meg
    per second. Which would be exactly that I would have gotten I
    captured to mpeg2 in the first place?
    >
     
    k, Jan 10, 2004
    #4
  5. k

    Video Flyer Guest

    On 1/9/04 8:16 PM, in article ,
    "k" <> wrote:

    >
    >> Resizing up from 320x240 to 720x480 will be horrible. Just try it with a
    >> picture, now imagine that picture moving.
    >>
    >> DVDs have around 6Mbit/s for the movie, usually less...somewhere in the
    >> upper 4Mbit/s to middle 5Mbit/s region. Notice, that it is Megabits. Here,
    >> it is refering to 1,000,000 BITS, not the conventional MB which is 1,024,576
    >> BYTES. The MB would have over 8,000,000 BITS, so to use 1 Mbit is not using
    >> much at all.
    >>
    >> Since the source is uncompressed, this is the first compression and it will
    >> turn out the best. Resizing up is bad, and doing it by 4x (320x240x4 =
    >> 720x480) is really bad. The most I would up-scale this AVI to is 480x480,
    >> for a SVCD disc, or a 352x480 CVD disc. Oddly, you will probably end up
    >> with left/right bars, not the standard top/bottom bars. This is mainly
    >> because it should have been captured in 352x240. You could just resize it
    >> to 352x240, changing the aspect, because that's all that setting does, I
    >> think. Then again, if I capture VHS @ 352x240, the video is in a 320x240
    >> box, so there are left/right bars....

    >
    > But if I rescale a uncompressed avi at 320 by 240 with a 6 meg per
    > second data rate wouldn't I end up with a to 640 by 480 clip at 6 meg
    > per second. Which would be exactly that I would have gotten I
    > captured to mpeg2 in the first place?
    >>

    >



    Rescaling up is bad because the software has to create information that
    isn't there.

    At 320x240, you've got 76,800 pixels of information in your image. At
    640x480, you've got 307,200 pixels. The software's going to have to
    interpolate 230,400 of those pixels. Sure, it uses special algorithms to
    examine the visual information in an effort to determine what
    color/brightness to make each of those new pixels but, in the end, it's just
    guessing. You'll end up with a very soft image regardless of your data rate.
    The data rate doesn't determine the detail in your image - it determines how
    faithfully the image it has to work with is reproduced (as I understand it).

    What you'll end up with is a very faithful rendition of a very fuzzy image.

    Neal
    --
    "If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous
     
    Video Flyer, Jan 10, 2004
    #5
  6. k

    k Guest

    do you know where I can find a program that gives me the bit rate of a
    video file?
     
    k, Jan 10, 2004
    #6
  7. k

    k Guest

    I read on the web that a video at 640 by 480 running at 2 meg per
    second would look the same as a video at 320 by 240 running a 2 meg
    per second. Granted the web isn't always the most truthful source.
     
    k, Jan 10, 2004
    #7
  8. "k" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I read on the web that a video at 640 by 480 running at 2 meg per
    > second would look the same as a video at 320 by 240 running a 2 meg
    > per second. Granted the web isn't always the most truthful source.


    Can you please stop using the word "meg"?

    There's actually TWO meanings of it here!!

    Meaning #1: 1,048,576 BYTES
    Meaning #2 (as in video): 1,000,000 BITS

    OK, let's convert so they're using the same unit here:

    #1: 8,388,608 BITS
    #2: 1,000,000 BITS

    So...which one are you actually meaning?

    Even if that statement means a 640x480 @ 2megs (#1) is equal to 320x240 @
    2megs (#2), it's still wrong, because the 640x480 one is going to take up
    2.1x more space per pixel, because it's using 8.4x more data (ie, a 100MB
    320x240 = 840MB 640x480), but the actual area is only 4x larger, so
    8.4/4=2.1.

    Regardless, that statement is wrong, and if you re-encode something it will
    always look worse, and it will never be equal. Even if I take a 320x240
    Uncompressed AVI and encode it into an 8,000kbps MPEG-1 video at 320x240, it
    will look worse than that Uncompressed AVI, not equal. Encoding brings in
    new flaws in algorithms & even if you're giving it more bits to work with,
    those errors which just naturally happen due to encoding will still happen.
    Granted, you wouldn't notice the errors -- in *this* example -- unless you
    magnify it a few times.

    If I said I was going to convert a 3,000kbps Xvid to a 3,000kbps MPEG-2,
    then to a 4,000kbps Xvid, which Xvid is going to look better, the 3000kbps
    or the 4000kbps? [It's the 3000]
     
    Anonymous Joe, Jan 10, 2004
    #8
  9. k

    DarkMatter Guest

    On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:09:49 -0800, k <> Gave us:

    >do you know where I can find a program that gives me the bit rate of a
    >video file?



    WRONG GROUP... DIPSHIT!
     
    DarkMatter, Jan 10, 2004
    #9
  10. k

    DarkMatter Guest

    Re: Re: resizing to 640 by 480

    On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:16:40 -0800, k <> Gave us:

    >I read on the web that a video at 640 by 480 running at 2 meg per
    >second would look the same as a video at 320 by 240 running a 2 meg
    >per second. Granted the web isn't always the most truthful source.



    WRONG GROUP, DIPSHIT!
     
    DarkMatter, Jan 10, 2004
    #10
  11. k

    DarkMatter Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:59:24 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <>
    Gave us:

    >"k" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> I read on the web that a video at 640 by 480 running at 2 meg per
    >> second would look the same as a video at 320 by 240 running a 2 meg
    >> per second. Granted the web isn't always the most truthful source.

    >
    >Can you please stop using the word "meg"?
    >
    >There's actually TWO meanings of it here!!
    >
    >Meaning #1: 1,048,576 BYTES
    >Meaning #2 (as in video): 1,000,000 BITS
    >
    >OK, let's convert so they're using the same unit here:
    >
    >#1: 8,388,608 BITS
    >#2: 1,000,000 BITS
    >
    >So...which one are you actually meaning?
    >
    >Even if that statement means a 640x480 @ 2megs (#1) is equal to 320x240 @
    >2megs (#2), it's still wrong, because the 640x480 one is going to take up
    >2.1x more space per pixel, because it's using 8.4x more data (ie, a 100MB
    >320x240 = 840MB 640x480), but the actual area is only 4x larger, so
    >8.4/4=2.1.
    >
    >Regardless, that statement is wrong, and if you re-encode something it will
    >always look worse, and it will never be equal. Even if I take a 320x240
    >Uncompressed AVI and encode it into an 8,000kbps MPEG-1 video at 320x240, it
    >will look worse than that Uncompressed AVI, not equal. Encoding brings in
    >new flaws in algorithms & even if you're giving it more bits to work with,
    >those errors which just naturally happen due to encoding will still happen.
    >Granted, you wouldn't notice the errors -- in *this* example -- unless you
    >magnify it a few times.
    >
    >If I said I was going to convert a 3,000kbps Xvid to a 3,000kbps MPEG-2,
    >then to a 4,000kbps Xvid, which Xvid is going to look better, the 3000kbps
    >or the 4000kbps? [It's the 3000]
    >


    WRONG GROUP, YA FUCKING RETARDS.

    THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DVD.

    GET A CLUE.
     
    DarkMatter, Jan 10, 2004
    #11
  12. k

    vinney

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9
    for resizing I can offer Vidcrop PRO...
     
    vinney, Oct 29, 2009
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charlie

    640 x 480 display

    Charlie, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,506
    Charlie
    Jan 10, 2004
  2. brian doyle

    Cheapest camera with a 640 X 480 movie mode?

    brian doyle, May 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    732
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    401
  4. tomcas
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    753
    Alf92
    Jan 21, 2005
  5. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    911
    Ron Hunter
    Feb 22, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page