[tential]

What does that have to do with cropping black bars? That would happen in the image regardless.

If the black bars are there then you have to encode the transition from the image to the black bars. To get a sharp transition requires a lot of bandwidth. If you don't give it enough you will have a fuzzy edge.

If you crop the black bars then they are not there and there is no transition - so you don't have to waste any bandwidth encoding the transition.

FWIW I always crop the black bars when re-encoding, and I re-encode for space - at CRF 20 I usually end up with a file at least 50% smaller and often quite a bit smaller than that, with no perceptible difference in quality at normal viewing distances.

The only time I've seen an issue with cropping the bars was when I was testing out encoding using QuickSync using Handbrake. When the bars were cropped, QuickSync got the aspect ratio completely wrong - it stretched the 1920x800 -> 1920x1080. Maybe that bug has been fixed since I tried it, but the quality reduction by using QuickSync was way too great for me to use it.

QuickSync also has issues with quality.

More info about it here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7007/intel...spective/8

---

The fact that bluray discs are encoded with black bars is massively retarded and is just one of many examples of how bluray is a a garbage media format/container/whatever.

LOL.

You know nothing about designing a stable, commercial format.

Restrictions are necessary. If you had a resolution free-for-all then ensuring compliancy would be a nightmare.

That must be why XBMC has had zero issues with multiple resolutions for almost 10 years. Or even DVD players that have DIVX playback support. Or even DVDs that used anamorphic encoding and no back bars at all.

Do I personally know how to design a stable, commercial format? No, but I also don't know how to direct a movie, but I can tell you when one sucks. I can also tell you what other experts have said about bluray, people who do know how to make a format. Including people who had a hand in designing bluray.

A lot of requests/requirements came down from execs who didn't know what they were talking about, or wanted to prioritize silly "wow" features over core functionality (like online connected content).

I'll admit, calling it garbage is a bit hyperbolical, but there really are a some negatives about the format.

So much this. I've played DVDs burned from movies I've ripped in nonstandard resolutions and they played PERFECTLY back on my DVD player. In fact, I can't name a SINGLE device it hasn't worked on. So why are they included?

[magao]

but the quality reduction by using QuickSync was way too great for me to use it.

QuickSync also has issues with quality.

More info about it here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7007/intel...spective/8

I believe I mentioned that

[Prof Yaffle]

I only tried QuickSync on Handbrake once - I had awful problems with aspect ratio and quality. I know it's only still in beta, but... well, I'm not in so much of a hurry, and an overnight encode on Linux works fine for me versus using a Windows laptop just to mangle the output quickly!

[voochi]

That must be why XBMC has had zero issues with multiple resolutions for almost 10 years. Or even DVD players that have DIVX playback support. Or even DVDs that used anamorphic encoding and no back bars at all.

There is still bugs relating to certain mod8 or mod4 resolutions, particularly with ATI acceleration. I filed some recently. And I can recall many others over the last 10 years, green bars on the side of the screen etc. You will say 'oh that's ffmpeg fault not XBMC' but the point remains the same - it is easier to test a limited number of resolutions.

DVDs only allowed one possible anamorphic aspect (16:9). Again, very limited to ensure easy compliance testing. You could not just have a random AR flag.

If Bluray specs allowed random resolutions and anamorphic flags you can guarantee someone would release a hardware player with scaling or padding bugs and that's not acceptable for a commerical format.

[Ned Scott]

There are hardware bluray players with bugs. There will always be bugs. We're also not talking about random aspect ratios or resolutions. Bluray is a combination of multiple companies compromising, adding DRM, and adding bullshit features to convince people to buy into another optical media format. The physical format itself is impressive, but the video distribution standard is not nearly as good as it could have been.

There is a major difference in finding various issues across any possible combination of HTPC hardware and the issues proper encoding could have caused. The idea that modern hardware at the time bluray was finalized could not handle different aspect ratios and resolutions is absurd. It's pants-on-head retarded.

[T800]

There are hardware bluray players with bugs. There will always be bugs. We're also not talking about random aspect ratios or resolutions. Bluray is a combination of multiple companies compromising, adding DRM, and adding bullshit features to convince people to buy into another optical media format. The physical format itself is impressive, but the video distribution standard is not nearly as good as it could have been.

There is a major difference in finding various issues across any possible combination of HTPC hardware and the issues proper encoding could have caused. The idea that modern hardware at the time bluray was finalized could not handle different aspect ratios and resolutions is absurd. It's pants-on-head retarded.

Isn't this part of the reason why we haven't gotten native resolution output on XBMC though, becuase there are that many different varibles?

[nickr]

What exactly do you mean "native resolution output"? Do you mean switching your video card to 480i output when you play a SD TV file?

Given the dimensions people encode to from time to time, I am not sure that there is any video card/monitor combination that could do every possible resolution.

I am happy to have XBMC scale my video, whatever resolution it is, to my TVs native resolution.

[T800]

Yes, this:
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=64139

I not bothered about scaling for my TV, the scaling done by my projector is better than XBMC's scaler and even more obvious because of the size of the image.

That's sort of my point. Isn't asking blu-ray (in 2000) being able to handle all resolutions a similar situation?

[nickr]

Yes, this:
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=64139

I not bothered about scaling for my TV, the scaling done by my projector is better than XBMC's scaler and even more obvious because of the size of the image.

That's sort of my point. Isn't asking blu-ray (in 2000) being able to handle all resolutions a similar situation?

Using the example in that thread, does your video card run at 640x360? Does it sync to your projector at that res?

Does it work at every other obscure resolution that video files are encoded in?

I suggest not.

[DJ_Izumi]

I'm against all disc based media and their conversions. REAL movie fans only watch Digital Cinema Packages in 2K or 4K with their XBMC.

[Ned Scott]

There are hardware bluray players with bugs. There will always be bugs. We're also not talking about random aspect ratios or resolutions. Bluray is a combination of multiple companies compromising, adding DRM, and adding bullshit features to convince people to buy into another optical media format. The physical format itself is impressive, but the video distribution standard is not nearly as good as it could have been.

There is a major difference in finding various issues across any possible combination of HTPC hardware and the issues proper encoding could have caused. The idea that modern hardware at the time bluray was finalized could not handle different aspect ratios and resolutions is absurd. It's pants-on-head retarded.

Isn't this part of the reason why we haven't gotten native resolution output on XBMC though, becuase there are that many different varibles?

Not quite. The real issue isn't the number of video format variables as much as it is an issue with the number of PC hardware variables in all the HTPCs out there, plus all the different OSes XBMC runs on.

[T800]

Yes, this:
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=64139

I not bothered about scaling for my TV, the scaling done by my projector is better than XBMC's scaler and even more obvious because of the size of the image.

That's sort of my point. Isn't asking blu-ray (in 2000) being able to handle all resolutions a similar situation?

Using the example in that thread, does your video card run at 640x360? Does it sync to your projector at that res?

Does it work at every other obscure resolution that video files are encoded in?

I suggest not.

I think the idea was to output at the closest supported resolution.