Video chop??

Ok,

I did check the properties playing back in the player and it reports 128X128 @ 12 Hz, with audio at 22kHz, 1 channel. Thats about the same transformational properties i put in when converting.

I dont like to think its the player software's problem, cuz the chopping occurs even on my hardware player. so i'd kinda like to b'live that it's happening somewhere in the conversion level.

I actually noticed it first when i was converting some vid by one of these ripping sites, who usually put some logo on the top right of the screen. When i played the converted vid in the hardware or software player, i noticed that the logo was almost entirely missing.

So, any other ideas?

Thanx,
Don

[tadad]

Don, the same thing happens on my conversions so it is not just you. I think it is how the software manages when converting from a rectangular 4x3 image format to square 4x4 image format.

[Iridium]

Don & tadad,

Let's step back from this a second.

Is this the only file that does this, or do all files do this ?
Also, please play around with the resolutions. It still sounds like the parameters you entered are inncorrect for your player :
'' And I tried the 128 X 96, and there's no chop! It's perfect,...''.
Now, you may have to rotate outputted (sp?) file 90' in order for it to show full screen. To do this take your crappy original mpeg file and load it into this :

http://www.pocketpcfreewares.com/en/index.php?soft=972

Then select advanced features and flip 90'
You can also set resolution, EG 128x96, or 96x128 etc. Save to desktop then run it thru amvconvert. Again please play w / the sizing options until you get a correct fit.

Post results. Good luck.
I

Ok I appears to be to do with the focus setting. I have left this setting untouched at default setting of "2" and all my video conversions at whatever resolution seem to be slightly left justified, however when I set the focus setting to "0" the image is perfectly centred. So the focus setting must dictate how the image is cropped to accomodate the small screen format.

Originally Posted by Iridium";p=&quot

Don & tadad,

Let's step back from this a second.

Is this the only file that does this, or do all files do this ?
Also, please play around with the resolutions. It still sounds like the parameters you entered are inncorrect for your player :
'' And I tried the 128 X 96, and there's no chop! It's perfect,...''.
Now, you may have to rotate outputted (sp?) file 90' in order for it to show full screen. To do this take your crappy original mpeg file and load it into this :

http://www.pocketpcfreewares.com/en/index.php?soft=972

Then select advanced features and flip 90'
You can also set resolution, EG 128x96, or 96x128 etc. Save to desktop then run it thru amvconvert. Again please play w / the sizing options until you get a correct fit.

Post results. Good luck.
I

Finally, I have company!!

"Is this the only file that does this, or do all files do this ?"

All files, its just that that one caught my eye first, thats all


"" Also, please play around with the resolutions. It still sounds like the parameters you entered are inncorrect for your player :
'' And I tried the 128 X 96, and there's no chop! It's perfect,...''.
Now, you may have to rotate outputted (sp?) file 90' in order for it to show full screen. ""

You still dont seem to get it. All those chops i talk about are what i notice in the amv player software. The hardware player doesnt even come into question. Let's just say that my hardware player shows exactly what i can see in the software player. So altho the 128X96 looks chopless (no right end chop) in both the software and the hardware player, since my vertical resolution on the hardware player is 128, i guess it's putting blank patches above and below. i think we can conveniently assume that the hardware player is 128x128 and there's no fallacy in that part of it.

I tried all the modes. I saw the left justification too, but dint think much of it. But the chop exists in all the modes. I'd really like somebody to explain in detail what those 3 modes are (which doesnt even exist in the latest version, which seems more like a downgrade than an upgrade, v 4.00, i mean :-P ).

Good, now only if i can get a few more pplz to vouch for it, maybe we have a known bug

Later
Don

[tadad1]

Here are some excellent guidelines for getting the most out of your AMV videos.

http://www.s1mp3.org/wiki/index.php/Video_encoding

Hey Tadad,

Thanks for that link. I tried a lot of things mentioned there, and it kind of works. Pretty good on that

And actualy it makes sense. Like you said, a rectangular video is being made into a square video. And since i cant see any stretch (or rather compression in this case) there has to be some form of an automatic cropping. Guess thats what is taking place.

Anyways,
Thanks for all your help
Don

[relaxxx]

I noticed this on my amv’s but I know why it’s done, and for a fairly good reason. Your common TV aspect is 4:3. your player screen is 3:4. Apparently there’s a way to encode the video rotated 90 degrees so you can watch full screen with proper aspect and that’s exactly what the SMV players do.

So if you want full screen video on a 3:4 screen, you must either crop the sides or squish the video. This is what I found when playing with the amv encoder: Mode 1 will squish the video horizontally to fit. Modes 0 and 2 crop the edges to fit and mode 3 zooms and crops right side.

Considering the screen size, cropping can be your friend, you may loose some of the video but what you do see is bigger than it would have been uncropped. I was using Virtual dub to resize and crop video even more to “zoom” in on the best part of the videos.

Relaxxx,

Good on that info. It makes sense, but my player has a 128 X 128 resolution, making that an aspect ratio of 1:1. 4:4, if u will :P

Anyways, I probably prefer the crop to a potential compressing action. But I would like it if there was an equal crop on the left and right. As of now, the crop is only on the right side; i.e, if the video is say (0,0) - (150,128), the resultant video is cropped as (0,0) - (128,128). What I may prefer, and the general consensus, would be rather like (11,0) - (139,128), which is like the center most part of the video.

Guess there's a long way to go for that,
Later,
Don