Resolution for Widescreen DVD

[dlparisi]

I think Chris is right about this. See http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.4 for an explaination but the basic jist is here...

A disc has one track (stream) of MPEG-2 constant bit rate (CBR) or variable bit rate (VBR) compressed digital video. A restricted version of MPEG-2 Main Profile at Main Level (MP@ML) is used. SP@ML is also supported. MPEG-1 CBR and VBR video is also allowed. 525/60 (NTSC, 29.97 interlaced frames/sec) and 625/50 (PAL/SECAM, 25 interlaced frames/sec) video display systems are expressly supported. Coded frame rates of 24 fps progressive from film, 25 fps interlaced from PAL video, and 29.97 fps interlaced from NTSC video are typical. MPEG-2 progressive_sequence is not allowed, but interlaced sequences can contain progressive pictures and progressive macroblocks. In the case of 24 fps source, the encoder embeds MPEG-2 repeat_first_field flags into the video stream to make the decoder either perform 2-3 pulldown for 60Hz NTSC displays (actually 59.94Hz) or 2-2 pulldown (with resulting 4% speedup) for 50Hz PAL/SECAM displays.

[ksmeltzer]

hmmmm, knocking 6 frames off the rendertimes for a second of video does sound quite nice, plus it would help give it that cinematic feel...

With the way that DVD players work now, you could probably render at 24p and let the DVD player to the 3:2 pulldown.

Anyone confirmed this ? Is it all DVD players or after 2006 something like that ?

I thought it was all DVD players since the dawn of time that did that. Based on the little I know, any player that is progressive scan (99.9% of them) has 3:2 pulldown on the fly. Besides, many DVDs are encoded at 24p, so what are people without 3:2 pulldown supposed to do?

[paulison]

I need to do a widescreen DVD as well for a plasma...and this thread has just confused me more :P

I was going to just render out at 720x 486 at 25 FPS which i was told is the standard PAL resolution for this format. Im guessing this is with square pixels?

so can someone just clear up exactly what resolution I really should render this out at so that it doesnt have that crap stretched look when played?

Thanks for any help!

AFTER MORE RESEARCH:

720x576 (1:1.25) is PAL which will stretch out to the equivalent of 1024x576(1:1.78 or 16:9) when played back on a dvd player.

So we can either render out as 1024x576 in square pixels and encode the MPEG2 without the "DAR" flag set so that it doesnt stretch, or:

Render out at 720x576 with a pixel aspect of 1.422 so that the frames look squished up on the PC but look proportionally correct on the DVD player when encoded with the DAR flag (whatever that is ill find out)

[Da_elf]

do it with square pixels would be my suggestion seeing as how when you stretch you loose quality. when you squish you might get some kinda artifact. best not to take chances and work with wysiwyg

[Dynedain]

I need to do a widescreen DVD as well for a plasma...and this thread has just confused me more :P

I was going to just render out at 720x 486 at 25 FPS which i was told is the standard PAL resolution for this format. Im guessing this is with square pixels?

so can someone just clear up exactly what resolution I really should render this out at so that it doesnt have that crap stretched look when played?

Thanks for any help!

AFTER MORE RESEARCH:

720x576 (1:1.25) is PAL which will stretch out to the equivalent of 1024x576(1:1.78 or 16:9) when played back on a dvd player.

So we can either render out as 1024x576 in square pixels and encode the MPEG2 without the "DAR" flag set so that it doesnt stretch, or:

Render out at 720x576 with a pixel aspect of 1.422 so that the frames look squished up on the PC but look proportionally correct on the DVD player when encoded with the DAR flag (whatever that is ill find out)

I understand your confusion, most of what we've said is specific to NTSC, not PAL

[flavrsaver]

I'm working on a video as well that is for an LCD that uses 1366x768 resolution. Judging by the posts in this thread, could I just render everything out at 800x450 and then have it converted to 16x9 anamorphic in Encore DVD (the authoring program I'm going to use)? Also, would setting it at 24 FPS be fine? It will be NTSC and run off the DVD player one a standard Dell Dimension Desktop. Any help would be great!

[Da_elf]

might wanna check this out
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html

[Infrared digital]

Does someone have a tried and tested method for creating animations for widescreen?

I have a perfect workflow for 4:3 on tv but now we are moving to create all our media for widescreen. I am really confused especially by the stretching thing and taking this squished footage into Premiere or After Effects where the footage isn't treated as widescreen.

Any help/clarification would be fantastic.

n

[Da_elf]

AE does treat widescreen footage. however i start my pipeline with square pixels and work square all the way through at 24p then convert to animorphic at the last step

[Infrared digital]

Hi DaElf, could you elaborate a little more on your process. When do you convert to anamorphic and what software did you do it with ?

I am rendering out @ a pixel aspect ratio 1:1.067 and 720x432. When I go into Premiere and setup the movie as widescreen - the footage is too small in the window.

very confusing.

[Da_elf]

im not sure about premiere since i havent used it in a while but in AE there is an aspect ratio correction.

i render at 853x480 at 24p. you could actually render a bit smaller then blow it up but i like to keep my quality and rendering at 24p means ive got 6 less frames to worry about (NTSC obviously) then in AE i do everything i need to do. Ill output an uncomressed AVI then take that into tmpgenc to compress to mpg. ill use their standard DVD preset but ill change the frame rate to 24 and ill change the aspect ratio to 16:9display. when i import into the dvd authoring software it takes 16:9 24p mpegs so its all good

[Infrared digital]

Thanks for that.

I also use Tmpeg but, if I render out from VRay @ 1024x576 will Tmpeg not reduce this to 720x576 ? So, is there any benefit for rendering at the larger resolution ?

[panthon]

I always render

PAL 25p 720X576
Image aspect = 2.223
Pixel Aspect = 1.778.

That gives you the 16:9 aspect.

Currently my vray version is 1.47.03, so it has no AR correction, and it looks squashed. Don´t worry if it happens to you, it will look alright in AE.

Rendering to 1024*576 would work too, but sooner or later ull have to scale it to fit in 720X576.

I shot a short film with a DVCPRO cam with a 16:9 lens, and that's what you are getting, 720X576. So i create my FX this way and activate the aspect ratio correction in combustion (the same would be applicable in AE). Although you arent able to correct the aspect ratio, dont worry, it's just a display thing. When u create your DVD, just tell your dvd authoring application the footage is 16:9 and it'll be all good.

[Infrared digital]

Hi Panthon

thanks very much for your help - its exactly what I needed and now I understand the process.

Just wondering about Interlacing - do you interlace or leave it as Progressive ? I would imagine a standard approach is required as Premiere, After Effects and Tmpeg all have these options.

n

[panthon]

Hi Panthon



Just wondering about Interlacing - do you interlace or leave it as Progressive ? I would imagine a standard approach is required as Premiere, After Effects and Tmpeg all have these options.

n

You dont need to use interlaced, ever. I always render everything to rpf or tga sequences, which are all progressive. Then composite the shots in progressive, and edit it. In premiere you can change the custom PAL setting from interlaced to progressive so premiere wont try any dirt trick trying to interlace it for display. I use adobe encore DVD for MPEG2 transcoding, and I use a progressive setting. That means that:

a: if your dvd and your TV support progressive display, the video will look perfect

b: if one of them does not, the dvd player will interlace it in order to be displayed. I will look alright too.

So, either way it´s better to use progressive. Interlaced is a thing from the past, although some people tend to prefer it because they like the video-look it gives you which obviously I happen to hate