@Richard-Curtis

Hi

Personally I would recommend that you do not try ii fit a 4:3 Aspect Ratio (AR) video to a 16: 9 AR by stretching the distortion is too much and does not make for comfortable viewing.

To get 16:9 AR use the Section effect to achieve this - it also helps to ensure the project setting is also 16:9.

. . . . I've been exporting ex-Super 8 cine in 1440 x 1080p format . . . .

This may not give you the best quality, you may find it better to set the project height to the same as the source video and the width to 16 ÷ 9 x height to get a 16:9 AR and export at this resolution - leaving the upscaling to the TV - they can do a better job, then upscaling in the program.

HTH

John EB

@CubeAce @johnebaker

Thank you both for your responses. I remain puzzled that simply exporting in 16:9 format doesn't give me the stretched result I expected, because I know it has done at some other time in some other program. Not pretty, but I thought I understood what it was doing. Not that it really matters now, as I tried the Section effect and was impressed - I filled the wide screen with an enlarged picture of correct aspect, with no distortion. Obviously I lost some picture top and bottom, but the facility to move the frame up and down sorts that out. The "Section" effect is a great feature. The adjusted picture looks good, and I'm tempted to render my native 4:3 1440x1080 format in 16:9 1920x1080 (or whatever pixels MEP scales it to). Question is, should I expect to lose some quality in doing this? It all LOOKS good on the clips I'm using for the test, but in general should I expect some degradation of the image resolution? Does it depend on whether each pixel in the original can be transposed to an exact number of pixels in the resized frame, for instance?

@Richard-Curtis

Hi Ricjard.

When we refer to quality, it is 'perceived quality' that will vary depending on how it is displayed (some screens seem better than others or can rescale better) Size of screen, and viewing distance. If you resize something then the program is either going to add pixels if making it larger or subtract them if made smaller. A lot of how it will look will depend on the methods and programs used. There are expensive programs that are designed to do that with claims of not being able to tell the difference. Standard programs like MEP will do their best. Whether that is good enough is really down to the individual to decide. The results will vary as well.

Really it's an individual decision rather than one of us having one opinion over an others.

Ray.

@Richard-Curtis

Hi

. . . . I remain puzzled that simply exporting in 16:9 format doesn't give me the stretched result I expected, because I know it has done at some other time in some other program . . . .

For the very reason I stated above - the distortion is too much and does not make for comfortable viewing, it is better to pillar or letterbox the video then stretch it automatically to full screen with the subsequent distortion and then have users who do not know what is happening up in arms.

. . . . I'm tempted to render my native 4:3 1440x1080 format in 16:9 1920x1080 (or whatever pixels MEP scales it to). Question is, should I expect to lose some quality in doing this? . . . .

If the video is pillar boxed to maintain the same width as the original with the black bars left and right the quality loss should be very small.

If you are sectioning the video to 16:9 AR then there is some upscaling where the program tries to interpret what the extra pixels should be, this can results in a lower quality image depending on the video content. Distinct edges become softer and applying sharpening can make it worse, as it would have to be fairly aggressive to have an effect on a soft image and can result in colour shifts and 'mottling'.

. . . . It all LOOKS good on the clips I'm using for the test, but in general should I expect some degradation of the image resolution? Does it depend on whether each pixel in the original can be transposed to an exact number of pixels in the resized frame, for instance? . . . .

The only way to be sure is try it on the TV with an export at the native resolution of the source video and the scaled up version.

John EB

@johnebaker

@CubeAce

Hi John and Ray

[For the very reason I stated above - the distortion is too much and does not make for comfortable viewing, it is better to pillar or letterbox the video then stretch it automatically to full screen with the subsequent distortion and then have users who do not know what is happening up in arms.]

Agreed - I was experimenting and was surprised to find that MEP wasn't giving me the lousy result I expected! (In fact, it didn't appear to be changing anything...).

[If the video is pillar boxed to maintain the same width as the original with the black bars left and right the quality loss should be very small.

If you are sectioning the video to 16:9 AR then there is some upscaling where the program tries to interpret what the extra pixels should be, this can results in a lower quality image depending on the video content. Distinct edges become softer and applying sharpening can make it worse, as it would have to be fairly aggressive to have an effect on a soft image and can result in colour shifts and 'mottling'.

The only way to be sure is try it on the TV with an export at the native resolution of the source video and the scaled up version.]

I would indeed be sectioning to 16:9 full screen, provided I don't have to discard too much of the original frame of the clip concerned. I've compared the original with the sectioned version and the quality "appears" similar. However, as Ray points out, it's all in the eye of the beholder - no guarantees. As you suggest, the optimum solution would appear to be to fix the width (1920), select 16:9, and let MEP do its thing. If all goes well the result won't depend too much on the TV concerned.

Apologies for the dog's breakfast above - I'm not au fait with responding to a response just yet...

Thank you for the additional insights you've both given me,

Richard

@Richard-Curtis

Hi,

I do not recommend using Section for what you want to do. Section cannot be keyframed.

When you import a video clip or photo, MEP will try to fit it to the window of the project, the first one of height or width to reach the edge, wins. It will scale up or down to do this. Thus, if your project is 1920Wx1080H and you import an object of 1440Wx1080H, MEP will leave it at 1080 (wins). If you import a file that is 720x540, it will upscale until either the Width or the Height reaches the maximum; the first one there wins. It's automatically centred, so there will be black space on either side.

Say it's portrait, 1000Wx2000H. MEP will downscale it until the height is 1080, the width will be 540.

I had expected to fill the screen with a somewhat distorted picture, but that didn't happen. What am I missing here?

You say that you think that MEP should automatically stretch (distort) your video so that it fills the screen. If that were the case, then your portrait image would be extremely distorted and you (and everyone else) would be screaming bloody blue murder.

Rather than Section, use Size/Position and change the width value to 1920 from 1440. This will increase the height and cut off part of the top, bottom or both if centred.

Now you decide which part you want to cut off of the top or bottom and how much, without changing the size and keeping the left side at 0. To do this, hold down Shift and drag the image on the screen up or down until you are happy. Of course, do not move it such that you get black at the top or bottom. You can calculate the value. The top should never be positive or you get black at the top. For 1440, do not exceed (or rather go below) -360 (assuming my calcs are correct).

Now you can keyframe along the timeline in case you need to move the image up or down. Again, you cannot do this with Section.

I only use Section when I really want to crop. Example, I have VHS digitized files with a dozen or more pixels at the bottom that are distorted. I crop that out; it's never a case of not cropping or keyframing, so size/position is not used.

John CB

@browj2

Hi John

Thank you for this additional information; it makes plenty of sense but I'm going to have to play with the Size/Position effect until I fully comprehend its mode of operation. So far I've only used keyframes for audio editing so I haven't worked myself into that particular corner yet (I think not, anyway). If I had the time I'd start at MEP101 and carry on until I knew what it was all about - but I've got far too many videos and cine films to edit and I'm not getting any younger - so the only practical way for me to get through these tricky issues is to take a short cut by quizzing the fundis on this forum!

Richard

@Richard-Curtis @browj2 @johnebaker

Hi Richard.

I know more than a few here like to use keyboard shortcuts but when it comes resizing using the Size Position tool I prefer to drag the image on the screen up or down until I get it to where I want it. Personally I find it quicker and easier as I can try out several heights in a short period of time to see what I prefer. If you need it to adjust the position as it is played along the timeline just add points to the key frame as you edit. Any image you expand though will look slightly softer and grainier in my experience. Similar to a digital zoom effect on a pocket digital camera.

Ray.

@johnebaker @CubeAce @browj2

Thanks, John. I think, though, that I may just be spending more than one hour on trying out the various ideas and insights you guys have been good enough to share with me.

Richard

@Richard-Curtis

This reminds me of when i first started using Magix in 2005-ish, I exported clips that had black bars down the side or across the bottom, video quality was rubbish, I ruined a lot of good clips & wasted time by not knowing what i was doing wrong,

I've learnt a lot since then, i think 😂 the basics i've learnt are try to record in the format that you're going to export & view in if you have that choice, on my phone there are numerous aspect ratios but i use 16:9 1920 x 1080 to record, after editing i export at the same 16:9 1920 x 1080, makes things a lot simpler, & the quality is very good, I upload my vids to YT & people have said they're good quality on a tv screen.

If you set the Preview screen in Magix to the Aspect ratio that your exporting at then the finished vid should look like what you see, You say you're not getting any younger but i would experiment with short clips, adjust movie settings, export settings & the preview screen, all should be 16:9 if that's what you're using, until you get the desired result or you might end up wasting time & end up doing it all again,

& to be safe keep the orig clips separate, work on copies of them in case you do irreversible damage.

@Former user

Hi

Unfortunately literally all my raw stuff is recorded in 4:3 format from the 'eighties and early 'nineties, so the dilemma I face is whether to leave the edited material in 4:3 with the inevitable bars down the side when played back on the ubiquitous 16:9 TV, or to plunge into reformatting in 16:9 with the possible degradation in quality and definite loss of image borders that come with it. Previously I've kept the finished article in 4:3, since only the family were going to see it and they've been only too pleased to get anything, bars and all. I've now got quite a lot of documentary-sort of stuff derived from Super 8 sound cine and SD video that's going to have to meet my own somewhat more rigorous standards(!), so I need to know what I'm doing before I waste a lot of time doing the wrong thing. I confess I hadn't even tried adjusting the preview monitor to match the desired output, but that would seem to be a jolly good idea! You're right - and, as also suggested in the comments above, I do need to experiment some more...

Richard

@Richard-Curtis

Speaking personally, I would not attempt any rescaling of your original footage! In my experience, any attempt to "reformat" your video files is bound to lead to lead to some combination of distortion and/or cropping of the original image. I find most viewers are tolerant of the fact that the video aspect may "look wrong" on a modern TV!

If you are determined to attempt some type of upscaling or reformatting then have a look at Infognition Video Enhancer, now free, which does make a reasonable attempt at what you want to do.

HTH

Jeff

I agree with Jeff, keep the image 4x3 but load it & export in a 16x9 format & accept the bars, keep the image original, I've been watching Red Dwarf that's 4x3 😂

My rubbish Huawei phone takes the best photo in 4x3, the other option on the phone is wide screen which is like cinema style,

this my choice of format, everyone has their own i guess,

this is one of those 4x3 photos, video 4x3 would look the same, the pic is a lot bigger than video format of 1920 x 1080 so i could crop it to fit the screen without loss of quality but for this example i've let Magix Maintain Proportions & at Movie Size

exported in a 16x9 format,

This is how it would look, I don't normally film in 4x3 but i do sometimes inc pics in my videos so i've just put a bunch of random images together.

when previewing 4x3 photos i find some players or TV's might want to stretch the photo to fit the screen distorting the image, but by exporting it within a 16x9 format it means the shape of image (4x3) is locked in & on a modern 16x9 screen it views better even though it has the black bars, nothing can be done about the bars unless you're prepared to crop the image or stretch it distorting it,

You could open a Movie at a 4x3 setting, set the preview monitor to 4x3, import your clips, they would fill the screen, then export as a 4x3 format, it would look the same on tv with the 2 black bars down either size but you might have to alter the tv screen settings to make it show 4x3 videos in the 4x3 'shape' without it being stretched, i had to mess with the settings on my tv so i could watch Red Dwarf & some of the old shows that are 4x3.

@AAProds

Hi

. . . . been watching Red Dwarf . . . .

Oh oh speed bumps .... chicane ! 😆😆😆

John EB

😂😂👍 

@johnebaker

. . . . been watching Red Dwarf . . . .

That was Gid. 😉 But now I'm curious and will have a gander myself!

Back to Reality, Red Dwarf, make sure you pack your thermos

@Former user

The thread of this um, thread, seems to have got itself lost somewhere in space. But to return to the original theme, I can see the advantage of locking in the 16:9 format in order to forestall the possibility of some TV or other deciding that I want a stretched 4:3, which definitely will not do. For now I think it's worth changing my format to a genuine 16:9: with some assistance from the Section and Size/Position effects, but after some experimentation I may well come to the same conclusion that others here already have done - that an accompanying loss of quality defeats the point of the exercise.

Richard

@Richard-Curtis

Unless I am exporting only to DVD and the source material is DVD quality or worse, I use 16:9, full HD (1920x1080) as my project settings. I do not normally shoot 4k and, like you, I am using mostly old material that is full HD or lower.

In your case of 1440x1080, you can simply do as I mentioned, change the width to 1920 and adjust the vertical position. You will have a minor loss of quality. Scaling up anything of a lower resolution will require some work to fix it, as Jeff has suggested.

The big thing to improve old material is using Neat Video, and when you start doing Super8 material, this will be a must. I apply Neat Video to every film (8mm and Supter8 Sound).

There are a couple of threads about Super8 that you should look at. I digitized my material using the Wolverine at 1080. Of course, that fills the screen vertically but not horizontally, so you have to live with the black bars on each side. Definitely do not digitize at 720 and do not use the trick above to get the image to fill the screen, further degrading the image. That said, I do often have to do minor cropping as the framing is sometimes out at the top or bottom, thus I get a bit of degradation from upscaling to get back to full height. However, Neat Video, plus stabilization and colour correction make the end result look much better than the original.

For photos, there is usually no problem. Make sure to scan them at a higher resolution than you require so that you can crop them and upscale them without reducing the resolution below the project settings. Best to do this in a photo program.

John CB

@browj2

Hi John

I think you mean "Don't digitise at 720 AND don't then use Size/Position to fill the 16:9 frame - but it's OK to do it if your raw material is 1440x1080". My old Super 8 films pass the test, but my newer Hi 8 and 8mm camcorder files fail - they're all 720x576 as per the SD PAL standard of the time. I've got around 7 hours of cine, but about ten times that of camcorder video.

As you mention, I've also found Neat Video a big help while experimenting with my Super 8 material - it's particularly useful in removing dust and the occasional graininess.

I'm beginning to think I should simply edit everything in its native format and frame, and finally export to 1440x1080 MP4 - the camcorder clips look "OK" in that format. Or do you think I should retain the camcorder clips' 720x576 frame for export, and only export the cine clips in 1440x1080?

Richard

@Richard-Curtis

Hi Richard,

Yes, you understood my mess correctly.

It depends on your project. Many of mine are of mixed resolution so I determine what I want as output (resolution - DVD or BR or MP4), and use that for the project. I adjust everything or it adjusts automatically to suit, and I do my best to make it look good.

All

I don't think that we have discussed this here, but I'll put the question out to all of you. If you output to a lower resolution, like DVD quality, what happens when you watch it on a full HD TV? It goes full size, does it not? Does this mean that the video is upscaled anyways? If so, then what is the difference between that and using the higher resolution for editing and exporting?

John CB