Alec: Potential pic problem

[jj]

I've just switched to a 1440x900 flatscreen monitor and the
images I've already posted seem [understandably] a little less
defined and slightly but not unduly elongated.
The view I get with PowerDVD however is appreciably elongated
laterally and I'm concerned that any caps I make will thus also
be. Can you have a quick gander at my next few cap-posts and
let me know if they're still useable?

[jj]

....just as background comparison, the old monitor was a 20th
century Belinea CRT [!!].

[alec]

I've also changed monitor this year and the one thing that wasn't affected in terms of on-screen appearance was Power DVD - if I remember correctly that is as I had to do a lot of messing about with screen resolutions and other settings in order to get undistorted pictures along with a font size I could see to read. I eventually settled on the highest resolution and altered font sizes in various applications.

With Power DVD you set the pixel dimensions of the captures. However, if the monitor is not in a screen resolution that gives a correct aspect retio for pictures, they will look odd when shown in a graphics editor.

I must say I'm very unimpressed with Windows in this respect. If a widescreen TV can automatically adjust to show pictures in 4:3 or 16:9 according to the incoming signal, why can't Windows show pictures, or indeed windows (with a small w), in their correct aspect ratio regardless of screen resolution?

I don't know if the above helps.

At the present rate it will be several months before I get to any of your recently posted pics, sorry.

[jj]

Well, it sheds a little light.
I haven't yet had a chance to get into the manual in any depth-
but I know I can adjust the resolution and presumably the AR.
We'll just have to see.

[alec]

Let me know. It might help with my (cheap) monitor.

[jj]

I did have an LG 19" a while back but it had to be replaced
after abruptly refusing to light up- and its replacement did
the same after a while. I think it was before I started capping
in earnest, though....
I expect it'll just take a while for me to adjust [both eyes and
settings!]- for now, there are some caps above from 'Camorrista'-
the resolution is [as expected] poorer in full-size view but all
I did in terms of AR was to squeeze the ?16:9 image slightly
laterally with the PowerDVD cursors. See what you think.

[candela]

alec wrote:

> I must say I'm very unimpressed with Windows in this respect.
> If a widescreen TV can automatically adjust to show pictures in
> 4:3 or 16:9 according to the incoming signal, why can't Windows
> show pictures, or indeed windows (with a small w), in their
> correct aspect ratio regardless of screen resolution?
>

A TV uses PAL or NTSC as input. The aspect ratio of PAL and NTSC is defined in a standard which is also used by DVD. So the TV knows how to resize the input from a DVD player.

Windows on the other hand does not know the video source. It's the responsibility of the player software to correctly resize the video according to the resolution of Windows.

However, dvd capture is very easy and you don't have to rely on your own eyes.

1. set Powerdvd to capture in orginal resolution (for PAL you'll get 720x576 and for NTSC 720x480 images)

2. during playback of the dvd: right click->configuration->information. Under Video Attributes->Aspect Ratio you will find the display aspect ratio of the DVD. It will be either 4:3 or 16:9

3. Resize your image from step 1 to the aspect ratio from step 2. (If the aspect ratio was 4:3 resize to 720x540, if it was 16:9 resize to 720x405. Note there are only 2 possibilities. It does not matter if the input was PAL or NTSC, the final resolution is the same)

4. Perform cropping if necessary to any size

Voila, your image has the correct aspect ratio no matter how it looks on your monitor. (unless the dvd aspect ratio was switched by the dvd manufacturar but this is rare)

[alec]

Thanks a lot.

[alec]

I think they are too tall on my monitor (1440 X 900), though they may look right on your monitor.

Their actual size as shown in the graphics editor (in my case Irfanview) is 656 by 756. Your old ones were always 720 by 540 (4:3) or thereabouts. In Irfanview you can change them by resizing and unticking the maintain aspect ratio box and similar functions will be available in other programs. I changed one of them and it then looked reasonably OK on my monitor.

Anyway, if you make the actual size in the correct aspect ratio, it will then be up to individuals to correct their monitors if they want to, though I still think it's a problem that writers of browser applications should try to fix for still images regardless of screen resolution, though I can appreciate that it's not easy.

[jj]

alec wrote:
> I think they are too tall on my monitor (1440 X 900), though
> they may look right on your monitor.
So if I hadn't 'adjusted' them on MY 1440x900 you'd have seen them
exactly as I saw them ; -)
Truly, Grasshopper, each man perceives the universe in his own
unique way : -))

>
> Their actual size as shown in the graphics editor (in my case
> Irfanview) is 656 by 756. Your old ones were always 720 by 540
> (4:3) or thereabouts. In Irfanview you can change them by
> resizing and unticking the maintain aspect ratio box and
> similar functions will be available in other programs. I
> changed one of them and it then looked reasonably OK on my
> monitor.
I use Irfan too, so I'll try resizing the next set to around 720x540
if necessary. And as I said, I still haven't had time [and won't
have, for the next three months- my course begins tomorrow] to
get fully into the monitor-manual. I probably won't being doing too
much capping till the autumn [he said, to general cries of relief
and universal rejoicing.....].