1 Feb
2016
1 Feb
'16
8:22 p.m.
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:47:35 +0100
Carsten Kurz via DCPomatic <dcpomatic(a)carlh.net> wrote:
Hi everyone,
wondering who is using the Scale to fit width/Scale to fit height
feature on a regular basis, or so to say, intentionally?
I thought about these options very often now (probably too often),
and I can't get a grip on it.
In my work with DCP-o-matic, I never saw a need to use it.
I thought I could get a better idea if I'd just play around with it,
but it doesn't seem to react in a way that allows me to see through.
E.g., when I select content and then choose either option, it applies
a change to scaling/cropping once, but then doesn't revert back if I
choose the other option. In my current trial, it presets a crop
factor, I can reset that manually, yes. But it uses the same crop
values for both Scale to fit width AND height?
Looking at it again, I think this is a bug; scale-to-fit-width should
zero left/right crop and scale-to-fit-height should zero top/bottom
crop. It makes a little more sense then.
I think the (sole?) use for these options it to remove pillarboxing or
letterboxing in the original. If you have, e.g. a scope image in a
flat frame (i.e. there is black at the top and bottom of the *original*
image) then setting the DCP container to "scope" and clicking "scale to
fit width" will crop the letterboxing black from the original.
Alternatively if you have say a flat image in a scope frame then setting
the DCP container to "flat" and clicking "scale to fit height" should
remove the pillarboxing.
For reference, the original request was roughly:
"
Example file which is scope content but letterboxed into 16:9. So
[without these options] I have to choose scope, then start to crop the
image in DCP-o-Matic so that it doesn't include the black padding,
distorting the image. But this is very manual labour.
"
Perhaps better names for these options would be "remove letterboxing"
and "remove pillarboxing"?
Regards,
Carl