1 Feb
2016
1 Feb
'16
2:47 p.m.
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?
Initially I thought these options would express the implementation of non-standard-aspect
rations in the sense of the DCI/SMPTE standards:
One or both dimensions of a custom size container always needs to be the same as a full
container - e.g. either vertical 1080 or horizontal 2048 (or their 4k counterparts).
But that doesn't seem to be the case?
Is it just a shortcut to two prominent scaling options?
Do these options still make sense since DOM is choosing default scaling for content based
on content aspect ratio for a good while now?
The reason I am so picky about this is, I'm doing the german translation, and I have a
hard time finding a good translation if I don't understand it...
Anyone?
- Carsten
1 Feb
1 Feb
3:05 p.m.
Hello !
Just to share some thougts cause I won't be of great help…
« 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. »
I like the automatic scale to fit width or heigth, cause it's most of
the time the fastest way to have the "good" values.
But hell yes, that's true it does not revert back so easily. I think you
have to put zero value everywhere.
For me I see it as the quick tool that automagically produces the right
frame. Most of the time, see below :
« Do these options still make sense since DOM is choosing default
scaling for content based on content aspect ratio for a good while now ? »
If black bars are "into" picture then using content aspect ratio is not
enough.
Best regards,
Gérald
Le 01/02/2016 15:47, Carsten Kurz via DCPomatic a écrit :
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?
Initially I thought these options would express the implementation of non-standard-aspect
rations in the sense of the DCI/SMPTE standards:
One or both dimensions of a custom size container always needs to be the same as a full
container - e.g. either vertical 1080 or horizontal 2048 (or their 4k counterparts).
But that doesn't seem to be the case?
Is it just a shortcut to two prominent scaling options?
Do these options still make sense since DOM is choosing default scaling for content based
on content aspect ratio for a good while now?
The reason I am so picky about this is, I'm doing the german translation, and I have
a hard time finding a good translation if I don't understand it...
Anyone?
- Carsten
_______________________________________________
DCPomatic mailing list
DCPomatic(a)carlh.net
http://main.carlh.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dcpomatic
4:48 p.m.
I never understood those options either. I just "No stretch" mostly
everything. The only case we do usually encounter is Academy that has
been squeezed to 4:3, and we take it back to the right ratio.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Gérald Maruccia <dcpomatic(a)carlh.net> wrote:
If black bars are "into" picture then using
content aspect ratio is not
enough.
Some magic letterbox/pillarbox detection? Looks like ffmpeg already
have something for it.
Manuel AC
--
http://akadcp.com/
https://www.facebook.com/akadcp
10:48 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Gérald Maruccia
<dcpomatic(a)carlh.net> wrote:
Yes, that's already been considered:
http://dcpomatic.com/mantis/view.php?id=365
Regards,
Carl
If black bars are "into" picture then
using content aspect ratio is not
enough.
Some magic letterbox/pillarbox detection? Looks like ffmpeg already
have something for it.
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
8:26 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Carl Hetherington via DCPomatic
<dcpomatic(a)carlh.net> wrote:
Perhaps better names for these options would be
"remove letterboxing"
and "remove pillarboxing"?
+1 for that!
I remember an old discussion about having some "crop presets". That
may be another approach, easier to update with new situations.
10:45 p.m.
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Manuel AC via DCPomatic wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Carl Hetherington via
DCPomatic
<dcpomatic(a)carlh.net> wrote:
True. Perhaps that's the logical conclusion.
Regards,
Carl
Perhaps better names for these options would be
"remove letterboxing"
and "remove pillarboxing"?
+1 for that!
I remember an old discussion about having some "crop presets". That
may be another approach, easier to update with new situations.
2 Feb
2 Feb
3:04 a.m.
Am 01.02.2016 um 21:22 schrieb Carl Hetherington via DCPomatic:
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.
Ah, now I get it. It is not a modifier for the other scaling options (I was always
expecting sort of a checkmark on either option when selecting it).
It is a quick way of filling either dimension of the chosen container with content, and
cropping away the other dimension to fit, using the scaling options in the content tab.
That's why I can't 'return' from the setting, unless I reset the chosen
individual scaling parameters manually.
So, the same thing that can be done with Scale-to-width or Scale-to-height can always be
done using the other 'regular' options, just with a little bit more of thinking
and operating more individual controls. So yes, sort of like two basic scaling presets.
I understand the intention, but, thinking about it, it is a quick'n-dirty way of
filling the screen without paying much attention on what actually happens ;-)
I guess in a lot cases, the automatic AR detection now takes care of that anyway.
Yes, there must have been a bug somewhere, because sometimes after choosing one option,
some crop-fields were actually not zeros or numbers, but simply 'empty'.
'Remove pillar/letterboxing' would indeed be to ambitious as it can't detect
in-frame letter/pillarboxing so far.
Maybe 'fill' would be a better term. At least I know now what to aim for in the
translation.
- Carsten
3373
days inactive
3374
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Carl Hetherington -
Carsten Kurz -
Gérald Maruccia -
Manuel AC