Is "simulate device aspect ratio" working correctly?

Dragonfly wrote on 5/24/2004, 4:09 AM
I would like to have your feedback.
Probably I missed a point.

The option "simulate device aspect ratio" in the preview pane is for me something that could be very improved or better explained.

For instance working in PAL Widescreen: the display is set to 1049x576 instead of 1024x576, for PAL 4/3, it is set to 787x576 insteas of 768x576.

So I decide to check some value in the project setting, and I saw that the pixel ratio for PAL DV is 1.0926 (59/54), which is in fact the PAR for an ITU analog acquisition as far as I know.
The PAR for 4/3 PAL DV should normally be 16/15 (1.066667).
In the same idea, the PAR for DV Widescreen is set to 1.4568 (= 59/54 * 4/3), but normally it should be 1.422222 (=16/15 * 4/3).

Doing this, Vegas is doing a mess. If it is logical, they should use the ITU anamorpheous PAR 1.45679 * 703 and get 1024. As our DV source file are in 720*576 they multiplied it to 720, which is the width for TV PAR or DV. They get then 1049. So Sonic/Sony really do an error. 1024 is definitively the 16/9 width on a square pixel screen.

The root cause of all this problem is because they do not fixed the correct PAR for DV.

A second point is that this "simulate device aspect ratio" is not changing whatever the resolution of the screen is. You can work in 1280*1024 or 1280*960, the display simulation size stays the same, which is of course not correct.

For french speaking, I've put a post on
http://www.dvforever.com/article.php3?id_article=85
explaining in detail the PAR and SAR with a summuray table of all resolutions. BTW this table should be understandable for non-french speaking people.

Also, I think Vegas should integrate a setting in which we put the exact physical size of the screen (for instance 40cm*30cm), and then in function of the resolution (e.g. 2048*1536) can do the correct calculation to correctly display the preview in good aspect ratio, because we can always set our screen in a resolution with no square pixels, 1280*1024 is a good example.

What do you think?

Comments

erratic wrote on 5/24/2004, 8:43 AM
Two interesting web pages:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/branding/picturesize.shtml
http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Grundlagen/Pixelverhaeltnisse_und_woher_sie_kommen.html

The last page is in German, unfortunately. My German isn't good enough to translate it, but it explains that Vegas is correctly stretching 720x576 to 787x576 square pixels. Someone who speaks both German and English fluently should translate this (or preferably translate the entire page):

Bei Vegas steht in den ProjectProperties unter PixelAspectRatio der Wert Korrekturfaktor 1.0926. Die Bezeichnung „PixelAspectRatio“ ist hier eigentlich nicht korrekt, denn der Faktor ändert nicht das Pixelseitenverhältnis. Dieses beträgt für DV bekanntermaßen immer 1.0667. Gemeint und auch geändert wird hier die geometrische Anpassung von 702.9 auf 768 oder von 720 auf 787 Pixel. Diese Anpassung ist richtig und führt daher auch bei Effekten, wie z.B. einer Kreisblende, zu einem völlig korrekten Kreis. Man sollte dort also 1.0926 stehen lassen und sich vom Wort „Pixel“ nicht verwirren lassen.
taliesin wrote on 5/24/2004, 3:34 PM
This Slashcam article was written by a friend of mine and co-founder of our german Vegas forum - Holger Scheel. I know this article and the research Holger did on it very well but my English is rather poor. It's good enough to have a small talk but I think it's no good to translate such a technical-precise article. But I try anyway (though it's not a "word-by-word" translation) - hope it is any use to you:

[Quote]
"Vegas Project Properties claims the "PixelAspectRatio" to be 1.0926. The term used here - "Pixel AspectRatio" - isn't correct, because this value does not affect the pixel's aspect ratio. The pixel aspect ratio ALWAYS is 1.0667 (also in Vegas). What is meant by "1.0926" is the geometrical adaption from 702.9 to 768 or from 720 to 787 pixel. This adaption is correct and makes fx like circle wipes to be a real (round) circle. So you should take that "1.0926" property and don't worry about Vegas says it'd be the "PixelAspectRatio" what it is not."
[End of Quote]

Of course this article only referes to PAL DV.

And in fact what Vegas does - even in it's preview when selecting "Simulate Device Aspect Ratio" - is absolutey correct!!!
If you adapt DV pixels to square pixels you have to transform 720x576 to 787x576. You can easily proof this by drawing a circle in a graphic software using project properties of 787x576. Import this 787x576 picture with it's circle into Vegas and turn the preview to "Simulate Device Aspect Ratio". You'll see a 100% round circle without any black border on the pictures sides. Same if you output this picture to DV and watch it on TV. You can output a circle drawn in Vegas as still image (PNG or JPEG) which will be displayed as circle in a graphic software or picture viewer and you will notice the still image is 786x576 then (one pixel away from the correct size).

Vegas is one of the very rare editing softwares which handles that adaption value of 1.0926 correctly. For example Premiere uses a wrong value here (most of the NLEs use a wrong value for DV to square pixel adaption).

The only issue with Vegas is - unfortunately - it does not use same value of 787x576 for still image exports. Here Vegas uses 786x576 - one pixel away from what it uses for the import. Noone knows why Vegas still does it this way. Vegas should export it still images right the way it expects the import to be: in 787x576 (for PAL-DV projects).

Marco
Dragonfly wrote on 5/24/2004, 4:20 PM
Ok I got it, I was wrong.
In fact I just had to understand that a 4/3 image in DV is a little wider than 4/3... due to ITU standardisation, etc.
The site of the BBC is clear for me.

Sony/Sonic was right!

But they still need to adapt the simulate aspect ratio in function of the resolution of the screen we choose in Windows. ;-)