Le nonidi 29 nivôse, an CCXXIII, Philip Langdale a écrit : > Right. And it's obviously wrong if you consider that trying to encode > any square pixel content at this size results in non-square output. > > I'd also argue that bt.601 semantics come into play when you're > authoring the DVD, and any transcoding you do after that should > preserve the input characteristics - and that means the encoded SAR is > based on a 720 pixel width. Why on earth my transcoded file should have > a different SAR from the original when doing a digital->digital > conversion is beyond me.
I believe part of Kieran's point is: you do not encode to anamorphic 720×576 unless you are actually authoring a DVD, and in that case it should conform to BT.601. This makes sense: if you are starting with nice square pixels from HD contents, why on Earth would you stretch them to an absurd resolution? On the other hand, if you are authoring a DVD, you are encoding to MPEG-2, not H.264, and therefore you are not using nvenc, so this is still absurd. And of course, the fact that is behaves differently than every single other encoder makes it a braindead design, even if the result is, in some regards, considered correct. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel