VCD overscan seems greater than original VHS. Why?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hi, I have just started to get into digital video. I am converting
some programmes from VHS to VCD. When I watch the resultant VCD on my
computer, the video frame seems the same as the original VHS input.
However, when I watch the VCD on my television, it seems there is more
'overscan' than the on the original VHS.

What I mean is this: the image on the VCD seems "blown up" more than on
the original VHS, so that more of the top, bottom and sides of the
picture are "off-screen" as compared with the original. I.e. things
that I normally could see on the edges of the picture in the VHS copy
are now just off the screen in the VCD.

However, I am sure that no cropping has taken place, because when the
DAT files are viewed on a computer, you can see the same frame as on
the original VHS.

The only hypothesis I can come up with is that my DVD player sends a
"wider" and "taller" picture to the television than my VHS did, meaning
greater over-scan margins.

Is this normal and is there anyway to overcome this so more of the
original image is viewable (preferably in the capturing or encoding
stage rather than playing with my TV)?
Thanks,
Brent
woodenflutes@yahoo.ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

woodenflutes wrote ...
> Hi, I have just started to get into digital video. I am converting
> some programmes from VHS to VCD. When I watch the resultant
> VCD on my computer, the video frame seems the same as the original
> VHS input. However, when I watch the VCD on my television, it
> seems there is more 'overscan' than the on the original VHS.

It has nothing to do with VHS or VCD. All CRT televisions have
varying degrees of overscan. You will see this effect with any
program material. Take a commercial DVD and carefully note
how much of the frame you see on your computer, and then on
your television.

Look up "safe action area" and "safe title area" in additon to
"overscan" for further information.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Owamanga" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>
>>woodenflutes wrote ...
>>> Hi, I have just started to get into digital video. I am converting
>>> some programmes from VHS to VCD. When I watch the resultant
>>> VCD on my computer, the video frame seems the same as the original
>>> VHS input. However, when I watch the VCD on my television, it
>>> seems there is more 'overscan' than the on the original VHS.
>>
>>It has nothing to do with VHS or VCD. All CRT televisions have
>>varying degrees of overscan. You will see this effect with any
>>program material. Take a commercial DVD and carefully note
>>how much of the frame you see on your computer, and then on
>>your television.
>>
>>Look up "safe action area" and "safe title area" in additon to
>>"overscan" for further information.
>
> He's not asking what overscan is, he's complaining that it got worse.

It didn't "get worse". Woodenflutes is comparing apples (computer
monitor) with oranges (TV set).

> What happened here is the capture device is capturing already
> overscanned video (in fact, it's doing the overscan itself, so the
> edges are clean when displayed on the computer monitor).

The video frame contains what the video frame contains. Overscan
is a function of how it is viewed, not how it is shot, recorded, or
captured.

I've never seen such "clean edges" on any video I've ever shot
and captured on any computer I've ever used. I would return as
defective any capture equipment that did such an arbitrary thing
to my video.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I understand what both of you are saying. I thing Owamanga's answer to
my question is actually pretty much what I wanted to know (although
Richard disputes whether his information is accurate or not). It would
be interesting to know whether or not I am indeed getting the full NTSC
signal (with the extra junk on the borders, etc.) captured. The
borders of the captured video are "clean"....the only noisy edge might
be at the bottom of the frame (the bottom four or five raster lines)
which show some junk. I usually mask (not crop) that out when I render
the AVI to MPEG with TMPGEnc. Should I indeed see more "junk edges"???

Does TMPGEnc or VirtualDub allow the adding of extra "dummy" lines of
resolution to the edges of a captured video, so that these added lines
will fill my TV's overscan area, instead of the video?

Hmmm....what Owamanga says makes sense....I wonder what is really
happening here.

My capture hardware is a WINNOV VIDEUM AV pci card. VHS is connected
to Composite input on the card. Capturing with VirtualDub. Capture
resolution is 352x240 or sometimes 352x480 and then resized.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Yes, but I guess my point was: If I view the the original VHS material
and the VCD copy on the SAME television, freeze frame on the same
event, then do an A / B comparison of the frame, more of the frame will
be visible on the VHS original than on the VCD. The latter image
appears to be "blown up" about 10 to 15 percent.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm not sure what driver and chip the WINNOV VIDEUM AV card uses. It
is older hardware (1998-99) and uses custom chips and a custom driver
(it works will all the major video applications though).

The video it DOES capture is of good quality. However, I am beginning
to suspect that you are right, the card itself is cropping the video
somehow, upon capture. This card was originally manufactured as a
high-end videoconferencing card (primary function) and for capturing
video for multimedia presentations, not for DVD or VCD authoring. That
may suggest that the original designers decided to build this
edge-cropping "feature" into the card itself. I hope there is some way
to over-ride that.

If not, is there some easy way to put back the missing lines of
resolution? Can you suggest a particular piece of software?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks. That was very helpful. I definitely don't see any of the
closed caption data you mention, or the rough edges on the sides (and i
have seen this before - when the vertical hold is off on a TV - so I
know what to look for). I don't think setting my capture card to a
horizontal (width) resolution of 368 (352 plus 368) will capture those
lines, as my card doesn't even seem to want to acknowdedg they are
there (but I will try). But I think that adding 8 black dummy lines to
each side with TMPEG will do the trick (if I can figure out how to do
that). THANK YOU!

But this still doesn't totally account for the missing data on the top
and bottom edges. However I will have to experiment with adding some
dummy lines there.

Brent

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks. That was very helpful. I definitely don't see any of the
closed caption data you mention, or the rough edges on the sides (and i
have seen this before - when the vertical hold is off on a TV - so I
know what to look for). I don't think setting my capture card to a
horizontal (width) resolution of 368 (352 plus 368) will capture those
lines, as my card doesn't even seem to want to acknowdedg they are
there (but I will try). But I think that adding 8 black dummy lines to
each side with TMPEG will do the trick (if I can figure out how to do
that). THANK YOU!

But this still doesn't totally account for the missing data on the top
and bottom edges. However I will have to experiment with adding some
dummy lines there.

Brent

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hi, thanks for the tips. But I'm not sure if I actually want TMPEG to
*output* an MPEG with a horizontal resolution of 368 pixels. That
would, in essence, create a non-standard VCD (XVCD) that might not play
on some DVD players. (VCD resolution is supposed to be 352x240).

Instead what I was hoping for was an application that would allow me to
add these extra 16 dummy lines to the sides of the AVI source BEFORE it
went through the MPEG encoding process. TMPEG would then resize the
368x240 AVI (with the extra black lines) to 352x240, and would
"squeeze" the actual picture area vertically, making it visible on the
viewable area of a TV set.

I hope I am being clear. Maybe what you were proposing would do this,
and I simply misunderstood.

Brent

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Okay, gotcha! Yes I did know that TMPEG was an all-in-one AVI --->
process ---> MPEG program. I didn't realise that when it was adding
the black bars, it could also re-scale the image. Yes, you are right,
that's exactly what I want to do - rescale the image and have black
bars on the side (which will be hidden in the overscan area).

I noted your capture resolution suggestions: would 336x480 also be
valid? There are many suggestions out there to capture VHS with 480
horizontal lines - and it seems to be an improvement.

Why do you suggest a vertical resolution of 336? Yes I realise that
352 minus 16 is 336, but wouldn't an image captured in 352 reduced to
336 by TMPEG while scaling look better than a lower resolution image?

Ahhh. I think I understand, since the "picture area" is going to end up
at 336 anyway, there is less artifacting from having to scale the image
(essentially no scaling).

Brent

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Oh, I just thought of something: Won't this whole overscan issue with
4:3 material be moot in a few years when we have all converted to 16:9
ratio televisions?

In future, when I will watch my VCDs on at 16:9 television, it will
appear in the centre of the 16:9 display and won't suffer from overscan
problems....so maybe it is best NOT to compensate for 4:3 overscan
problems now, because that will look worse in the future on 16:9 sets
when 4:3 sets are a thing of the past. Holy smokes!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Good points. I was indeed thinking that future 16:9 tv's would have to
do some sort of overscan cropping. Right now, due to computer
limitations and money limitations, I am not able to burn to DVD.
However, I am only putting non-critical stuff on VCD (TV shows, etc.)
and saving the important stuff (family videos, etc.) for future
transfer to DVD.

By the way, thanks for all your help! Seems like I've got that
overscan problem solved, now (at least in thoery).

Brent

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:28:25 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>"Owamanga" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>
>>>woodenflutes wrote ...
>>>> Hi, I have just started to get into digital video. I am converting
>>>> some programmes from VHS to VCD. When I watch the resultant
>>>> VCD on my computer, the video frame seems the same as the original
>>>> VHS input. However, when I watch the VCD on my television, it
>>>> seems there is more 'overscan' than the on the original VHS.
>>>
>>>It has nothing to do with VHS or VCD. All CRT televisions have
>>>varying degrees of overscan. You will see this effect with any
>>>program material. Take a commercial DVD and carefully note
>>>how much of the frame you see on your computer, and then on
>>>your television.
>>>
>>>Look up "safe action area" and "safe title area" in additon to
>>>"overscan" for further information.
>>
>> He's not asking what overscan is, he's complaining that it got worse.
>
>It didn't "get worse". Woodenflutes is comparing apples (computer
>monitor) with oranges (TV set).

Agreed he isn't too clear on that but I'd bet he's actually comparing
VHS on TV vs the resultant VCD on TV, otherwise, you are right, he'd
have nothing to complain about.

>> What happened here is the capture device is capturing already
>> overscanned video (in fact, it's doing the overscan itself, so the
>> edges are clean when displayed on the computer monitor).
>
>The video frame contains what the video frame contains. Overscan
>is a function of how it is viewed, not how it is shot, recorded, or
>captured.

The capture hardware/software combo is cropping the image to give it
clean edges.

>I've never seen such "clean edges" on any video I've ever shot
>and captured on any computer I've ever used. I would return as
>defective any capture equipment that did such an arbitrary thing
>to my video.

This is very common on cheap cards because the designers have the
mistaken idea that the playback device is going to be a PC. Most
people who wanted to watch something on their PC would find the first
20 lines were little white blocks jumping about to be VERY
distracting. (okay, those white blocks aren't there for home-videos
but then the capture cards I am talking about promise to be TV cards
too....)

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 17 Dec 2004 09:01:27 -0800, woodenflutes@yahoo.ca wrote:

>I understand what both of you are saying. I thing Owamanga's answer to
>my question is actually pretty much what I wanted to know (although
>Richard disputes whether his information is accurate or not).

Richard is wrong:

The link below describes the phenomenon of 'capture window'.
http://www.arachnotron.nl/videocap/site/capture_area2.html

The link below describes a common 16 pixel total crop on horizontal
edges of capture cards:
http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/video1.htm

Each card is different, Richard may just have not noticed it on his
hardware, or, more-likely, he has better hardware.

>It would
>be interesting to know whether or not I am indeed getting the full NTSC
>signal (with the extra junk on the borders, etc.) captured. The
>borders of the captured video are "clean"....the only noisy edge might
>be at the bottom of the frame (the bottom four or five raster lines)
>which show some junk. I usually mask (not crop) that out when I render
>the AVI to MPEG with TMPGEnc. Should I indeed see more "junk edges"???

It must depend on the camera and then video used, but I heavily
suspect that if they are sharp then they've been cropped.

Here's the best I can describe an uncropped image *broadcast* TV
image: The sides are usually bent somewhat, and definitely rough
looking. The bottom raster line is usually only half complete, the top
15-20 lines are full of black and white blocks (closed caption data).
You might want to try a capture of some broadcast material to see if
you can identify this data in the capture.

>Does TMPGEnc or VirtualDub allow the adding of extra "dummy" lines of
>resolution to the edges of a captured video, so that these added lines
>will fill my TV's overscan area, instead of the video?

Yes. TMPGEnc will do this. I remember doing it last year ago, I don't
remember the details though.

>Hmmm....what Owamanga says makes sense....

Of course.

>I wonder what is really happening here.
>
>My capture hardware is a WINNOV VIDEUM AV pci card. VHS is connected
>to Composite input on the card. Capturing with VirtualDub. Capture
>resolution is 352x240 or sometimes 352x480 and then resized.

Ah! That's the key: 352 x 2 = 704, but NTSC is 720 pixels wide, so 16
pixels got dumped, and that was your overscan.

Put 8 back either side, and try that.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<woodenflutes@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1103303788.107671.158690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not sure what driver and chip the WINNOV VIDEUM AV card uses. It
> is older hardware (1998-99) and uses custom chips and a custom driver
> (it works will all the major video applications though).
>
> The video it DOES capture is of good quality. However, I am beginning
> to suspect that you are right, the card itself is cropping the video
> somehow, upon capture. This card was originally manufactured as a
> high-end videoconferencing card (primary function) and for capturing
> video for multimedia presentations, not for DVD or VCD authoring. That
> may suggest that the original designers decided to build this
> edge-cropping "feature" into the card itself. I hope there is some way
> to over-ride that.
>
> If not, is there some easy way to put back the missing lines of
> resolution? Can you suggest a particular piece of software?

Your description of the problem seems a bit odd. We've previously had
discussions about capture card cropping and resolution issues. For example
it appears that a previous card in question captured 704 (approx) in the
horizontal and stretched to 720. There are only about 710 pixels of actual
picture at a sample clock of 13.5Mhz (std for Philips decoders). So the
edge garbage is removed by this technique (for PC viewing), but you get a
small error in aspect ratio and a bit of loss of picture.

However, you also said that the picture was stretched in the vertical. This
would be unusual because it would mean that your capture card is unable to
handle properly capturing interlaced video. I doubt that your card is
scaling and cropping in the vertical dimension.

Your first hypothesis about the DVD stretching VCD may be right. The VCD
has a horz dimension of 352 and the DVD player may be effectively stretching
it to 360. Not sure about this as I don't mess with VCD. Also since VCD
isn't interlaced the DVD player may be stretching in the vertical as well.
Most DVD players have scaling functionality built-in so it isn't a stretch
(pun intended) to think that it is scaling the video.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> "Owamanga" wrote ...
> > "Richard Crowley" wrote:
> >
> >>woodenflutes wrote ...
> >>> Hi, I have just started to get into digital video. I am converting
> >>> some programmes from VHS to VCD. When I watch the resultant
> >>> VCD on my computer, the video frame seems the same as the original
> >>> VHS input. However, when I watch the VCD on my television, it
> >>> seems there is more 'overscan' than the on the original VHS.
> >>
> >>It has nothing to do with VHS or VCD. All CRT televisions have
> >>varying degrees of overscan. You will see this effect with any
> >>program material. Take a commercial DVD and carefully note
> >>how much of the frame you see on your computer, and then on
> >>your television.
> >>
> >>Look up "safe action area" and "safe title area" in additon to
> >>"overscan" for further information.
> >
> > He's not asking what overscan is, he's complaining that it got worse.
>
> It didn't "get worse". Woodenflutes is comparing apples (computer
> monitor) with oranges (TV set).

He's playing his vcd on his tv:

"However, when I watch the VCD on my television, it
seems there is more 'overscan' than the on the original VHS."

Ie, he sees less picture in the latter case. Probably because his
capture device capped less than 52 µs for pal or less than
52.6555 µs for ntsc. Which means that a part of the active picture
is cropped of, resulting in less picture.

> > What happened here is the capture device is capturing already
> > overscanned video

Like Richard says "Overscan is a function of how it is viewed".
But you corrected yourself below:

> > (in fact, it's doing the overscan itself, so the

That's possible sometimes, see ■ (depends on the capture chip/driver).

> > edges are clean when displayed on the computer monitor).

No, that can't be the case here. There exists cap devices which cap
53.333 µs of info ■ for example (thus adding black borders), but in
that
case you will have *less* overscan, not more, because you will see
more non-black picture on your tv.

I hope it's clear what I mean. The overscan of your tv is now black
image (resulting from the 53.333-52.*) instead of picture from your
original broadcast. The whole picture from your original broadcast
is visible on tv.

> The video frame contains what the video frame contains. Overscan
> is a function of how it is viewed, not how it is shot, recorded, or
> captured.

Not entirely true [*} (a cap device can add black borders to your cap).

@Brend,

What driver and chip do you use for capping?

Wilbert

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 17 Dec 2004 09:30:29 -0800, woodenflutes@yahoo.ca wrote:

>Thanks. That was very helpful. I definitely don't see any of the
>closed caption data you mention, or the rough edges on the sides (and i
>have seen this before - when the vertical hold is off on a TV - so I
>know what to look for). I don't think setting my capture card to a
>horizontal (width) resolution of 368 (352 plus 368) will capture those
>lines, as my card doesn't even seem to want to acknowdedg they are
>there (but I will try). But I think that adding 8 black dummy lines to
>each side with TMPEG will do the trick (if I can figure out how to do
>that). THANK YOU!
>
>But this still doesn't totally account for the missing data on the top
>and bottom edges. However I will have to experiment with adding some
>dummy lines there.
>
>Brent

Okay I can see possibly two ways of doing this in TMPGEng, but one or
neither may end up working

Try 1:
Hit the Setting button. You'll need to 'unlock' the TMPGenc settings
(on later releases, just click on the label next to the field, earlier
ones need you to import a special unlock parameter file). Hit the
setting button and under advanced tab, set video arrange method to
'Center'. Set the output width to 360.

Try2:
Hit the 'Setting' button and double click on 'Clip Frame' under the
advanced tab. Hit the 'Arrange Setting' and play with that.

I'm not an expert on this software, but I am sure I've done this
before.... just can't remember the details.

Not much help I know, but maybe a start.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 17 Dec 2004 11:29:05 -0800, woodenflutes@yahoo.ca wrote:

>Hi, thanks for the tips. But I'm not sure if I actually want TMPEG to
>*output* an MPEG with a horizontal resolution of 368 pixels. That
>would, in essence, create a non-standard VCD (XVCD) that might not play
>on some DVD players. (VCD resolution is supposed to be 352x240).

Agreed, TMPEG in this case must only ever output 352x240.

>Instead what I was hoping for was an application that would allow me to
>add these extra 16 dummy lines to the sides of the AVI source BEFORE it
>went through the MPEG encoding process.

...you do realize that TMPEng can work with the AVI source, what's your
problem? It'll do whatever scaling, color processing etc you need and
make you your VCD MPEG.

>TMPEG would then resize the
>368x240 AVI (with the extra black lines) to 352x240, and would
>"squeeze" the actual picture area vertically, making it visible on the
>viewable area of a TV set.

I don't understand, this can all be done in one step with TMPEng.

AVI -> TMPEng -> VCD compliant MPEG

>I hope I am being clear. Maybe what you were proposing would do this,
>and I simply misunderstood.

No, I fully understand your potential problem. The post-capture
content you have to work with is already 352x240? right?

...and you need it at 352x240 for the VCD, so the only option is for
TMPEng to scale the source slightly to say 336x240, center it and
output 352x240 (now with black lines down either side). There will be
some quality loss no doubt.

Either get it captured at 336x240 if you can, or go for 504x480 or
504x240 and let TMPEng scale it from there which won't be so bad as
scaling from 352x240.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 17 Dec 2004 12:15:30 -0800, woodenflutes@yahoo.ca wrote:

>Oh, I just thought of something: Won't this whole overscan issue with
>4:3 material be moot in a few years when we have all converted to 16:9
>ratio televisions?
>
>In future, when I will watch my VCDs on at 16:9 television, it will
>appear in the centre of the 16:9 display and won't suffer from overscan
>problems....so maybe it is best NOT to compensate for 4:3 overscan
>problems now, because that will look worse in the future on 16:9 sets
>when 4:3 sets are a thing of the past. Holy smokes!

Firstly, you'll be pissed that you didn't author them as DVDs instead
of VCDs. Shelf life of the CDR medium is a problem. It's very easy to
damage a CDR in day-to-day use and the dye will break down with time.
How long you have depends on that particular batch of CDR's and how
safe you keep them.

DVDR has two polymer layers, importantly one above the data layer,
between the data and the top label. This is missing on CDR.
Oxidization is going to be much slower on DVDR and accidental
scratching is next to impossible. Also, with future equipment it
stands a better chance of being recognized as a standard than VCD will
be.

Another reason is the resolution advantage DVD has over VCD.

Secondly, overscan is done for a reason - the source is messy along
the edges. Future 16:9 playback devices will have to artificially crop
them off (just like your capture card did) (actually, it's more of a
letterboxing function) to make it look clean again. So you can safely
put the overscan back-in today so it can be cropped away again in the
future.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 17 Dec 2004 12:08:03 -0800, woodenflutes@yahoo.ca wrote:

>Okay, gotcha! Yes I did know that TMPEG was an all-in-one AVI --->
>process ---> MPEG program. I didn't realise that when it was adding
>the black bars, it could also re-scale the image. Yes, you are right,
>that's exactly what I want to do - rescale the image and have black
>bars on the side (which will be hidden in the overscan area).

Yep.

>I noted your capture resolution suggestions: would 336x480 also be
>valid? There are many suggestions out there to capture VHS with 480
>horizontal lines - and it seems to be an improvement.

Higher is better, if you can afford the temporary disk space and the
hardware can keep up without dropping frames.

>Why do you suggest a vertical resolution of 336? Yes I realise that
>352 minus 16 is 336, but wouldn't an image captured in 352 reduced to
>336 by TMPEG while scaling look better than a lower resolution image?

No. Reducing 352 to 336 is around a 5% reduction. So for every 20
pixels of source, I need to make 19 pixels. But I won't just dump
every 20th and keep 19 clean pixels, I'll re-create 19 new (muddy)
pixels from various percentages of the original 20. It's not the best
way.

Magic number resizes are best (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64 etc),
and if we must do it, the original should be at least twice the size
of the destination.

>Ahhh. I think I understand, since the "picture area" is going to end up
>at 336 anyway, there is less artifacting from having to scale the image
>(essentially no scaling).

Yes, you got it. Let the capture hardware give us it natively at the
resolution we need. (If it supports that resolution of course).

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 17 Dec 2004 13:10:03 -0800, woodenflutes@yahoo.ca wrote:

>Good points. I was indeed thinking that future 16:9 tv's would have to
>do some sort of overscan cropping. Right now, due to computer
>limitations and money limitations, I am not able to burn to DVD.
>However, I am only putting non-critical stuff on VCD (TV shows, etc.)
>and saving the important stuff (family videos, etc.) for future
>transfer to DVD.

Ow, come on... DVD writers are $60 now, and they are *fast*.

DVD-R media is down to 30c per disk.

The only thing you have to supply is hard-disk space.

Christmas is coming... what are you waiting for?

>By the way, thanks for all your help! Seems like I've got that
>overscan problem solved, now (at least in thoery).

Well, in a few days, with a lot of patience and a bit of luck you'll
actually have done this. Good luck.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 17 Dec 2004 09:01:27 -0800, woodenflutes@yahoo.ca wrote:

>Does TMPGEnc or VirtualDub allow the adding of extra "dummy" lines of
>resolution to the edges of a captured video

After having suffered the same problem, I have been doing that
regularly with VirtualDub. In the "Video" menu, set "Full processing
mode", then select "Filters" and add the "Resize" filter. In its
configuration, leave "new width" and "new height" exactly as they are
in the clip you start with. Check "Expand frame and letterbox image",
and put your new resolution. For instance, if you have a 320x240 clip,
put

New width: 320
New Height: 240
Frame width: 352
Frame height: 240

The result is a frame with 32 additional "pixels" of the chosen "Fill
color".

Te following should be taken into account:

- When the final target is mpeg, it would be wise to use Huffyuv as
the compressor, avoiding any additional degradation.

- Check the needs of your codec. Some require height and width to be
divisible by 2, or 4, or 16, or at least work more efficiently with
those resolutions.