The "how to screenshot/review" thread...

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 13 Oct 2006, 08:08

... seems to indicate that the only way to get "decent" screen shots is by using the commercial software PowerDVD.

Now I ask, why? There are many opensource/free softwares out there that can easily outperform PowerDVD in respects to screenshotting, and I for one don't trust PowerDVD to represent what's actually ON the disc at all. It has way to many "features" (bugs?) to "enhance" (diffuse?) the picture so that it looks more "vivid and pleasing" (nasty and ugly?)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Oct 2006, 17:07

Does it? Tom's wrong then

. I use Media Player Classic myself.

EDIT: Where does it say that? It merely says what the best settings are if you do.

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 15 Oct 2006, 11:53

Well, I didn't say it said you had to use PowerDVD. But it "seems to indicate that the only way to get "decent" screen shots is by using the commercial software PowerDVD".

Your very first post there gives "details" on how to setup powerdvd. Wouldn't it be much better to have a link to mpc, and tell folks how to use that nice piece of software instead?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Oct 2006, 14:45

gojensen wrote:Well, I didn't say it said you had to use PowerDVD. But it "seems to indicate that the only way to get "decent" screen shots is by using the commercial software PowerDVD".

It doesn't to me.

gojensen wrote:Your very first post there gives "details" on how to setup powerdvd. Wouldn't it be much better to have a link to mpc, and tell folks how to use that nice piece of software instead?

That's only because PowerDVD is the most popular here and up until Tom beefed the thread up that's all it's purpose was.

By all means do an MPC one and we can that in. There's not much to change in MPC. I just set the Video overlay to NULL Uncompressed.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 15 Oct 2006, 14:57

seems to indicate that the only way to get "decent" screen shots is by using the commercial software PowerDVD

Nope. I've never said PowerDVD is the only choice.
I've posted optimal settings for it because I use it, that's all.

You know what ?
I'm gonna make a PowerDVD vs VLC vs MPC vs VirtualDub comparison.

Then we'll know.

@Gojensen:
Maybe it's the title of the thread that's bothering you ?
"How to make a proper DVD comparison"

What can I change it to ?

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 16 Oct 2006, 09:08

Hm, just mention more than PowerDVD in the first post Bradavon.

The thread is titled "How to make a proper DVD comparison" and opens with "optimal PowerDVD settings"... which to me reads like, you must have PowerDVD to make a proper DVD comparison

And I have no doubt that your results of the PDVD/VLC/MPC/VDUB thingy is accurate, if said optimal settings are used - but I've seen so many garbage screenshots from PowerDVD users that I'd prefer to avoid it

(Besides all 3 other options are freely available and less bloated software).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Oct 2006, 17:37

Are you sure PowerDVD is freeware?

The thread is titled "How to make a proper DVD comparison" and opens with "optimal PowerDVD settings"... which to me reads like, you must have PowerDVD to make a proper DVD comparison

It's historical, the title has only recently been changed.

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 17 Oct 2006, 07:24

Erm. I'm sure PowerDVD is NOT freeware.

I believe I said

gojensen wrote:Besides all 3 other options are freely available and less bloated software

Meaning VLC, MPC and VirtualDUB

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 Oct 2006, 07:35

gojensen wrote:Erm. I'm sure PowerDVD is NOT freeware.

It may as well be though...

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 21 Oct 2006, 18:11

Uhm something just occured to me...

720/X = 16/9

720 = 16*X/9

720*9 = 16*X

(720*9)/16 = X

X = 405

I.e. widescreen (16:9) should be presented as 720x405. Where did the last pixel line go???

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 21 Oct 2006, 23:41

Well that's what we're using anyway? Most people are using 720x404, so pretty close.

I don't get your equation but am shit at Maths anyway.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 22 Oct 2006, 00:28

Oh noes, we've been doing screen caps missing 1 pixel, ALL OUR MONTHS OF HARD WORK GONE!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!1

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 22 Oct 2006, 08:31

Yeah well. Tom made a "deal" about my screens not being in the correct aspect ratio... if he's doing 720x404 his ain't either

After getting some sleep I'm guessing the 404 comes from the fact that "ripper" software likes to operate in multiples of 2... usually in 16 or 32 pixel advancement - and wouldn't allow anyone to select 405. Thus a 16x9 fullframe XviD would be 720x404.

But, to be precisely correct - it should be 720x405.

And Brad, my math was just to find the height of the picture if I knew the width and that it was a 16:9 ratio between them. So,
to find the height: (720*9)/16 = 405
to find the width: (405*16)/9 = 720...
so if say I wanted pix that were 640 wide... (640*9)/16 = 360 pixels height...

And Eva... are you like... Romero Jr? 8)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Oct 2006, 14:54

gojensen wrote:Yeah well. Tom made a "deal" about my screens not being in the correct aspect ratio... if he's doing 720x404 his ain't either

Weren't yours completely out though?

gojensen wrote:After getting some sleep I'm guessing the 404 comes from the fact that "ripper" software likes to operate in multiples of 2... usually in 16 or 32 pixel advancement - and wouldn't allow anyone to select 405. Thus a 16x9 fullframe XviD would be 720x404.

But, to be precisely correct - it should be 720x405.

MPC rips at 720x480 or 720x576 and I resize in Corel Photo-Paint unticking "keep aspect ratio" so could easily make it 720x405.

gojensen wrote:And Eva... are you like... Romero Jr? 8)

He can be

(with less tact and more blunt)

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 22 Oct 2006, 17:21

Romero? Tact? :mrgreen:

Personally (as I said in the BotW thread) I prefer unresized images. I personally think resizing "fixes" too many minor image defects...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Oct 2006, 18:31

gojensen wrote:Personally (as I said in the BotW thread) I prefer unresized images. I personally think resizing "fixes" too many minor image defects...

No ones stopping you doing both:

1. Resized on screen.
2. Original in links.