960x540 letter boxing issue?

I'm playing a 960x540 file but when I move to full screen on my iMac screen I get letter boxing? This also happens when I play the same file through a WD media player with 1080i output to an LCD widescreen tv.

Any ideas where I'm going wrong and why there is letter boxing?

This is normal in cases where the video's aspect ratio is different than the aspect ratio of the playing device and your device/player is set to maintain the video's original aspect ratio. I.e., a 16:9 aspect video displayed on a 4:3 aspect device would be letterboxed while a 4:3 aspect video displayed on a 16:9 device would be pillared. If your files are being displayed with both letter boxing and pillaring or are distorted, then check the playback device for options that might be causing the display problem.

I think I get that but my Mac Pro screen and Hantarex screens are 16:9 devices right?

I have no way of knowing what settings you are using. My iMac, for instance, has one default (2560x1440) setting with four additional basic options (1920x1080, 1600x900, 1344x756, and 1280x720), as well as, an additional set of six advanced optional settings (1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1600x1200, 1280x1024, 1280x720, and 1024x768) that provide display aspect ratios of 1.25:1 (5:4), 1.33:1 (4:3), 1.60:1 (8:5), and 1.78:1 (16:9). Since, I'm not familiar with the Hantarex product line, what specific device you are using, whether it is CRT or digital based, its built in display options if any, or how you're playing/interfacing playback of your video with the device, it is not possible to diagnose a specific issue with the information provided. Therefore, my previous response was mostly a restatement of the most frequent causes of an issue and their generic solutions.

And I set them media device to out 1080 16:9, not 4:3.

The issue has three parts. The first is how the original file is encoded, the second is how you are outputting or playing the video and the third is how you are telling the display device to display it. The "Inspector" image provided in your original post serves to eliminate the possibility of anamorphic playback issues but does not indicate what the aspect ratio of the original file might have been. Since you indicate display devices are set (or probably set) correctly for widescreen (16:9) aspect playback, you should probably concentrate your efforts in determining the "actual" aspect ratio of the original content, how you encoded your 960x540 version of the file, and/or your method of playing back the 960x540 file you created.

For instance, common widescreen movie aspect ratios like 1.85:1, 2.35:1, and 2.40:1 are always released on BD as letterboxed content in a 16:19 background. Proper encoding of such content, with or without cropping the background, will preserve the correct aspect ratio of the original movie during proper playback and will preserve this "letterboxing" of content just as it plays directly from the optical media in any 16:9 player/display device. Therefore. you should post an image of the QT Player display along with the image of the QT "Inspector" window in order to determine if a file is anamorphic or non-anamorphic, playing back with or without scaling, and judge whether or not the display is being distorted. In short, all device settings and displays may be working correctly here but the "active" portion of your source content may not, itself, actually have been 16:9 in the first place.

On the other hand, if the output is distorted within the letterbox area, then you may want to post additional information regarding the display device and the interface being use to connect the player to the display device. For instance, analog displays/interfaces may correctly display the height of your video content but display the width at the full width of the display device no matter what setting is used or how the file was encoded and thus be displaying at an incorrect aspect ratio.

This is the bit I'm confused by but I think I'm missing something fundamental...

Not knowing your level of expertise here, it is sometimes difficult to judge how to respond to various posts. If the response is overly simplistic, the responder is often accused of "talking down" to the original poster. If it targets an advanced user who is assumed to be familiar with the topic, then the responder is often accused of "talking over the head" of the original poster. This is where the information you provide can be of the greatest use. If it is detailed and comprehensive, then most people would assume you are familiar with topic, terminology, and facets of the main issue. If not, then more information may be needed to pinpoint a specific issue and solve it. Without more information to the contrary, at this point it sounds as if your equipment may be working correctly but the "active" area of your content may not actually have a 16:9 aspect ratio. If you feel otherwise, then please provide more specific information regarding the aspect ratio of your source content before encoding, specific workflow used to encode the file data, whether or not the current display of content appears distorted, and/or device/display models being used along with their operating modes/settings and interfaces.

The Hantarex is an LCD monitor with a native resolution of 1920x1080 connected to the WD media player via HDMI.

This information implies that either your monitor and player are working correctly and the file was encoded properly (if the displayed aspect of the content is correct) or the the monitor is most likely working correctly and either the playing device is not working correctly or the file was improperly encoded (if the displayed aspect of the content is incorrect. Since you have not provided an image of how the displayed content actually looks, it is impossible to say which is the case here. So lets try to work the problem from the opposite direction. Instead of me analyzing an image of what you are seeing, I'll post some images and you can determine whether or not you have a problem.

Above is what your monitor screen should look like without any displayer content.

Above is what a 1.78:1 (16:9) video should look like when playing correctly on your monitor.

Above is what a properly encoded 1.85:1 aspect video looks like.

Above is what the 1.85:1 video should look like when properly displayed on your monitor.

Above is what the 1.85:1 video would look like if improperly encoded to fill your monitor screen.

Above is what a properly encoded 2.35:1 aspect video looks like.

Above is what the 2.35:1 video should look like when properly displayed on your monitor.

Above is what the 2.35:1 video would look like if improperly encoded to fill your monitor screen.

Above is what a properly encoded 2.40:1 aspect video looks like.

Above is what the 2.40:1 video should look like when properly displayed on your monitor.

Above is what the 2.40:1 video would look like if improperly encoded to fill your monitor screen.

Had you posted an image of how your file actually plays on your computer monitor and confirmed what display setting it was using (i.e., not just its "native resolution"), then it would have been a simple matter to calculate the actual aspect ratio of the content being displayed and likely determine if there was any obvious distortion of the displayed content. Since you did not provide an image or post a sample video to analyze on my system, I'll leave it you to determine which image above best matches your particular display situation.

If on the inspector is details the file as being 960x540 (1.77:1) does that mean the original file was probably 2.35:1 and coded to a 16:9 format hence the letter box effect in full screen?

This is where things can quickly become confusing. You will note in your "Inspector" image that there are actually three "dimension" entries.

1. The "Format" dimensions refer to the resolution at which the file was encoded. In this case as a non-anamorphic 960x540 matrix.
2. The "Normal Size" refers to the display dimensions at which the file normally opens a player window. Usually it is the same size as the non-anamorphic encoding dimensions or the parenthetical dimensions stated in the "Format" entry for an anamorphic encoded file. However, it can also be scaled to dimensions as modified by a user and may or may not have the same aspect ratio as the encoded "Format" dimensions.
3. The "Current Size" refers to the current display dimensions whether scaled or unscaled with respect to the "Normal Size" or embedded aspect ratio value.
4. The latter two settings are used by QT 7 based players which ignore aspect ratio settings for display while QT X based players use display sizes based on the embedded aspect ratio value and ignore the size values when display results differ. (I.e., if you want files to play properly in all apps, you should always ensure both size and aspect values produce the same display result.)

If your question refers to the "Format" entry and the player display contains 960x408 video content letterbox displayed in a 960x540 QT "player" window with people and objects undistorted, then "Yes," it is entirely possible that the original video content was 2.35:1 and the "letterbox" effect is a normal consequence of preserving the original video recording.

Basically, there are two ways to preserve the original video aspect ratio when it is not the same as the encode aspect ratio but is to be shown on a 16:9 display. The first is to overlay the original video at its original aspect ratio on a 16:9 background and then encode the video content, along with its background, as a 16:9 video. This is what the "Preserve Aspect Ratio" option in QT 7 Pro does automatically. E.g., the file is encoded as an actual "Letterboxed" video as seen below:

or

The other way to preserve the correct aspect ratio is to encode encode just the video content at its original aspect ratio but without any background and embed both aspect ratio and display size information in the file. The problem here is that such files may not display correctly if played on analog TVs. However, if they are properly encoded with both playback size and aspect ratio values, such files should play correctly in both legacy and modern media players. The main difference here is that these videos display without the letterbox in player windows (as seen below) but look like letterbox videos when displayed on monitors in the "full" screen mode (as already seen above):

or

There doesn't seem to be any scaling involved, at one point in the video a CD appears and it is perfectly in proportion.

Not sure if you are referring to scaling or distortion here. Distortion occurs when the video content is played back at an incorrect aspect ratio. As can be seen above, when a widescreen (e.g. 2.35:1) aspect video is played back as a 16:9 video, people and objects are displayed taller and skinnier than they should. On the other hand, videos are commonly scaled for display with or without your knowledge. For instance, playing a 960x540 file on your monitor set to play in the 1080p display mode would normally cause the monitor and player to negotiate an upscaling of the 540p content for 1080p playback. If you reset the monitor to limit display to a 480p mode, then the video would be automatically be downscaled from 540p to 480p playback.

I hope this clears things up.

In the player window my file looks like this: (ignore the pillars, this is a particular image in the file that does fill horizontally)

Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 15.02.43.jpg

And in full screen it looks like this

Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 15.04.05.jpg

Thanks for posting images. Unfortunately if they are only representative of your issue and not images of the video content you want analyzed, then I can't really be exact as to aspect ratio calculations for that original problem. I.e., if you mean the first image looks like this in the QT 7 Player,

then your video content would have an aspect ratio of 1.04:1 and would look like the first image you posted above when displayed on a monitor set for 16:9 aspect display (as edited from your 961x540 uploaded image to 960x540) below:

The second image you posted was interesting for two reasons. The first was the fact that the image appears to be a 1920x1200 (8:5 or 1.6:1 aspect ratio) screen capture which, if a full monitor screen capture, means this monitor is NOT set for widescreen 16:9 display as you had previously thought. Secondly, it demonstrates the compounding of display issues when images and monitors have different aspect ratios.

Since the basic image you posted has an aspect ratio of 1.04:1 which is less than 1.78:1, it is displayed with "pillars" when shown on a widescreen (16:9) monitor (as depicted in your first image). And, as previously discussed, one of the older methods of preserving the aspect ratio of video content when it is displayed on a monitor having a different aspect ratio is to encode the source video scaled to fit in a background having the same aspect ratio as the target monitor. Thus, when you viewed your 1.04:1 aspect image pillared within a 1.78:1 background on monitor set for a 1920x1200 resolution (1.60:1 aspect ratio), it was displayed with a letterbox in addition to the pillars—thus compounding the display issue as depicted in your second image below:

In any case, we may be getting further and further away from your original question and whether or not there is really a display issue or not. Basically, if your files play without letterboxing or pillaring in a QT (or third-party) media player and show no distortion of objects, then you can probably assume they are encoded properly. Further, any letterboxing or pillaring on a monitor is normal IF the aspect ratio of the display monitor is different from that of the encoded video content and should be ignored—as long as there is no distortion of people or objects. Finally, if the display is both pillared and letterboxed and/or the people or objects are distorted, then you either have an encoding issue or have a display problem that needs to be addressed.

If you have a widescreen video that is from a commercially produced movie then most of these are in 2.35:1 aspect ration which is wider than most computer monitors including yours. As you said you monitor is a standard FullHD resolution of 1920x1080 which is a 1.77:1 aka. 16:9 aspect ratio.

Therefore a 2.35:1 'movie' shown on a 16:9 monitor or TV should correctly have a letter boxed display i.e. black borders at the top and bottom.

What does not seem to apply in this case is the occasion where a widescreen movie has been 'letter boxed' in a 4:3 frame. This when displayed on a 16:9 monitor can actually result in black borders on all four sides.

Also what does not seem to apply in this case is displaying a standard 16:9 widescreen image on a computer monitor which is actually 16:10 aspect ratio. A lot of older computer monitors including ones built-in to laptops used to be 16:10 and this would mean a 16:9 image should have black borders top and bottom on a 16:10 monitor.

Now a 2.35:1 movie as stored on a DVD or Blu-Ray is actually stored with black borders in the image, so just like the case I mentioned of a widescreen movie being letter boxed in a 4:3 frame resulting in black borders all four sides so can a 2.35:1 movie end up with black borders on all four sides if shown on a 2.35:1 computer monitor.

So a 2.35:1 movie will also be stored as 1920x1080 pixels (or at half resolution 960x540) which is 1.77:1 or 16:9. A true video file of 2.35:1 aspect ratio should in theory be 1269x540 or 2538x1080 pixels.

As a side comment movies i.e. cinema is often 2.35:1 while TV is these days 16:9 and this would include 'made for tv' movies. Old movies and definitely old TV programs would be 4:3. Sadly some commercial DVDs do a really bad job of things, for example the original DVD of Day of the Jackal (1973) is in widescreen but in a 4:3 frame. 😟

Here is an ultra wide aspect ratio computer screen http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-34UM67 while this is listed as a 21:9 ratio monitor that is very very close to 2.35:1

Some software like KodiTV formerly known as XBMC has a 'zoom' option to expand the image to compensate for all these options. So it can zoom a 16:9 image letterboxed in a 4:3 frame such that the image fully fills a 16:9 screen instead of having black borders.

You normally do not want to stretch a 2.35:1 image to fill a 16:9 screen as this will distort the shape of objects.

WGAV wrote:

I think the thing I still don't completely understand is why when the true aspect ratio of the film which when originally coded seems to be 2.35:1, and certainly is displaying like that on a 16:9 screen, does not show a 2.35:1 aspect ratio in the Movie Inspector in QT7? I get that a 2.35:1 file could be saved with letter boxing hard coded and you would expect to see that on a 16:9 screen but that isn't the case with my file.

I did state that 2.35:1 'cinemascope' widescreen movies are stored on DVD and Blu-Ray in a 16:9 frame i.e. with black borders top and bottom.

If you are getting screen image with black borders all four sides simply to display the Finder desktop then this is down to TVs 'underscanning'. This dates way back to CRT displays and the fact CRT screens could not accurately draw in to the corners of the display. If you open System Preferences and go to Displays you may have an option for adjusting under/over scanning.

Again software like KodiTV and Plex have settings for manually adjusting this to play videos.

Like I said in my previous post, ignore the pillars, that was just the one image I chose. In the movie file it fills the width, I just picked that frame as the CD is a round object so good to identify no stretching etc.

Sorry, I thought you meant this:

instead of this:

It's the letterbox that's the issue really. You're right the second screen grab is from a 16:10 screen as I wasn't sure how to screen grab the monitor, i've included a photo of it below, I'm not sure how useful that is.

Grabbing an image or recording video depends on the hardware available. I have both HDMI and Component capture capability at either monitor input or output interfaces. (I.e., they come in handy when making tutorials for our computer group dealing with content originating from non-computer sources such as an TV4, AVR set-up screen, "smart" BD player screen, etc.) However, this isn't really necessary for this discussion. All you need to know is the aspect ratio being used by your monitor for display and the aspect ratio of the video being output by the player device.

These are the basic "Rules of Thumb" here:

1. IF the aspect ratio of the media being played is equal to the display aspect ratio of the monitor, THEN the content completely fills the display screen.
2. IF the aspect ratio of the media being played is greater than the display aspect ratio of the monitor, THEN the content will display as a "letterboxed" content.
3. IF the aspect ratio of the media being played is less than the display aspect ratio of the monitor, THEN the content will display as "pillared" content.

Letter boxing and pillaring of content is a natural result of preserving the aspect ratio of the original content—i.e., displaying the original content without distortion. This is why I kept asking for information concerning your monitors menu settings. Your monitor may have a native (optimum) resolution of 1920x1080 but it also supports widescreen and full screen 480i, 480p, 576i, 576p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p media formats, as well as, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1360x768, and 1920x1080 computer output resolutions. Most digital HD monitors have fixed 16:9 and 4:3 aspect settings but most people use the auto scan mode to allow devices to "negotiate" their best resolution and scaling options to "fit" the source content into the viewing area of the monitor in its current mode without distortion. In addition, they may also offer various other options that "fill" the monitor screen by zooming and cropping the content or by scaling the content in one dimension and, thus, distorting the final display. These settings can, of course, affect how your content is displayed on the monitor.

As to the photo, without knowing the mode the monitor is operating in, it is less than helpful here. In addition, while you have indicated the source media file is an unletterboxed, non-anamorphic 960x540 encode, it remains unclear if the file contains an embedded aspect setting that may conflict with your initial information as depicted in the QT 7 "Inspector" partial image. QUESTION: Do you have a copy of this file available on your computer? (I.e., not something like the file but either the original file or a duplicated copy thereof?) Basically, I want to know if you can open it in the QT X Player. This player displays the video based on an aspect value embedded in the file rather than the encoded, normal, or current dimensions settings used by the QT 7 Player. If so, can/will you do the following?

1. Open the file in the QT X Player.
2. Move the playhead to a suitable location.
3. Move the cursor away from the player window to allow controls to disappear.
4. Press the "Command-Shift-4" shortcut key combination to enter the the "screen snapshot" mode.
5. Press the "Space Bar" to enter the "window snapshot" mode.
6. Move the cursor back to the QT X display window to "select" it as the snapshot target.
7. "Option-Mouse-Click" the QT X Display window to take a snapshot of the media display without the default drop shadow effect.
8. Post a copy of this screen shot image along with a screen image of the QT X "Inspector" window.
9. Confirm monitor display mode setting.

The object of this exercise is to eliminate the possibility that the source file contains any settings that might affect its displayed aspect, as well as, ensure that the monitor itself is not contributing to your issue.