You're right, sorry about the mistake, i was mentionning the "Effects & Filters" menu.
After some investigation about the way you want to use VLC, the only and best way to resize the video as you wish is to force a custom aspect ratio, by editing the configuration file.
This file can be found here :
Windows NT/2000/XP: C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Application Data\vlc\vlcrc
Open the "vlcrc" file with a text editor, and search for the line :
# Custom aspect ratios list (string)
custom-aspect-ratios=
And edit it to your desired ratio (let's say 1500 x 800 as you mentionned in the thread):
# Custom aspect ratios list (string)
custom-aspect-ratios=1500:800
Save the configuration file (this is the file to backup in case you change your version of VLC so you can copy it if you like to.)
Finally, Open VLC and go to the "Video Menu" go to the "Aspect Ratio" option and select the new custom aspect ratio you just edited.
That should help you to resize videos the way you want.
That sounds like new information (I figured some kind of program file editing might be required). I'll look into it and give it a try.
I didn't cite 1500p in this thread (except maybe in some end-result context?). 1920x800 (or 820) is the optimal range.
But no matter, it's just a sample value. I get the gist of the instructions.
I assume the instructions, based on how you described it (creating options within a selection menu) will mean I can add as many custom sizes/ratios as I may need based on a video's native resolution? Though that kind of defeats the purpose of a "set it & forget it" kind of "smart preset". If I have to potentially adjust it for every video when the native dimensions differ for the previous video? Such as loading a 1440x1080p among the standard 1920x800p and 1920x1080p videos...
I guess I'll find out...
I really recommand you to upgrade the operating system or test a later version of VLC, because VLC 2 is a very old version (Latest official release is VLC 3.2.1), and WindowsXP won't be supported soon anymore as it's not supported anymore by Microsoft since many years.
Ugh... not this again...
I refuse to upgrade because it's not just about a new OS alone ; I'd need a whole new rig of hardware to install it on, as well - I can't afford that.
Besides, everything that came out after XP has been absolute garbage. Dumbed-down, "didn't ask for it, didn't need it, don't want it" garbage.
Except perhaps Win 7, which was the least worst of the bunch - at least that had an "XP mode" or something... but even that OS is in the same EOL boat as XP, so, moot point.
Please spare me the fear-mongering of "no more support". That ship has sailed years ago and I'm still running the system just fine, as well as anything that's been installed. So the "no longer supported" boogeyman mantra is beyond worn out, tired, and plain cringey at this point. It's as meaningless as the woke mob still crying about social injustices... yawn.
There was never anything wrong with XP, except that maybe it was TOO good, TOO stable/reliable, and gave users TOO MUCH freedom and independence from "support". No money to be made on things that work well and last long, right? Microsuck had to "fix" that... by breaking what wasn't broken.
There was no reason XP could not have been kept on alongside anything new they wanted to churn out, and/or been (or even now be) re-released with all the advanced capabilities, such as handling more RAM and larger HDD capacities.
But, no, Microsuck knew damn well people would stay or go back to XP. So they had to force our hands and eliminate FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Microsuck decided, "Let's reinvent the wheel entirely by retiring XP and forcing people who have spent the last 10-12 years building files and bodies of e-work on that OS (which are highly dependent on a 32-bit XP system to work properly or at all) to throw it all away and start over". No regard for anyone or anything except their own bottom line.
Much of what is installed on a 32-bit, like older games or particular programs, are not be compatible on 64-bit. So "migration" is not an option. I was not about to abandon my favorite games or editing programs (and the thousands of program-dependent files I created through them) just cos "32-bit old and bad, 64-bit new and good".
They also made sure to make the new PCs so dumbed-down and user-unfriendly (removing all the good features and implementing stupid/useless ones) that there will be no choice but to require support (aka outsourced, English illiterate morons who don't actually know anything) when things go wrong (and they will). No more DIY diagnostics and repairs (like what I have to do now - hell, I had to do it even before XP's EOL/support in 2014 ; that's how useless the support was to begin with). It was all a money grab as much as it was a power play.
I see many videos on YouTube about the endless array of problems with Windows 10, and 11 is projected as being just as bad or even worse. Too much Orwellian control and over-reach from Microsuck. All end-user freedom, flexibility, and options are vanishing (being taken away and restricted) in general, leaving the user beholden to whatever Microsuck decides the private individual is "allowed" to do with their own PC (and everything on it).
So uhm, yeah... upgrade? I don't think so. Not now, not ever...
Unless XP is re-issued, "AS-WAS", modified for SOME modern advancements - like the aforementioned increase of RAM and HDD capacity.
Smart people would have done as I did and stayed true to XP - or at least keep a machine with XP on it (as a backup or alternative), just in case.
The day will come.
My biggest problem was just web browser compatibility, but that's recently been remedied. Now I only really grapple with understanding some of the "fine-tuning" and how to go about custom tweaks of certain things in my existing installations. Like now, with the customizing of the aspect ratio parameter preferences in VLC. Because it's on XP, there is usually a way to make modifications within the program files (if not already available in settings), but, that requires careful know-how. No room for trial & error there, unless one knows what they're doing. Which I often don't, so I go looking for answers. Answers - not sales pitches nagging me to "upgrade", as if that will solve anything for me.
There is no reason an old PC cannot continue to run whatever is installed, as-is, for the life of the machine - as long as what is installed STAYS installed, and everything is carefully maintained and cared for. Needless to say, to preserve my current installation, I do clones and backups in addition to other maintenance, and have a set of replacement hardware should "the worst" happen in that regard.
Constant updates/upgrades, by my estimation, were largely unnecessary, and only pushed by those who wish to keep naive users in fear, and beholden to the "gotta upgrade" and "continued support" scam, as if failing to replace an entire computer and/or OS will magically cause an older PC and/or its previous OS to just "not work" one day. I'm not that gullible.
For the record, and for what it's worth, my XP machine started running a lot better and more stable once all the "urgent updates" stopped coming in. Gee, funny that... I wonder why that is?
</sarcam>
