Anamorphic Pixel Aspect Ratio

I am confused on all the different ways to get the "cinematic look". There are various ways to do this and I want minimal distortion. I have PE 10, source Canon T3i in camera settings are 1920 by 1080 23.976fps. Initial project settings are DSLR>1920 by1080>24fps, square pixel ratio 1.0.
My first question
1- Is shoting anamorphic in itself a distortion of the actual scene?
2- If it is distortion of the actual scene, then it seems like strching the image in post or with a lens shouldn't matter to much?
3-I can right click>Interpret Footage and then select conform to --"D1/DV NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (1.2121)" or "Anamorphic 2:1 (2.0)" or "HD Anamorphic 1080 (1.333)". Which option would be best to get a proper depiction of your scene but also while achieving the "cinematic look"?(if any at all). (to me...it seems like "D1/DV NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (1.2121)" does the best)
-buying anamorphic lens with an adapter that screws onto one of your prime lenses is the best option but it is a pain to have to deal with and is very expensive.
The easiest option is to select a title and put two black rectangles over your footage to mask it. I don't want to do this because you lose some of your footage and I would like to preserver all the footage if possible.
Thanks

I could be mistaken..I'm not even sure
Premiere says it will "Conform" the "Pixel Aspect Ratio". When I select "D1/DV NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (1.2121)" the pixel aspect ratio is changed from its original 1.0 square pixel to 1.2121. This is a screen shot of what I have been encountering. When this happens you do not lose any of the original footage by covering some of it up via a title and you get the "cinematic look" the wide screen look. So Yes, I am trying to get the 2.35:1 movie frame that you mentioned. That’s what I'm ultimately aiming to get. (the clip as you see it has yet to be changed, have not applied it yet so no black bars.
This is what it looks like with the "D1/DV NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (1.2121)" conversion applied.

Similar Messages

Change in anamorphic pixel aspect ratio numbers?

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1796
This gives LiveType anamorphic number for DV NTSC as 1.19 as the pixel aspect ratio. The number that has always been given prior to this is 1.25. They seems to produce exactly the same results when imported in Final Cut. No scaling or distortion takes place in either project file when composited in FCP. Why the change in numbers, and why do they both work?
Thanks.
All the best,
Tom

Tom, are you certain the NTSC value was given as something other than 1.19?
At least that's what it's always been according to an older Knowledge Base document link for the same issue, last modified date in 2004.

Pixel/Aspect Ratio Problem

I'm midway through a huge project utilizing about a hundred stills in NTSC SD. I needed as much screen real-estate as possible for this so I used the D4/D16 Anamorphic pixel aspect ratio in Project Properties. My problem is that because I don't have a Kona or Decklink card, I don't have any preset codecs for this aspect ratio when I take it into FCP 5.1. The result is a squished widescreen frame when I output it from Motion to FCP. Not sure how to resolve this. Do I give it a custom frame size in FCP or what? Also, because this is all photos and graphics made within Motion, what's my best option in terms of quality for export from Motion to FCP? I'm assuming 8-bit or 10-bit uncompressed, but that's just a guess. Or is there a codec within Motion that I can export it as and it will come out in the correct aspect ratio in FCP?

Then I'm thinking you want to use an anamorphic widescreen format in FCP that you can then set up in DVDSP and presumably project or display on a widescreen TV...
Patrick

Custom Pixel Aspect Ratio (After Effects CC 2014)

Hi All,
How do you create a custom Pixel Aspect Ratio for After Effects CC 2014. I need a PAR of 3.3, as it would help me solve a technical problem i've been having with projection mapping.
I've tried editing the Interpretation Rules.txt file which was hidden within the Users\Appdata\Roaming\Adobe\After Effects\13.1 Folder. To remove the last # so i can at least see that I can set up a custom PAR.
But it doesn't appear in the drop down menu when creating a comp, or interpreting footage.
I've also made the same change to the Interpretation Rules.txt file in the Premiere PRO CC 2014\Plug-ins\en_US\ folder.
And I've restarted my PC after changes just incase Media Core wasn't updating itself properly.
I can see the Custom PAR as an export option out of Media Encoder. But thats not what i need. I need to be able to correct a render which had a PAR of 3.3 without losing pixel information, much like an Anamorphic workflow.
Anyway, Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Evan

Hi Rick,
You're right, it's no known PAR... completely arbitrary and custom to this particular job. I'll run you through my process.
I have a projection surface (a basketball court) Which needs to have content designed onto it which is viewable from one perspective point (camera 1) in the stadium. The problem is that Camera 1's viewing angle to the court is quite shallow.
This is what Camera 1 sees:
I will be generating like this for the surface so that it looks like a deep 3d surface from "camera 1"
Now, the problem is that when I perspective correct the renders to fit what the projector will be projecting from straight down. There isn't enough pixel information for the height of the image. Meaning the pixels will smear.
This is the image that would be projected from a top mounted projector to achieve the 3d effect from the image above, you can see the loss of information in the the height pixels.
My solution for getting more information into the height is to render out of our 3d packages with a Pixel Aspect Ratio of 3.3. This was the sweet spot I found to get enough pixel information to match the pixel output of the projectors.
The resulting render looks like this (note, the angle of the camera hasn't changed)
As you can see, there is more height detail now, which will mean that that last row of pixels will be remain fairly sharp.
So, at this point, I can render from my 3d applications, and conform to the projector dimensions, with very little information loss in the height of the projected image, and without compromising my 3d persepctive.
I'm using the plugin "Camera Mapper" to project this render onto a plane which gets me the full frame of the projector at the right resolution, 4608 x 2304
The tricky part how to composite elements into the scene in an intuitive way.
If i want a horse to look like its jumping through the scene from "camera 1", like this:
Then in the that contains all the information, It will look like this:
Now that's all well and good, but it'll be harder to create realistic looking effects from this view, because they'll all need to be stretched.
I'd like to retain all the image information and just view the comp as though it's squished down.
I imagine this could be done easily by changing the comp settings to a PAR of 3.3.
That way, all the pixel information remains, but i can design in a realistically proportioned composition.
I hope that gets you up to speed on my issue, and my request for a solution.
So, in summary. I'll I'm really looking for is a way to customise the PAR options so that I have a custom available that I can apply to this, and only this scene.
Does this makes sense?
Cheers,
Evan

Pixel Aspect Ratio within projects

I am trying to bring in an entire timeline of video(only :90) to another timeline. However each one has different sequence settings. The original one has settings like this:
Frame Size: 1920x1080 HDTV 1080i(16x9)
Pixel Aspect Ratio: Square
Timebase: 29.97
Anamorphic 16x9 not checked
The one I am trying to lay into that timeline is:
Frame Size: 1440x1080 HD (1440x1080) (16x9)
Pixel Aspect Ratio: HD (1440x1080)
Timebase: 29.97
Anamorphic 16x9 not checked
I tried to simply copy this last timeline and paste into the original sequence and it didn't match up. How can I sucessfully do this?
Scott

Here's the trick. Create a new sequence with the desired setting. Select the first clip in the old sequence and hit "f" This loads the clip in the viewer with the in and out. Edit into the new sequence. FCP should automatically adjust the clip to match the sequence pixel settings. Repeat for each clip in the original sequence.
There are otherways to do this, but this may be the simplest to explain. Try it and if you have problems, post back.

Pixel Aspect Ratio and ciphering type of footage-CS6

CS6- updated 12\18\13 V-11.03
Hi All,
A few questions about:
Pixel Aspect Ratio and ciphering type of footage. Bare with me as I touch on two different aspects of what I feel are related:
1. Setting up a Comp-
Having AE decide on the correct footage being used- Via >Import footage,.(to Folder) then drag it on, or into the 'make comp icon' where AE is supposed to do a 'best guess' for the comp settings. Be it square pix or otherwise. What are the second value in brackets ? See pic
2. Interpolation-
When using two diff footage sources- If using two different source footages in a comp. Is this where I should interplolate my footage to match the existing footage and the comp settings (If I have choosen NOT to pre-comp that secondary footage?)
3. Seperating fields-
How come footage that a camera manufacturer claims to be shooting in Progressive 30 or 24p is showing up as interlaced in my comp's CP? The manual to the cam says 30p or 24p or 60i The footage was shot at 30p (for sure)
Here is a screen grab of AE's 'best guess' of that footage, showing it with an UPPER field render; indicative of HD Interlaced footage and then in the inerpolate settings - 'kinda confirming it.
Now for the way out- Render:
4. If that is in fact Interlaced and I then want to reduce the size of that 1920 footage to 66% size... Do I need to do anything in particular at this point?
For some reason I am getting an error on my end when trying to export as an AVI and reducing size to 1280
5. Is this from the Field render of interlaced challenge?
I ended up with a couple of errors and then aborted the whole file and re-imported to start over with this error. Which happend again after a redoux
So I sent it over to Prem Pro to export those MTS Files as a movie and noted AGAIN the reference to Interlaced video. "upper and lower" Prem Pro was able to use the same MTS files and export a working movie. (so those files were not corrupt BTW) Yet Note PP's output reference to that footage again as Interlaced would be...
Thanks for any clarity on those "5" questions... NC

Thanks for the details Rick.
Thanks for the insight on #1
Ref #2, You should never change the interpretation of Pixel aspect ratio on footage unless you know for a certainty that it is wrong. For example, open Photoshop or Illustrator and create a new document that is 720 X 480 pixels and AE will always interpret the image as rectangular pixels because that is a standard rectangular pixel frame size.
Unless you specifically created the image in Photoshop with rectangular pixels it is square pixels so the interpretation must be changed to avoid distortion.
--Did you mean to write:
Unless you specifically created the image in Photoshop with SQUARE pixels using a rectangle layout? I am not trying to bust your blz here, I am trying to understand the unknown. (for me)
So it may very well be AE mis-guessing the footage and the Upper first is a mistake on AE's part and I need to test it to find out? On that note...
Ref#3, Separating fields must be done right. Some 1080P footage is interpreted as having fields. This may be incorrect and if there is a question you MUST test the footage. Test the footage by making sure that the fields are being separated
How do I make sure the fields are being seperated? Does the window as in pic two from the top of my post confirm that or is there another test?
Then I do the following:
then selecting the footage in the project panel and choosing Create Composition from Selection, then opening the Composition settings, doubling the frame rate and stepping through the footage a frame at a time. If the footage is really interlaced then each of the frames will be different. (IE: 29.94 to 59.94fps) OK
If the field order is reversed then motion will be in the right direction then reverse, then go back to the right direction. ---I did not understand? Are you referring to Upper and Lower reverse? Direction, as in fwd and back in Time line? Sorry unlclear on my end...
Oh and HFR footage? HFR? High frame rate??
One last thing, Do all cameras shoot anamorphic, or could they as AE is showing my MTS files; are Square? (1.00) Pic #1
@Dave- You -
At 1080, a lot of footage is interlaced, and evidently your camera made interlaced footage
Me- How do you know? because of the 2nd pic and upper field first indication?
You-Even if you know for a fact that it was shot 30p, the camera captures the entire frame... but it records it as two fields. They give it a fancy name: Progressive Segmented Frame.
Me- Is this typical false advertisement of the sales divison of brands like not telling you what CMOS or CCD is in a cam just slapping HD 1080p on the side of the box?
You-AE will treat it as an entire frame if you interpret it as having a field order of None.
Me- Won't that be a problem mis leading AE on an interpret?
Thanks Gents for the precise details.
Best
NC

Pixel Aspect Ratio Issues-FCP HELPP!!!

Okay folks, so currently I am putting together my reel in FCP, however I am encountering a few issues. So my source formats are different in pixel aspect ratio, some was shot on the 7D, some on the Alexa, and some on super 16mm, and a few after effects animations. However all of it is HD, and in ProresHQ 422. My problem here is when I import all of my media into FCP if the timeline is set to square pixels, the HD(1440x1080) footage looks squished, and if I set the timeline to HD(1440x1080) the square pixel footage looks blocky, pixelated and super square.
That said, some of the footage from the 7D is labelled as square and some is labelled as HD(1440x1080), and all the after effects stuff is square.
Right now i am dealing with it and just leaving my timeline as green-preview render, so everything looks mostly normal. However whichever format is not that of the timeline, the footage is degraded a tiny bit, so that when I pause the footage it looks great, but in preview it is slightly blurry.
My question is, is there a way to format everything as either square or HD(1440x1080), so it looks normal, or is there a way to use mixed media formats and not have the preview blur. I'm going crazy over here, as I just graduated and am in dire need of a reel so I can begin to apply for jobs, etc....Or is there a way to formate my prores setting to transform everything to square pixels?
Thanks guys!

You can use compressor to convert everything to square pixels, however there's no need to worry about how it looks in fcp when it's playing but not fully rendered. Try exporting a short section (mark an in and out around the section - and going file: export: quicktime Not quicktime conversion) with current settings. If you render the material, it should look fine when you play it within fcp. Unfortunately, the render settings in the sequence menu are not particularly intuitive, but do a little playing around with them if you've got the time.
I prefer to convert all my sources to my intended pixel dimensions, frame rate and codec before I edit in fcp, but it may not be necessary in your case.

Pixel Aspect Ratio bug in Media Encoder export

Having a weird bug in media encoder exports that I can't seem to figure out. I have a 1080p sequence with a mix of 1080p footage and PAL DV assets. The PAL assets have a pixel aspect ratio of 1.0940. When I format them in my Premiere sequence, I am able to scale them correctly and they look fine. When I export them directly from premiere to broadcast standards it's also fine.
However, when I try to export these sequences in Media Encoder via File->Export->Media-> Queue using the same exact settings (I'm using a preset), Media Encoder formats the PAL assets as if they have square pixels. Thus, half of the footage in my sequences gets horizontally "squished." Note that this does not happen for footage that natively has square pixels, such as my 1080p camera footage.
Has anyone encountered this bug? It seems strange to me that Media Encoder would treat items in a sequence differently that Premiere during export, I was under the impression they were using the same rendering engine... It's really a problem as I'm going to have to crank out multiple versions of this 48-minute film and not being able to queue those exports is going to be a huge headache.
Using latest version of CC 2014.1 (8.1.0).

Screenshot of Premiere Export (fills screen):
Screenshot of Media Encoder export: (notice the pillar-boxing)

Problem with pixel aspect ratio

I searched but found no answer.
I have several Maya renders which are at a resolution of 720x486 and a pixel aspect ratio of 1.2. I composited my image sequences in after effects interpreting that 1.2 pixel aspect ratio. I then exported a quicktime movie using no compression at 24fps at a resolution of 720x480 NTSC 16:9.
When I import this video into Encore 2.0 It comes out as full screen. Not only is it full screen, but when I preview the dvd, the video is blurry with scan lines and black bars on the left and right side. The menu however, is widescreen (I used a template as a test)and perfectly clear. I tried to select the asset and go to file>interpret footage, but this option is grayed out. I have also tried exporting an avi from after effects and importing that into Encore. It still will not let me set the pixel aspect ratio. I have read that After Effects does not embed the pixel aspect into exported videos. I have also read that I should export mpeg2 videos for use in Encore, however I do not see this option in After effects or Premiere Pro.
What am I doing wrong? Any help is appreciated. If I left any information out that could be useful, please let me know.

(Ack, for some reason I typed "DVI" and really meant "DV")
Thanks for the response. I don't really care if I preserve the 4:3 aspect ratio. Or does my GL1 not use square pixels and I just never noticed it? It's strange I've never seen this problem until FCE HD.
I have tried exporting a number of ways from FCE, including Export > QuickTime Movie... and Using QuickTime Conversion... For the latter, I typically set it to export as 720x480. I always export as video. The final export contains video clips as well as still images within the video.
I am a bit embarrassed having to ask this question. I've been working with still images in photoshop for over a decade and worked a lot with video during that time as well.
Thanks again.

Still image pixel aspect ratio wrong in exported video (but correct in Premiere renders)

I've saved a targa still image from my footage and added it to the bin. It's properties show as follows:
Image Size: 1440 x 1080
Pixel Aspect Ratio: 1.3333
This correctly matches my sequence settings as I'm working with 1080p widescreen footage.
The image appears as expected in the Program window both before and after rendering previews. However, once I export my sequence as a video file, the still image is squashed (displaying incorrectly):
A work around would be to stretch out the still to a width of 1920 in Premiere so that the export displays it back at its normal aspect ratio - which works - but I don't understand why I should have to do this.
The other solution I found was to go to the bin and 'Modify > Interpret Footage' and although "Use Pixel Aspect Ratio from File" already shows the correct settings, to actively reset it (to the same pixel aspect ratio) with the 'Conform to' option:
This works too.
Surely a bug?
(using Premiere Pro CC)

Thanks for the quick reply. But then why does the still's properties (in my bin) show the pixel aspect ratio as 1.3333 (not square pixels, 1.0) and should it not appear incorrectly in both the preview renders and the exported video ? This seems inconsitent to me.

A Little question about Pixel Aspect Ratio

This doubt has been bugging me since I started edit HD formats.It's about pixel aspect ratio.
Let's supose I have received some material in HD format,for instance.But I will deliver this material in another format, DV NTSC,for instance.
The Pixel aspect ratio format of the material what I received and the way how I will deliver are different.What can I do to avoid this problem? Do I need to apply some plugin to solve this problem or when I export the final sequence Final Cut does this automatically?
thank you

The software takes care of it for you.
As long as your conversion maintains the overall aspect ratio (ie 16:9), it is irrelevant what the individual pixels are doing.
For example, if I convert DVCProHD 720p to ProRes 720p, it will look fine even though the DVCProHD started out with 960 pixels in the x dimension and the ProRes will have 1280.
x

Has anyone else encountered a problem with poster frames not recognising a video's pixel aspect ratio

I'm discovering a strange effect with some of the .mp4 videos I've upload into iBooks Author. They're Pal SD 4:3 .movs with a 16:9 pixel aspect ratio and they play out fine on the iPad. However the iBooks software seems to be ignoring the pixel aspect ratio of the poster frame. This leads to the situation.
1) When I drag my video into iBooks author all looks good - the video is 16:9 and if I choose to set a poster frame (or leave it at default) it looks 16:9 in the iBooks Author.
2) I preview my book and it opens in iBooks on the iPad. But now the poster frame aspect ratio is 4:3
3) I click on the video to start playing and it immediately jumps to 16:9 aspect ratio and plays out fine.
4) If it scroll down a couple of pages and then scroll back the video poster frame has now reset itself to 4:3
This sounds like a bug to me. Anyone else had it? Do you know if it's possible to report bugs without having a Developer licence?
Thanks for any help
Rob

While there is no formal bug reporting method similar to what devs have w/apps, iBA does have a 'Provide iBooks Author Feedback' menu item.

Changing pixel aspect ratio during cropping (LR3.2)

When I crop sometimes the pixel aspect ratio changes here. I.e. the pic get stretched in horizontal or vertical way/or compressed. Any body seeing this also? After some time it does change to normal, but it makes cropping rather difficult when in a hurry.

I'm not sure I understand your problem, but I think what bothers you is the technique that has been in place in LR2 already for switching between landscape and potrait format of the crop, which in LR3 can be acomplished by the X keyboard shortcut.
Moving your mouse horizontally or vertically on a locked aspect ratio, the format will change from portrait to landscape or vice versa. To enlarge or diminish the size of the crop, you have to move the mouse diagonally.
Beat Gossweiler
Switzerland

Draw with pixel aspect ratio

I use pencil tool, brush size 1 pixel. When pixel aspect ratio less then 1, pen draws a double pixels. Does
anyone have solutions to it?

Looking into this a little more, what I think is going on is that in previous versions, Shift dragging compensated for the non-square pixels, so that drawn items show up correctly. If you look at the Info Box in 5.5 when shift drawing a circle, the height is greater then the width, when working in a non-square document.
In 6.0, when you do the same thing, the height and width are the same. So, no compensation is being done for the non-square pixels.
In 5.5, if you place a circle by entering the dimensions in the ellipse option, say 400, by 400, with PAR turned on, the image is squeezed side to side.
So, In 5.5 Shift Compansated for nonSquare pixels. In CS6, it does not.

Changing Pixel Aspect Ratio with Aperture

i was wondering if aperture has a way of changing the pixel aspect ratio from square to DI/DV NTSC or HDV. so far i am using photoshop to do that but would love to do it inside aperture.

Not that I'm aware of. Pixels are pixels to Aperture. You could always crop your images to the right aspect ratio.
If you're looking to burn photos to DVD perhaps iDVD or DVD Studio Pro could resize your images to the proper size.

Anamorphic Pixel Aspect Ratio

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for