Consider aspect ratio?

I wonder whether the aspect ratio of the shots should be considered: Some cameras, like the Panasonic DMC.GH1, allow shots with varying aspect ratios, e.g. from 1:1 to 16:9. Obviously different areas of the sensor (and thus of the lens' projection) are used, depending on the aspect ratio (image size).
Currently, the profile creator seems to ignore the aspect ratio. I consider this as a missing feature. Would you agree?

Two notes:
First, distortion and CA correction is already performed automatically by Camera Raw and Lightroom for the GH1.
Second, to build the profile, you should use the biggest image area available on your camera. For the Micro 4/3 models, that is the 4:3 aspect ratio, which is what Lens Profile Creator uses. The differences in aspect ratios available on the camera are just crops from the original 4:3 uncropped image area. CR and LR automatically take into account the crop when processing raw images.

Similar Messages

FCP scaling/aspect ratio motion algorithms make good video soft?

I have tried everything, but converting 16:9 footage into a 4:3 timeline in Final Cut Pro makes the letter-boxed video soft. I have, of course, double checked against NTSC external broadcast monitor. Original 16:9 clips look great, when converted to letter box 4:3 timeline they go soft. ( I believe it is FCP ineptness in handling Pixel Aspect Ratio conversion from 1.2 to 0.9, but I would love to be wrong at this point) I know FCP has poor scaling algorithms to begin with, but this is a very obnoxious issue when capturing clips widescreen from the deck, but having your final output needing to be edited and taped off in letter-boxed format for SD broadcast.
I really want to avoid losing any quality when going from 16:9 to 4:3 letter-box, so is there a plugin that can be used to handle the rescaling that does a better job than just FCP by itself? These are pretty complicated edits, (television show) so avoiding having to hop over to After Effects for a second huge render would be preferable. I have exhausted Google looking into this, lol, anyone have any ideas?
Thanks All,
Dustin Hoye
Editor
Sour Squirrel Studios, llc.

Patrick,
Thanks for the quick response. My motion filtering quality is set to "Best". After looking over the link you provided ( I will examine more thoroughly, but saw your response and wanted to re-post to answer your question.) I also tried switching to "Fastest (linear)" just to see if it would eliminate the softness/possible double lines, but of course, no luck. (Also, just to clarify, this is working all in SD.)
I would consider using Compressor or (After Effects for that matter), but I am editing using the letter box conversion because we occasionally are mixing in past regular 4:3 footage with the letter boxed 16:9. (the reg 4:3 being a minority of the clips) It is easier just to matte those 4:3 clips to match the converted 16:9 since there are fewer of them. If I fed the timeline to compressor then those clips (the reg. 4:3) would get interpreted incorrectly. I suppose I could just leave them out and re-insert them later, but depending on the number of them and how they are used that could be quite a work-around. It would be great if I could just get FCP to interpret the conversion internally (i.e. plugin) w/out causing quality loss. Sigh.
Everything else is set to 100%; editing 10- bit uncompressed, 10-bit material in High Precision YUV. I have tried multiple combinations of capture, codecs and vid processing options, but all seem to have the same result.
Thanks Again,
Dustin

Aspect ratio driving me mad

Hi all.I live in Australia and have been having a hard time getting my head around this aspect ratio stuff. If you can be bothered I will give you the story of whats happening. I am recording my footage in dv wide screen mode with a sony HVRA1P. Next Step, I capture it into Final cut express HD. Once in, it is automatically given the anamorphic tick. So far, so good. Then Once I was happy with my project I saved it as a QT file - self contained. This is where the problems started. When I played the file back in QT, it was squashed into a 4:3 window. And when I burnt it to DVD, it also wouldnt play back in proper 16:9. Even though it was recorded in 16:9, and edited in 16:9.
I was then told by the supplier of my gear that I would need a little program called "Anomorphicizor". Basically what it involved was dropping my QT file onto this icon and doing a 'save as' on the file. this actually fixed the problem. It played 16:9 on a widescreen and on a 4:3 tv it letterboxed - exactly what I wanted it to do. However it Is another step that takes time and because I have lots of projects to output, it becomes a longwinded process.
Then one day I typed into google "16:9 files in QT". And I fell upon a site that had the following information:
Exporting 16x9 QuickTime Final Cut Pro
One of the really confusing issues about working with 16x9 in Final Cut Pro, is when you go to export a QuickTime movie and it comes out 4x3 instead of 16x9.
When exporting a Final Cut Pro movie, the system will use the current sequence or clip settings. If you are working in DV-standard def, your footage was brought in at 720 x 480.
Final Cut Pro uses an anamorphic aspect correction feature to make it easy to edit in 16x9. The problem is, when you export a QuickTime movie you end up with a movie that is tall and skinny squeezed into the standard 4x3 player window.
So, instead export your final movie using QuickTime Conversion, and then specify a size of 865 x 480. Then, you will have a QuickTime movie that plays within a 16x9 window.
This was very interesting reading, but still a bit confusing. Firstly it said that if I was working in dv standard def, my footage would be brought in at 720x480. This is not the case though. In my window the frame size is 720x576. It also suggests that I export my project using quicktime conversion and specify a size of 865x480, which will give me a 16:9 window. It did'nt say which compression settings to use so I just used DVPAL. Any I tried all of this and low and behold it actually paly back correctly and I didnt have to put it through the "anamorphicizor" program.
Now, if you are actually still reading all of this, then thankyou. I guess to sum all of this up, - What is the best way to save my fcp project so that it will play back 16:9 in QT, and on a dvd player.? Thankyou in advance, Matty

Thanks again Dave for getting back to me. All of your information is fantastic and is slowly starting to sink in. though if you could stay with me a tiny bit longer that would be great.
Firstly: When I drop my QT file into the anamorphicizor program, the result is great. it plays back widescreen on a 16:9 set and letterboxed on a 4:3 set. This is exactly what I want it to do. The only problem is that its another step in what is allready a fairly time comsuming process, considering there are a lot of projects that i have to create. If I was somehow able to bypass this "anamorphicizor" step, it would be great.
I think I mentioned to you that I did come across a web page that talked about exporting from QT. It suggested to export my final movie using QT conversion and then specify a size of 865x480. Now I wasnt sure if this setting was for ntsc or pal, but i tried it anyway. And it actually worked. It played back widescreen on a 16:9 set and letterboxed on a 4:3 set. - and I didnt even use the "Anamorphicizor" program. Is this the answer?. Is the setting of 865x480 correct? Are there other settings in the QT conversion stage that I need to be aware of - like the compression setting - least amount up to best quality? Am I asking too much of you Dave? I think I can answer that one! Thankyou in advance. Matty
Your resolution is 720x576 regardless of whether it
is 4:3 or 16:9. That's the native resolution for PAL
DV/DVD, and other metadata are used to determine
whether it is 4:3 or 16:9. If the clip is 4:3 then
it should display at 768x576; if it is 16:9 it should
display at 1024x576. See, the native pixel count is
actually narrower (in your case) than 4:3 (for me
it's actually wider). So if you look at an
anamorphic clip, it will be squeezed into the 720x576
narrower-than-4:3 window. But that's OK. All of the
data is there; it will be stretched back out when you
play back from a DVD. If you are going to a DVD, you
don't really care if the data files play back
stretched or squeezed or whatever on the computer, so
long as they get encoded correctly and behave
correctly for the DVD.
The Anamorphicizer doesn't do any conversion to your
file; all it does is to add something to the
QuickTime container so that iDVD will identify the
clip as widescreen (since iDVD doesn't give you an
option to do that yourself). I suspect that it just
adds the "wide" atom to the end of the file, but I
don't know that for certain. In any case, the movie
data itself is not changed, and I wouldn't consider
that to be any kind of "conversion". So don't worry
about recompression or anything like that from using
Anamorphicizer.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.

A slightly different problem with aspect ratio and DVD Maker

I am converting VHS movies to DVD. All are 4:3. Using Microsoft Movie Maker, I create the desired final result, a WMV file that plays perfectly--aspect ratio, sound, whatever.
The problem comes when I use DVD Maker to create the DVD. The picture gets squeezed pretty much to a square (from the 4:3 original). DVD Maker correctly shows 4:3 as the desired ratio.
Ironically (considering the solution offered in several similar posts), when I convert that WMV file to AVI, and _then_ use DVD Maker, all appears fine. My only complaint at this point is that the result is "window-boxed." That is, there is large black space
on all four sides.
I see nothing in DVD Maker to adjust (in hopes that the original WMV might work for me), but just thought I'd ask.

Hi,
There’s similar thread discuss the DVD maker for 4:3 or 16:9 you can refer:
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itpromedia/thread/cd5edb7b-a4dd-43c9-ae95-20ac5692b2c6
And I find someone has submit it as a bug to our website, if our development team recognize it was a bug, they will fix it on next update.
Thank you for your understanding.
Regards,
Leo Huang
TechNet Subscriber Support
If you are
TechNet Subscription user and have any feedback on our support quality, please send your feedback
here.
Leo Huang
TechNet Community Support

What aspect ratio is the 15'' macbook pro retina 2013 model?

Hello. Can someone please tell me what the aspect ratio of the 2013 Macbook Pro retina 15inch is? Is it 16:10 or 16:9

Glad to have helped in some way. I'm a college student that is on this website because I am a huge apple fan, have good knowledge of apple products, and enjoy helping others.
I'm sorry you had an encounter with a rude person. I promise you most people on here are not like that. These are support forums for getting help with your apple products. This is the right place for you to ask questions and get help concercing them. You will find that most on people are helpful and kind.
Your question was in no way stupid and deserved a nice response. I have a grandpa who is 90 years old and he tends to ask questions that can be considered stupid such as "how do i close this window" or "how do i find the internet browser" but none of us ever ridicule him on it we are all just happy he can use the computer at his age.

How do I change the aspect ratio of source video in the event library?

I’ve imported video to iMovie 08 from a Canon Mini DV MD235 video camera. The video is recorded in widescreen format and plays back in widescreen when viewed from the iMovie event library (prior to doing any video editing). However, when I delete rejected frames from any particular video clip in the event library the video clip is automatically pillarboxed (i.e. switched from widescreen to 4:3 format). This squashes the video horizontally, stretches it vertically and leaves vertical black bars to the left and right of the video during playback. This automatic change in aspect ratio is occurring to the source video in the event library.
I’d be grateful for any help / advice on how I can convert the edited clips back to widescreen aspect ratio, so they display in the *event library* as they did when first imported into iMovie.

I don’t really want to clog up my hard drive with unwanted video and it’s easier to edit it from within iMovie.
Have you considered manually importing only portions of the clips you actually plan to use? Or, if you must import the entire clip, have you considered trimming externally in an application like MPEG Streamclip which will allow you to set frame level in/out points and then perform a "Save As..." operation that stores the select range of frames to an MOV file container retaining the proper flag?
Is there anything I can do from within iMovie to activate the 16:9 setting for these as yet unedited clips, so the same pillarboxing doesn’t happen?
Not sure what you mean by "unedited" here. If the files have been destructively split, the flag is gone and there is nothing you can do about it but re-compress. If you mean they are imported but as of yet whole and still contain their flags, then you have two options. The first is to edit non-destrctively within iMovie '08 and the second would be to do the trimming externally.
This second option is really fairly simple. Just close iMovie '08. Open MPEG Streamclip and load a clip you want to trim. Set your in and pout points, select the "Save As..." option, and store the files in the original Events folder with a new name. I would also recommend you perform these trims in their original time sequence so the "creation" date time groups (Finder attributes) are in time order also. When done with the loaded clip either delete it from the "Event" folder or move it to an archival location. When done with the last clip, close MPEG Streamclip, delete the Cache and Thumbnail folders from the Event folder, open iMovie '08 again, and go get a cup of coffee or tea while the files are re-thumbnailing. DO NOT DO THIS TO ANY EVENT WHICH CONTAINS FILES ALREADY USED IN ANY PROJECT. (I.e., this must be done before you start the actual project editing process.)
It seems odd to me that iMovie is doing this.
I suspect that as the application was originally written as an NLE, non-destructive, "by reference" application, the writers/updaters "overlooked" this facet when adding a "destructive" routine and did not provide for checks of this flag nor provide for copying it re-written segments.

1.3 not respecting the aspect ratio set: new bug?

I import a lot of scanned images, crop and straighten them and set a new aspect.
I work with: Pentium 4, Windows, 1200x1600 monitor (portrait).
I noticed with 1.3 what never happened to me with 1.2, as follows:
a. select an image in Develop
b. select crop overlay
c. select 2:3 aspect
d. straigthen the image (as example, by 1,00)
e. drag one of the corners, reducing the image size
f. the dragged corner 'jumps' a little and the gets reduced, visually showing a different aspect. Check the cropped dimensions and realise that the aspect is really not anymore 2:3. But 2:3 is shown selected!
What I do to counteract this, is selecting again 2:3 aspect, then the aspect is corrected, but the corners change how I did not intend.
I finally move the corners again and I crop as I will with the 2:3 aspect unchanged.
Does this happen to anyone else?
I consider this a quite annoying bug, am I right?
Thanks
Stefano

Thanks Steve,
I appreciate a lot, that you tried to reproduce the behaviour of Lightroom 1.3 on my PC, which runs Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2.
Well, it looks it happens just to me...
Anyway, if an Adobe technician reads that, here is what I see, mentioning a specific case:
- tiff imported image
size 7598x5082
- go to Develop page
- select Crop overlay
it shows locked aspect ratio
it shows Aspect: Original
- select Aspect: 2x3
size becomes 7598x5065 (I read that, moving the mouse over the thumb in the bottom panel)
- rotate the image by entering 1 in Straighten
the size becomes 7430x4953
- drag one (anyone) corner reducing the image size
while dragging, the dragged corner visibly 'jumps' increasing the reduction
- as example, the size is then 7350x4717 (not any more 2x3)
but it always shows Aspect: 2x3 !!!
The consequence of this behaviour is that after every rotating and resizing the set aspect ratio gets lost, even if otherwise stated by the shown aspect value.
I am then obliged to apply the Aspect: 2x3 again, which works, but which changes the position of the corners, therefore forcing me to set them again as I liked.
Perhaps what I wrote might be useful for Adobe people to correct this in a next version.
Thanks!
Stefano

Quicktime X and 7 aspect ratio problems

I have scoured the net and not come up with a single solution to this issue.
I have hundreds of music videos, home videos etc in Quicktime 7 format. The ratio of these files varies at a pixel level, but are corrected in Q7 size feature.
It's not just an anamorphic issue, as many videos are cropped from a non anamorphic 4:3 'letter boxed' source.
Now QX does not display them correctly at all, which until recently wasn't the end of the world, but from the last update, iTunes began using the X ratio as opposed to the correct adjusted ratio, so music videos in iTunes, QX, the iPad, you name it, the videos created this way do not display correctly.
That basically is every video on my Mac created from the late 90's to recently.
Any ideas, solutions? How on earth can Apple do something so amateurish, and why is there no major uproar.

So what you're saying is, Apple are telling me "thank you for your loyalty in using our hardware since 1988, and building up a video collection based on our software, but we've decided to do a version of Quicktime that ignores the size tag you have being using for the last 14 years (I started video work on Quicktime in 1997), and screw any videos you did to this point, unless they had square pixels?"
Not exactly. I believe that what they are saying is that QT is growing old. The technology on which is is based was fine for the codecs and techniques of its time, but video technology is constantly changing and it is no longer practical or possible to keep making updates and patches that don't, in and of themselves, create new, more serious problems than they solve. QT X is based on technology designed to make this process of evolution easier and it is likely we will see many new changes over the coming decade. However, in the meantime, they have not done away with QT 7 or Front Row, both of which continue to display your files correctly even under Snow Leopard. I personally continue to use QT 7—mainly because I have it keyed for "Pro" use and prefer its functionality to the what I call "Not quite ready for prime time" version represented by QT X which likely appeals to first time Mac users.
New videos are fine, I just encode them to square pixels anyway and ignore any PAR nonsense at the encode stage, but then if the PAR value is what they are using now, why not allow an option in QX to set that, so at the very least I could resize the old videos to correct format.
Not sure if Apple would be willing to provide what amounts to developmental support for an application they are phasing out. Still, it wouldn't hurt to ask. If enough people should request such an enhancement, they might be willing to at least consider the possibility.
Re-encoding them is just not an option, incurring further loss, on videos that in some cases are already marginal.
While I stated that corrections are normally made during the encoding process, it isn't the only method of setting the PAR value. Unfortunately, it is the most accurate method.
My point with anamorphic is that it will simply change 4:3 to 16:9 if there were some option to hit a check button.
Actually, using modern encoders, you can utilize any custom PAR setting desired but I am usually more interested in other aspect ratios like 1.66:1, 1.85:1, 2.40:1, and 2.35:1 since most of my work is centered on the conversion of movies for use on my TV devices.
More flexibility is needed, especially from a platform that is supposed to be pro. Ever tried formatting videos for a vertically placed Plasma for exhibition work, on a video file that isn't square pixel?
Not as uncommon as you might think. I also layer over still or video backgrounds to frame the main video and fill the unused device display area.
I have videos for example that are 800 x 400 (due to an original source, or a crop from the source, but view at 4:3 with the size setting, as they should. Now they look ridiculous displaying at 2:1, and there is no way to change it.
I would normally employ masking here to avoid one level of re-compression.
The size option allowed it to be displayed as you wanted it to, after encode.
More importantly, the Size (Scale) option allowed you to avoid having to re-encode the file since it can be saved back to the original file container (assuming no other changes were made the forces a re-encoding of the file).
It worked, it was done as Apple wanted, due to the size option being the only way to do to non-square pixels, and now they say, nah, we're not doing that anymore?
You seem to be forgetting that when QuickTime was initially introduced almost 20 years ago, users did not have to worry about scalability options, low-compression, high data rate broadcast standards or anamorphic DVDs because there weren't any such work flows for the Apple/Mac platforms of that era nor could they handle them anyway.
So basically Quicktime now contains no ability to format non-square pixels, unless it is done at the encode?
True, but as hinted previously, Apple and QuickTime isn't the only game in town. Based on your question, I went back and played around with Subler. Had been told that this app would allow the user to embed PAR value but was never able to get it to work. Finally managed to get a 720x480 (636x480) encoded movie trailer to play back as an 852x480 display in both QT 7 and QT X on my Snow Leopard system. This proves that it can be done without re-encoding, but there do seem to be some limitations. For instance, since I normally encode using macro-block 16 dimensions increments and Subler seems to like increments of 12 pixels, some PAR and Size target values may vary by 4 pixels. In any case, you may want to Google the app and give it a try. You still have to process each file but not actually re-compress the data.
It is barely believable that they would do that.
Please excuse me, but I do have to chuckle here. It seems as if you feel that Apple has taken something away from you. I, on the other hand, tend to view it as not missing something I never really had. I do, however, agree that it would be nice if both applications were able to access/change both PAR values and display size values for better compatibility between old and new technologies.

Aspect Ratio Doubts

Hey all,
I consider myself to be a pretty experienced filmmaker/editor, but one thing I have never quite understood (much to my embarrassment) is... Aspect Ratio.
I know what it is in film, but once we enter a Final Cut/DVD Studio Pro/TV arena, I got very lost and frustrated.
Here's my latest dilemma:
I shot a 15 minute film on the HVX-200. When asked what ratio I wanted to shoot in, I told the DP "2.35:1" for that beautiful cinemascope feel.
I captured my footage, cut the film, and applied a 2.35:1 matte over the final cut.
Then, in Compressor, I outputted the file as a Widescreen film.
Today I watched it on a friend's Widescreen TV, and there were black bars on top and bottom. Wasn't the whole point of shooting 2.35:1 that I would get a full cinemascope frame when playing the film on a monitor?
I would also like to understand the difference between matting in FC and exporting a file in Compressor with the WS setting on. Is 16:9 the equivalent of 1.85:1? W
Basically I would really appreciate a general overview of aspect ratios, because it's driving me off the wall.
Thank you so much.
Roberto

Is 16:9 the equivalent of 1.85:1?
Not exactly but pretty darn close. 16:9 is actually 1.78:1.
Flat ratio (1.85:1) films are actually encoded with small letterbox bars but, because of the overscan inherent in most TV inputs, you don't see them.
As already mentioned by Studio X, 2.35:1 is way wider than 1.78:1, hence the black bars. For more detail, check out Widescreen-O-Rama over at The Digital Bits.

Converting DV to ???. Which format? Aspect ratio problems.

I'm trying to digitize some old VHS videos for archival and I need some guidance. My goal is to keep a digital copy on disk and toss out the tapes with the player. Most of the videos will just be for future viewing, not further editing. I tossed out the TV a few years ago and I hope to never go back, so my primary viewing will likely be on a computer screen. If I do get another TV someday I imagine that I would play these videos with some sort of media center type device rather than a DVD so I may need to keep that in mind when deciding upon the final format.
I'm using a Canopus ADVC-300 to convert the videos to DV streams. I use iMovie HD 6 to capture the DV input. A few months ago I converted a few tapes with iMovie 08 and learned the hard way about the DV quality problems designed into that product. Anyway, the Canopus feeds my Mac a standard 720x480 DV stream. In iMovie I start a new project and tell it the video format is DV, as opposed to DV Widescreen.
Up to this point everything is working great.
My dilemma is how to save the video. I want a format that has good quality and will not likely need any future transcoding to stay usable. Thus far from iMovie HD I've been sharing to Quicktime, selecting Expert Settings, and then playing around with the various options within "Movie to Quicktime Movie".
On the video settings panel I'm going under the assumption that H.264 is the preferred choice. I set the compressor quality to high, the encoding to multi-pass, and the data rate to automatic.
The video filter panel has nothing selected for now.
The video size panel is where I start having questions. Obviously the original video sources have a 4:3 aspect ratio. If I leave the dimensions as "current" (720x480) I get a video that plays at 3:2 in every player I've tried. I guess that seems obvious even though I told iMovie I was working with a 4:3 project. My player of choice is VLC and I can tell it to show the video at 4:3 but it's a pain to do that every time. Quicktime can do that too, and in fact you can save the aspect ratio with the video so that it will display that way each time, but I never really use QT unless I have to.
Looking at the list of available choices in the dimension drop down box, it looks like there are a couple possible solutions...
The most obvious choice is "NTSC 720x480 4:3". When this option is used the video is 4:3 by default when played by QT. However, it still shows up as 3:2 in VLC, mplayer, and also when played via Frontrow. I downloaded mplayer just for this comparison and I never watch videos using Frontrow but I suppose I might someday if that media center thing comes into play. Once again I can tell VLC to show it as 4:3 but doing so every time is annoying. There doesn't seem to be any way to adjust the aspect ratio from within Frontrow so that's a non-starter. I'm thinking this might technically be the correct format to use but none of the players other than QT recognize the anamorphic setting (is that right?). When I look at the video properties in QT it shows 720x480(640x480) but the other tools show just 720x480.
The next obvious choice in the list of dimensions is "640x480 VGA". When I use this option I do in fact get a video that displays correctly in every player. However, I can't help but wonder if I'm losing resolution this way. I think it's just converting the rectangular pixels to square pixels but with the drop in horizontal pixels there must be less information there? Is this a viable format for playing on various devices in the future?
Should I be experimenting with something other an "Movie to Quicktime Movie" and H.264?
In all cases I've selected to deinterlace the video. Some might say that VHS is of such poor quality to begin with that using such high settings is a waste. I say that the source video is bad enough that there's no room to add even more degradation. I'm willing to live with data rates that will push 1-2 GB per hour of video. I think that's probably plenty to keep the video quality as good as can be considering the source. I'm just not sure which format is best for this purpose. It's a one-shot deal, once the conversion is done the tapes get thrown away so I'm a little anxious about making the right choice.

When choosing Export -> QuickTime Movie, you get a self-contained QuickTime-file of your sequence. The default video format is the same as your current sequence settings, which means you will get the exact same frame size an pixel aspect ratio in your QuickTime-file.
The best thing would be to use Compressor, but first you need to tell us what you are going to do with your QuickTime movie. Is it supposed to be a copy for the web? What video format do you need/want your movie to be exported in?
To letterbox your video in a 4:3 frame size, read about padding in the Compressor User Manual.

Video clips from Canon camcorder have wrong aspect ratio in Premiere Elements 11

I recently purchased Adobe Premiere Elements 11 and I'm having trouble importing clips from my Canon FS300 camcorder.The camcorder records widescreen video at 720 x 480 pixels with a 16:9 aspect ratio (presumably using non-square pixels) The clips play correctly in Windows Media Player, VLC, Real Player and several other players. They do not display correctly in Quicktime or when imported into PE11, showing a 4:3 frame. I have tried just about every New Project setting in PE11, but the closest result I can achieve is a 4:3 picture in a 16:9 frame. If I run the clips through the VLC Convert utility and output them using the Video - MPEG-2 + MPGA (TS) codec, the resulting clips import and play correctly in PE11. Is there some obscure setting I need to implement when importing these clips, or is PE11 just incapable of recognising file formats which seem to be no problem for most video players. I assume I have the necessary codecs installed, as the clips play correctly in other players.

Axxel CA
Thank you for your findings and comments on this matter of the handling of .the mod widescreen by Premiere Elements. One continues to learn whether they be a beginning, intermediate, or advanced user of Premiere Elements. That is the rewarding part of this type of discussion.
I appreciated the manner in which you introduced the subject, stated the problem, gave your findings, and made your conclusions. I was particularly interested in the list of can do video editors. You need to go with what works for you.
After your previous post and that of SG, I went searching for a .mod widescreen online to experiment with in Premiere Elements 11. I could not find one at the moment. But then I remembered that someone had sent me a sample for troubleshooting a few years back. I found it finally. The results are presented for interest value and hopefully not to stir up controversy.
a. .mod to .mpg had no affect on the 16:9 issue in Premiere Elements 11...expected.
b. taking the .mod widescreen into Premiere Elements 11 via the Video Importer had no affect on the 16:9 issue in Premiere Elements 11...expected.
so far we seem to be in agreement in our findings.
The only video editor that I have of the 4 that you mentioned that worked in this regard was Windows Live Movie Maker. Windows Live Movie Maker came with my Windows 7 Professional SP1 64 bit computer so I took a look at the problem in that program. When I tried to import the .mod widescreen into that program via its Add Videos and Photos, it shutdown the program (.mod or .mpg file extenstion). Yet, when I imported that same file into Premiere Elements 11 on the same computer as Windows Live Movie Maker, it opened with no problem, but with the 16:9 issue that I could correct with the Interpret Footage feature.
True, that was a sampling of one .mod widescreen file. But the statement of the comparsion was unexpected. Based on that, if you had not planned to, please consider the tryout of your next video editor for use with the .mod widescreen to avoid unexpected results which will delay you moving forward with your video projects.
Success with your video editing projects whatever you decision,
ATR

Still no fix for aspect ratio problems

I was hoping this new version would fix the aspect ratio problems with importing clips other than in the DV codec, but alas, it was not to be.
My problem is that if I import a clip that is 720x486 (non-square pixels, uncompressed), iDVD doesn't interpret it correctly. It places the clip with small black bars (like a little letterbox) at the top and bottom of the screen, then scrunches the image vertically, sprinkling it with stairstep artifacts.
What's frustrating is that versions up to iDVD 4 didn't have this problem and imported clips in any codec beautifully. It's been a known issue for a long time.
Furthermore, Apple's solution is to convert the clip to a self-contained DV movie (hello, disk space!), which is also undesirable because of the quality loss and poor colour compression. After the latest QuickTime upgrade, exporting in DV doesn't work, creating a clip that is half-field and blocky.
Argh! This is a real problem because many of us use iDVD to make screeners for clients, and it looks unprofessional. It's also a very inaccurate and somewhat useless tool when the clips are of clean lines, titles, and smooth, solid graphics, which show the stairstep effect the most.
I'm at my wit's end having exhausted all other suggested solutions (and please don't tell me to use DVD Studio Pro instead). Anyone else come up with a fix or have the same issue?
Previous discussion on this issue here: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=204675&tstart=0

Sorry, but the answer is - for professional use, use
DVD SP
No, it is absolutely not the answer. EVERYONE I know in my circle of professionals uses iDVD for banging-out quick screeners of TV spots, film clips, dailies. In fact, it's one of the main reasons they added OneStep to iDVD. DVD Studio Pro is for authoring commercial-level DVDs, with a learning curve and pricing structure appropriate to that.
I'm not going to spend time learning DVD Studio Pro just to do quick one-offs, for one, and it's overkill anyway. Not only that, but it costs a lot more than iDVD.
The inablity to import a QuickTime clip -- on Apple software, no less -- is not cool, especially since it doesn't seem an excessive thing to ask (and it used to encode just fine). It's a very basic task considering everything else iDVD has been written to do, and crosscoding and re-encoding video is a basic functionality in QuickTime.
I'm not asking iDVD to prove the existence of dark matter in the universe; I'm just asking it to play a QuickTime movie properly. Which is what it's supposed to do.
There was a work-around, supplied by Apple, but it no longer works for me, so that's why I'm asking what worked for others.

Preserve aspect ratio for Windows Vista 64-bit OS on iMac

Hello, I wanted to know how to preserve aspect ratio on my screen resolution of 4:3 with black borders on left and right of the screen, after I have installed 64 bit Boot Camp drivers on it. I rather to play older Windows games in 4:3 without stretched mode as stretched mode looks so disordered, which is bothered me a lot.

It sounds that the Microsoft Installer does not like the optical drive inside of your Mac.
Do you have access to an external DVD drive?
If yes, try the Windows 7 install with an external DVD drive.
If no, try to install Windows 7 from a USB drive.
Source 1:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd535816.aspx
Source 2:
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/how-to-deploy-windows -7-from-a-usb-drive.aspx
If you don't have an external DVD drive or a USB drive that is 8GB or larger, you might want to consider borrowing or buying one.

Matrix monitors and After Effects comp's aspect ratio

I have two 1366x768 monitors the are matrixed. I am creating content that needs to run across both monitors (such as a ticker tape) what would the aspect ratio of the comp be?

First consideration - How are you going to playback the content?
If from some type of HD playback device (tape or disk) then you setup each of your render comps using standard HD presets and you figure out how you're going to sync the playback devices.
If you're playing back from a computer, then you have to determine how you're going to send the signal to the monitors. It's a mistake to even consider the pixel dimensions of the playback device, but it's critical that you know how you're going to feed the displays. Do you want to send the entire image as a single file to a dual display graphics adaptor? If so, your primary consideration is data rate. Trying to fill both screens with a full screen image is going to take a very serious disk array to keep up with the data rate.
As for designing your project, I'd start off with a 2X wide 720 HD comp rather than a 2X wide 1080 comp since your monitors are not full 1080I HD capable. That wold mean your comp would be 2560 X 720 and that you'd drop that comp into two 720 HD comps and adjust position of each to give you the left and right sides. The rendering 720 comps would be set up using the presets so they would have the proper PAR for output to tape or to BlueRay disk.
Hope this helps. These are only suggestions. Without knowing exactly how you plan send the video to these two monitors, it's impossible to give you exact guidelines.

Crash when setting aspect ratio

Consistent and reproducible error when I try to enter custom aspect ratio for crop in the Develop module.
I enter 297x210 (yes, I'm European and print to A4, A3 and such) and hit Enter or push the OK button.
Program crashes. End of story.
I'm at a PC ([email protected] and 12GB RAM, ASUS WS Professional MB) and run Windows 7 Ultimate. No instability. I do have CS5 design standard installed and Lightroom 3.6 as well (I have never understood why I should even consider using Bridge).
Thank you for sorting that one out before it launches.
Best regards,
Espen Rosenquist

Same for me: LR 4 beta crashes every time i try to set a custom crop ratio.
Problemsignatur:
Problemereignisname:          APPCRASH
Anwendungsname:          lightroom.exe
Anwendungsversion:          4.0.0.1
Anwendungszeitstempel:          4ef2621d
Fehlermodulname:          MSVCR100.dll
Fehlermodulversion:          10.0.30319.415
Fehlermodulzeitstempel:          4d26d15a
Ausnahmecode:          40000015
Ausnahmeoffset:          0000000000075fe9
Betriebsystemversion:          6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
Gebietsschema-ID:          1031
Zusatzinformation 1:          8bf3
Zusatzinformation 2:          8bf32499205634113b37b5acbc9d5028
Zusatzinformation 3:          a858
Zusatzinformation 4:          a858fb8addb946ef1a368c3b87874de1
Best regards,
Franz Mozzi

Consider aspect ratio?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for