Is 16:9 aspect ratio possible without HD?

Hi, I am wondering if it is possible to have a 16:9 aspect ratio without Shooting and editing in HD.
Also, what does SD stand for?
Thanks, Bob

Yes, assuming your camera shoots in 16:9 and you use the proper anamorphic Easy Setup.
SD stands for Standard Definition.

Similar Messages

Non-standard aspect ratio possible?

This is a very novice question, but is it possible to edit and export to WMV, AVI or MPEG a movie that is completely square or in another non-standard aspect ratio?
I have a MOV that was captured (using snapzpro), but it is nearly square, and I need to edit it and output it to a WMV, AVI or MPEG...I don't even know if those formats support odd ratios...do they?

Make a sequence with a custom setting that's square.
As far as outputting goes, MPEG is fixed resolutions. I don't know about the PC formats.

Podcasts w/ 4:3 aspect ratio possible?

Wouldn't it be nice to use all the real estate of an iPod screen and have chapter marker images the dimensions of a Keynote slide: 400x300? One is currently stuck having a blank band at the bottom and top of such a slide. True, you can double click on your picture within Garage band to crop it, but it gets cropped as a aquare, not 4:3. I can't find how Garageband allows that currently, yet video podcasts have that 4:3 aspect ratio. If you know how to do it, please post here. If not, please let Apple know we would like this as a feature. To submit such a request, launch Garageband and then under the Garageband menu at the top pull down and select "Garageband feedback". That's how you let them know to add this aspect ratio feature. Thanks!

Welcome. Will just add again, it is more up to the TV being able to deal with it. But as mentioned, if the TV has the component (or is it composite, I always forget ... why oh why did they name them so close) jacks, I would say there is a very high chance it will work just fine. Believe the setting in the AppleTV at setup would be 480i (or 480p)...one of those. If you pick the wrong one, it will figure it out and restart to let you choose the other.
The movies I play all play fine. I will admit I get many from BitTorrent and convert them to MP4 and haven't had any issues. And those I rent/buy from iTunes all play well.
The only place that is really a pain is the browsing of movies in the iTunes store from the AppleTV when viewing on a 4:3 TV. It all gets scrunched so reading the words below the images of the movie is a bit difficult, but not impossible. That is really the only place I wish worked better, but do understand they never meant for it to play on a 4:3 set (even if that set allows it).

Cropping in PS while Maintaining Aspect Ratio and DPI

I shoot the Nikon D3, RAW (.NEF) and convert through ACR. Through ACR, the DPI is set to 300 DPI; the DPI caries over to Photoshop.
I crop in Photoshop using the crop tool (not marquee). To maintain 2:3 or 3:2 aspect ratios, the crop tool requires the width and height in inches or pixels. If specifying resolution, the document size will crop to that DPI, if not; the DPI is derived from pixel dimensions.
In my case, I’ve been cropping at 2in by 3in (or reverse for orientation). The resulting “real” image pixel dimensions are still very high (correct to crop size) but the document size reported in PS is 2in by 3in with a wildly high DPI. By changing the resolution back to 300 DPI through Photoshop, the document size returns to normal. Therefore the picture has not lost anything; it appears to only be a function of the Meta data. The pixel dimensions remain constant while the document size and DPI change.
It apears that you canot specify an aspect ratio via the crop tool without defining it in inches or cm. You can do it with the marquee tool but the marquee tool sucks for cropping. You can however crop in ACR with the crop tool by merely specifying the aspect ratio (not in inches or cm). In summary, the PS crop tool is based in inches or cm while the ACR crop tool is simply aspect ratio.
What I can do to crop in PS while maintaining aspect ratio and defined DPI. Is there a work-around, magic trick, or something else I can do to fool the PS crop tool into an aspect ratio not based in inches or cm?

Just to summarize:
Setting a dimensioned ratio (e.g., 2 in by 3 in for Width and Height) in the Crop tool without filling in a Resolution value yields a crop with the desired aspect ratio, and without any resampling.
There is no way to specify a ratio with the crop tool, specifically, as the OP has requested, though in a future version perhaps specifying simple numbers there without any units might be a way Adobe could facilitate this. It would be a nice addition and with little downside.
I guess what I don't understand, though, is why the OP cares about the "high" resulting dpi value? It's just a number.
Expanding on this, the Resolution is nothing but a metadata value that can be changed at will (e.g., through Image - Image Size... - uncheck Resample) at any time in the future. There is ALWAYS a Resolution value associated with the image, both before and after the crop (though the crop tool may end up changing it; so what?). In short, the Resolution is just an arbitrary figure until such time as the user wants to use the image for a purpose (e.g. printing).
Always think in terms of pixel dimensions (number of pixels horizontally and vertically) while editing, then think about dpi right before publishing. It's hard to go wrong this way.
-Noel

Is it possible to customize aspect ratio?

I have a video of scrolling text that I want to project across the top of the back wall of a theater for a performance, like supertitles (or surtitles) at the opera. Very wide, very short, like a row of text. so the aspect ration needs to be something crazy like 11:1. I made the video in final cut/live type, but can't find a way to customize the aspect ratio and every program I find online that can crop out the black area without information RESIZES the **** thing to a standard format. this is so easy with a photo. Is this possible? can I do it in final cut or something I can find online? or do i need something like isadora?
btw, i have the image running through a trip-head converter running from my computer, so it's acting like a display with a ratio of something like 48:9, so If i could get the file to a very wide aspect ratio it would totally work.
thanks for your help!

Pl see MOS Doc 420518.1 - section 10

The aspect ratio of this file is not support by DVD. Possible slideshow error?

hello everyone,
I will try to give as much information as possible. Dont scream at me if i forget anything. For starters, I just learned how to use Adobe Encore CS4. I taught my self between reading the help files and videos I found on the web. I am an amateur when it comes to DVD authoring (could have alot to do with my problem). Im an animator and I am making a DVD to show my demo reel, drawings, and i have a storyboard to final comparison video. I designed all of my menus in photoshop. I have one transition that was animated in after effects that was imported using dynamic link. My demo reel is a mov file at 640x360 widescreen, half the size of HD 720p. The comparison video is a premiere file from dynamic link (same size as the demo reel). There is some background music for the menus. Then I have 3 slideshows, and i believe this is where the error is coming from. Most of the artwork has the same dimensions but there are some that are larger or smaller. Some are jpg, but most are PSD files. The slide show is set to manual advance with music in the background. I have no transition effects on the slideshow. When building the DVD, i believe when it says "starting project" after all the importing was done,i get the error
The aspect ratio of this file is not support by DVD. PGC info: name= Figure Drawing (name of the slideshow and a menu button) ref=Fpgc, time=234.2340s
I just tried to build the DVD without the slideshow and I still get the error. Possibly a menu issue? I have no idea. Ive ran into errors before but I was able to get through the others. I just cant seem to find a solution to this error. Even after searching the forums for similar problems. Hopefully, the solution is simple. If more info is needed let me know. I really need this DVD to send out for jobs!! Thanks everyone.
Brandon

When doing SlideShows, whether in Encore (somewhat limited), or in PrPro, it is always better to re-size outside of these programs, prior to Import. I use Photoshop (PS) to do this, and use an Action to get everything in the proper Mode, Color Space, Size - everything. I always do a Save_As and use .PSD files. I also Save a working version, incase I have Flattened, etc., for Import into the NLE/authoring app.
JPEG's *should* work fine too, though there is the JPEG compression to deal with. Might not be an issue, but for max quality, I start with RAW images, process to .PSD's, and then work from copies of these, to get my still Assets ready for PrPro, or En.
I either size exactly to my Project Preset, or to exactly what I need, if say I will pan across a zoomed out image. In a major Project, I may have sub-folders with 4 different sizes of image - based precisely on what I will need to do with that/those image(s). If I will not need to do any animation on any images, then I use that Project Preset (including the correct PAR) and they work perfectly. This also eliminates any unnecessary overhead on the system.
Good luck,
Hunt

Is it possible to burn a DVD from FCPX in 16:9 aspect ratio?

I am using FCP X 10.1.1 on an iMac with OS 10.9.3
I have HD video shot in 1080X720. I realize a dvd isn't HD, but I would like to try and get the wide screen aspect. Is that even possible? I would love any sort of assistance! Thanks much!
-R

Yes.
Just go ahead and burn the DVD which will finish up with whatever aspect the project is.
A 16:9 aspect ratio has nothing to do with hi-def, it's just that hi-def in the last 10 years has adopted that ratio but it was used long before then, together with 4:3, for standard def DV.

In Premiere Pro, is it possible to change the project aspect ratio once started?

In Premiere Pro, is it possible to change the project aspect ratio once started?

On a side note, 'projects' do not have as aspect ratio, sequences and footage do. And a project can contain any number of sequences or footage.

How to crop without changing aspect ratio/Crop mode

Is there a way to crop in Lightroom without changing the aspect ratio? That is my first question.
My second question, is it better to use APS-C crop mode on my full frame Sony A7R if I know at the focal length I'm gonna crop, or just take it full frame and crop in the software? Are there disadvantages to this when it comes to uses flash's etch?
Third, Currently I do not have a portrait lens as the Sony A7R is new and does not have many lenses out yet. Until the 90mm lens comes out I was thinking I could use the Zeiss 55mm 1.8 in Crop mode for a portrait lens. That would make it around 88mm would it compress the background nicely the way an 85mm lens normally does for portraits?

This is what I usually do, now I know for sure my aspect ratio has been locked. As far as shooting in crop mode though, what I meant about that is this; For portraits, if you take a 55mm and shoot a portrait with it, the background doesn't look that compressed, which I like. Even if it's at a good F stop. It'll be out of focus, but not "compressed" And seems to show more flaws in the person. This is why with my Canon I always used my 85mm or my 100mm. I know some who will only use a 200mm due to this type of compression that happens at longer focal lengths.
If I was to shoot in crop mode, making it 88mm, would it give me that affect? The compressed look I get from a 85mm? Or would it simply just crop it like I do in post and not really make a difference.
Sony has yet to come out with a portrait lens and I need one bad, I've been offered little jobs here and there and can't take them because I don't want to disappoint them. I'm waiting for their 90mm, because that is close the 100mm and 85mm I shot with on the 5D for portraits.
Not to same the subject here but, 'Benjamin Root Photography,' has been a great help to me on this forum. I also torn between getting the 16-35mm F/4, or the new 24mm F1.4 prime, for wide landscape shots, because landscape and hiking is where I do most of my photography.
I don't plan on actually shooting a landscape at 1.4, but if it's 1.4 that means if I stop it down to F 8 on a landscape it'll be tact sharp. But it is not a Zeiss and is only going to cost 500. On the other hand, there is the 16-35mm, still I'd shoot around F 8 or even higher for landscape, the problem is, if it's F/4 won't that mean it'll have to stop down much further than the 24mm to get a sharper picture?
I don't guess I can go telephoto, like anything over 100mm because I have the A7R. People say over 100 mm it has shutter vibration, so at 200 or 300 I wouldn't buy until the A7R ii comes out. I'm not willing to get the regular A7 ii because I really like the advantage of having all those megapixels for cropping purposes, and it just plain looks better. Which is why I took my Sony A7 back for the A7R. Everyone was saying the photo's were more impressive than the 5D Mark iii's with the Zeiss 55 1.8 vs 5D with 50 1.4L. That wasn't really the case with the A7, but when I got the A7R I seen a HUGE difference in dynamic range.
I've heard the A7 is better at focusing than the A7R, but since I switched to the A7R I have noticed literally no difference. But I don't shoot fast moving subjects.
With both cameras I notice the face detection and EYE AF is hard to get to work properly. If I let it auto focus fully It'll focus on the wrong thing a lot of times even though the green boxes say the right thing.
So, I have been putting it on a single point, keeping it at the center, focusing on the eye, and then recomposing. That's mostly how I did with the 5D anyway. I never allowed it to choose focus points for me either.

Pixel/aspect ratio precise picture resizing without doing math?

Does anybody know how to export pictures with precise dimensions and aspect ratio, without having to do math?
*Use case:* The task at hand...
Imagine you want to export a picture for your desktop on, let's say an iMac, (fullscreen without borders or stretching) ... the display real estate is 1680x1050.
The camera produces 3892x2586 pixels, which translates into an aspect ratio of 3:2.
Problem:
Aperture allows to export pictures for a certain dimension retaining the original aspect ratio. Exporting with a setting of "Fit within 1680x1050" will produce - however - pictures that are 1576x1050... so the screen of the iMac will not be covered entirely (unless you set it to "fill screen" in the desktop picture system setting that is).
So to get this problem solved one has to crop the image to the right aspect ratio in the first place. Unfortunately though, Aperture does not allow one to use the actual pixel values in the crop dialogue.
Thinking about how to get this problem solved, I had no better idea than to find the lowest common denominator of 1680 and 1050 to cut down those numbers to 8 by 5.
Why doesn't Aperture allow me to put any two numbers into the crop dialogue?! This restriction makes no sense to me.
Does anyone of you have a better solution for this problem or am I overlooking something?
Thanks

Hi Ian, thanks for that swift reply. Great to see that 2.1 brought this new feature as well.

How can i letterbox without changing the aspect ratio

How can i letterbox footage without stretching or compressing the image, so just chopping the top and botton off the footage. Also is there any way to perfectly define the measurements of the letterboxing to fit the -30 aspect ratio i have applied to other clips
Thanks

there are many many ways, a few example s include...
nest the sequence and then use the crop tool, or manually edit the "crop" motion properties, to crop off top and bottom of your edit
use the "Widescreen" filter
build and apply a "mask"
download and use my own letterbox matte generator
http://homepage.mac.com/andymees
the list goes on and on

Is it possible to embed new aspect ratios into your quicktime movies?

Well my subject line explains it all really. I was wondering if there was a way to embed the aspect ratio in my quicktime movies instead of manually resizing them whenever i open them to a ratio that suits the content better.
thanks

I was wondering if there was a way to embed the aspect ratio in my quicktime movies instead of manually resizing them whenever i open them to a ratio that suits the content better... I'd also love to know the answer to this. It's dead easy to amend an anamorphic movie to play at 133% of original width, but can a QT movie be told to open in that ratio the next time?
Yes, however, to some extent, the method to be employed depends on your media player. QT 7 (and similar applications), for instance, will open using the "Current Size" display dimensions contained within the file. These dimensions are easily changed in the Properties window, using QT 7 Pro while the "Keep Aspect" switch is turned off and do not re-compress the data but may re-write the date to an MOV file container. On the other hand, applications that rely on the embedded PAR flag/value (like QT X, iMovie '08/'09', etc, must be re-compressed using the correct Anamorphic setting to re-embed the correct flag. When both settings are in agreement, an anamorphic file will open correctly in all players. However, where they differ, the files will open correctly in one type player and incorrectly in the other type of player.

Aspect ratio suddenly changes in LR develop window without user interaction

I imported some Nikon NEF images with sidecar JPEGs using NikonView/NikonTransfer (rotate image turned on). Afterwards I imported the images into Lightroom (copy to new locacation). The LR option "treat JPEG files next to RAW files as seperate" is turned off.
I can see every image with correct orientation in the Lightroom Library.
But for 2 images when I switch to LR Develop the aspect ratio suddenly changes in film strip and large image display. The image is a 2:3 image but in Develop window it is shown as 3:2 image (not rotated but errorneously shrinked/stretched). That is really strange. I did nothing else than switching between Library and Develop! No rotation, no crop, nothing.
I can toggle between Library and Develop window: The image is shown 2:3 in Library and 3:2 in Develop.
This behaviour occurs for 2 images, not for all images.

For some reason it just started to work now. Have no idea what didn't work before.

Still Photo Aspect Ratio Confusion

Apologize for asking a question on this topic as I have been through the forum and realize the topic of aspect ratio comes up often. I have not however seen this question answered. Quick background:
-Working with HD Video footage imported as SD as I am burning non-HD dvd's and I have heard the conversion in IDVD and Toast from HD is not great;
-Using photos imported from Aperture in FCE;
-Sequence is NTSC anamorphic as I want 16:9 but without HD;
My question is about the aspect ratio of still photos when I bring them into the timeline. I have experimented with saving photos in different aspect ratios: 853x480 and 720x480. When I import into FCE the 853 shows a square pixel and the 720 shows a NTSC pixel. From what I have read this is due to the way FCE interprets the aspect ratio and assigns an pixel aspect. When I view each in the viewer they both look correct when I click the corresponding pixel aspect from the top of the viewer. It is when I move these to the timeline that I get confused. The 853 gets an adjustment of 18.52 and the 720 gets an adjustment of 33.33. What do these adjustments actually represent? Is it a percentage, a number of pixels, something else? When I read about it in the Manual it seems to state that FCE adjusts for the difference between the still and sequence, but then why does it adjust the 720 since it has the same pixel aspect as the sequence? I then tried changing the Pixel aspect of the 853 in the browser to NTSC and moving it to the timeline. I get the same 33.33 adjustment. The 33.33 does not look correct in either of them, but when I change it to 18.52 it looks correct (with the pixel aspect at square, with it not checked it looks "skinny" or squished).
Only thing I can think is that it has something to do with the anamorphic adjustment and the squeezing that goes on with it as 18.52 as 853 (widescreen) is 18.47 percent wider the 720.
At this point I am really not sure how these will display when I make a dvd and display on a widescreen tv. I would prefer not to do this by guessing or looking at the picture, but instead by understanding what FCE is doing and making sure I have the settings and adjustments correct.
Sorry for the long message, but would really appreciate any advice

Michael,
sorry to disagree, but for sure I was not clear, and the topic is quite complex. So I decided to provide an overview (as much as I can...) of the various combinations of clips inserted into various sequences with all settings - possibly on my web site (I'm afraid other posters are getting bored about all this math).
But since this is taking quite a bit of time, let me just tell you now where I disagree about your findings. When I'll have my overview completed I hope that will better explain what I mean.
_Your point 1_.
I'm pretty sure you (unwillingly) are importing your 16:9 square pixel NTSC clip into a +4:3 CCIR pixel NTSC sequence+ (not your original 16:9 anamorphic NTSC sequence). Please check your sequence settings by selecting the sequence in the browser in list view and reading the Frame Size, Pixel Aspect, and Anamorphic fields.
a. If your sequence is in fact +4:3 CCIR pixel NTSC sequence+, by applying the formulas you get:
- PARclip for +16:9 square pixel NTSC+ clip = 853/853 = 1 (as for any square pixel clip)
- but PARseq is not 1 (as you write) but 640/720 (square/actual pixels) = 0,8888
- Adjust = PARseq/PARclip = 0,8888/1 = 0,8888.
- Since Adjust is <1 Motion Aspect Ratio = - 100* (1/0,8888 -1) = -12,5 as you experienced on FCE. BTW this means that the imported clip has to be squeezed vertically by 12,5% (as opposite of horizontally).
b. If your sequence instead really is +16:9 anamorphic NTSC+ as you seem to imply, then 18,52 is correct as you confirm yourself with "Agree that in the four cases you list it agrees...": it is in fact the 2nd case in my 4 cases list.
_Your point 2_.
Here I suppose the sequence is +16:9 CCIR pixel NTSC+ which has PARseq = 853/720 = 1,1852.
But I'm not clear what you mean by "720/640 NTSC clip". My guess is that you mean a +4:3 CCIR pixel NTSC+ clip,
then PARclip = 640/720 (square/actual pixels) = 0,8888
then Adjust = PARseq/PARclip = 1,1852/0,8888 = 1,3333 and Motion Aspect Ratio = 100*(1,3333 - 1) = 33,33 as you experienced
_Adjust formula_.
I think this formula in your earlier message is incorrect: Aspect Ratio (in Motion/Distort) = - 100 * (1/Adjust-1) if Adjust ≤ 1; seems like the formula: Aspect Ratio (in Motion/Distort) = 100 * (Adjust-1) if Adjust ≥ 1 works at all times including <1 as follows 100*(.875-1)=-12.5.</div>
This not true (well it is true only for Adjust = 1...). As an example if Adjust = 0,8888 then 100*(0,5-1) = -11,12 (wrong value for this pixel adjustment), while -100*(1/0,8888-1) = -12,51 which is the correct vertical squeeze !!
Why 2 different formulas are needed ? because when Adjust is >1 a +horizontal squeeze+ by Adjust is necessary to fix the pixel aspect ratio misalignement, when Adjust is <1 a +vertical squeeze+ is necessary by 1/Adjust... (figures will help as soon as they are ready for... publishing).
I'm sorry these posts are so long, I try to make them as clear as possible, but the topic is a bit messy and, even if only fractions are involved in this math, their actual meaning is not always intuitive...I'd really appreciate any comment also by more experienced users of FCE/FCP...
Thanks
Piero

Understanding aspect ratio after a year

So it's been a year since I started learning FCP and among the kazillion things I don't understand, the one I most need to finally get clear about is a aspect ratio phenomenon with my setup, and all projects I've done so far.
I am still viewing my work on my Apple Cinema display, so am not monitoring on an actual NTSC broadcast video monitor. This fact may be at the heart of my situation. Nonetheless, I humbly ask you to take pity and help me understand what is going on.
Here's my situation:
I have been doing all the shooting for my projects using a Panasonic AG-DVC 30, a mini-DV standard def camera. The camera's manual states that by default it shoots in standard 4:3 aspect ratio -- and that's what I've been shooting.
When I log and capture in FCP I use the Easy Setup for DV NTSC. As I am viewing and logging the tapes, the aspect ratio looks correct. BUT, when I actually have it do the capture, the Capture Window stretches the image out a bit wider. Happily, when I go to work the captured clips in my Final Cut DV-NTSC Sequence, the aspect ratio looks perfectly great and normal.
Problems again occur when I export the finished video. I export a self-contained Quicktime movie with "Current Settings", which gives me a QT movie that is 720 x 480 pixels. SADLY, when I view that exported QT movie in Quicktime Viewer, it looks too wide again (same as the Capture screen). BUT, if I place it in DVD Studio (or iDVD) it looks normal again.
IT GETS WEIRDER: In order to try to correct my possible problem I've also tried exporting using the Self Contained Quicktime "DV-NTSC 48kHz 4:3" setting in the pop up menu (instead of usung "Current Settings"). The movies I export that way look consistently normal, aspect ratio-wise. Upon examining the properties of those (correct looking)resultant movies in Quicktime Player, it tells me that the pixel dimensions are 640 x 480.
Why would my 640 x 480 pixel QT exports look OK when I view them in every software?
Is this happening because I am viewing on a computer monitor and the various software apps are doing aspect ratio adjustments (for square vs rectangular pixels) for my display ...sometimes, but not all the time?
This is such a fundamental thing to know that I feel really dim for being confused. Thanks in advance for taking time to read this and hopefully setting me straight.
Dual G5/2.5GHz/4.5 GB, internal ATA, G-SATA 500 Mac OS X (10.4.6) Final Cut Studio 5.0.4

Yes, it's the difference between square and rectangular pixels. The capture window displays the rectangular pixels without correcting them for display on a square-pixel monitor like an Apple Cinema Display. The Canvas and the Viewer do correct for that by default. When you export to QT using current settings, you are exporting rectangular pixels because that's what the current settings are. The QuickTime player isn't correcting for the different pixel aspect ratios on playback, but if your final destination isn't the QuickTime player, that's not important.
Since you seem to be exporting the QuickTime movies in order to make a DVD, you shouldn't try to "fix" the pixel aspect. Leave it alone and your DVDs will be fine.

Is 16:9 aspect ratio possible without HD?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for