Newbie resolution ratio issue

I have CS3 Production Premium and I am just learning the applications. I have worked myself into a bind on my first project and wanted some advice about it.
Here is the issue:
The project involves footage from a DV cam (720x480 0.9)that is run through Ultra for a virtual set. The resulting .avi is 720x480.
This will be edited together with footage that is created from scratch in After Effects. I knew that my resulting flash product had to be 320x240. So, given that AE works faster with smaller resolutions and that I wanted to see what I could get away with in 320x240, I created the AE footage to be 320x240. This represents an amount of work that cannot be redone.
When bringing these into PrProCS3, I started with the DV cam 720x480 clips. Then I add the 320x240 clips and see that I must use the PP feature, "scale to fit frame". This leaves black bars on the left and right of the 320x240 clips as they are a different ratio than the 720x480 clips.
So,
1. What could I do about fixing the situation I have created?
2. How should I have done it to start with?
thanks very much for any ideas,
fred

This link may help:
http://blogs.digitalmediaonlineinc.com/jeffschell
Premiere Pro CS3 Podcast #11: Picture-in-Picture and Split Screen Effects
But, to be honest, I'm not sure that's the best way to go. Why not create a custom 320x240 project (using the "Desktop mode"), and then scale your DV clip down, while leaving your AE clips at 100%. It's ALWAYS preferable to scale clips down rather than above 100%; clips over 100% lose quality.
Simply make a new 320x240 custom project and import the old one into it.

Similar Messages

Can you help me solve my aspect ratio issue?

Hey guys,
I'm posting this in hopes that someone can help me solve an aspect ratio issue with a project that I have to finish by tomorrow.
I'm trying to avoid having to re-edit the entire thing.
I shot the project with my Nikon D7000 DSLR. in 720p 30p (29.97)
I am running Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 (the trial version). I have the full version of Adobe Premiere Pro CS3.
The reason I was working with the trial is that CS3 can't handle the H.264 MOVs that the D7000 records.
You can work with a timeline, but if you try to export anything, it never works. I always have to convert my footage to ProRes MOVs with MPEG Streamclip before I can work with them is CS3. That takes a lot of time and a lot of hard drive space. After much research, I found out that CS5 is the way to go for DSLR footage. I just need to save up my pennies for the upgrade.
So I thought I'd edit this short (1 minute) project with the trial to see how CS5 works with the D7000 footage.
Upon installing the trial program, I found that the project presets were limited. I knew this ahead of time because it's clearly stated on the Adobe's website.
But I wasn't aware how limited they are.
Since "DSLR 1280x720p 30p" is not an option with the trial, I was going to use HDV 720p 30p. But that was not an option either!
So basically, my only option for 16x9 30p was "DV NTSC Widescreen". It's my understanding that this is 864x480 (in square pixel aspect ratio) or 720x480 (in widescreen pixel aspect ratio) I needed the output file to be 864x486. I downsized the footage to 69% in the "Video Effects: Motion" setting so it looked correct in the project. I didn't think about those extra 6 pixels until I outputed the file and saw thin black lines on the top and bottom. My guess is that Premiere is adding black pixels because my project is technically 720x480 (1.2121)
Any thoughts on how I can get a clean 864x486 export? I'd rather not re-edit the whole thing...which I would have to do in CS3 after I spent a few hours converting the original files in MPEG Streamclip. I don't know if there is a way to export something out of CS5 and then open a new project in CS3 to make this work.
Thanks in adavance!
- Jordan

On export, just crop a few pixels off of each side; that'll let the image scale correctly to the output frame size without black bars.
I'm not running the trial, but you should still be able to create a custom sequence preset using the Desktop editing mode. Just switch over to the General tab when you create a new sequence, and choose "Desktop" from the editing modes. Set the rest of the parameters as you need them.
Even easier: once you've imported your footage, just drag a clip to the New Item icon at the bottom of the project panel; a sequence will be created matching your footage parameters. You can edit at full-resolution, and then export to your desired frame size when complete--you'll probably still need to crop a few pixels (in the Export Settings window) to eliminate the black bars.

Newbie-resolution issues.

Please help! This is my first site and it looks fine on my pc, but not on anyone else's. I do not know how to make it uniform for every screen resolution....can anyone help me? Thanks in advance!!!

Houndogg
You have quite a lot going on there and quite a few things to peer at to try to get to the bottom of your difficulties.
Check the validator for your html and also your CSS.
I notice in your HTML that you have an awful lot of &nbs; in you code which I presume you are using to position text. With CSS styling and positioning you really have no need to do that. If you have text in a <p> element you can push the text away from the edge of that element with padding or push the element away from it's containing element edge with a margin on the <p> element.
Say you had some text like this:
<p>This is my text</p>
give the element and id <p id="pushaway"> and then write a CSS rule:
#pushaway {
padding-left: 50px;
to push it 50px; away from the container.
Look what happens to your "Our Mission" sub heading when you enlarge the text size in the browser. You might do better there by using right aligning your text and then using a padding-left or margin right.
If you could remove all or most of the &nbs;'s from your code it would make it easier to review.
Lots of the errors in the validators results for you html indicate you haven't used alt="" in your <img> elements. XHTML likes it if you do. If you fix those and then revalidate that will leave you with fewer errors and it won't be so scary.
The CSS validation indicates a few simple problems and it would be worth you working your way through them. For instance, you have declared a color with only four digits when it needt to be either three or six - #3331
That's all I can do for the moment, but I reckon you should see what you can achieve by working through the validator results and then come back here.
One more thing, You could simplify your header even further by using the logo as a background image and then just adding your text "Owned by Those We Serve" I'd also suggest adding an <h1> element before that to declare the name of you company. I know it's in your page in an <h4> element but it strikes me that should be in an <h1> Then put the "Owned by..." text in an <h2> I'm not sure if it should really be directly in a <div> it should at least be in a <p> element. None of that will affect any layout problems your having, I'm just tidying it up the way I would if it were my page. Perhaps I'm being to nosey and fussy!
Most important is do what you can to work through those validator results and come back with stuff you're not sure of.
Regards
Martin

Neo2 Platnum - memory ratio issues, please help!

hey all
very strang stuff...
just got a 3200+ winchester .90 CPU, its nice. also have 2x twinx corsair 3200 non LL ram.
idea: I had in mind that since my ram doesnt OC very well (220 max) I was going to get the neo2 and play with the FSB and set the ratio of the ram to 166 or something so that I could up the FSB which would in turn up the ram to around 200 or a bit over. thats the idea anyways...
result: initially I could not even post with this ram, had to flash to 1.3 but now it works. when I try to set the ram to 166 and start upping the fsb, I can get to around 220 fine. any more than 225 and I cant post... huh??? the ram is only running at 183 or so mhz at this point so I know its not that. I raised the voltage of both the cpu and ram to 10% and 2.80v and still had same problem...
ok, so I thought I would just change the fsb to 133... well again around 225 or so I cant post... ram is running at 150 only then, so definately not ram. I am lowering the HT to 4x and 3x and still no difference..
my last resort was 100mhz.... well oddly enough, when I set the ram to 100 I can up the FSB to 270 and it posts! I can boot windows at 260 fine, cpu is 2600 and ram is 133 at that point... well the ram doesnt bench too good there obviously, like 3100 in sandra.
the only other thing I could thing of was upping the FSB as high as I could go to get the ram up there and lower the cpu multi while leaving the ram at 100... I was able to get it up to 300 which the ram runs at 150 and booted into windows. but zcup said that HT was running at 300mhz... when I tried to up it from 3x to 4x it posted all weird, so I dont really want to stay at that level...
anyone else had issues changing the ratio?? I tried 1.37 with the same result.
facts: in 1:1 I can run up to 220 and boot windows, so ram runs fine at 220
: the CPU runs fine at 2.6ghz so the cpu is ok
the only conclusion I can come to is that the motherboard is wacked out.. I think the bios is crummy or something. I cant afford new ram; I only wish I could change the multi on the CPU!! waaaaaa
any thought are appreciated

Try reposting in the Overclocking forum, and include your complete system specs in your signature.

Neo2 Memory ratio issues, please read

hey all
very strang stuff...
just got a 3200+ winchester .90 CPU, its nice. also have 2x twinx corsair 3200 non LL ram.
idea: I had in mind that since my ram doesnt OC very well (220 max) I was going to get the neo2 and play with the FSB and set the ratio of the ram to 166 or something so that I could up the FSB which would in turn up the ram to around 200 or a bit over. thats the idea anyways...
result: initially I could not even post with this ram, had to flash to 1.3 but now it works. when I try to set the ram to 166 and start upping the fsb, I can get to around 220 fine. any more than 225 and I cant post... huh??? the ram is only running at 183 or so mhz at this point so I know its not that. I raised the voltage of both the cpu and ram to 10% and 2.80v and still had same problem...
ok, so I thought I would just change the fsb to 133... well again around 225 or so I cant post... ram is running at 150 only then, so definately not ram. I am lowering the HT to 4x and 3x and still no difference..
my last resort was 100mhz.... well oddly enough, when I set the ram to 100 I can up the FSB to 270 and it posts! I can boot windows at 260 fine, cpu is 2600 and ram is 133 at that point... well the ram doesnt bench too good there obviously, like 3100 in sandra.
the only other thing I could thing of was upping the FSB as high as I could go to get the ram up there and lower the cpu multi while leaving the ram at 100... I was able to get it up to 300 which the ram runs at 150 and booted into windows. but zcup said that HT was running at 300mhz... when I tried to up it from 3x to 4x it posted all weird, so I dont really want to stay at that level...
anyone else had issues changing the ratio?? I tried 1.37 with the same result.
facts: in 1:1 I can run up to 220 and boot windows, so ram runs fine at 220
: the CPU runs fine at 2.6ghz so the cpu is ok
the only conclusion I can come to is that the motherboard is wacked out.. I think the bios is crummy or something. I cant afford new ram; I just want to be able to change the ratio to 166 and have it work, is this too much to ask?
Should I RMA the board?

I use an Antec TruPower and that is hindering my performance right now.
If its your ram that is failing use memtest to see at what speed it's failing. I started at (1:1) at 2.0 Ghz dropped the multi to 9 and slowly raised the fsb until memtest would give me errors. After finding a setting that was error free i then ran prime95 to see if it was really stable. I haven't been able to run 1:1 but i do hit 2.5Ghz without any memtest or prime95 errors.
"the only other thing I could thing of was upping the FSB as high as I could go to get the ram up there and lower the cpu multi while leaving the ram at 100... I was able to get it up to 300 which the ram runs at 150 and booted into windows. but zcup said that HT was running at 300mhz... when I tried to up it from 3x to 4x it posted all weird, so I dont really want to stay at that level..."
You were running HT at 300 and tried to go from x3 to x4? I don't remember the exact number but you can't go over 1020-1040 on HT.
Edit: finally... (1:1), now just gotta test for hours on prime95...ugh.

Yoga 2 Pro Resolution Scaling Issues

So I just picked this laptop up from Best Buy the other day and so far I am loving it. However that is not to say that it has been entirely without issues so far and I do apologize if this issue has been brought up before but I was unable to find a decent answer in my searches.
I have checked this on a few games but I will focus on one that I want to play the most but also seems to have the most issues.
So this laptop is just not powerful enough to run a lot of games at the full 3200x1800 resolution and I totally understand that and was not expecting to, however, when turning the resolution down, say to 1600x900 instead of scaling the resolution to fill the screen, it runs it as the actual pixels inside a black box. This has the effect of making the games just too tiny to see, not to mention half or more of the screen is just being wasted.
This seems to really only happen when running a game in Direct X 11 mode, DX9 seems to work fine, but causes other problems and is really not a great option. Alternately, some games, I can set the windows resolution down (which scales fine in windows) and then the game will run and scale. However, specificially with Civilization 5 (one of the games I was most excited to play) it still does not work properly. There is a work around, but it is less than ideal, and I am at a loss as to why I just cant run the game at a lower resolution and have it scale and fill the screen.
Any help or information would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

There is a setting, however, when at native resolution, instead of giving the option to scale to fit display, it just has another option that says maintain display scaling or something like that (I am not on the laptop right now, so I have to double check). As far as I can tell it just does not scale properly. When I change to a non-native resolution, the options change and it then says scale to fit screen, which is what i want.
However, I would rather not have to change to a non native resolution every time I want to run a game. And, specifically in the case of Civilization 5, it doesn't help. The only thing I have found so far that works at all is to change the resolution to 1920x1080, then set the ingame resolution to 1440x900. It is a pain, and ends up in a streched picture.
I tried to install the latest intel drivers from their website (not sure if it would have fixed the issue, since there was no changelog) but it gave me an error saying they were not verified for my device.
This is a rather frustrating issue, especially considering that every computer I have ever owned up until this point has been able to scale the image to fit the screen with no problems what so ever.

Aspect Ratio issues getting 16:9 to look right, what is the best workflow?

Hi all,
I am having trouble getting my 16:9 footage to look right when I export, especially when playing on DVD. I shot the footage with a Sony HDR-HC1 which apparently shoots in 16:9 anamorphic. Originally when I imported the footage it appeared it the FCP viewer and canvas in 4:3 letterboxed form, the image did not look squeezed or stretched but appeared with black stripes on top and bottom.
I have tried several experiments with exporting this footage to dvd with the following results:
Using Compressor with 4:3 setting in export:
DVD Studio Pro track settings to 16:9 looks extra squashed vertically
DVDSP track settings to 4:3 image looks in proper aspect ratio but displays with black stripes on all 4 sides.
Using Compressor with 16:9 settings in export gives the same results.
In conclusion, if it appears in 4:3 letterbox in FCP viewer and canvas there is no way to get it to export and display in DVD with proper 16:9 aspect ratio.
I have also done some experimenting with re-capturing some of the footage from the tape.
For one sequence I recaptured the footage and it displayed in 4:3 without the letterboxed effect (filling the whole screen) but appeared squeezed, I am guessing that this is because of the anamorphic nature in which my camera captures the footage. No pixels were missing. In the FCP viewer and canvas it looked squeezed and did not display in the correct aspect ratio, however when it was exported via Compressor in 4:3 and then in DVDSP Track Settings put to 16:9 Letterboxed, it is displayed perfectly (letterboxed vertically, the image filling the width of the screen without the extra stripes on the sides).
So I thought that I had my solution here, although that did involve re-digitizing and batch capturing all 18 tapes used in the project, so its not exactly a quick fix.
This is where it gets a bit confusing. In order to understand where I had originally gone wrong in my workflow I did some more experiments, this time with the settings on the camera (which I use for a deck in batch capturing). I found the function on the camera where you can set the "TV Type" to either 16:9 or 4:3. I switched the TV Type to 4:3 and when batching it went back to the original letterboxed look (in the batch preview screen that you see while capturing), however when put into the viewer and canvas it was too letterboxed and looked squashed vertically. So then I switched back to TV Type 16:9, now it looks 4:3 squeezed in the batch preview screen (no letterboxing, no missing pixels), however when it goes into the viewer and canvas it becomes letterboxed like the original footage that I had described earlier.
So now even though I have switched the camera back to its original settings it will not display in that 4:3 squeezed look in FCP viewer and canvas.
So after all that my main questions are, in 16:9 can I view it in the FCP viewer and canvas in its correct (anamorphically converted) aspect ratio and still export it without the black bars on all sides?
(The FCP canvas seems to only display in 4:3)
If not, what setting do I need to capture in FCP in the 4:3 squeezed look I have described earlier?
(This is the only setting that I have found that displays properly when anamorphically stretched via DVDSP)
I know that this is a long essay so thanks for making it this far. I have spent weeks experimenting trying to find the best solution so please help me if you know how! I will be very appreciative.
Thanks
Liam

Hi there,
I am not sure if it is necessarily a bug, but its a matter of understanding all of the settings needed. I had the same problems for a while but after a fair bit of trial and error have found some workable settings.
It probably has more to do with the export settings rather than what viewer options have selected (I don't think that viewer settings affect your export).
What program are you using to export?
I am using compressor to export with aspect ration set to automatic 16:9. Then use DVDSP with the track set to 16:9 letterbox, it seems to export to DVD with the correct aspect ratio that way.
I am having trouble with the image strobing, looks like some kind of interlacing problem, but at least I have got it in the right aspect ratio.
Its typical video, solve one problem and it just creates another.
I am yet to find the absolute best workflow.
In response to Andy above, the original letterboxed footage probably did have something to do with the downconverting settings on the camera, as when I import without downconverting it does not letterbox. In the HDR-HC1 there is an option in the menu called "TV Type" with options of 4:3 or 16:9. I was reviewing my footage on a 4:3 television so I most likely had it set to 4:3 which created the letterboxing in the viewer when I then imported the footage.
Importing the footage in HDV solves the issue of aspect ratio, but creates a new problem with the image strobing.
I hope this was some kind of help to you.
Liam

Aspect Ratio Issues in Timeline

This may be a simple fix, may not be. I've searched the discussions, and have come close to an answer, but each topis is just slightly different than my specific issue.
Details:
Shot in 16:9 on Canon XL2.
Imported media just fine, clips looked fine in FCP, etc.
Imported archival historical photos and film footage just fine, put them in timeline and resized each individually. They also looked fine in the 16:9 sequence.
Created a new sequence where I tried a different cut on a later section of the timline. (I just copy and pasted the material from the original timeline into the new sequence. This may be where I went wrong.)
I liked what I had and so replaced the end of the timeline in the original sequence witht the newly edited section from the second sequence. (Same copy and paste method.)
Problem:
All of the aspect ratios for the original footage (16:9) and the b-roll (4:3) material was off (stretched, etc.)
I figured out how to change the origianl shot footage to its correct 16:9 aspect ratio, but all of the b-roll still is'nt correct--it's streched virtically, covering the bars at the top and the bottom of the canvas window. (The bars are black by the way, if this is an indication of settings.)
How can I get all of my b-roll back to fit the 16:9 aspect ratio of the project?

I was able to fix my issue...sort of.
I created a new 16:9 sequence and then pasted a copy of the original timeline into it. Because it was a true 16:9 sequence, all of the b-roll (still photos) were "squished" back into a 16:9 frame, hence making them look correct (because they had been stretched vertically over the 16:9). I knew the original 16:9 clip would also be "squished", but I knew I could manipulate the size of these clips much easier (they were all the same size, unlike the b-roll, there was no motion, etc.).
So, I took one of these clips and manually resized it's aspect ratio to fit the 16:9 exactly. Then I copied the clip, selected all of the rest of the clips that needed to be resized and pasted the size attributes. Viola!
Now my only concern is making sure when I export a QuickTime, and when I show it on a 4:3 TV, it will look correct, meaning it will not be stretched vertically to fit the screen, but instead will remain 16:9, with black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

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.

QHD+ Resolution Scaling Issues Windows 8

I've read that QHD+ resolution monitors like the Dell Precision m3800 with a 3200x1800 resolution screen are having scaling issues with Windows 8, and even 8.1. Some programs scale correctly, but I have specifically heard Adobe programs including Adobe After Effects do NOT scale correctly.
Are there plans to fix this with the next Windows release? Or a patch before then?
Any rough estimate as to when that would be?
Does it work at the moment to scale the monitor down to a lower resolution to fix it? Is it in fact tested and not just assumed. (I have no way of checking and can't get a straight answer)
I want to buy this laptop soon, but I need it for After Effects and if it's not usable, it won't be a good buy. Would love to have some concret answers!
Thanks!
Kim

The CC versions of Adobe programs support high-DPI displays, but not older ones. If you use an older version, this won't change. Nobody goes back to old code.
Mylenium

Aspect ratio issue when watching 16'9 idvd created DVDs on regular players

I am having problems with the aspect ratio of any DVDs that I burn in iDVD as 16'9 - The original video is 16'9 and edited as such in FCP, then exported with current settings selected and then in iDVD I select a widescreen project - preview of the project is fine and when the DVD is done it plays with the correct aspect ratio if I watch on the computer's internal DVD player - but my issue is when I watch on any regular DVD player (on a widescreen tv of course) all the video looks tall and skinny, including the menu. The only way I found to get the video to look like it's natural proportion is to switch the settings to 4'3 on the DVD player, then it creates almost a "super-widescreen" look where there are bars at the top and bottom of the screen. On the otherhand, when i used to shoot in 4'3 and create DVDs as 4'3 projects, I NEVER had this problem when watching on a regular DVD player on widescreen TV! It would take up the whole screen and look normal (I know it must stretch it to fit, but it wasn't noticable). I thought creating a 16'9 video I should be able to watch on a widescreen TV and it should take up the whole screen and look normal. Please help!

No, that is not the way it should work. This may help:
iDVD: DV widescreen 16:9 workflow from Final Cut Pro
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2179?viewlocale=en_US
Final Cut Express: DV widescreen 16:9 workflow for iDVD at http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1611
and
Preparing your Final Cut Express or Final Cut Pro movie to work with iDVD at http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=iDVD/7.0/en/6652.html

Aspect ratio issue

Hi, I have had this issue for several months and cannot get an answer...It started out when I downloaded Flash player 11.2. All the videos that we have posted on our client's websites are "squished" horizontally. Adobe said that it was a known issue when viewing Dreamweaver generated flash player code (from DW CS3) in IE8, and Chrome. Firefox is ok. Adobe asked us to remove the "no script" portion of the code, as it was outdated and to try Flash player 11.3....which we did. It still does not work. We downloaded DW CS6 and tried to use the code generated from this latest version of DW....and we are still experiencing the same issue. DOES ANYONE KNOW ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND WHAT TO DO? Thank you, Steve K.

Aspect ratio problems are usually caused when the output file size doesn't match proportions of the native file (i.e. a letterbox video saved as 320X240).
Honestly, I stopped using Flash media when Steve Jobs announced Apple iOS devices would not support it. If you're struggling with this, now might be an opportune time to convert your FLVs to MP4s and use an HTML5 video player that IS supported by PCs, Macs, iOS and Androids.
http://www.pickleplayer.com/
Nancy O.
Alt-Web Design & Publishing
Web | Graphics | Print | Media Specialists
http://alt-web.com/

Detail preserving upscale aspect ratio issue

My goal is to take a 720x480 60i DV file (non square pixel) and upscale to 960x720 60p square pixel for YouTube upload.
My workflow seems to work, except I'm not quite getting the correct aspect ratio at the end. I'm getting an extra 5 pixels on the bottom and top of my image so it's being squished by a total of 10 pixels. I have uploaded a screen capture to demonstrate this. In case the image preview doesn't work here's a Flickr URL:
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8623/16158021066_e52966ff22_o.jpg
On the left is a simple AE scale, I dragged the DV file into a timeline, and used the scale command to change the pixel resolution to 960x720 so the DV file stretches to fill the 4:3 frame as it should. Remember, I'm trying to get the DV file to square pixel aspect ratio for online viewing. On the right is the result of my workflow below using AE CC and detail preserving upscale. The 5 pixel gray bars are part of the movie file.
Import the DV master into After Effects CC
Right click the file in the project bin, go to Interpret footage, then MainSet Conform frame rate to 59.94, hit okay
Drag this movie to the new composition button
Select the composition in the project bin, hit Command+K to open the comp properties
Set the frame size to 960x720
Set the duraction to double the original
Set pixel aspect ratio to square, hit okay
Select the video layer in the new comp, then go to the Layer menu, select Time, then Time Stretch and enter 200, then hit okay, the number should match the frame duration you just got from doubling the original
Now, add the Detail preserving upscale effect
Click fit width
Export

Thanks for the reply Mylenium. Typically I do separate operations like this using pre-composing but I found it made no difference so I removed that step in my original workflow so save work.
I'm not sure what "crooked HDV/ IMX values" means, can you elaborate?
If you mean my frame size of 960x720 this is the minimum that YouTube will need for a 4:3 video to generate a 60p video. They don't want 4:3 videos encoded in 16:9 wrappers and they have good reasons for this.
I'll say for the sake of simplicity to forget all about the 60p conversion here and focus on the 4:3 non square PAR conversion using the DPU (detail preserving upscale). I was able to accomplish this but it requires me re-scaling the video in After Effects first... to either 640x480 or 720x540 square pixel... but I'm just trying to avoid this additional scaling operation.

Aspect ratio issues with SD box and no help from Verizon

I just renewed my 2 year contract which included a free box but a billing screwup resulted in repeated charges for the box. A CS rep credited the account and said I had the wrong box and she would send out a new one.
i had a 7100 Motorola HD box. I have an older television set (that cannot control aspect ratio) and I have never had HD service but this was the box I was sent by Verizon as part of my contract. Why they felt it had to be changed I don't know, but ..... the box they sent was a 2500 SD box which does not give me an acceptable picture.
It's totally random. Some channels are 16:9. Some are overzoomed 4:3. The FIOS channel bar at the bottom is partially off the screen and the content is clipped around the edges. Commercials are totally random in size and appearance.
The # key on the remote does not work. There is no option in Settings to change the aspect ratio.
CS was ZERO help. They concluded that I had to either deal with the scattershot image sizes and clipped image content or go buy another television. SERIOUSLY VERIZON?
I couldn't get an answer as to why the box I was sent by Verizon as part of my original contract that provided a perfectly acceptable image had to be replaced with a box that doesn't provide squat. I have had Verizon service for approximately 7 years with this same television and this is the first time I've been given a box that can't produce an acceptable image and a remote that can't resize. So why now?
This smells like a bait and switch, or an attempt to get customers to pay for an upgraded box for a service they don't want just to get an acceptable picture. I live in an urban area and there is plenty of older equipment in these homes. So are customers like myself just being told even though you pay a significant amount of money for a Triple Play you are only getting 2 parts of the service?
I find it hard to believe there isn't some way to make the box or the remote change the image size. Can anyone help?

why do so many topics go to private section? we need to see how it's responded to in case we have the same problem..
but yes, our 2500 sd box, basically the 4:3 standard non HD box broadcasts to fit a 4:3 TV.. now some channels will have the black bars on top and bottom to accommodate the 16:9 aspect ratio.. you'll notice this if you run the 2500 box on a flat screen.. if you have it in 16:9 ratio on a flat screen it looks stretched.. the only way to watch regularly is in 4:3 mode.. which basically has the image with bars on all sides.. or you can zoom it and lose a portion of the image.. but it's because the box thinks you're using a 4:3 sd tv so the boxes appear on top and bottom so it can still fit the wider image it's filmed in.. so with flat screens you need the HD box i guess.. unless there is something i'm missing but there isn't a setting that i can find to change how the box exports the image for a flat screen or 4:3. I know the HD boxes have an 'SD Override' option.. which i guess tells the box you're not using a 4:3 tv anymore.. but that option is not on the 2500 SD box.. believe me i looked.. but this is all in reverse for your issue anyhow as you're having trouble with the SD box on an SD TV... which yeah, if you run SD the quality of picture is not as good as the HD programming.. so please let us know what they say to do for you.

Mac Newbie TM & Spotlight issues

Hi All,
I got my new iMac on 21 September 2012. I have a NAS (Network Attached Storage) drive on my Netgear DGN 2200 router which Spotlight never really managed to index - it always estimates a huge amount of time and even if I let it go it doesn't get it done.
When I started TM backup it extimated about a month and I let it go because I thought it would figure out that it was a new / empty machine quite quickly and the estimate would come down. After two days and only 2-3GB backed up I stopped it and deleted all of the backup data and started again. Same issue.
Then I turned off spotlight and eventually got a week-long backup done.
I then updated to 10.7.5 supplemental upgrade which apparently fixes long TM backup issues.
Now, with spotlight turned back on TM has been taking forever with its incremental backups. For example, I turned it on an hour ago and opened pages & Chrome, then it started a backup 50 minutes ago. It says "Backing up: 116.6 MB of 116.6 MB" but it's still going 50 MINUTES later!!! update: 75minutes later
Spotlight is still not indexing my external storage which is an issue because I have all of my work on the external.
I have been trawling through this forum but being a mac newbie I don't understand all of the jargon - sudo this and that, and if I get a solution it does need to be step by step. I have always been tinkering around under the hood of previous M$ machines and would be a 'power-user' so I'm not stupid but it's a whole new language for me.
Should I upgrade to Mountatin Lion?
Is there any way I can downgrade to 10.6?
Is there any way to search without using spotlight? On the pc I used to be able to search non-indexed locations, it would just take a little while.
Time Machine is not trying to backup my NAS drive is it? From my understanding it doesn't do that but maybe it's confused ... ???
Thanks for your help.

I don't use raid myself so I'll leave that explanation to others. I configure my Mac Pro with 4 drives. My main drive is my boot drive and has about 300+ gigs free. I have a backup drive for that which I use SuperDuper for backup, creating a fully bootable backup drive in the event my main drive has a problem. I only back up to that drive when my machine is "good and solid". That allows me to throw on the most recent update without much concern. If there is a problem then I just boot from my backup drive and I'm back up and running just fine. I also use the backup of my main drive for my Final Cut Pro scratch drive. I copy the files for my movies to external drives for archive when needed. For my data drives I use another set of 500 gig drives. One for data (mostly photos) and one to backup using superduper whenever I feel like it. You could automate it all with Retrospect for the data drives if you wanted to. I don't think Retrospect will make a bootable backup of a main drive. I use Western Digital WD5000KS ddrives, 500 megs each. They make another model for those wanting RAID. Set up RAID, by all means, if squeeking every ounce of speed is your goal to be sure. My setup is conservative, redundant and very safe. A simple search here or on google for RAID0 or such will turn up much info on raid configuations.

Newbie resolution ratio issue

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for