Pixel Aspect and Image Squence

Hi, having a problem with pixel aspect ratios (PAR) . I created an 1024 x 768 image sequence in Maya with a PAR of 1.0. Opened in Photoshop- all is fine. Opened in Motion with same settings (height and width and a PAR of 1.0) and the image is stretched or cut off. Went to the media tab and tired all setting with the PAR and no dice. Used custom PAR and "from file" settings and still no dice. Went to Final Cut, imported, set h&W in the sequence setting with same dimension and PAR of 1.0. Much closer to source image but cropped a little at the top and bottom. I tried this with several files with differing h & w dimensions and all are problematic in Motion except if the h & w dimension ratio is 1.0 (e.g., 1000 X 1000 with a PAR of 1.0). Any help? Thanks.

I think I'm getting closer to narrowing down the problem:
1: If I render an image in Maya with an alpha channel and import into Motion, the aspect ratio in the Canvas is not displayed correctly (but is displayed correctly in the Utility window).
2: If I render an image without an alpha channel the aspect ratio in the Canvas is not displayed correctly (but is displayed correctly in the Utility window).
3: If I render an image in Maya with an alpha channel then remove the alpha channel in Photoshop then import into Motion, the aspect ratio in the Canvas is displayed correctly and all is good though this is not an acceptable workaround with a large number of images.
How do you post an image?

Similar Messages

Pixel aspect and downrez to NTSC problem

Okay, I seem to have a complicated problem...
1. I have footage that was shot mostly at 1080p30 on an HVX200 (there is also some 720p60 here and there)
2. I am making an NTSC version, pan and scan, not letterbox, and have my sequence settings set using the standard DV NTSC preset.
3. I am also making a PAL version, also pan and scan, sequence settings are standard DV PAL preset.
4. I then export through Compressor:
NTSC Settings- Quicktime movie, photo-JPEG, full quality, proportions- 720x480, pix aspect ratio- NTSC CCIR601
PAL Settings- Quicktime movie, photo-JPEG, full quality, proportions- 720x576, pix aspect ratio- PAL CCIR601
Here's the problem- the final results are coming out wrong. NTSC clips look stretched wide, PAL clips look squished skinny. In QT, the aspect ratios both show some kind of "widescreen" effect. The NTSC shows the aspect as being "720x480 (640x480)" and PAL shows "720x576 (768x576)"
I know this won't be accepted for my final requirements. I need the aspects to simply be 720x480 and 720x576 without those dang parenthesis. Anybody know what I'm doing wrong?

flyingosockman wrote:
What I need are essentially NTSC and PAL DV files that are compressed with PhotoJPEG. I didn't know that the square pixels was part of the compressor, however, that's very interesting.
Basically my requirements are photoJPEG, 720x480 for NTSC and 720x576 for PAL.
That's like asking for soda, but without the carbonation.
Jokes aside, sometimes that is what you have to deliver.
To get back to your original issue, what you're seeing (the figures in parentheses, such as 640x480 for NTSC-DV) are the results of QuickTime's Conform Aperture property which interprets non-square pixels as square pixels for QT playback. If your movie were actually NTSC-DV (and not PhotoJPEG), it would look correct in QT Player.
I suspect whoever you're delivering to has ways to correct for the distortion that you're seeing in QT Player when they'll be outputting (to tape? to MPEG-2 stream?).
In other words, if those are the specs you've been given - 720x480 PhotoJPEG for NTSC, for instance - your outputs and workflow are correct.

How to save document with pixel aspect correction?

I have a document which has has a non-square pixel ratio thus requires pixel aspect ratio correction to be turned on to view the image correctly.
I want to save it as a JPEG for use online however I cant find an option anywhere to make the saved file have the corrected aspect ratio.
Essentially when I save the file as a jpeg (or any end format) the image is squished. How can I save the file not squished? (ie. burn in the ratio correction)

As I still work with a lot of Images, being used in SD Video, where non-square pixels are the rule.
I Save_As PSD, and Import those adjusted PAR (Pixel Aspect Ratio) Images. However, that does not work in your case. I have never used JPEG, but wonder if that format is fully supportive of non-square pixels - never needed JPEG, so have never investigated.
As Web display is on a computer, with square pixels, why the use of non-square pixels for the Web? [Just curious]
Good luck, and wish that I had more to offer, perhaps PNG?
Hunt

I've been sent a scan of a document as an attachment. Clicking on it, I get the message, "Pixel aspect ration correction is for preview purposes only. Turn it off for maximum image quality." What is pixel aspect ration and how do I turn it off?

I've been sent a scan of a document as an attachment. Clicking on it, I get the message, "Pixel aspect ration correction is for preview purposes only. Turn it off for maximum image quality." What is pixel aspect ration and how do I turn it off?

It's "aspect ratio", not aspect "ration".
It's what determines whether you have square pixels ("normal") or, if rectangular pixels, what the aspect ratio (width : length) of that rectangle is.
It's explained in the Help files. I cannot go into more detail because you have neglected to provide information about your platform and exact version of Photoshop.
Example in next post

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

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

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

How do i change pixel aspect ratio of an image in elements9?

My camera only shoots in one format ratio, i would like to change images to 2:1, or 1:2. Without cropping or letterboxing. (Hence i think it is the 'pixel' aspect ratio i need to alter, not the 'picture' aspect ratio). Is this possible in elements or is it something else i can't do in elements; and just another reason why i should've bought CS5 instead??

You can use a custom crop and Elements will automatically re-sample the pixels. You won’t get any distortion but you will sacrifice part of the image.
In this example the original image was 3872 x 2592
I divided 3872 by 2 and changed the height in the options bar to 1936
Part of the sky had to go but still a pleasing result.
Result
You can position the crop shield anywhere. e.g. depending on the original you may want to loose part of the top or bottom. Simply move the image around to get the best composition then hit the green checkmark.

Pixel Aspect Ratio and ciphering type of footage-CS6

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

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

How can I properly export an image with corrected pixel aspect ratio?

Hi, I have a bunch of .png screenshots from old MS-DOS era software that I wish to convert to a 0,8 pixel aspect ratio to simulate the stretch from old CRT monitors.
I can easily preview it by enabling the pixel aspect ratio correction under the "View" menu, and it looks great. But if I try to "save as" the file as a .png or .gif, it looks blurry and horrible:
Any hints on how to do this?

Ok, thanks letting me know. Only last thought is a screen cap of image 2 (that I believe you want) saved to png.
There's a program called Greenshot that would use the Print screen key and allow you to marquee select and save the shot as a png file. Greenshot - a free and open source screenshot tool for productivity
That's for Windows, Cmd-Shift-4 on a Mac does the same thing.
I know it is a pain if you have a hundred of these, but I suppose if you are not in a big hurry you can get it all fixed up.
Gene

DVCPRO HD 720P: pixel aspect ratios with still images from Final Cut

I am currently trying to get still images from a trailer I am working on with Final cut pro. The footage is DVCPRO HD 720P 24pn and the interlacing and pixel aspect ratios have been giving me a lot of trouble in photoshop. I am able to convert the PAR but it is for preview purposes only...? I need the file to be saved with the converted PAR. How do you do that???
Also, the de-interlacing filter on photoshop doesn't seem to help the quality of the photo.
Anyone have any ideas?
I have searched and searched and only found somewhat related questions, so maybe I am the only one trying to do this...

Why are you doing interlace if you have 720p?

How do you export a Pixel Aspect Ratio Corrected Image? (CS5)

I have a still pulled from Premiere Pro CS5, but it's in DVCPRO HD Pixel Aspect (960x720) I pulled it up in photoshop, which corrects it for preview purposes, but I want to export the corrected (1280x720) Image... The only way I've found so far is to create a new document with the corrected Aspect and drag the image to it, then export it... BUT I have a bunch of images to pull from these videos, is there a simpler way?
Thanks,
Aza

Aza,
There are two "Aspect Ratios" with many Video Images.
First, one has the Aspect Ratio of the Image - what you listedwith the 960 x 720. That is the width (in pixels) and the height (in pixels).
Then, there is the Pixel Aspect Ratio. Many Video Images do not use Square Pixels (PAR = 1.0), but instead a Pixel Aspect Ratio. This will be something like PAR = 1.212 (SD Widescreen), PAR = 0.9 (SD Standard), etc..
With a non-Square PAR, PS will display the Image with Square Pixels, as the computer uses Square Pixels.It will then warn you, that the display is in Square Pixels.
What is the PAR, that you wish to use? This can be altered via Image>Pixel Aspect Ratio, and PS will honor that, if you Save_As PSD, TGA, and several other formats, that support non-Square Pixels. What format do you need?
Good luck,
Hunt
PS - For more discussion on Video PAR, this ARTICLE should be useful.

New LG Monitor Screen Image Keeps Shifting a few pixels left and right / goes into power save mode

I just purchased a new LG Computer Monitor from Best Buy today and hooked it up to my PowerMac computer. Shortly after setting it up, the entire screen image started sporadically shifting left and right a few pixels. And then, at seemingly random times, it'll shut itself down, going into power save mode. I checked the cables to make sure they were secure and they seem to be. Could there be some sort of interference that's causing it? Or would it be the graphics card? My computer is only a couple years old. Please help!

Do you have another computer you can plug the monitor into to test?
Adam
Best Buy Community - Retail, Americas
Forum Guidelines | Terms & Conditions | Community Guidelines | Blogging Guidelines
*Remember to mark your questions solved and click the star under the user's name to show your thanks!

Photoshop CS5 can only decode fax encoded images up to 32767 pixels wide and tall

Dear Sir/Madam,
Can you please help me? I am scanning large drawings using an Xerox 6204 Large printer/scanner. The resolution is set at 600 and saved as .tif. Photoshop CS3 can open files with no problems, but CS5 gives me the following message:
"Photoshop can only decode fax encoded images up to 32767 pixels wide and tall"
I can also view with infarview and open with applications such as corel draw. Am I missing a plug-in or patch update? The same file can be opened in both Photoshop versions if I scan at resolution 300.
Your help is greatly appreciated.
All the best
Paulo

Hi Mylenium,
Many thanks for the prompt reply.
I agree with you... it's a little odd to save on fax tiff format... to be honest, it's not like we have an option on the matter... the XEROX 6204 Large Format Printer/Scanner either give us .Tif or .PDF options... Anyway's no problem with CS3 or other software like mentioned above... so even knowing it's a bit strange to use such format, still does not explain why on CS5 I get this error message. Furthermore if I open on CS3 and save as (same file name and same format .tif) I can then open on CS5!!!!
To my surprise, I did not know it was saving as a fax tif... all I get is tif. Even so if all other software including an older version of Photoshop can open it why CS5 can not? What is missing? As mentioned if scanned at 300 dpi it opens... Confused. Very confused!!
All the best
Paulo

Weird symbol in file name and images by pixel instead of size?

i my filenames i sometimes see a weird box with what looks like a script "x". is this some kind of default symbol that indicates i am using a non standard symbol in this file name? it sometimes happens after i drag and drop something say from my desktop to my laptop.
also, is there any chance of being able to see pixel size of images in a Finder window in addition to or instead of File size?
Thanks.

Some things about this.
1. Ignore the back slash in front of the space. That's the terminal shell convention for escaping (making significant) special characters that follow the back slash (in this case a space).
2. A pathname like ~/foo/bar is another shell convention where the tilde is a shorthand for your home directory.
3. I am not convinced that the weird stuff is not there in the Finder display. I think it just doesn't show in the Finder's desktop font.
4. I am going to use your example for the following discussion. Extrapolate where needed.
The terminal shows a pathname like /Users/homename/Desktop/_evolute\ tutes, i.e. with some kind of garbage character(s) after tutes.
In terminal type cp followed by a space and drag that tutes file into the terminal window. I think it will look something like this (don't hit return yet).
cp /Users/homename/Desktop/_evolute\ tutes
Now type a space and add ~/Desktop/foobar on to the end of the line. It should now look like the following:
cp /Users/homename/Desktop/_evolute\ tutes ~/Desktop/foobar
Hit return. You should see a file called foobar on your desktop (unless you get an error because the shell didn't like those special characters at the end of the pathname, in which case we have to quote it, but ignore that for now and we can address that in a followup post). All this did was copy your file to the desktop with a different name, foobar in this case.
Now I propose that the file foobar is named just that. If you throw that in the trash, do a get info on it, or drag it back into the terminal window, it should still be just the name foobar. Nothing else at the end of it.
If all this goes as I described, then the moral of all this is that however that original problematic file (or files) was created somehow something added those non-printable characters to the end of the name. In some fonts it shows as best the font being used can show it. In others they remain invisible because there is no representation in that particular font.
...on the other hand, I could just be wrong about all of this!

Just updated to 6.0 and I'm noticing random white pixels on black images.

Just updated to 6.0 and I'm noticing random white pixels on black images. It's not my monitor since this doesn't happen to any other browsers. It might also be a plugin.

Clear Cookies & Cache
* https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Template:clearCookiesCache
Clear the Network Cache
* https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/How%20to%20clear%20the%20cache#w_clear-the-cache
Troubleshooting extensions and themes
* https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Troubleshooting%20extensions%20and%20themes
Update All your Firefox Plugins
* https://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/plugincheck/
* http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/plugincheck/
Troubleshooting plugins
* https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Troubleshooting%20plugins
Check and tell if its working.

Please help me!--rendering makes the images or video blurry (very pixelated) deteriorates the image Adobe Premier Elements 13 need help! .jpg and mpeg images, but I have never "rendered" before since I got APE 13 about 6 weeks ago. I am desperate for

Please help me!--rendering makes the images or video blurry (very pixelated) deteriorates the image Adobe Premier Elements 13 need help! .jpg and mpeg images, but I have never "rendered" before since I got APE 13 about 6 weeks ago. I am desperate for assistance!

That's going to be a ridiculous waste of money and energy.
First of all, the current ATI drivers don't support multiple GPUs, so at the moment even a single 4870X2 would be only a 'normal' 4870 (which is quite a speed beast already). GFX drivers evolve rapidly, so things might look different next month, but when it comes to Linux and hardware there's one Golden Rule: stay away from the newest stuff and wait for proper support to get coded.
I also wonder what power supply could possibly cope with the differences between idle and full load; that's way beyond 400W. But then, I'm one of those "quiet&green" types where >100W idle is already a bit much.
I kind of understand that you want to get it done and not worry about hardware for the next 10 years or so, but that's simply not how the hardware world works and never did. At least not for the average consumer.

Pixel Aspect and Image Squence

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for