Render out square pixels?

When I render out of After Effects CC 2014, I ask for
640X480 apple 422 square pixels (current settings)
I get
Pixel aspect NTSC - CCIR
But I WANT
pixel aspect square
When I render out of FCP7 using Compressor, I can get all of the above WITH SQUARE pixels.
I import a Compressor rendered clip into an FCP7 sequence with settings as above, and no render within fcp is necessary, and the Properties shows pixel-aspect Square
I import an AE (with effects added to that SAME clip) rendered out with CURRENT settings into that SAME sequence and render IS necessary and Properties shows NTSC-CCIR
Any way to render out with square pixels? I understand default in AE is square, so...
What am I doing wrong?

Yes, I've been advised that 640 X 480 deinterlaced 422HQ Sq. is the best format for me to project from my laptop at a special screening. It really looks beautiful.
But that's not my question.
I'm asking why Compressor will give me that format and that apparently AE won't.
I'm using the a clip from the CORRECTLY formatted footage. I bring it into AE in order to add an effect. But when I render it out at CURRENT SETTINGS I get NTSC - CCIR not square.
Question, how can I add an effect in AE without destroying the existing formatting of my clip?

Similar Messages

"Simple" Project - Can't figure out Square Pixels, Codecs, etc.

Just bought FCE thinking that making an iPhone demo video would be easier and have spent hours so far unable to get past the first (basic?) step.
I would like to make a quicktime video for the web at 600x400 pixels (aspect ratio of 1.5). Have recorded a .mov video at 320x460 that I want to display at full-resolution in that 600x400 window when zooming/scaling from within a background that (I thought) would initially be 1500x1000 (1.5) pixels with a 320x460 inset. That's all, and all with square pixels.
The trouble is, I cannot seem to find the right combination of how to size and design my background graphic (with Photoshop CS3, trying all combinations of pixel ratios) so it will fill up the canvas precisely, and I cannot find the right permutation that will let me fit my 320x460 video precisely. I have found combinations (sizing in Photoshop with pixel ratios, changing the size of the artwork, change pixel properties of the sequence in the browser, etc.) that work for the background and the inset video but nothing where they both work together.
So, what's the secret to just making web videos using videos and background images together? This would seem to be a simple matter and I must be missing something. Thanks.

My issues are not so much with functionality and learning such functionality (I think it's all there if you can find it) but with the User Interface.
I expect when I select a clip in the Sequence timeline that the clip will appear in the Viewer since that is what I indicated I would be working on. The windows (viewer, timeline, canvas) are all literally disconnected. You think you're working on one thing, but you're not.
I expected that when I added a motion keyframe in the Canvas, that the keyframes would be instantly marked in the timeline and in the viewer for all items (to coordinate concurrent scaling/effects).
When you look at properties, the drop downs don't even show the currently selected property but just show the top one in the list (bad, bad programming and UI)
The wireframe being called wireframe instead of 'handles' is bad.
When scaling a clip or picture with a wireframe in Canvas, using the Shift key usually constrains the scaling to proportional sizes in EVERY graphics program I have ever used, except for FCE where using the shift key while dragging lets you distort the graphic/clip. No attention to common standards for object manipulation. Bad.
The lack of the ability to specify precise adjustments (like to the pixel) in the Canvas (or anywhere) is bad. When I was scaling a clip in the canvas, I could not see behind the colored wireframe and had to rely on trial and error so see if my scaled clip fit perfectly. You could not even zoom to anything but the presets. Terrible.
I'll stop.
Video pros should be using FC Studio with huge learning curves, but at $199, FCE will of course be used by folks who want a step up from iMovie. The focus on "video" instead of web "movies" with pizazz is an huge oversight in the documentation.

Can't render out 1.44 pixel ratio for SD 16:9 UK TVC broadcast requirements ?

I'm prepping a TV advert for broacast in the UK and the station require an SD 16:9 1.44 pixel ratio 720x576 (1024x576), the problem is this just doesn't seem possible in after effects or any adobe porduct I can see ?
The only thing I can do is render out a 1.46 pixel ratio 720x576 (1050x576) version.
Any help on this would be greatly apreciated !

1.44 is actually wrong according to the specifications. The PAR for NTSC footage is also wrong. There's an article somewhere on the Adobe site that explains the decision and there's an article by Chris and Trish Meyer on the subject. Adobe changed it to be more, not less compliant. It wasn't that long ago and we were working with 640 X 480 as the standard video size for digital production. The very best workflow is to work in square pixels anyway and only squeeze the image as a final step. And as I said before, there are dozens of codecs that don't even have a spot in their container to define PAR. For some it's like trying to add PPI info to a .gif -
What codec do they require? What data rate? Where's the white paper. I'd be glad to read it. In practical terms, and for every network from the US, to France, to Japan, that I've ever submitted work to, match their request for delivery format and they never look back. They just take your money and play your stuff. Only once in more than 40 years of submitting programming to television did I have to send a network a different file or tape.
You can't be the only AE artist producing for broadcast in the UK. I've been in television since 1969 and was one of the first utilizers of desktop production in a major US market. It's about scan lines and timeing (frame size). Go to Angie Taylors's blog and ask her the question. She's one of the top AE artists and trainers in the UK.

Whats the math behind converting from square pixels to non-square...?

Does anyone know the math behind resizing a video from square pixel to non-square?
Say if I have a 720x480 4:3 video and I render it out as square pixels. So then I need to resize it down to non-square so that it will no longer be stretched....I know I can just use premiere or quicktime to scale it properly for me but what is the math behind it? I'll admit im no mathematician, all i know is that square pixels = 1 and dv = .9, how you go from there is beyond me.
Reason I ask is because I have a 800x600 video in square pixels and just want to know how in the world it makes sense that you change it to 755x600 and the stretch is gone. How does do you get to that number?
Many thanks in advance!

I don't have CS4, and have only been scanning the CS4 forums; so there may be better links regarding this in this forum. CS4 changed the par to a more "correct" option. It is not .9 now but .91. (See Dan's little "about" before the .9.) And when you are dealing with 800x600, there may be other issues.
I like the AE/Meyers explanations of all this (so also see the regular help for Premiere):
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/AfterEffects/9.0/WS3878526689cb91655866c1103906c6dea-7f3aa.htm l
There are 2 pdf article links on that page.
Also see the free Meyers video on Lynda.com
http://www.lynda.com/home/Player.aspx?lpk4=40550
EDIT: I missed the more relevant thing in Dan's: see the 10/11 as the multiplier rather than .9? 10/11 is the "new" .909090 = .91.
Message was edited by: Stan Jones

Square or non square pixels

I am very new to After Effects and am completely unsure about which composition and preset Settings to choose. I want to create a slideshow to view on a SD LED TV although I have no idea which preset to choose: PAL DV, PAL DV Widescreen, PAL DV Squarew Pixels, PAL DVWidescreen Square Pixels.
Should I be working in 720x576, is it okay to view on widescreen TV??
Thanks in advance

It is always best to work with square pixels. It is also always best to work at the maximum frame size you can reasonably expect to have need to use. For most projects today this means HD. The last decision is what frame rate to use. In PAL standard countries the minimum standard frame rate is 25 fps. Everywhere else the minimum standard is 23.976. There are other frame rate considerations for your main project that involve the kind of motion you are going to use. Generally speaking you get smoother motion with less chance of jittering or stroboscopic effects with higher frame rates.
That was a lot to throw out at you all at once. Take a deep breath, I'm going to throw you some more. It's time to talk about source materials. It's always best to always start with the highest quality source material you can for your project but, now read this carefully because you are interested in doing a slide show, it is always best to size photographs and other artwork like Illustrator files (vector art) to a size that matches the size in the final project or is just slightly larger.
What does that mean? Let's talk about your slideshow. First of all I would not consider working any project in Standard Definition any more. There are very few displays that are only 720 pixels wide. Even phones have higher resolution screens than that. My minimum size for any movie is full HD, 1920 X 1080. I also work mostly at 29.97 fps because it gives me more freedom with motion. We'll talk about sizing your slideshow for distribution later. For now let's talk about your slide show and the images you are going to use in it.
So you've decided to do the slide show at 1920 X 1080 using the (PAL Standard) 25 fps setting. You've also shot all of your images with a 16 MP camera in Camera RAW format so you are starting with High Quality originals. You're processing your original photos in Photoshop to crop, color correct, and touch up. What size do you use for your final export. The originals are probably close to 4912 x 3264. That's 2.5 times larger than a standard HD frame size. If you are designing your slide show to show the full image at some point then your images can be resized in Photoshop to 1920 pixels wide. You should do final image sharpening and adjusting there. If, on the other hand, you want to push in on your photographs to see some details on the photos you must consider the final framing of the move on your photographs. At the original 4912 x 3264 frame size you could push in to about 1/4 of the picture without any problems. You can estimate the safe framing of your photographs by setting a fixed size to the rectangular selection tool in Photoshop and dragging it around your image. If you want to move in to show more detail than you see in this preview then you should scale up your photos in Photoshop and do your best to fix the scaling artifacts and improve the image there.
Why don't you want to just use your photographs at full resolution? Because Photoshop will do a much better job at scaling your photos than you can do in AE and because your project will easier to work with and faster to render.
Now let 's talk about delivering your project. You should always save your project with all of the source files. An AE project file does not contain any source footage. There's nothing in there but pointers to the original source footage. If you move the original footage, or don't save it then your project file is in a little trouble or completely ruined. You have two options for rendering your project to a delivery codec. The first is to render the project to a production codec that is lossless or nearly lossless. This is good for storage and, if you are delivering to several different formats or may need to do so in the future, this is the best first step. Once you have your Lossless original rendered you render a delivery version with the appropriate software. You should NOT use After Effects Render Cue to render to a delivery format. Highly compressed GOP compression like h.264 require multi pass compression do to a good job. You need specialized software for that. Fortunately Adobe supplies the Adobe Media Encoder with After Effects and it is very good at that job.
Another advantage of the Adobe Media Encoder is that you can load your After Effects project file directly into the Adobe Media Encoder and render your delivery product there. This skips the first render and, for many projects is sufficient. If you have SD and HD output requirements you can set up the AME to render both at the same time using standard presets. This will also save you time.
I hope this helps you figure out the best workflow. Good luck on your AE journey. I've been on it for more than 20 years.

Square Pixels-Rectangle Pixels: Still Confused...

Ok I've read the manuals. Read the books.
The whole square pixel thing still escapes me.
Here's my situation:
Im working on a project in FC and Im bringing in Quicktime movies exported from Keynote (which since it came from my Mac, it is square pixel), regular DV NTSC footage from my camcorder (which is Rectangular), and Photoshop files (which are square pixel, but could be prepared in the Photoshop preset size designed for inclusion in FC).
My final out put will be a stand alone Quicktime file which willl be played back on a Mac through a digital projector and it will be put into a DVD using DVD SP or iDVD.
Given all that, it is hard for me to keep track of what my settings should be for Square Pixel or Rectangular.
Is it just me or is this hard to understand?

Thomas,
I'll take a crack at this since I did something similar about a year back. My first suggestion is to rather play back from the dvd through the projector (in other words don't play the file from the desktop, rather insert the DVD and play that from the laptop.). The projector should compensate for the SQ vs Round (Rectangle) issue as everything is going to be round. (Check the projector settings.)
You might as well re-format the aspect ration of the PSD files to NTSC DV, as you are going to edit in NTSC (and output a NTSC DVD eventually.) As for the Keynote QT files, I'd first check to see if there is an export setting in Keynote to NTSC DV. Secondly I'd try importing them and see if FCP will render them correctly. And as a last measure you should resize the files using the motion tab. In the FCP manual they describe the exact process of re-sizing. (Sorry I'm not at the edit suite at the moment, so its not on hand.)
I hope this helps a little.

Render out a blend mode

is there any way to render out a blend mode layer so when it's on normal it still looks like the blend mode with the transparency etc...
I want to export some design to .png files to use in a web page, and I need the blend mode to work with out the photoshop background. I don't think you can use blend mode in HTML, CSS or Dreamweaver.

Simply - no. Blend modes will only work within Photoshop files. Outside Photoshop they need to be rendered onto opaque or transparent pixels, to retain their appearance.
Its really impossible to tell with compete certainty, without a more detailed explanation. (which mode, whats it interacting with) But the answer, again in case you didnt hear it first time, is likely to be … no

How to edit with non-interlaced playback - for square pixel art?

I'm working with PNG sequenced images from Flash. I'm compositing in AE and I export an QT movie in "Animation" compression, 100% quality. The exported movie is as 'clean' as a Flash swf. This becomes my source movie for Premiere CS3.
When I bring my scenes to edit in Premiere CS3 I can't figure how to set up the project so the the final out-put is non-interlaced. I want the quality of the final movies to be as clean (non-interlaced) as my source movies.
I would like to work in non-DV format since my source movies are made from square pixel art (Flash & Photoshop). This process works great in Premiere 5.1, is it possible in CS3?
I work on PC - XPpro

Jim,
Thank you for responding to my post. My question is can I edit and output in Non-DV format (non-interlaced video) with CS3?
I mentioned using Flash because I wanted it to be known I was starting with square pixel art. My final goal is to make DVD movie. I use Premiere to edit the scenes. I work in animation, some traditional hand drawn, painted in Photoshop, and some Flash generated. My end results needs to be a high resolution QT movie.
I've been using Premiere 5.1 and for years (Premiere 4 before that). I would like use Premiere CS3, but I need to export without the interlaced video. Can this be done in Premiere CS3?
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2331/interlacevsnoninter lacehc8.png[/IMG][/URL]

Soft text after render, out of ideas

Hello everyone! I was making a Kinetic Typography video for a school project, and every time I render the text gets soft. The only time it rendered nicely, I was using the Animation codec which turned my 1-minute video into a 10GB file.
I turned off OpenGL, and rendered using After Effects with no luck, I sent the file to Media Encoder with no luck, and my teacher doesn't know what's wrong either. I showed her my comp preview and the final .MOV and she agreed that it's exporting soft, especially when the text is red instead of white.
This is the comp:
This is the .MOV
I'm sure the difference may look negligible at this small size, but I would like to put this on a demo reel and I just don't think the quality is high enough, let alone the color shift from red to pink. I understand H.264 compression loses some quality and some color information, but I feel like this is too much. I'm not sure what else to try. The comp settings are as follows:
CS5
1280x720
23.976fps
Square pixels
If anyone has any suggestions, I'm all ears! Thanks in advance.

When I overlay yiur images together and set the upper layer to Difference mode, there is almost no difference between the images. A slight gamma change in the rendered output causes some visible greyness, and there is a very slight visible edge to the red text.
Like Dave, I'm seeing very little evidence of an issue. Is it, perhaps, just compression artifacts you're seeing? What codecs and data rates have you tried that result in soft output?

Exporting square pixels to widescreen in any CS version

Hi I have both CS4 and CS% and a webcam video that is 864 x 480 in resolution and has a 1.0 square pixel aspect ratio.
The video quality is amazing and what I am trying to do is export it so I can burn it onto DVD, hence export as 720x576 in PAL DV Widescreen 1.4587 pixel aspect ratio. The problem is it seems to loose a lot of picture quality when I do so, I know I am converting square pixels to widescreen 1.4587 ones and also changing the resolution but is there any better way around this? I tried with PAL DV codec compression and No codec compression, but it always exports to a softer image which doesn't look as sharp as the original, I know I am converting from 864 to 720, but I wouldn't expect it to loose so much image quality.
I suspect it is something to do with the pixel aspect ratio conversion, is there any better way to do this? I would like to keep it widescreen if possible as 864x480 is almost widescreen ratios.
Thanks

I can't answer directly, since I don't work with that size video, but I **think** your PAR may be off
You might search the forum, or use Google, to find out the PAR of a widescreen DVD
But, going from a webcam with an odd size to a DVD may just not give you what you want

Resizing an 1920x1080(square pixel) 16:9 footage to 720x576 16:9

Dear all,
does anyone know how to create an H.264 (in an mp4 wrapper) video using compressor that will allow me to resize an uncompressed 1920x1080i (square pixel) footage to 720x576, whilst still retaining the 16:9 aspect ratio and not needing to use padding.
Many Thanks

Very easy.
Load up the PAL 16:9, in the Presets window, there's a Plus Sign menu, choose QuickTime Movie from it. You're making a custom preset (because Apple for some stuipd reason left out all the presets in 4 that existed in 4.5).
For Video, click Settings button. Set compression type to DV PAL, aspect ratio to 4:3, OK.
Go to the Geometry tab, and set Dimensions for 720x576, pixel aspect to PAL CCIR 601, which should be set automatically.
Go above that to Source Inset (Cropping), and put in how many pixels each side needs to be cropped by.
Here's a neat trick. In the top right of the Preview window, you can switch between the original and the compression target versions. Left button is original, look at the bottom left of screen, look at it's width, write it down. Switch to compression target version, and it should say 720, minus what the original is, devide by two, that's what you should crop by.

NTSC- CCIR 601 vs. Square Pixels

Hi,
I've digitized hours of 24p advanced footage shot with my DVX-100, and noticed between tapes that the aspect ratio goes from square to letterboxed. My editor notified me that the "Pixel Aspect" in some shots are "NTSC- CCIR 601" and other shots are "Square".
We are currently using Offline RT for the edit- I first captured with "DV NTSC 48 kHz Advanced (2:3:3:2) Pulldown Removal" then downconverted to Offline RT with Media Manager as I could not capture Advanced Pulldown removal 24p Offline RT footage directly.
I would appreciate any advice to prevent this anomaly when we go to the online full rez DV version. I believe it is a FCP digitizing issue or Offline RT issue and not due to a camera problem.
Any info much appreciated.
Alexander
Specs:
Powerbook G4
FCP HD 4.5
Offline RT (23.98 preset)
DVX-100- 24p Advanced Mode (F6)

Did you ever find an answer on this one? I have the same issue and was curious to find out why some download as Square Pixels and others not.
In anycase you can fix it, go to item properties for the clip, don't have the screen in front of me right now but the first tab (think it is there), right click over the Square Pixel Aspect setting and it should give you a drop down of other choices. Then the clip will display correctly. I found that quite by accident. It works for a number of the other options in the Item properties window.

Problem previewing 'non-square' pixels

We have an AE CS4 project that is to be rendered/exported for a PAL DVD project
(that will be authored in Encore) so we have set all of the composition settings to
D1/DV PAL, widescreen (1.46).
We will also need a rendered file format suitable for PC viewing (on laptops/online etc)
When we do a 'test' render (.mov) of a composition and preview it in
Quicktime it appears in a 4:3 format (squashed).
Assuming this is because of the 'square' pixels used on monitors how do we
prepare the files to be suitable for viewing on a monitor and DVD authoring?
(Using Mac & Win xp).
Thanks for any help.

it imported into Encore Ok but there was some letterboxing visible at the top and bottom of the frame(?)
Resize your preview window/ set the content scaling to fit/ check your field settings for the footage. Whichever is applicable here. Also keep in mind that it's called preview for a reason - unless you have buit the DVD and tested it by playing it from a folder or burning it to a test DVD-R, there is no way to be 100% sure of these things.
Which file format & codec render settings do you recommend to get the best results in Prem/Pro and/or Encore? (ie want to maintain best quality until final output)
Doesn't matter much, as long as it is visually lossless, meaning Quicktime Animation or PNG preferrably, PhotoJPEG with a high quality setting also works. Of course feel free to render stuff from AE directly to MPEG-2 DVD.
Mylenium

AME - Windows Media export, default templates and non-square pixels

In Adobe Media Encoder the default Windows Media export templates have non-square Pixel Aspect Ratio. In Windows Media Player 9, if you play AME's wmvs with non-square pixels all you get is a vertical line a few pixels wide (though they play fine in WMP10 & 11).
There is definitely a problem with non-square pixels.
Using AME, if you create a PAL wmv (720x576 with DV PAL P.A.R.) you get the display problem in WMP9, whereas a D-1 PAL wmv (768x576 with square P.A.R.) will display fine. If you encode the same content with exact the same settings (codec, resolution, etc) with Microsoft's Windows Media 9 Encoder, the resultant output plays fine regardless of the P.A.R!
One for you chaps at Adobe I think:
If Windows Media Encoder can create WMP9 compatible wmvs, why can't Adobe Media Encoder?
or if there is a problem with non-square PARs, then why is it an option on export - remove it until it is fixed?
Any support would be greatly appreciated.
Edmund Barton
I'm using Prem 4.1 with AME 4.1 against Windows ME 9. WMP9 is the base player we have to support, so upgrading all the players isn't a option.

If you can't upgrade the players, then using Windoes Media Enoder may be your only option. Adobe just came out with a 4.1 patch, so it's unlikely you'll see any more 'fixes' in the very near future.

Help a Noob. Quicktime and Square Pixels.

I can not figure out how to get my well proportioned 3.5 minute sequence exported to a Quicktime movie that does not look "squished up". The square pixel thing is getting to me. Anyone have a way to do this?
All I want to do is have a Quicktime .mov that I can distribute around my office for approval.
I am set to take FCP training in November, but I need to finish this sooner than that.
Thanks in advance for any help you guys can give me!

Ok.
We assume the footage is 4:3.
Check if your timeline/sequence is 4:3. Select a sequence and go to the menu Sequence > Settings. You must NOT have checked the 16:9 anamorphic option. If you have, deselect it.
Go to your sequence in FCP select some clip making double click on it and go to the Motion tab in your Viewer. Check if in the Distort group you have '0' as aspect ratio.
Tell me what you found there!
Alberto

Render out square pixels?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for