Urgent MPEG2 question (pixel aspect ratio)

Is a composition that is set as a D1/DV NTSC Pixel Aspect Ratio (0.91) able to be exported as a MPEG2 file?
I have a very large, very complicated project file with a D1/DV NTSC Pixel Aspect Ratio and I'm trying to save it as a MPEG2 file type because it has the best compression for the quality and need the file sizes to be small. However when I go to the MPEG2 Format Options when exporting, it only has Standard 4:3 (0.80), Square Pixel (1.00), Widescreen 16:9 (1.067), and Widescreen 2.21:1 (1.326).
Is there way I can have this project in MPEG2 format and not have letterboxing, stretching or cropping?
Thank you,

What version of AE are you using?
What are your composition's dimensions? Did you use the NTSC DV composition preset?
First off, if file size is your only concern, then you should encode to h.264, not mpeg2.
Mpeg2 is mainly used for DVD production. H.264 is a much more advanced codec for the sake of making a good-looking & small file.
If playback is computer-based (not DVD), you'll probably want to nest your D1/DV comp inside a square pixel equivalent, and then render that file to a Quicktime (Animation codec @ best/full quality). Then, use Adobe Media Encoder, or your encoding software of choice, to make the compressed (h.264) version.
That being said, and if you are going to mpeg2 for DVD, then how are you going about encoding the file out of AE?
You should be selecting the "MPEG2 DVD" output module.
Keep in mind, that, if you are going to DVD, a better procedure (to provide maximum quality) would be to render to the Animation codec first, and then compress (2-pass VBR encode) that prerenderd movie to mpeg2.

Similar Messages

Adobe Media Encoder MPEG2 pixel aspect ratio

I'm trying to output an MPEG2 for DG systems @ 720x512 but the pixel aspect ratio pulldown menu only gives picture aspect ratios (ie 4x3 or 16x9) and then gets the pixel aspect ratio automatically from that setting. So @ 720x512 the pixel aspect ratio is 4:3(.948), but I need a .9 ratio. When the source is 720x512 it adds black bars to the side, when the source is 720x480 it adds a little black to the top and bottom but stretches the image so it gets blurry. I can render out an AVI at 720x512 with a .9 pixel aspect ratio, so why not an mpeg2? Any work arounds? Is it the same in CS5?
I'm in CS4 on Vista64.

I'm trying to output an MPEG2 for DG systems @ 720x512 but the pixel aspect ratio pulldown menu only gives picture aspect ratios (ie 4x3 or 16x9) and then gets the pixel aspect ratio automatically from that setting. So @ 720x512 the pixel aspect ratio is 4:3(.948), but I need a .9 ratio. When the source is 720x512 it adds black bars to the side, when the source is 720x480 it adds a little black to the top and bottom but stretches the image so it gets blurry. I can render out an AVI at 720x512 with a .9 pixel aspect ratio, so why not an mpeg2? Any work arounds? Is it the same in CS5?
I'm in CS4 on Vista64.

A Little question about Pixel Aspect Ratio

This doubt has been bugging me since I started edit HD formats.It's about pixel aspect ratio.
Let's supose I have received some material in HD format,for instance.But I will deliver this material in another format, DV NTSC,for instance.
The Pixel aspect ratio format of the material what I received and the way how I will deliver are different.What can I do to avoid this problem? Do I need to apply some plugin to solve this problem or when I export the final sequence Final Cut does this automatically?
thank you

The software takes care of it for you.
As long as your conversion maintains the overall aspect ratio (ie 16:9), it is irrelevant what the individual pixels are doing.
For example, if I convert DVCProHD 720p to ProRes 720p, it will look fine even though the DVCProHD started out with 960 pixels in the x dimension and the ProRes will have 1280.
x

Problem with pixel aspect ratio

I searched but found no answer.
I have several Maya renders which are at a resolution of 720x486 and a pixel aspect ratio of 1.2. I composited my image sequences in after effects interpreting that 1.2 pixel aspect ratio. I then exported a quicktime movie using no compression at 24fps at a resolution of 720x480 NTSC 16:9.
When I import this video into Encore 2.0 It comes out as full screen. Not only is it full screen, but when I preview the dvd, the video is blurry with scan lines and black bars on the left and right side. The menu however, is widescreen (I used a template as a test)and perfectly clear. I tried to select the asset and go to file>interpret footage, but this option is grayed out. I have also tried exporting an avi from after effects and importing that into Encore. It still will not let me set the pixel aspect ratio. I have read that After Effects does not embed the pixel aspect into exported videos. I have also read that I should export mpeg2 videos for use in Encore, however I do not see this option in After effects or Premiere Pro.
What am I doing wrong? Any help is appreciated. If I left any information out that could be useful, please let me know.

(Ack, for some reason I typed "DVI" and really meant "DV")
Thanks for the response. I don't really care if I preserve the 4:3 aspect ratio. Or does my GL1 not use square pixels and I just never noticed it? It's strange I've never seen this problem until FCE HD.
I have tried exporting a number of ways from FCE, including Export > QuickTime Movie... and Using QuickTime Conversion... For the latter, I typically set it to export as 720x480. I always export as video. The final export contains video clips as well as still images within the video.
I am a bit embarrassed having to ask this question. I've been working with still images in photoshop for over a decade and worked a lot with video during that time as well.
Thanks again.

The (new) Premiere pixel aspect ratio is wrong for my PAL DV cam footage

I've had a Sony TRV-950E DV-cam since 2003. I've been shooting DV PAL in widescreen.
I just bought Elements 12 to edit my footage, and discovered that the pixel aspect ratio for D1/DV PAL Widescreen has been updated to 1.46 (old value 1.42).
The theory behind this change is that video recorded on 720x576 is slightly wider than 16:9 and that the 16:9 portion is 704x576.
Unfortunately this is not correct for my footage! I've captured the video from my DV-cam (by firewire) and opened it in Premere and it is streched to be shown as 1050x576.
So I did a test:
I filmed a steady shot of a perfect circle and captured the video from the camera and opened it in Premiere. The pixel ascpect ratio 1.46 makes the display 1050x576.
The question is: Am I seeing this displayed as a perfect circle now?
This can be tested:
I make a picture of a perfect circle in Photoshop (square pixels) with size 1024x576. I imported this picture into the Premiere project, and match the two circles: The filmed one, and the Photoshop one.
They DO NOT match! The one on the video is slightly stretched in width.
So then I stretch the Photoshop picture in width to become 1050x576. I then import this picture into the project. And now I have a perfect match between the circles!
This means that my DV camera actually records a 100% 16:9 picture on all the pixels 720x576 - and not a slightly wider picture with the 16:9 part being in 704x576 (which is the reason for the change in pixel aspect ratio from 1.42 to 1.46).
I have some HD scenes that I want to import (and downscale) into my SD project also, and I also have a lot of still pictures.
Unless I can change the setup i Elements to the correct ratio 1.42, these stills and sqare-pixel-video (HD) should ideally be streched from 1024x576 to 1050x576 to match (become equally stretched as) all the SD footage.
How do I solve this?
I just bought Elements 12 three days ago.
(I just tried opening the captured video in Windows Movie Maker - and that program must use pixel aspect ratio 1.42 since the video is diplayed correctly as 1024x576 with a perfect circle)
Regards,
Tom from Norway

Tom
After much thought and exploration and experimentation, I have come to the conclusion that there is no practical purpose for doing anything other than importing your media into the project and editing/exporting. I find no distortion in doing so, be it in the video samples that you posted or in still models that I created for the pixel aspect ratio 1.422 vs 1.4587 for D1/DV PAL Widescreen.
If you have not already, please read the following about the Adobe DV Widescreen Pixel Aspect Ratio change from 1.422 to 1.456.
Please start in the first link which gives some get subsequent links in it
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/673877
http://www.mikeafford.com/blog/2009/03/pal-d1-dv-widescreen-square-pixel-settings-in-after -effects-cs4-vs-cs3/
Also, you may find the following article on square and non square pixels of interest. It uses the PAL DV Widescreen 1.422 pixel aspect ratio in its discussion.
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/gerard_rick/pixel_madness.php
Aside from the explanation for the rights and wrongs of the matter, this is what I actually observed taking your PAL DV AVI Widescreen and PAL MPEG2.mpg Widescreen into the same Premiere Elements 12 Windows PAL DV Widescreen project. Along with your video files were still images that I created in Photoshop Elements 11 Full Editor:
1024 x 576 document with a red circle on Layer 2 of the Layers Palette
1050 x 576 document with a red circle on Layer 1 of the Layers Palette.
The red circles were superimposed in creation. The difference in the pixel dimensions between the two are evidenced by Layer 1 content peaking through on the left and right.
The gpsot readout for pixel aspect ratio for each of the videos was
a. Your PAL DV AVI 720 x 576 Widescreen = 1.422
b. Your PAL MPEG2.mpg 720 x 576 Widescreen = 1.422
Each of the Photoshop Elements documents (circles) saved as .psd files 1050 x 576 pixels.
When all were taken into Premiere Elements 12 project manually set for PAL DV Widescreen, they looked like the following, no display of distortion.......
PAL DV AVI Widescreen 720 x 576 (now the pixel aspect ratio in Premiere Elements Properties was shown as 1.4587, not the 1.422 seen in gspot before import)
PAL MPEG2.mpg Widescreen 720 x 576 (now the pixel aspect ratio in Premiere Elements 12 Properties was shown as 1.4587, not the 1.422 seen in gspot before import)
Edit Menu/Preferences/General with check mark next to "Default Scale to Frame Size" was in effect.
As for the red circles stills (1050 x 576 to equate to the square pixel version of 720 x 576 widescreen) did not distort when brought into the Premiere Elements 12 Edit area monitor which is established by the PAL DV Widescreen project preset with the pixel aspect ratio = 1.4587.
The jpg version of the Photoshop Elements document (.psd) 1050 x 576 pixels (square pixels) looked like:
And, when this Timeline was exported Publish+Share/Computer/AVI with the DV PAL Widescreen preset, there was no distortion in the export. It looked undistorted as it did before export.
So, unless I am overlooking a key point here, I cannot see a reason why you cannot use the video sources that you presented for sampling as weil as stills with the 1050 x 576 pixel dimensions.
The only time I see any distortion possibilities is if you use a player that does not recognize the 16:9 flag that stretches the 720 x 576 to 1050 x 576 for display after encoding.
Trying to convert Premiere Elements 12 which uses the 1.4587 pixel aspect ratio for PAL DV Widescreen into a Premiere Elements 7 which uses the 1.422 pixel aspect ratio for PAL DV Widescreen is up hill in spite of creative thinking on your side.
Please review and let me know if you are seeing another different from what I am reporting with the samples that you posted.
Thank you.
ATR

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.

Anamorphic Pixel Aspect Ratio

I am confused on all the different ways to get the "cinematic look". There are various ways to do this and I want minimal distortion. I have PE 10, source Canon T3i in camera settings are 1920 by 1080 23.976fps. Initial project settings are DSLR>1920 by1080>24fps, square pixel ratio 1.0.
My first question
1- Is shoting anamorphic in itself a distortion of the actual scene?
2- If it is distortion of the actual scene, then it seems like strching the image in post or with a lens shouldn't matter to much?
3-I can right click>Interpret Footage and then select conform to --"D1/DV NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (1.2121)" or "Anamorphic 2:1 (2.0)" or "HD Anamorphic 1080 (1.333)". Which option would be best to get a proper depiction of your scene but also while achieving the "cinematic look"?(if any at all). (to me...it seems like "D1/DV NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (1.2121)" does the best)
-buying anamorphic lens with an adapter that screws onto one of your prime lenses is the best option but it is a pain to have to deal with and is very expensive.
The easiest option is to select a title and put two black rectangles over your footage to mask it. I don't want to do this because you lose some of your footage and I would like to preserver all the footage if possible.
Thanks

I could be mistaken..I'm not even sure
Premiere says it will "Conform" the "Pixel Aspect Ratio". When I select "D1/DV NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (1.2121)" the pixel aspect ratio is changed from its original 1.0 square pixel to 1.2121. This is a screen shot of what I have been encountering. When this happens you do not lose any of the original footage by covering some of it up via a title and you get the "cinematic look" the wide screen look. So Yes, I am trying to get the 2.35:1 movie frame that you mentioned. That’s what I'm ultimately aiming to get. (the clip as you see it has yet to be changed, have not applied it yet so no black bars.
This is what it looks like with the "D1/DV NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (1.2121)" conversion applied.

Export Frame - Pixel Aspect Ratio

The video in my timeline is 720 by 480 (1.2121). When I clip on "Export Frame" in the program window it exports a jpg that is 720 by 480 (0.9091)
I know I can right click on it and "modify - Interpret footage" and correct the pixel aspect ratio.
My question is "Why is it doing this and how can I correct it"?
Is their a setting I'm missing? Why does it change the pixel aspect ratio?

The jpeg is not square. The pixel aspect ratio would be 1 and not .9091, if it were.
I have two computers. On one the "Export Frame" exports the jpeg with the same pixel aspect ratio.
The other machine changes the pixel aspect ratio from 1.2121 to .9091.
I can't find any differences in my settings.

Premiere exports in incorrect pixel aspect ratio

My Panasonic camera shoots quicktime .mov JPEG videos in a 720X408 px resolution. I am having a very hard time editing them in Premiere, because I cannot get it to export them in a correct pixel aspect ratio.
Maybe you can figure out what I'm doing wrong. Here's what I do.
First, when opening a new project, the closest frame size I can choose is 720x480. So I choose that. I import the .mov file into it, and put it on the time line. At that point it looks like this:
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/812/premierewindowoc9.jpg
Correct aspect ratio and no deformation.
When I try to export it as a .mov file, I do the following: I click on settings (in the file save dialogue), and go to video settings. I can choose any pixel aspect ratio, it all produces the same results, but for example, let's say, DVCPRO (1.5) (that's the closest to the size I need).
I can manually set my frame size to be 720x408 px, assuming that now the frame size will be exactly the same size as my video and no deformation will occur.
However, the result I get is this:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6730/exportedmoviehl5.jpg
I've drawn arrows on that to make it clearer. So, I have a movie that's 720x408px. Premiere exports a frame sized 720x408, but then for some strange reason shrinks the actual video down to 483x480!!??!! Leaving completely unnecessary black bars on the sides.
Why does it do this?
When I export it with frame size 720x480, it doesn't add black lines on top and bottom as you'd expect. It does exactly the same thing you see in the image above.
I have tried many other combinations too. I have tried exporting it as every other available pixel aspect ratio, also as an avi file, nothing makes any difference. It always shrinks the original video in width, and adds black bars to the left and right.
What am I doing wrong??

Tina,
Lets see if we can get kitty onto YouTube.
There are four issues, that you will need to overcome:
1.) Project Preset to begin. Stanley lists the possible choices in post #8, based on the specs of your camera. You will have to determine which of these you used to record the files. These are *probably* set in your cameras menu area, and if you have not changed them, are probably still set. That will get you started in the right direction - but wait, theres more...
2.) It seems that your camera uses Motion-JPG as the encoder to create these files. There are at least two good Motion-JPG CODECs available, Lead and Morgan. Plus, your camera may well have come with its own Motion-JPG CODEC. The CODEC is what allows your camera to encode/compress the video data, and also what allows programs like Premiere to decode that data. Did your camera come with a CD/DVD with software on it? If so, the installation of that software *should* install any proprietary CODECs to your system. Now, if this was the case (or soon will be the case, when you locate that CD/DVD), Premiere *possibly* will be able to use that CODEC to handle the footage from your camera. If it does not, then it is *possibly* only a matter of purchasing, downloading and installing one of the two mentioned Motion-JPG CODECs. Both are relatively inexpensive, and Premiere *usually* can work with either, though your exact footage might not permit this. This is usually because a camera mfgr. chose to do their own thing. Thats why any disc that came with the camera is the first place to start.
3.) Now, you are in Premiere, have the proper CODEC installed on your system, and have Imported the footage into a Project with the proper Presets. If all is working, and I hope that it is, you just edit your footage.
4.) You have been working with Presets established based on your footage. That is likely not exactly what you will want to upload to YouTube. This is where Export comes into play. Unfortunately, YouTube seems to change the specs. weekly. About the time that someone publishes fool-proof details and settings for YouTube, they (YouTube) change everything. The best advice is to search as many fora, as you can for Export Settings for YouTube. Look at the dates for all articles. You really will only care about the most recent - very recent.
Going back up the list, there is another possibility. That would be to use a 3rd party conversion program to convert your footage to a DV-AVI Type II file. Often, with the proper CODEC installed, Premiere can do this internally, though not always, and even when it works, there can be problems. I use DigitalMedia Converter (Deskshare) a shareware program for most of my conversions. There are many freeware, and shareware, conversion programs available. Many get mentioned in this forum. Many get glowing reviews. Some are easier to use, than others.
Some balk at the thought of owning Premiere Pro and then having to use some 3rd party software to get their footage into a robust NLE, that they paid good money for. The fact is that Premiere Pro was designed to work primarily with DV-AVI Type II files, from mini tape cameras - the point made by several. That does not mean that it cannot work with other file types. It does, though not always without problems. Sometimes just passing the material through a conversion program will clear up all problems and no one is the wiser. I often use Premiere Elements, Pros little bitty brother, to convert some file formats, because it is more tolerant of many of these, than is Pro.
Good luck, and sorry that I do not have a current suggestion for Export to YouTube. Since it is a hot distribution medium, you should have no problem finding the correct settings for today - be sure to check the date of all articles, as the specs change all the time and in a heartbeat.
Let us know if you have any more questions. For "how things are done in Premiere," I recommend the Premiere-wikia: http://premierepro.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
for tutorials. Most that you could want to do will be there someplace. The current YouTube setting might be an exception, just because every time the Wikia gets updated, that info is out of date.
Hunt

CS5 Pixel Aspect Ratio Problems...

Hello All,
I am working on porting over an existing .mov file importer from Windows to Mac while also upgrading it from CS4 to CS5 (and also rolling in the creation of a hand-written 64-Bit QuickTime file handling library to boot, ouch).
In my current test bed I am having problems with certain 1920 x 1080 .mov files. Some 1920x1080 files that I have get imported properly, some files that I have get imported with the wrong aspect ratio. I have verified that both files should be displayed using square pixels and have also verified that when the selector is sent that calls SDKGetInfo8( ) that I am setting the following for **all** of the above-mentioned test files:
SDKFileInfo8->vidInfo.pixelAspectNum = 1
SDKFileInfo8->vidInfo.pixelAspectDen = 1
I have stepped line-by-line through SDKGetInfo8( ) and the stretched and non stretched clips seem to yield exact same traces through this function. However, the files that are being imported with the wrong aspect ratio, of course, preview in a stretched format. Also, in the informational area of the Source Bin, when the *stretched* clips are selected the information that is provided for these clips is:
NameOfTheStretchedClip.mov
Video, 1920 x 1080 (1.7778)
00:00:9:13, 23.976 fps
etc…
For the clips that aren't stretched, the (1.7778) is (1.0). I am not the biggest expert on the actual usage of Premiere, so I can only assume given the values displayed and the respective visual result of the clips when previewed that this value displayed in the UI is the pixel aspect ratio and not the frame ratio as the clip with (1.7778) is stretched and the clip with (1.0) is not, yet both are 1920x1080 clips. What to me is suspect is that 1920/1080.0 is 1.7778 and so somewhere for the clips that are being stretched the pixelAspect ratio values seem to be getting derived using the pixel dimensions and not the values vidInfo.pixelAspectNum and vidInfo.pixelAspectDen that are explicitly set to '1' as shown above.
Thus my question is, aside from setting in SDKGetInfo8() the following values:
SDKFileInfo8->vidInfo.pixelAspectNum = 1
SDKFileInfo8->vidInfo.pixelAspectDen = 1
Where else are the pixelAspect values supposed to get set?
Alternatively:
- During which other selector calls *CAN* pixel aspect ratio get set? As I mentioned, I am porting existing code, so perhaps these values are getting set elsewhere that I am presently unable to find.
- Is there some setting that might get set at the import of a file that says to derive the pixel aspect ratio from the pixel dimensions that might be getting triggered for the clips that are being imported as being stretched?
Thanks in advance for any help!
Josh

Hi Zac,
I am taking a look at this issue further with the aid of an additional engineer here that has more experience with QuickTime files.
First off, upon viewing the XMP metadata of the stretched file in the Metadata Viewer available inside Premiere, the Video Pixel Format is, in fact, listed in the XMP metadata as 1.78.
However, the time signature on the stretched .mov file, as listed in information of the QuickTime atoms, was 23976 / 1000. On a whim we used Dumpster to change the time signature to 24000 / 1001 to see what would happen. After altering the time signature in the Atoms of the file in this fashion, in Premiere the aspect ratio is now shown to be (1.0) in the source information in the Source Bin and the video is imported in the proper unstretched format (or - better stated - played back via our PlayMod in the proper unstretched format). However when viewing the metadata in the Metadata Browser in Premiere, the "Video Pixel Aspect Ratio" is still showing 1.78. This seems to confuse the issue further as now this time signature alteration in the Atoms of the QT file has fixed something and is now seemingly overriding the order of operations you mentioned as the XMP metadata still seems to list an improper format, yet everything else is seemingly behaving fine.
BTW - Clips with other time signatures don't seem to have this problem.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Josh

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

Pixel Aspect Ratio used by Adobe OnLocation

QUESTION: What is the pixel aspect ratio used when AVI T1/T2 formatted files are generated?
CASE 1: After specifying AVI T2, recording video and importing it into Premiere 6.5 (With Matrox RT100) it says that PIXEL ASPECT RATIO is 0.889
and audio 48KHz/16 bit (so it needs rendering!)
CASE 2: After doing as above but with AVI T1 and importing the same way it shows that PIXEL ASPECT RATIO is 0.9 but audio as 32KHz/16 bit, although during recording in OnLocation is shows that audio is 48kHz/16 bit?
It there any way to get PIXEL ASPECT RATIO 0.9 and audio as 48kHz?
Are there any changes between AP 6.5 and Pro in AVI formats?
Or is it how Matrox card is handling those formats?

QUESTION: What is the pixel aspect ratio used when AVI T1/T2 formatted files are generated?
CASE 1: After specifying AVI T2, recording video and importing it into Premiere 6.5 (With Matrox RT100) it says that PIXEL ASPECT RATIO is 0.889
and audio 48KHz/16 bit (so it needs rendering!)
CASE 2: After doing as above but with AVI T1 and importing the same way it shows that PIXEL ASPECT RATIO is 0.9 but audio as 32KHz/16 bit, although during recording in OnLocation is shows that audio is 48kHz/16 bit?
It there any way to get PIXEL ASPECT RATIO 0.9 and audio as 48kHz?
Are there any changes between AP 6.5 and Pro in AVI formats?
Or is it how Matrox card is handling those formats?

Pixel aspect ratio incorrectly identified in Properties

Premiere Pro/CS4 Mac
I created an animation using CInema 4D and rendered it out using 1:1/square pixels. If I open the file in QT Player, it shows up as 720 x 480 and fills the enire screen... all is well. But when I import it into PPro and look at the file in Properties, it reports it as .909 pixel aspect ratio, which is not square.
This is a problem as I want to put this onto a DVD. If I render an MPG2 file out of PPRo and set the pixel aspect ratio option to Square, the resulting file
does not fill a 720 x 480 screen; there is black on both sides.
If I use .909/standard pixel ratio, it fills the screen when I view it in QT PLayer, but I am worried that Pro is messing with the image...
I can import the same original file in AE and use the Interpret footage option to force square pixels, but that is not an option for this work. Any idea why Pro misindentifies the aspect ratio and is there any way to fix that? Or is this a total non-issue as far as any potential degradation to the file itself along the way through the workflow?
thanks for any assistance.
Dennis

You wrote:
Can you set up a Sequence/Project Preset as Desktop and choose Square Pixels? You can then Export to what you need.
Do you mean create a new project? This project is essentially finished - a few weeks of work creating it, so I can;t redo all from scratch with a new project template. I don;t think you can change a Project Preset once a project is created, correct? And PAR is not one of the settings that I can change in the project settings at this point.
I can export using SQUARE pixels, but the resulting file looks wrong when I view it in QT Player. I guess the only question now is how much damage/degradation will be done having created the original animations that make up this project using square, then bringing them all into Pro (I guess having used the wrong PAR in my preset) and rendering them out in .909.
Any thoughts?
best.d

Menu pixel aspect ratio in CS5

How do I take an existing menu from the Encore library, and change it from .9 pixel aspect ratio to 1.2? I would guess that I should use Photoshop for this, but is there a better way from within Encore?

What do you mean by "scaled" everything?
By scaled, I mean taking the text and menu buttons and squeezing them a bit. Only one background element's width needed to be changed.
Of course that option was there
Yeah, I can imagine everyone thinking to themselves "This question can NOT be as simple as it sounds..." Thing is, the only reason I've ever gone into the basic tab for a menu is to uncheck auto-routing. I never needed anything else until now. But once I found it, I explained it for future readers.
(which is what Jim advised you not to do in post 1).
He wrote that he wouldn't do it, then told me why he wouldn't do it. The aspect ratio buttons weren't mentioned, nor was PS. So that may be what he meant, but I wouldn't know that because the options were not presented. Gotta break it down stupid simple for the noobs like me, man!
How satisfactory all this is depends on the particular menu and what parts you are keeping versus replacing.
So for converting a 4:3 menu to 16:9, what would the difference be between:
Option 1- (what you recommended)
1. selecting a blank wide menu
2. select "Edit in PS"
3. select 4:3 menu
4. select "Edit in PS"
5. dragging all wanted elements from 4:3 menu over to blank wide menu
6. resizing/editing as you see fit
and Option 2-
1. select a 4:3 menu
2. select the 16:9 option in the Properties panel
3. select "Edit in PS"
4. select all elements to be resized in Layers panel
5.Transform width to 75%
6. additional resizing/editing
Isn't this basically two ways to do the same thing? Would these options not work with some menu elements?

Is pixel aspect ratio in TIFs not supported

Hallo,
I generated 200 TIFs with a Photoshop script that I wanted to use as slides in an Encore DVD project.
After importing the TIFs into Encore I recognized that the were too small. Though when I opened them in Photoshop they had the correct pixel aspect ratio for a PAL DVD and the correct size (720 x 576 pixels).
I then saved those TIFs as PSDs again and imported those into Encore. Suddenly they were shown in the correct width.
So my question is: Does Encore DVD not support pixel aspect ratio in TIFs?
Regards,
Christian Kirchhoff

Bill.
My Apologies.
What I mean is a Subpicture Highlight image, as used by Scenarist & Maestro and an option in DVD-Lab Pro.
Instead of importing a PSD, with all it's layers, what we do is this:
1 - Create a 720x480 0.9 PAR background image in Photoshop. This will be the background of the menu, and should be a full 24 bit colour image. Usually saved as a TIF file but in some apps can be a bitmap. Sonic insist on a TIF.
2 - Create the Subpicture Highlight image. This is what will become the button artwork. You have 4 colours:
White (Background)
Black (Main
Red (Highlight 1)
Blue (Highlight 2)
Save as a 2-bit indexed TIF file, with a maximum of 4 colours. Black must be 0,0,0 in RGB, same applies for other colors - they need to be pure colours.
3 - Create a button image if there are complex shapes in the SPHL. This will create the actual buttons. Not always needed, as you can also create buttons from the SPHL.
When I need to use these, I then load the external background, and import the SPHL over the top, and assign the buttons. Everything works really well doing this process. Not as elegant as a PSD import, I grant you - but a lot less room for error with "hidden" buttons etc.

Urgent MPEG2 question (pixel aspect ratio)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for