Weird LCD stretch ratio issue

I have an LG w2261vp (21.5 1920x1080) and it's been great but this morning I woke up my G5 (I use deep sleep at night) and at first all looked normal, went away for a few minutes while it checked for email and such.
Came back and the screen looked weird, it was stretched 1280x1024 or something. Checked the display setting and the 1920x1080 and all widescreen options had vanished. At first I thought it was the screen it's self.
I ended up putting it back to sleep, woke up and all was fine. Not sure why it did this but has it happened to anyone else?

Touch wood that it was a once off weird thing and won't happen again.
I think that's correct.
I'm running 10.5.8 and have no idea what video card it has, 128Mb I think as it's the standard card that came with the G5 at the time.
At the Apple Icon at top left>About this Mac, then click on More Info, then click on Hardware>Graphics/Displays, report this...
ATI Radeon 9600:
Chipset Model: ATY,RV351
Type: Display
Bus: AGP
VRAM (Total): 64 MB
Vendor: ATI (0x1002)
Device ID: 0x4150
Revision ID: 0x0000
ROM Revision: 113-xxxxx-117
Displays:
eMac:
Resolution: 1280 x 960 @ 72 Hz
Depth: 32-Bit Color
Core Image: Hardware Accelerated
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Quartz Extreme: Supported
Built-In: Yes
Display Connector:
Status: No Display Connected

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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 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.

  • Aspect ratio issue not letterbox related

    i am running all video thru my receiver. my appletv outputs to my plasma TV w/black bars on either side of the picture. it appears it is output at 4:3 and not 16:9. i don't have this issue w/any of the other video inputs (dvd, cable tv). i don't see this as a tv or receiver issue/ can anyone offer any suggestions on fixing this? is there an output ratio adjust in apple tv?

    The content you are watching sounds like it is not widescreen but 4:3 format.
    When this is sent to the TV from the Apple TV via the HDMI cable it is shown on the TV in the aspect ratio that it was made. What you maybe able to do is make the TV stretch the signal to fill the full screen as it is doing when you use the VGA connections The issue here is that some TV's do not allow the TV signal to be stretched when fed via the HDMI port. It is not an issue with the Apple TV, it is outputting the signal correctly. See if you can adjust the TV to stretch the content to full screen.

  • Aspect Ratios Issues

    I am trying to get videos that I recorded at a 16:9 ratio on my JVC Everio to show up as a 16:9 ratio on Premiere Elements 7.0. When creating a new project, I have tried both the NTSC and PAL project presets, I have chosen Hard Disk within both of those, and then widescreen. These presets said they work great with JVC Everio cameras. But when I import the file into Premiere, the video gets slightly stretched vertically to a ratio which looks like 4:3. This happens for each combination of presets.
    The only thing that I can think of is that I have been downloading the files from the camera to my computer, and then importing them into Premiere...would that make a difference?
    Any ideas?

    Hi Adam,
    I have footages shot from Everio camcoders (Widescreen) and they work well. Though Premiere Elements works really well with DV-AVI, I would not agree that you have to convert the MOD files to DV-AVI to work with it in Premiere Elements.
    I am surprised as how the FAQ here advises the user to do so.
    While creating the Project we just need to be sure that the we Choose the correct 'FORMAT' (PAL/NTSC) and the Correct Project settings (STD/WIDE). Once this is done, you should not see any issues with the MOD files, be it STD or Widescreen.

  • G4 / Samsung 206BW  LCD : stretched only, non extended not working

    Hi,
    I have a Samsung Syncmaster 206BW (22" wide, 1680*1050 native resolution) plugged on my MDD G4 with DVI (not working with VGA because the Radeon 9000 Pro only manages 4/3 modes in analog).
    In the monitors panel settings in OSX (Tiger and Leopard) i see two modes for some resolutions : for example 1024*768 and 1024*768 (extended). However with the two modes the image is stretched to fit the screen. The first (not extented) should add black pixels to around the centered image, and it does'nt work.
    So i can't use games in 1024*768 or other 4/3 low res (my G4 can't use the native resolution for games, too much resource heavy).
    I tried turning on the monitor after the mac but it is the same, tu non extended mode is managed the same way as the extended mode (stretched).
    Is there an utility for mac (as Catalyst Control Center on PCs) to force the monitor to accept unstretched mode ? There isn't any mode setting on the LCD settings. Some say this is a known problem with Samsung LCDs.
    Should i return it and buy another LCD ? It this the same with Apple LCD displays ?
    I use a Belkin 3m DVI-D wire on both sides.
    Thank by advance.

    Hi,
    I can see and use the 1680*1050, in fact this is the only resolution mode that works ok since start. My problem is that i can't play any game in that resolution (99% mac games don't support wide, and even if this would work it would be recent games, and my Radeon 9000 Pro wouldn't support them - or it would be unplayable due to the high resolution leading to very poor fps).
    I can't see the ratio settigns in DisplayConfigX (should be here as in the utility screenshot on the site), the only settings i can use are porch values and "Synchronisation" instead of "Extended" ("Manual" is not available). There is very few documentation for that utility and settings calculations seem very complex.
    I see that on Windows users have to use Catalyst Control Center to switch from wide aspect to 4/3 aspect (that is 4/3 centered image with black areas surrounding it). This is the only way to play old games, or recent games with low resolution, and with correct aspect (for now the image is stretched to fit the whole screen, so not proportionnally, not 4/3).
    Some say that the graphic card driver manages to add black pixels around the centered image in the pixels map sent through DVI to the screen, when non extended mode is selected. It seems there is a problem in OSX, or in the Radeon 9000 Pro driver, or in the card itself.
    Can i be assured the problem can be solved from the computer side ? In the other cas i must return the LCD to the store in less than two weeks... but they don't have interesting 19" LCD to replace it (stretching would lead at least to a correct ration from 1204*768 to 1280*1024, and the stretching is not so bad on the Samsung, ration problem appart).
    Should i add a new entry through DisplayConfigX : 1024*768 Synchronisation in addition to the 1024*768 Extended, to see if that work ?
    Where did OSX retrieve the second mode, 1024*768 (that is non extended), that doesn't work (same result as 1024*768 (Extended)) ? I saw somewhere that there is a display config system file in System/Library (the one DisplayConfigX edits to add/modify listed modes, and the one we must delete if the screen doesn't work after making settings - in Single user mode or with an other screen, my old CRT for example).
    Message was edited by: cjed0
    Message was edited by: cjed0

  • 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.

  • Weird RAM/Scratch Disk issue

    Having a weird memory problem with Photoshop CS4 on my G5 Quad.
    Let me see if I can explain this properly....
    When I open up a file in Photoshop, I notice that the available space on my hard drive reduces (info at the bottom of any Finder window). Essentially, it's using the scratch disk.
    I would expect this with a very large file that exeeds the amount of ram in the machine. But it does it even with files of 5-10 Mb. It appears to me (just a guess) that Photoshop isn't using RAM when opening or manipulating a file. Though I have more than enough to open it.
    Even when I close the file, or "purge all" from PS's edit menu, my available disk space does not come back. Only when I quit out of Photoshop completely, will it come back.
    Make sense?
    No other application seems to be having this issue. Any ideas on what might be causing this?
    I've run Apples Disk Utility, and everything came out fine. Ran TechTool Deluxe, and no problems there either. Hoping maybe I'm just missing some piece of the puzzle first, before I uninstall/reinstall Photoshop.
    System specs:
    G5 Quad (2.5 GHz)
    4 GB RAM
    OSX 10.5.8
    Photoshop CS4 (11.0.1)
    Memory usage set to allow up to 70% (but doesn't seem to matter what I set it to)

    This is normal.
    Photoshop needs to allocate scratch space for data, in case it needs to write that data to disk later -- otherwise you would randomly fail with "out of scratch space" in the MIDDLE of an operation.
    Photoshop is using RAM, but needs to allocate the scratch space, and make sure the allocation succeeded.
    And yes, RAM and scratch space get reused, so rarely decrease.
    Other applications that deal with datasets larger than RAM will have the same issues.
    And technically your OS swapfiles do the same things.

  • Weird file renaming permission issues

    Hi!
    We have a file rename permission issue. Here is the background:
    We created a 2008 R2 DFS namespace called UserData with Read/write share permissions for Administrators, Everyone and System. UserData has been granted NTFS permissions as follows:
    Everyone (This folder only): Traverse folder / Execute files, List folder / Read data, Read attributes, Create folders / Append data
    CREATOR OWNER (Subfolders and files only): Full control
    SYSTEM (This folder, subfolders and files): Full control
    Domain Admins (This folder, subfolders and files)
    We then enabled folder redirection for users My documents folder through GPO, setting the following:
    Setting: Basic - Redirect everyones folder to the same location
    Target folder: Create a folder for each user under the root path
    \\domain\UserData
    We also unchecked Grant the user exlusive rights to documents.
    So, now to the really weird behaviour. We logged on to a Windows 7 (x64) client computer with a user who gets this GPO settings and that is not local administrator on the client. The folder is redirected as expected and we can create, delete and write to
    files in anyway we want. We can also rename files if we choose an entirely different name and if we choose a longer or a shorter file name,
    but we cannot rename the file to something with the same letters but different casing.
    Examples of what will work:
    "test" to "testing"
    "test" to "cool"
    "test" to "COOL"
    Examples of what will NOT work:
    "test" to "Test"
    "test" to "tesT"
    "test" to "TEST"
    We the get this error: "File Access Denied. You need permission to perform this action. You require permission from S-1-5-21-220..... to make changes to this file."
    Eventhough I'm pretty sure the share and NTFS permissions of the share are correctly set we have of course checked all the permissions when logged in and the user has Full NTFS control and Read/Write Share permissions.
    We have encountered the same problem on a customer company as well, with a different domain with no links to our domain what so ever. I have also seen similar problems from other people when trying to find the answer on internet. Here is an example:
    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itprosecurity/thread/35ced5bb-ab13-4e28-8c48-7c68ce0b775c
    Anyone have any thoughts?
    /Leyan

    Resent discoveries:
    If I log onto a Windows 7 (x86) Enterprise I face the same Issues.
    If the same user logs on to one of the DFS servers holding the namespace and accesses his folder we experience
    no problems renaming files.
    Customer company states that all is working fine when user logs on to a Windows XP with SP3.
    /Leyan

  • T500 LCD (WSXGA+) Color issues!

    I noticed on T500 the color saturation is a significantly worse than my 15" MacBook Pro (non-unibody). After using our color calibration device at work I can't get the T500 to acceptable color range. The Yellows are almost a washed out Orange and the Grays seem to have a wash out blue time. The brightness is so so but the overall contrast is what I'd expect from a Notebook half the price of the T500 (VERY disappointed).
    Far as the brightness it's not THAT bad but not that good, considering both are CCFL LCD's I'm just baffled how the T series screens are sub par compared to their close competitors. Here's the kicker, at work we have T400 books(1280x800) and on those displays it shows Yellows much better and closer to the MacBook Pros and the grays are MUCH better. Could this just be a flute with the display? I'm wondering how I can find out who made the actual display panel, is there a way to check that?
    Anyone else have these issues?

    Yeah I just had a Tech come out and replace the LCD and after a new panel it's still displaying yellows as orange. The smileys ("") look like they are an Orange color, like the actual color the fruit Orange. No where remotely close to yellow, it's just very disappointing to see a business class notebook with such an atrocious color gamut (contrast is pretty pathetic). I have a feeling Lenovo won't be able to fix this, sadly my next Notebook purchase won't be from Lenovo. I will probably not buy another Lenovo product again, I'm still pretty bitter over this burn.

Maybe you are looking for