Exported images appear too wide
 

I shot XL-1s and edited on FCP 3 and every time I export an image or a QT movie it appears too wide. The only fix is (for QT) is to rough in the image size, something like 500x700 gets it around the right size. The problem is I can’t get it to look good, even when I choose the "high" quality option. The way I've been getting good looking clips is to first export as a FCP movie then control click its icon and open using quicktime, but then it doesn’t give me an option to adjust the image size, so again it looks fat. The larger story is, I'm still pretty new to the computer thing (but I'm learning fast and want to learn more, so don't simplify your solutions... too much) and this clip needs to get from the G4 I'm on to my friends PC then on to the web. And once there, you can all check it out! Any suggestions would be great. If this helps, these are my specs: OSX 10.2.1 FCP 3.0.2 QT 6.0.1

Thanks!

How are you exporting your image? Do you do it as a QuickTime or FCP movie?

Jeff

You are probably outputting the movie at square pixels (1.0) instead
of the appropriate pixel aspects for PAL or NTSC.... At least that
is my guess.

I'd speculate that Rob is correct. As Jeff suggests, be very careful of how you export sequences from FCP. It offers many options.

Re: Exported images appear too wide
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Vince Manganello : I shot XL-1s and edited on FCP 3 and every time I export an image or a QT movie it appears too wide.

DV video is 720x480 704x480 is visible... if you translate the footage, you need to resize it to 650x480, or crop to 704x480 and then resize to 640x480. direct resizing from 720 to 640 will give a slightly narrowed image.

I don't know where those calculations come from Ken, but I've
never resampled anything unless I wanted a lower resolution
for something (like when putting it up on a webpage)

I'm asuming you did a 720 * 0.9 to get to 648 or 650? I suggest
you export in the correct pixel aspect to avoid this problem (and
not loose quality)

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : I don't know where those calculations come from Ken, but I've
never resampled anything unless I wanted a lower resolution
for something (like when putting it up on a webpage)

I'm asuming you did a 720 * 0.9 to get to 648 or 650? I suggest
you export in the correct pixel aspect to avoid this problem (and
not loose quality) -->>>

The problem is, if you export to a bitmap image, or movie for display on the computer, the original image will look to FAT. Only by reduing the width to a more natural looking size do you avoid making things look too fat on the computer.

The reason for the problem is that DV imaging devices use oblong or non-square pixels and to make picture look right, the number of pixels is higher. Computers use square pixels and if you don't convert, you get fat images.

Where I got my figures is the info from several MFGRs that the actual used pixel is 705 and the equivilant numer for the PC to show 4:3 is 640x480... so you either crop from 720 to 705 then scrunch it to 640... or you scrunch it by a similar amount without cropping... IE: ~13 pixels wider then 640. or ABOUT 650... OK, so it's 653... IE: 90% as wide on the computer = about the same LOOK as the Digital Video on your TV.

Here is a tutorial on exporting images out of photoshop. This also covers the dimensions to set your files to, to correctly import and export.

Jeff

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Here is a tutorial on exporting images out of photoshop. This also covers the dimensions to set your files to, to correctly import and export.

Jeff -->>>

This is exactly the opposite of what I was talking about... but makes the point that the pixels in DV video are not square. That is the problem, solutions may vary, but the principle is the same.