PDX10 16:9 footage in Final Cut Pro at DVinfo.net

Peter Rowlands · August 5th, 2004, 09:50 AM

In FCP 3 I have to render all 16:9 footage shot from the PDX10 which is a pain.
Can anyone help me with what settings to use to avoid this?

Graeme Nattress · August 5th, 2004, 10:21 AM

Make sure your easy preset is set to DV Anamorphic, and that your timeline settings are anamorphic.

Graeme

Peter Rowlands · August 5th, 2004, 10:34 AM

You beauty, Graeme. Thanks for your prompt reply and for saving me so much rendering time!

Daniel Iwata · August 6th, 2004, 09:39 AM

Besides addressing the anamorphic settings, do you have to change the frame size?

Graeme Nattress · August 6th, 2004, 09:48 AM

Nope - it's still 720 x 480 - just use the easy preset!

Graeme

Boyd Ostroff · August 6th, 2004, 02:46 PM

The only reason you might need a different frame size would be for playback on computer monitors using Quicktime (like a web movie). Quicktime doesn't understand anamorphic video so you would need to render a version in the correct proportion for square pixel monitors. Full resolution would be 854x480 (NTSC), or use any size you choose with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.

But for viewing on TV's and monitors it wouild be 720 x 480 as Graeme says. The widescreen monitor will know how to stretch it. Of course most 4:3 sets won't understand this and will show an image that's too tall and skinny though.

Ignacio Rodriguez · August 6th, 2004, 10:36 PM

> Quicktime doesn't understand anamorphic video so you would
> need to render a version in the correct proportion for square
> pixel monitors.

Actually QuickTime does do anamorphic video, only it doesn't automatically interpret DV as non-square (it does the right thing with MPEG though).

If you have QuickTime Pro you can save QuickTime movies with the horizontal and vertical sizes set to something different than the real pixels, i.e.: the movie can be 720x480 but the player will display the movie at 640x480 or 854x480 if you wish. Of course this means the resizing is done on the fly for each frame upon playback, which can tax the CPU somewhat, and you might get better quality by rendering a movie, since the scaling algorithm in Compressor, Premiere or After Effects might be better that the QuickTime Player's. Still, I have done this from time to time just to view the movies on the computer's screen and get an idea of what they will really look like.

Juan Parra · August 9th, 2004, 04:25 PM

boyd,

i understand, to display properly anamorphic 720x480 in QT with full resolution it will have to be 720x405 (16:9).

i think with 854x480, you will lose resolution since you will be stretching it horizontally from 720 to 854.

juani

Ignacio Rodriguez · August 9th, 2004, 09:14 PM

> i think with 854x480, you will lose resolution since
> you will be stretching it horizontally from 720 to 854.

Hello Juan. I think you will lose vertical resolution if you scale it vertically to 405, but if you stretch the 720 to 854 you will not be losing resolution at all, just resampling the available information onto the higher amount of pixels. If Apple's on the fly resampling algorithm works as good as it should, the result will be quite acceptable. Try it and judge for yourself the image quality.

Oh and by the way, make sure you set the high quality bit, otherwise on-screen display of DV is very mediocre, whether with or without resampling.

Juan Parra · August 9th, 2004, 11:27 PM

<<<--Hello Juan. I think you will lose vertical resolution if you scale it vertically to 405, but if you stretch the 720 to 854 you will not be losing resolution at all, just resampling the available information onto the higher amount of pixels. If Apple's on the fly resampling algorithm works as good as it should, the result will be quite acceptable. Try it and judge for yourself the image quality.->>>

hi ignacio,

hmmm...
it's simple, if you are resampling you're introducing information that it's not there. it's like a predicting algorithm.

now, if you tell me that information is already there inherent to the anamorphic nature of the captured footage (i.e., pixels are not square), then i'm ok with that...

anyway, i understand what you're trying to tell me...it's just that the word "resampling" confuses me..

merci

juani

Ignacio Rodriguez · August 10th, 2004, 11:02 AM

> it's simple, if you are resampling you're introducing
> information that it's not there. it's like a predicting algorithm.

That is not the way I see it. I think it's more comparable to, say going from analog tape to DAT. Even though the DAT can carry frequencies as high as 24 KHz, the information coming from the tape doesn't go beyond 16 KHz. There will be no additional high frequency information synthesized or predicted when you copy the tape to DAT (except maybe some noise if the AD is cheap). You could synthesize high frequencies using something called an aural exciter. In the video world, that would be like using a predictive software algorithm, a very different animal than the kind of resampling you get through QuickTime.

Sean McHenry · August 10th, 2004, 11:58 AM

Wow, here we go again...it sort of depends on the version of "resolution" you are after. If you would take resolution as the most pixels per square inch on the display device, stretching the image, I would think, would give you some jaggies as the pixels are interpreted over a longer width (in Boyds case) and so a 45 degree sharp line in your video, like a phone pole wire, should become quite noticably stair-stepped.

If you voluntarily give up lines of resolution as in the other idea, going from 480 veretical to 405 vertical, you loose too. This would be a straight forward loss of information however. If you recompress it to correctly fill (or the player artifically compresses the lines to fill 480), you should still see some degridation.

The more I think about it, I'll have to see both live on a screen to figure this one out. Great - more homework.

Sean

Juan Parra · August 10th, 2004, 05:00 PM

<<You could synthesize high frequencies using something called an aural exciter. In the video world, that would be like using a prodictive software algorithm, a very different animal than the kind of resampling you get through QuickTime.>>

Do you or anybody else have a technical link for this "resampling"?

I'll love to read something really technical about it.
Thanks

Juan

Ignacio Rodriguez · August 10th, 2004, 05:24 PM

It seems one of the popular software packages for resizing video is called S-Spline, I have never tried it. Graeme Nattress is working on a "a DV <-> SD <-> HD up/down-sampler (with intelligent chroma upsampling for DV sources)". His web site is at http://www.nattress.com/

Boyd Ostroff · August 10th, 2004, 05:39 PM

Coming back to this thread a little late....

All I can offer is that there are a number of widescreen displays intended for 16:9video, such as LCD screens, Plasma screens and projectors, that have a hardware resolution of 852x480. I have seen these described as EDTV, or Enhanced Defitiniton TV as opposed to HDTV. Visit any store that sells widescreen TV's and you'll see them.

I think Juan has it right "if you tell me that information is already there inherent to the anamorphic nature of the captured footage (i.e., pixels are not square), then i'm ok with that..."

If you size your video with less than 480 vertical lines (NTSC) then you're losing an important advantage that the PDX-10 has to offer and will get results more comparable to what you might expect from a VX-2000 in widescreen mode. Your choice: why not try a test both ways and see which you prefer?

As a matter of practicality however, you won't want to resize anything if going to DVD since there's already a standard for 480x720 anamorphic and the player (either on a computer or connected to a TV) will handle the scaling. If your audience is on the web then you will doubtlessly want to go even smaller than 720x405 to deal with bandwidth issues.

August 5th, 2004, 09:50 AM	#1
Peter Rowlands New Boot Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London Posts: 5	PDX10 16:9 footage in Final Cut Pro In FCP 3 I have to render all 16:9 footage shot from the PDX10 which is a pain. Can anyone help me with what settings to use to avoid this?

August 5th, 2004, 10:21 AM	#2
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Make sure your easy preset is set to DV Anamorphic, and that your timeline settings are anamorphic. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

August 6th, 2004, 09:39 AM	#4
Daniel Iwata New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10	FCP and 16x9 Besides addressing the anamorphic settings, do you have to change the frame size?

August 6th, 2004, 09:48 AM	#5
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Nope - it's still 720 x 480 - just use the easy preset! Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

August 6th, 2004, 10:36 PM	#7
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> Quicktime doesn't understand anamorphic video so you would > need to render a version in the correct proportion for square > pixel monitors. Actually QuickTime does do anamorphic video, only it doesn't automatically interpret DV as non-square (it does the right thing with MPEG though). If you have QuickTime Pro you can save QuickTime movies with the horizontal and vertical sizes set to something different than the real pixels, i.e.: the movie can be 720x480 but the player will display the movie at 640x480 or 854x480 if you wish. Of course this means the resizing is done on the fly for each frame upon playback, which can tax the CPU somewhat, and you might get better quality by rendering a movie, since the scaling algorithm in Compressor, Premiere or After Effects might be better that the QuickTime Player's. Still, I have done this from time to time just to view the movies on the computer's screen and get an idea of what they will really look like. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

August 5th, 2004, 10:34 AM	#3
Peter Rowlands New Boot Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London Posts: 5	You beauty, Graeme. Thanks for your prompt reply and for saving me so much rendering time!

August 6th, 2004, 02:46 PM	#6
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	The only reason you might need a different frame size would be for playback on computer monitors using Quicktime (like a web movie). Quicktime doesn't understand anamorphic video so you would need to render a version in the correct proportion for square pixel monitors. Full resolution would be 854x480 (NTSC), or use any size you choose with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio. But for viewing on TV's and monitors it wouild be 720 x 480 as Graeme says. The widescreen monitor will know how to stretch it. Of course most 4:3 sets won't understand this and will show an image that's too tall and skinny though.

August 9th, 2004, 04:25 PM	#8
Juan Parra Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 110	boyd, i understand, to display properly anamorphic 720x480 in QT with full resolution it will have to be 720x405 (16:9). i think with 854x480, you will lose resolution since you will be stretching it horizontally from 720 to 854. juani

August 9th, 2004, 09:14 PM	#9
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> i think with 854x480, you will lose resolution since > you will be stretching it horizontally from 720 to 854. Hello Juan. I think you will lose vertical resolution if you scale it vertically to 405, but if you stretch the 720 to 854 you will not be losing resolution at all, just resampling the available information onto the higher amount of pixels. If Apple's on the fly resampling algorithm works as good as it should, the result will be quite acceptable. Try it and judge for yourself the image quality. Oh and by the way, make sure you set the high quality bit, otherwise on-screen display of DV is very mediocre, whether with or without resampling. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

August 9th, 2004, 11:27 PM	#10
Juan Parra Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 110	<<<--Hello Juan. I think you will lose vertical resolution if you scale it vertically to 405, but if you stretch the 720 to 854 you will not be losing resolution at all, just resampling the available information onto the higher amount of pixels. If Apple's on the fly resampling algorithm works as good as it should, the result will be quite acceptable. Try it and judge for yourself the image quality.->>> hi ignacio, hmmm... it's simple, if you are resampling you're introducing information that it's not there. it's like a predicting algorithm. now, if you tell me that information is already there inherent to the anamorphic nature of the captured footage (i.e., pixels are not square), then i'm ok with that... anyway, i understand what you're trying to tell me...it's just that the word "resampling" confuses me.. merci juani

August 10th, 2004, 11:02 AM	#11
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> it's simple, if you are resampling you're introducing > information that it's not there. it's like a predicting algorithm. That is not the way I see it. I think it's more comparable to, say going from analog tape to DAT. Even though the DAT can carry frequencies as high as 24 KHz, the information coming from the tape doesn't go beyond 16 KHz. There will be no additional high frequency information synthesized or predicted when you copy the tape to DAT (except maybe some noise if the AD is cheap). You could synthesize high frequencies using something called an aural exciter. In the video world, that would be like using a predictive software algorithm, a very different animal than the kind of resampling you get through QuickTime. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

August 10th, 2004, 11:58 AM	#12
Sean McHenry Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hilliard, Ohio Posts: 1,193	Wow, here we go again...it sort of depends on the version of "resolution" you are after. If you would take resolution as the most pixels per square inch on the display device, stretching the image, I would think, would give you some jaggies as the pixels are interpreted over a longer width (in Boyds case) and so a 45 degree sharp line in your video, like a phone pole wire, should become quite noticably stair-stepped. If you voluntarily give up lines of resolution as in the other idea, going from 480 veretical to 405 vertical, you loose too. This would be a straight forward loss of information however. If you recompress it to correctly fill (or the player artifically compresses the lines to fill 480), you should still see some degridation. The more I think about it, I'll have to see both live on a screen to figure this one out. Great - more homework. Sean __________________ ‘I don’t know what I’m doing, and I’m shooting on D.V.’ - my hero - David Lynch http://www.DeepBlueEdit.com

August 10th, 2004, 05:00 PM	#13
Juan Parra Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 110	<<You could synthesize high frequencies using something called an aural exciter. In the video world, that would be like using a prodictive software algorithm, a very different animal than the kind of resampling you get through QuickTime.>> Do you or anybody else have a technical link for this "resampling"? I'll love to read something really technical about it. Thanks Juan

August 10th, 2004, 05:24 PM	#14
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	It seems one of the popular software packages for resizing video is called S-Spline, I have never tried it. Graeme Nattress is working on a "a DV <-> SD <-> HD up/down-sampler (with intelligent chroma upsampling for DV sources)". His web site is at http://www.nattress.com/ __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

August 10th, 2004, 05:39 PM	#15
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Coming back to this thread a little late.... All I can offer is that there are a number of widescreen displays intended for 16:9video, such as LCD screens, Plasma screens and projectors, that have a hardware resolution of 852x480. I have seen these described as EDTV, or Enhanced Defitiniton TV as opposed to HDTV. Visit any store that sells widescreen TV's and you'll see them. I think Juan has it right "if you tell me that information is already there inherent to the anamorphic nature of the captured footage (i.e., pixels are not square), then i'm ok with that..." If you size your video with less than 480 vertical lines (NTSC) then you're losing an important advantage that the PDX-10 has to offer and will get results more comparable to what you might expect from a VX-2000 in widescreen mode. Your choice: why not try a test both ways and see which you prefer? As a matter of practicality however, you won't want to resize anything if going to DVD since there's already a standard for 480x720 anamorphic and the player (either on a computer or connected to a TV) will handle the scaling. If your audience is on the web then you will doubtlessly want to go even smaller than 720x405 to deal with bandwidth issues.