anamorphic 16:9 at DVinfo.net

Amos Kim · July 1st, 2006, 12:58 AM

Why does my exported quicktime movie of 24pa anamorphic 16:9 footage look stretched horizontally compared to the aspect ratio of the same footage in the canvas of FCP? Does anybody notice this difference?

Nate Schmidt · July 1st, 2006, 01:07 AM

Yeah just a quirk with quicktime not seeing the anamorphic flag. If you are sending the movie over to DVD SP it will properly scale it, if you want to go to the web you have to export it a custom size equal to the 16:9 ratio.

Amos Kim · July 1st, 2006, 02:10 AM

Thanks for the info Nate. I'm thinking when you wrote "scale", you meant it'll be corrected?

Amos Kim · July 1st, 2006, 02:11 AM

Nevermind the last post. duh.

Boyd Ostroff · July 1st, 2006, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amos Kim

Why does my exported quicktime movie of 24pa anamorphic 16:9 footage look stretched horizontally

Actually I think you meant that it looks stretched vertically, right? Everyone looks tall and skinny (some of us might not mind that ;-)

Quicktime doesn't do any scaling to correct the aspect ratio, it just shows all the pixels. In fact, regular 4:3 footage is wrong also. The pixels on a computer monitor are square, so when Quicktime displays them you have a 720x480 image. If you want properly scaled 4:3 footage you need to change the size to 640x480 or 854x480 for 16:9.

Jeff Sayre · July 1st, 2006, 08:04 AM

Amos:

What kind of camera did you shoot with? The reason I ask is because some cameras have different pixel shapes and sizes. So, you cannot assume that you are shooting in 4:3 or 16:9. Here's an example:

I own a Sony HVR-Z1U. At first, I had a similar problem with my QT encodes. As Boyd properly states, they looked vertically stretched. After a day's worth of investigating and experimenting, I found the reason.

The Z1U does not shoot in 16 x 9 anamorphic mode. Instead, it is a true 16:9 HDV format. At first, this did not make sense. As you may know, High-Definition video cameras (HD) use a 1920 x 1080 image resolution which, when you divide one into the other, equates to a ratio of 16:9. The Sony Z1U HDV camera uses a different High-Definition image resolution of 1440 x 1080. When you divide one into the other you get a ratio of 4:3.

However, not all pixels are created equally. There is not a standard pixel size or shape. The high-end HD cameras use square pixels, so the 1920 x 1080 square pixels does indeed produce an aspect ratio of 16:9. The HDV format uses rectangular shaped pixels so even though there are only 1440 of them across, the resultant aspect ratio is still a true 16:9 ratio and not the 4:3 ratio one would expect by using simple math. Each pixel on Sony's HDV CCDs is 1.33 to 1 (length to width).

I had encoded my QT files as 4:3 at first--thinking that 1440x1080 was a 4:3 ratio. That looked strange, so then I encoded the QT file as an 16:9 anamorphic--that looked better but was still not right. Once I realized that the HDV format is a true 16:9, not an anamorphic, I then set a custom image size to proper, true 16:9 dimensions and have been encoded great looking QT files since.

Pixels are not a unit of measurement anymore than a house is a unit of measurement. They come in different shapes and sizes. Most people do not realize this.

I hope this helps.

Amos Kim · July 1st, 2006, 01:24 PM

hd100u, horizontally stretched...wider than normal

Jeff Sayre · July 1st, 2006, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amos Kim

hd100u, horizontally stretched...wider than normal

Well, the JVC HD100 is an HDV camera. Therefore, in HD mode, it is true 16:9, not anamorphic. In fact, your camera has square pixels on its CCDs so the 1280 x 720 pixel count does indeed equal a true 16:9 ration.

So, if you have the anamorphic flag set, it could cause issues. If I recall correctly, when I first tried encoding my Z1U footage with the anamorphic flag set, I think it looked somewhat horizontally stretched.

Try removing the anamorphic flag and encode as a true 16:9.

Now, if you shot in 16:9 DV mode instead of HDV, then the captured footage would be anamorphic. The data would be recorded at 720 x 480, a ratio of 3:2.

Boyd Ostroff · July 1st, 2006, 01:33 PM

What are the pixel dimensions of the original footage, and what are the pixel dimensions of the exported Quicktime file?

Jeff Sayre · July 1st, 2006, 04:48 PM

You know, I just realized that this forum is for NLE DV editing discussions. So, I guess that answers my own question that I posed to Amos. He must have shot in DV mode.

Please disregard my HDV true 16:9 versus DV 16:9 anamorphic comments.

I'm going to bed to catch up on sleep.

Dave Perry · July 1st, 2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

Quicktime doesn't do any scaling to correct the aspect ratio, it just shows all the pixels. In fact, regular 4:3 footage is wrong also. The pixels on a computer monitor are square, so when Quicktime displays them you have a 720x480 image. If you want properly scaled 4:3 footage you need to change the size to 640x480 or 854x480 for 16:9.

Boyd, I've noticed that the recent QT updates have fixed it's ability to playback 16:9 DV footage. I recently opened up a clip in QT player that was captured in FCP with the DV Anamorphic easey setup and it played back in the proper 16:9 aspect ratio.

I have always been annoyed with this seemingly overlooked issue with QT but now it seems to have been addressed.

Boyd Ostroff · July 2nd, 2006, 08:16 AM

Really? I have QT 7.0.3 and I just tried opening some anamorphic DV clips from a project. They just appear as 720x480 with square pixels on my monitor. Maybe there's a newer version that fixes this?

Jeff Sayre · July 2nd, 2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

Really? I have QT 7.0.3 and I just tried opening some anamorphic DV clips from a project. They just appear as 720x480 with square pixels on my monitor. Maybe there's a newer version that fixes this?

Boyd:

You are three versions behind. Currently, QT is at 7.1.2. Before that, there was 7.1.1, and before that 7.0.4.

Boyd Ostroff · July 2nd, 2006, 08:55 AM

Heh... story of my life! ;-) However, after getting burned with QT updates before in FCP I've learned to take my time catching up with the latest version, especially when I don't have the latest version of FCP!

BTW, I see that you're using Vue 5 infinite. I didn't know we had any other users of that software around here. It's a terrific package, although a little buggy (but I'm also a few versions behind there too, for similar reasons ;-)

You might want to participate in this thread, or some of the others in the links I posted there:http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=66384

Jeff Sayre · July 2nd, 2006, 11:27 AM

I understand completely the desire to wait and see with QT updates. I've had a few issues myself in the past--that is, with QT!

Vue 5 Infinite is a lot more stable than the earlier versions. Of course, E-Onsoftware just yesterday announced Vue 6 Infinite. I'll wait awhile to upgrade but it does sound like a significant update. http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue6/

Thanks for the forum link to the 3D package thread. I'll post something later.

July 1st, 2006, 12:58 AM	#1
Amos Kim Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 335	anamorphic 16:9 Why does my exported quicktime movie of 24pa anamorphic 16:9 footage look stretched horizontally compared to the aspect ratio of the same footage in the canvas of FCP? Does anybody notice this difference?

July 1st, 2006, 01:07 AM	#2
Nate Schmidt Major Player Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Welland ON Posts: 515	Yeah just a quirk with quicktime not seeing the anamorphic flag. If you are sending the movie over to DVD SP it will properly scale it, if you want to go to the web you have to export it a custom size equal to the 16:9 ratio. __________________ "We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

July 1st, 2006, 08:04 AM	#6
Jeff Sayre Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: South Bend, IN Posts: 301	Amos: What kind of camera did you shoot with? The reason I ask is because some cameras have different pixel shapes and sizes. So, you cannot assume that you are shooting in 4:3 or 16:9. Here's an example: I own a Sony HVR-Z1U. At first, I had a similar problem with my QT encodes. As Boyd properly states, they looked vertically stretched. After a day's worth of investigating and experimenting, I found the reason. The Z1U does not shoot in 16 x 9 anamorphic mode. Instead, it is a true 16:9 HDV format. At first, this did not make sense. As you may know, High-Definition video cameras (HD) use a 1920 x 1080 image resolution which, when you divide one into the other, equates to a ratio of 16:9. The Sony Z1U HDV camera uses a different High-Definition image resolution of 1440 x 1080. When you divide one into the other you get a ratio of 4:3. However, not all pixels are created equally. There is not a standard pixel size or shape. The high-end HD cameras use square pixels, so the 1920 x 1080 square pixels does indeed produce an aspect ratio of 16:9. The HDV format uses rectangular shaped pixels so even though there are only 1440 of them across, the resultant aspect ratio is still a true 16:9 ratio and not the 4:3 ratio one would expect by using simple math. Each pixel on Sony's HDV CCDs is 1.33 to 1 (length to width). I had encoded my QT files as 4:3 at first--thinking that 1440x1080 was a 4:3 ratio. That looked strange, so then I encoded the QT file as an 16:9 anamorphic--that looked better but was still not right. Once I realized that the HDV format is a true 16:9, not an anamorphic, I then set a custom image size to proper, true 16:9 dimensions and have been encoded great looking QT files since. Pixels are not a unit of measurement anymore than a house is a unit of measurement. They come in different shapes and sizes. Most people do not realize this. I hope this helps. __________________ www.SayreMedia.com

July 1st, 2006, 04:48 PM	#10
Jeff Sayre Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: South Bend, IN Posts: 301	You know, I just realized that this forum is for NLE DV editing discussions. So, I guess that answers my own question that I posed to Amos. He must have shot in DV mode. Please disregard my HDV true 16:9 versus DV 16:9 anamorphic comments. I'm going to bed to catch up on sleep. __________________ www.SayreMedia.com

July 2nd, 2006, 11:27 AM	#15
Jeff Sayre Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: South Bend, IN Posts: 301	I understand completely the desire to wait and see with QT updates. I've had a few issues myself in the past--that is, with QT! Vue 5 Infinite is a lot more stable than the earlier versions. Of course, E-Onsoftware just yesterday announced Vue 6 Infinite. I'll wait awhile to upgrade but it does sound like a significant update. http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue6/ Thanks for the forum link to the 3D package thread. I'll post something later. __________________ www.SayreMedia.com

July 1st, 2006, 02:10 AM	#3
Amos Kim Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 335	Thanks for the info Nate. I'm thinking when you wrote "scale", you meant it'll be corrected?

July 1st, 2006, 02:11 AM	#4
Amos Kim Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 335	Nevermind the last post. duh.

July 1st, 2006, 01:24 PM	#7
Amos Kim Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 335	hd100u, horizontally stretched...wider than normal

July 1st, 2006, 01:33 PM	#9
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	What are the pixel dimensions of the original footage, and what are the pixel dimensions of the exported Quicktime file?

July 2nd, 2006, 08:16 AM	#12
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Really? I have QT 7.0.3 and I just tried opening some anamorphic DV clips from a project. They just appear as 720x480 with square pixels on my monitor. Maybe there's a newer version that fixes this?

July 2nd, 2006, 08:55 AM	#14
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Heh... story of my life! ;-) However, after getting burned with QT updates before in FCP I've learned to take my time catching up with the latest version, especially when I don't have the latest version of FCP! BTW, I see that you're using Vue 5 infinite. I didn't know we had any other users of that software around here. It's a terrific package, although a little buggy (but I'm also a few versions behind there too, for similar reasons ;-) You might want to participate in this thread, or some of the others in the links I posted there:http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=66384