720x480 vs. 856x480
 

Hello all.
I've shot some footage with the xl1s in widescreen mode and I downloaded it to premiere. I'm wondering, why is it that in After Effects and in Premiere, when you interpret the footage, or when you export the footage out of Premiere, the only pixel size to do so is 720x480? I don't understand this, because it is clear that that dimensions of my source footage are 856x480.

Isn't 720x480 just regular 4:3 with rectangular pixels? I'm so confused here. I just want to create a composition in After Effects, but when I set my composition to widescreen (which is what I shot) then it defaults to 720x480. Anyone know why?

Another example, in AE, a couple of choices are

NTSC DV (720x480)
NTSC DV WIDESCREEN (720x480)

Why are they the same size???

If I'm not making any sense let me know and I'll try to rephrase it. thanks in advance.

I work with 16:9 also, and it's correct that the image size is 720x480, however it's been anamorphically "squeezed" (anamorphic = "form has been changed"). Other than PAL, I think that DV by definition must be 720x480.

When I do the math, using square pixels I get 853x480, which is close to your 856x480. But I'm quite sure that the XL-1s is not creating DV at any size other than 720x480, it's just the pixel aspect ratio which has changed. A widescreen TV would correctly recognize and rescale your footage. If you want to show the footage on a computer monitor you would need to resize it accordingly (I do this with QuickTime myself to show 16:9 on my PowerBook). To view on a standard TV you would need to letterbox it.

I don't know AE, so I can't comment on that however most software allows you to flag your footage as anamorphic 16:9 somehow. If you're doing effects in some other program you generally have to do them at 853x480 then squash to 720x480 unless the software allows you to control the pixel aspect ratio.

ahhhhh ok. That explains some things.
Thanks Boyd. I'm still a little confused though...(if someone else know's AE feel free to chime in).


In AE, when I go to create a composition, if I choose the widescreen comp, then it sets it automatically to 720x480. Then, when I take my footage (interpreted as widescreen footage), and if I place that widescreen footage in my widescreen comp, I get this.

http://www.fusionarena.com/forumpost/wide.gif

See how my footage is actually wider than the comp? I'm wondering why, if I tell AE I want a widescreen comp, and if I tell it that it's widescreen footage, why doesn't it create this for me?


Now, if I resize the comp to 856x480, I get this
http://www.fusionarena.com/forumpost/856.gif
Much better, but now that my comp is at 856, I have other problems. How do I get it back to play on NTSC?

Then if I capture my widescreen footage in Premiere, THEN export it out at 720x480, I can create a 720x480 comp in AE, transform it 75% vertically, and I get this...
http://www.fusionarena.com/forumpost/720.gif

This will look great on an NTSC monitor, but now it's screwed for widescreen TV! This is frustrating. Anyone know how I should be doing this? In the end I might just say screw it and shoot 4:3 and crop in post, seems so much easier that way.

Anamorphic widescreen
 

Brad,

You seem to be doing the right thing here, so I'm a bit surprised you are getting a mismatch between the apparent width of your comp and that of your footage. With AE, setting the comp and footage to both be D1 PAL/NTSC widescreen should work!

Looking more closely at your web links the first one shows not a clip wider than the comp, but a widescreen comp holding a non-widescreen clip (the white rectangle is the comp boundary). So I'd check again that you have interpreted the clip footage correctly - select the clip in the project window, rightclick and and work on that, before placing it in the comp.

You should avoid at all costs resizing your clips or comps to other than 720 x 480 - such changes will have to be undone when you come to render, with a loss of image resolution/quality.

The only exception to this is with non-video applications like Photoshop. These don't undersatnd rectangular pixels, so you need to create your photoshop content at 720x540 (if NTSC), or 768x576 (if PAL), before resizing the image to 720x480/720x576 just before saving it from Photoshop.

PS - remember that AE won't display the clips in widescreen (when you double click on them) unless you select "pixel aspect correction" in the clip window setting menu (the little one on the right)!

Julian

Hi Julian thanks for the response.

A couple of things...
You said "Looking more closely at your web links the first one shows not a clip wider than the comp, but a widescreen comp holding a non-widescreen clip (the white rectangle is the comp boundary). So I'd check again that you have interpreted the clip footage correctly - select the clip in the project window, rightclick and and work on that, before placing it in the comp."


Actually, in that link, the white rectangle is the clip boundry, not the comp boundry. In other words, the footage is larger than the comp size. The comp size is 720x480. The actual footage size is 856x480. I see that size when I look at the clip properties. And if I move around that clip, I can see there is more footage to the left and right than what the comp will allow.

http://www.fusionarena.com/forumpost/wide.gif

So that's why I'm confused here. I didn't resize anything. Basically, my footage is being captured at 856x480 in pixels. I captured in Premiere, and then opened up those captured clips in AE. They are all 856x480, so when I create this widescreen comp in AE, it makes the comp 720x480, and so my footage won't fit in the comp.

Here is another picture.

http://www.fusionarena.com/forumpost/megwide.gif
See how my footage is 856x480? That's the only time it will display correctly. So I'm curious as to why when you set a widescreen comp in AE, it is 720x480? 720x480...isn't that the same exact size that you would work in with 4:3? So why wouldn't 16:9 be different? It seems as if I work on this comp in AE as this ratio, then I can just imput it back into premiere and squeeze it down to fit 4:3, as well as have this larger aspect ratio to fit tv?

I hope I'm making sense here, I think I am confusing myself!

Thanks for the photoshop tip, that is good to know as well. Never knew that. I'm also looking for that pixel aspect correction button, can't find it as of yet but I'll keep looking. That may be the answer. ;)

I'm in PAL country so the math is somewhat different but the below links might give you some guidance the size you should work in when creating computer generated stuff for importing into video (I had a hard time figure it out. I can't say that I fully understand but using a size of 1050 * 576 and then resizing gives perfect 16:9 when viewed on my widescreen TV).


http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/b...turesize.shtml and http://www.mir.com/DMG/aspect.html#reftable

I am assuming that XL1 footage is anamorphic (looks stretched in the viewfinder when it was filmed). This still meanst the actual image size you are working in is 720x480 (for NTSC) ...the same as 4:3 footage ! This is true for letterbox format also it is just the way you deal with it that is different. For widescreen output there is a debate as to which is better - 4:3 with letterbox or 16:9 full height anamorphic.

When you start AFX select the widescreen NTSC DV preset (which you have already done)

All footage should be imported and the it should be 'interpreted' to have widescreen pixel aspect ratio (which you have done).

Your problems are that AFX is not showing the correct pixel ratio ...just go the composition window...<top right>..select menu item 'view options'...pixel aspect ratio correction.......tick the box...all should be well !

In general you should never need to do any resizing if shooting anamorphic footage for anamorphic output as the quality will suffer. Premiere deals with it invisibly but AFX needs a push in the right direction.

Hope this helps...if not email me and I will assist further if I can.

simon

PS: Boyd is correct...the DV spec means that image sizes are set at 720x480 NTSC or 720x576 PAL (notice the extra resolution in PAL). Whatever method you use to make widescreen (anamorphic...letterbox) doesn't change the actual image size. For anamorphic mode only the viewing pixel aspect ratio changes, although I believe that DV can flag this in a subcode somewhere.

PPS Hans,

I've just checked the BBC link you gave....very interesting. I have been involved in loads of stuff for the BBC (the recent freeview "mission impossible" stuff for example) and this is the first I've heard about these new 'magic numbers' 788 and 1050 !(PAL of course)...All artwork that I have ever prepared has been other made at 1024x576 - 768x576 - 720x576. Additionally, all the artwork I have been sent by the BBC before has been these sizes, better have a good read of this. I must have been lucky so far !

ahh...ok I think I am getting the big picture based on all your helpful posts. Thank you Simon, Hans, Julian, and Boyd for all your responses. I see now that I can 'preview' the footage in AE using that method. Now I see the difference as well in the way Premiere and After Effects treat widescreen, you need to tell After Effects to view it differently, but not Premiere.

One small thing I am still curious about...Simon, you said

----------------------
"I am assuming that XL1 footage is anamorphic (looks stretched in the viewfinder when it was filmed). This still meanst the actual image size you are working in is 720x480 (for NTSC) ...the same as 4:3 footage ! This is true for letterbox format also it is just the way you deal with it that is different."
----------------------

Yes it is stretched in the viewfinder, you are correct. However, when I open up my captured widescreen clips in Windows Media Player or anything else, it clearly states that the size is 856x480. I've done nothing to change it. Is this what it should be saying? Just want to make sure I am capturing correctly. Now when I create a comp with just the captured clips, the footage is too large for the widescreen comp. However, if I import the widescreen clips into Premiere, then export at 720x480, THEN I will be able to view the clips in After Effects correctly (if I use the preview mode)

Does this sound right?

Thanks!

Brad,

don't believe what media player tells you about the clips. I have opened some 720x576 (PAL) anamorphic DV footage in media player and it describes it as 768x576 (normal PAL).

import the footage in AFX and see what AFX thinks it is.

I am not quite sure of your workflow...but it should be this..


Set up project in premiere using the NTSC DV widescreen preset (THIS IS IMPORTANT). This has image size of 720x480. Do you capturing. Start AFX....using NTSC DV widescreen project...same image size as before. Import your footage....do your compositing (with or without view aspect ratio correction in AFX)..export as format of your choice - DV or tif sequence (tifs must be 720x480). Import back into premiere...finish edit...export to tape.

I suspect that you have some kind of issue with your initial Premiere project.

Email me the premiere PPJ file if you like.

simon

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Orange: For widescreen output there is a debate as to which is better - 4:3 with letterbox or 16:9 full height anamorphic. -->>>

Hmm, not sure what you mean by this. Of course one might debate whether it's better to distribute material in letterbox format since the majority of TV sets can't handle real 16:9. But I don't think there's much question about which produces higher quality when viewed on a widescreen TV or computer monitor.

If you letterbox a 16:9 image you end up with an active area of about 720x360 pixels and a 720x60 black stripe above and below. That's about as good as an XL-1s or PD-150 can shoot anyway since they do 16:9 by cropping the image and then stretching anamorphically.

However if the anamorphic 16:9 was shot using a camera with higher resolution widescreen CCD's, or if it comes from a source like a 3d animation program, then the letterboxed version has thrown away about 25% of the available vertical resolution. These images make use of the entire screen area instead of just the 720x360 center section.

Hey guys.
Maybe I should have mentioned this. I use the Canopus DV Storm. Simon, when I look at it in After Effects, it also says my footage is 856x480. I found out that it was doing this because I was capturing form the DVStorm in Premiere, which I guess capures wider horizontal pixels?

See this screenshot in Premiere.
http://www.fusionarena.com/forumpost/canopus.gif

Anyone know why Canopus would capture it at a different pixel ratio? It seems as if it's acutally capturing how it should look - not squished. Capturing 720x480 gives you a squised image, that you have to unsquish. Caputring this way give you the full 856x480....this is why I'm still confused. I see the widescreen perfectly when its viewed at 856x480, yet everyone is saying that its really only 720x480?

Boyd, when choosing between 16:9 or 4:3 on a camera such as the XL1s, isn't the resolution the exact same? In one method you're cropping in post, the other method crops in camera, and you shrink it down to play on NTSC. Both seem to end up doing the exact same thing in the long run don't they?

Boyd,

Sorry, didn't make myself clear, but I didn't want to open another can of worms.... Of course 16:9 FHA uses the full resolution of the tape and is the preffered format for distribution for UK broadcast.

The argument I was reffering to is as follows.

Question:

I have a camera with 4:3 CCDs but I want to make a widescreen movie..Do I shoot incamera 16:9 anamorphic or in camera 4:3 and crop it in post ?

Answer 1

16:9 FHA in camera: uses full res of the DV tape but only 3/4 of the CCD

Answer 2

4:3 uses full res of CCD but (when letterboxed) uses only 3/4 of DV tape. Additionally gives you a bit of framing leeway when racking.

Brad,

Didn't realize you were using the Canopus card. Is this a firewire card ?

I'm sure we can sort this out

simon

Yes its a realtime editing card/firewire card. When I view my 16:9 clips freshly captured, they aren't squashed at all, they look perfect.

It's only when I import them into After Effects that they start to look funny, because of the preset of 720x480, hence why in this shot

http://www.fusionarena.com/forumpost/wide.gif

my clip is wider than the widescreen AE composition. That's a 720 wide comp with the original captured 856 footage. (the rest of the footage on the left and right you can see if I move the clip in or out of the comp). But needless to say, this footage is definitly wider than 720. When I make my own comp at 856x480, they look perfect. I'm wondering if this is they way it's meant to be edited if output is to a widescreen television.

what i mean is ...is it firewire only ...or does it have an analog section too ?

si

yes, it has an analog breakout box as well.

Brad,

is your comp accidentally set to square pixels? This would have the effect of making it look right at 856x480...

Julian

Ok....

I assume that what canopus have done is to fudge the way that it deals with widescreen footage to make it compatible with with the analog section of the card (?) - This would mean that the analog section would dispay 16:9 FHA correctly...out of interest what is the frame size of the normal (not widescreen) NTSC DV storm premiere preset ?

If this is the case..and canopus insists on capturing the footage at this frame size you should use the same frame size in AFX (don't do the interpret aspect ratio on the clip) and just work with it whilst viewing your clips 'squashed' (although I think that 856x480 is about right for 16x9). I know this is a pain...you have to do this with flame* which costs considerably more than AFX !

AFX only understands a couple of different pixel aspect ratios.

simon

Julian <<<-- Originally posted by Julian Luttrell : Brad,

is your comp accidentally set to square pixels? This would have the effect of making it look right at 856x480...

Julian -->>>
---------------------------------------------------------

Hi Julian. No, my comp has a preset of NTSC DV Widescreen, and the pixel aspect ratio is the same thing - NTSC Widescreen (1.2)
And my footage is interpreted as widescreen as well.

Simon, I see what you're saying.
Basically in AFX if I create a comp with 856x480 frame size, it will look perfect in AFX, as shown in this shot http://www.fusionarena.com/forumpost/megwide.gif

So what I'm saying is, it doesn't look squashed at all in this mode. It only looks squashed when I set the comp to 720x480. So actually this works better for me I think, because I'll be able to work on the clips as they were meant to be seen. Problem is I have no idea how 856 wide could be the real size, since everyone here is saying widescreen is 720 pixels wide?

As for your question, the frame size of the normal DV Storm preset is 720x480.

I think I am losing my head over this. I've learned a lot from this thread though, sorry for being so confusing, if only I could talk to someone about this it'd be so much easier. thanks for all the responses guys.

The problems you are having are because the Storm card is using non-standard framesizes...for reasons we can only guess at.

The AFX widescreen setting is based on normal-standard-everyday DV widescreen 16:9 FHA settings, which it seems canopus (in their wisdom) have deviated from. This means in your case the AFX preset is useless.

Your aim in this is not to have to re-size footage, this would mean some kind of interpolation of the footage and therefore quality loss. DO NOT INTERPRET FOOTAGE AS WIDESCREEN then you won't have to resize.

Set up your own AFX preset based on the canopus premiere capture settings and all should be well - a couple of seconds with a calculator shows that frame sizes will display fine in AFX without using any kind of pixel aspect ratio compensation. When you import the footage you should not have to do any rescaling, it should just snap fine into the comp frame.

The next issue you will hit is how to render the stuff out...I assume that canopus provide a codec which renders out the stuff with the same frame size ? If you need any pointers let us know.

simon

Thank you Simon. That is exactly what I needed to know! I just need to make a different comp size as a preset. It really does make more sense to me now, and yes, Canopus does have a codec I can render it out to and import back into Premire if need be. The goal is to get this thing viewed normally on a widescreen TV, but also make a regular NTSC television version - letterboxed.

Basically you're saying, as long as I'm not physically resizing the video, I should be fine, and I believe your right. I worked with the 856 comp setting in AE and then exported it back out to Premiere. It displayed normally again in the widescreen mode. For the standard television version, all I have to do is import that widescreen version into a 4:3 project setting, apply a verticle transform and it automatically places letterboxes on the top and bottom. Looks great!

btw, if I scale down widescreen footage in normal 4:3 mode, I've heard people say to use 75 percent scaling in order to get the letterboxes. It looks fine, but I was just wondering if that is mathematically verified? Is it really exaclty 75 percent or is it 77 etc?

Thanks again for the help.

it is exactly 75%...get out the calculator:

difference between 16:9 and 12:9 (4:3) is 75% on vertical axis.

One last thing, if you are gonna broadcast the piece and want to do a 4:3 letterbox version, my advice is to do the whole project 16:9 and let the broacaster run it through its ARC (aspect ratio convertor) - or at least speak to the broadcaster to see what format it needs.


si

According to a Pixel Aspect of 1.2 for NTSC Widescreen your
footage should be 864 wide, not 856. Oh well, it is all in numbers.

But, as someone else stated (and his is correct) the footage is
still 720x480 on tape/in your AVI. What has change is the Pixel
Aspect ratio. This is the ratio for width vs. height. Normally an
NTSC pixel is 90% of the width as its height. In widescreen is
has a ratio of 1.2 and is therefor 120% the width as its height.
What the programs are doing (since you are VIEWING the
material on a square pixel monitor [1.0]) is RESIZING/RESAMPLING
the footage to the 1.0 aspect ratio (which in the case of your
widescreen footage means resizing the width by 1.2 times)
for VIEWING. They also give you the resolution probably so you
can interpret it better or for communication with other applications.

I hope this explains it a little bit better!

Rob....the whole point is - using the canopus setting the AVI footage ISN'T 720x480

addtionally I make it that the horizontal frame size is 480/9 * 16 = 853.3333 not 856 (or 864) but near enough !

if you follow the thread we are suggesting that canopus are using square pixels not rectangular - either to maintain compatiblity with the anolog section of the storm card of for some other reason we cannot understand.

si

Yes, based on the info here I think I finally understand what to do. I have to do this all differently because damn Canopus captures this in square pixels, (who knows why).

I must interpret that footage as square pixels if I'm using the original 856x480 captured footage in After Effects.

1. If I capture the widescreen footage in Premiere, THEN export from Premiere at widescreen 720x480, then I can use the 720x480 widescreen default comp in After Effects - as long as I change the pixel aspect ratio for the footage to widescreen.

2. I still can use the 720x480 widescreen comp in After Effects IF I am using the original 856x480 footage (not exported as 720x480 from Premiere), as long as I make sure that the footage is interpreted as square pixels in After Effects.

3. Finally, I can create a 856x480 composition, and use the original captured footage, if I interpret that footage as widescreen.

All of these three methods seem to produce the same exact results from my naked eye.


The way Canopus handles this really confused me. I think I was also getting frame aspect ratio and pixel aspect ratio confused. Hopefully this thread will help those who have a Canopus and want to capture widescreen. Thanks for the info all, if you have anything more to add please do.

<<<-- Originally posted by Brad Simmons :Boyd, when choosing between 16:9 or 4:3 on a camera such as the XL1s, isn't the resolution the exact same? In one method you're cropping in post, the other method crops in camera, and you shrink it down to play on NTSC. Both seem to end up doing the exact same thing in the long run don't they? -->>>

I think there are two issues:

1. True, on the XL-1s the 16:9 mode involves cropping down your regular 4:3 image, then stretching so it becomes anamorphic. However there's some discussion of the fine points of the process as it relates to DV compression, and evidently the results vary between different models of camera. See Adam Wilt's website for more info http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

2. What do you plan to use the footage for? Do you just want to letterbox it for 4:3, or do you want to view it on a widescreen TV? For letterboxing either method should work equally well. However if you need anamorphic 16:9 and you've shot 4:3, then you'll need to crop and then stretch it vertically in post to get the correct aspect ratio.

Personally I like Simon's suggestion to keep it anamorphic and let the broadcaster letterbox as needed. That way if you're doing titles or effects they will take advantage of the full 480 vertical lines.

2. What do you plan to use the footage for? Do you just want to letterbox it for 4:3, or do you want to view it on a widescreen TV? For letterboxing either method should work equally well. However if you need anamorphic 16:9 and you've shot 4:3, then you'll need to crop and then stretch it vertically in post to get the correct aspect ratio.

------------------------------------------

Boyd,
Ideally I'd like both! :) I'd like for this film to be seen on both widescreen television as well as letterboxed for 4:3 so I can put it on DVD and VHS and people will be able to see in on tv.

I guess widescreen television is not that important, but if this film is good enough I want to send it to some film fests. Do thy only show widescreen? What do they usually use? Would it look bad projected in a theater if shown on widescreen?

more or less right I think.

to clarify again (!!!!) hopefully


It seems that you footage captured in premiere 'IS' square pixel (846x480)....so your first point is absolutely correct - and 'IS' the way you should work.

and your remaining points........

1. If I capture etc etc...

Yes correct...but beware you could potentially suffer a quality loss doing this (scaling down from 846 to 720 horizontally).

2. I still can use the 720 etc etc......


No...you shouldn't do this !.... If the footage is 856x480 square pixel it is just that: 856x480 square pixel.....NOT 720x480 horizontal pixel - therefore project should reflect this....
If you use this setting and import the footage as 720 widescreen pixels (in AFX speak) then AFX will scale the footage to fix your comp (loosing a 136 pixels en-route and draging these remaining pixels out to look like 856 pixels - as in 1. above) ...are you with me so far.... then when you render back out with the canopus DV AFX will scale the footage back up from 720 widescreen pixels back to 856 square pixels to import back into premiere.(more quality lost)..phew !


3. Finally, I can etc etc etc.

Yes..and No ! Create the composition in AFX at 856x480 but you don't need to use widescreen pixel aspect ratio and don't interpret the footage as such (cause it ain't !). You might end up with the same kind of interpolation errors as mentioned in 2.

The widescreen setting in AFX are only for anamorphic (vertically stretched) footage ONLY. As a general rule you want to do as little scaling-resizing as possible. Try and work in the natural frame size as your footage. Additionally try to do as few renders as possible - every time you recompress your footage you loose qualtity....indeed the first recompress usually gives the biggest quality drop (for the pedantic take a look at
http://home.insightbb.com/~george/codec/Intro.html for some real world examples)

As regards Boyds point....and I suspect Boyd and I are in agreement on this (?) - shoot 16:9 full height anamorphic and do all your work in this format. But as Boyd mentions it depends on what you are going to do with the footage. If it is for broadcasters they will prefer 16:9 FHA. The ARCs that most broacasters have will do a better job of doing the letterboxing than doing it in AFX and exporting to a DV tape.........Before anybody jumps down my throat on that point I think that it is obvious that footage that has been decompress-cropped-compressed onto a lossy format will suffer more artifacts than a nice quality ARC.


Just read your reply......shoot (preferably with a lens adapter) full height anamorphic if you wanna go to film ....you need as much resolution as you can. (I know you'll get as many opinions on this as there are people on this board).

simon

Hi Simon,

Ok I'm following you.
When at first I did those tests, it all looked fine. Now I can see where some of those methods would lead to quality loss. I looked at some posts and they have confirmed the Canopus DV widescreen NTSC codec is a frame size of 856 X 480. This is almost exactly 16 X 9 and square pixels. For whatever reason, perhaps some sort of limitation in the implementation of their effects and transitions, Canopus chose to
provide widescreen support by setting up projects as 856x480 with square pixels instead of 720x480 with the correct pixel size.

I've tried to change the capture settings so that it won't capture in square pixels, but it seems dead set.

So, what would you suggest the best method of working in After Effects should be? From you post, I gathered two methods you seemed would work. Create the composition in AFX at 856x480 (square pixel comp, square pixel footage right?) and just work on comps at that setting, OR export my captured 856x480 file out of Premiere at 720x480 (which may result in quality loss?
I knew initially that creating a comp size in AFX at 856x480 would work, but I didn't know if it was "enlarging" the video to a larger size, thus destroying the quality.

Thanks for all your help here.

Brad,

I think you're probably correct about the reasons behind canopus' odd frame size............

Firstly if the canopus DV codec captures at 856x480 square pixels then work in that format. As you have found, you will have to use that setting in premiere to capture correctly.

Once captured in this frame size, any deviation will more than likely involve some kind of quality loss. This means that AFX project should be set at 856x480 square pixels. Note that this is most definitley not the same as 720x480 'widescreen' pixels - even if they may look the same. Exporting out of premiere at 720x480 will work but you will suffer two sets of quality loss (you lose data making frame smaller to export from premiere and lose quality making frame larger when you pull it back in to premiere.) I don't think this contradicts anything I said earlier (the answer to point 1 previously).

Forgive me if I am making this more complicated than it need be (I could just tell you to work in AFX at 856x480), but it seems more sensible to try to explain the reasons why...then you will understand the ramifications of changing frame sizes etc etc.

In the spirit of that, and in an attempt to maintain maximum quality (v. important with DV footage - especially if you are thinking of going to film)......one further thing that I touched on earlier:

Ideally when you export from premiere it will not need any re-rendering at all...therefore in AFX you are using first generation copy. The issue comes when trying to export from AFX.... I assume that the canopus codec is available when you try to make and avi in 'make movie' - this should keep the frame size at 856x480. This is the correct codec to use and means that when you pull the footage back into premiere, premiere will show the footage as not needing rendering (no red bar above footage)... This would ensure best quality.

The aim is to only ever have one lossy (DV) render...the one you do exporting from AFX. You could export as an uncompressed image sequence but you will still end up having to render this if you pull back into premiere so it's swings-and-roundabouts. If you really are going to transfer to film and the AFX work is the last thing you do...after the edit...you might be best exporting as image sequence then there is NO lossy render at all - give them the uncompressed sequence. In our online suites we get loads of footage as uncompressed image sequences...it is the format of choice for 3D work.

The only problem I can see with any of this is if you want to exchange AVI files with anybody else using standard frame sizes....it will work but you will not have optimum quality (for reasons outlined above). Shouldn't be an issue if you are just doing the editing/compositing on your machine.

If of this makes no sense then let me know.

simon

Thanks Simon, you've been a tremendous help, especially with this last post. That is some sound advice on how to effectively maintain quality working between Premiere and After Effects.

I will follow that method. No need to apologize for being so explanatory, it is exactly the information I need to know. I'd rather know 'why' something is happening, instead of just 'how' to do it.

And yes, you are correct in that when I export my footage from After Effects into Premiere, using the Canopus codec, it imports easily into Premiere - no rendering needed at all.

One question about what you mentioned though...when exporting from Premiere, should I use the Canopus Codec as well? I usually choose Microsoft AVI and use the canopus codec. OR, should I use Microsoft DV AVI instead? I've always been confused about the difference between the two.

Also, I'll need this footage to be viewed letterboxed on a 4:3 monitor, so I'm assuming I can import the widescreen version into a standard 4:3 project, and then transform vertically 75%. I'll see if that works. Thanks again.

When exporting from premiere you should use the canopus codec.

To prove the point (to me and you): I think you will find that the microsoft DV codec will throw an error if you try to export a 856x480 project (just tried this in AFX and it does indeed give an 'invalid image size' type error- but premiere seems to do a resize on-the-fly - but you are still losing 136 pixels worth of image quality).

To prove the point II - the export using the correct canopus dv codec from premiere should be the fastest (compared to using microsoft DV AVI settijngs)...this should be the format that the AVI files are stored at - and therefore it is just doing a file copy..not a recalculate - (transitions and filter would still need some calculation but this should have been done on the preview). This superfast export proves (!?!) that you are just creating a clone of the files....therefore no quality loss. However you might find that both exports are so fast so that I haven't proven anything !

One final last point (I promise).....you will find that all the AVI files you are using in premiere actually exist on your hard drive somewhere. This depends on where you set your capture directory. If you gave the clips sensible names when you captured them you should easily be able to find it...you can pull this straight into AFX and work on it - export as AVI and import into premiere. This system might not work for you as the clips you are compositing might actually be an edit with transitions/filter/cuts etc....but bear it in mind - it is occasionally useful.

simon


PPS.....(broken my promise already)... some codecs (dunno if the canopus one)...will squirt the image out of the capture card during any edit using this project...this means you might be able to preview your AFX comp on your TV/cam....or you might not !!!!!! If not try out echofire www.echofire.com (might work with your canopus card - works a treat with a standard firewire card).

thanks Simon.
I did a test based on all your advice and everything appears to be working as it should. I worked on an 856x480 comp in After Effects, exported using the canopus codec, everything worked smooth in Premiere's widescreen mode. I exported the clip from premiere and encoded it with Sorenson...now I have a nice little widescreen Quicktime file. I even created a 4:3 comp in Premiere and squished the image to make it letterboxed, which worked smoothly - though I think I will do that in After Effects instead later on. I'm thinking importing back into a standard Premiere project results in some quality loss from going from 856x480 to 720x480...but this was the recommended method at such sites as http://members.macconnect.com/users/...een/index.html
Exporting out of Premiere with the Canopus codec does seem faster than usual, so I do think your right. I'll probably do most of my basic edit in Premiere, then export the whole thing into After Effects (this will only be a 5 minute short).

The Canopus does export the image from Premiere to an NTSC monitor which is nice, but to do so in After Effects, Canopus offers a special AE plugin just for the canopus I believe, but it costs extra for the old version. I believe the newer DVStorm 2 has this included (not sure though). Funny enough, I was looking at that echofire site earlier this morning, because I think it may be cheaper than the Canopus Plugin. I'll check to see if it works with the Canopus. Thanks again.

Your right about the new storm2 card..I was looking at it a while ago and I noticed that it had an AFX preview...that led me to finding echofire...

Not sure quite what you are referring to on the widescreen site link you gave - but the 856x480 is very non-standard. Most advice that you will see is really only relevant for standard DV (ie 720x480 square or widescreen).

Before you do the final letterbox you need to think about what you want to letterbox version for.....

If it is for broadcast let the broadcaster do it ...they do a better job. The moral here is always hang on to the widescreen original version.

If it is to make a sorensen quicktime...then who cares what method you use.

If it is to lay back out on DV tape using premiere what I would do is this: I would definitley do the letterboxing in AFX (just personal preference). What I would do is make the AFX project 856x480 (again - no quality loss). Then shrink vertical to 75%. This will mean that the image will look squashed in your AFX project - who cares, you're only gonna render it straight out. Then render out using Canopus widescreen codec. Import back into Premiere with the widescreen canopus setting (ie like original project). Again image will look squashed (who cares...you're only using premiere as a hop-over in the journey back to tape)...lay out to tape. The final tape output will now not be anamorphic - it will be letterbox, with the correct aspect ratio. This is basically the same procedure (including the same project settings) as you have been using to move footage between AFX/Premiere. It seems to me that this only involves one resize in only one axis (to letterbox - unavoidable in this instance) and one re-render back to DV AVI. This is the least processing you can do.

There would be other ways to do this - maintaining the same quality as above- but it seems to me most of them probably require rescaling on 2 axis (vertical and horizontal) and this means more quality loss than rescaling on just one axis...it would also depend on the size of the non-widescreen canopus DV codecs (720x480 ???? - standard or 640x480 ???? - nonstandard but extrapolated from widescreen canopus settings????). If you set your AFX setting to the non-widescreen frame size you can pull the footage in and resize blah blah blah...this method requires a two axis resize...not as good !!!!! (I have lied a little in this - because the canopus codec does a sneaky resize when it lays this widescreen footage down to tape in the version I suggest !)

simon

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Orange :

If it is to lay back out on DV tape using premiere what I would do is this: I would definitley do the letterboxing in AFX (just personal preference). What I would do is make the AFX project 856x480 (again - no quality loss). Then shrink vertical to 75%. This will mean that the image will look squashed in your AFX project - who cares, you're only gonna render it straight out. Then render out using Canopus widescreen codec. Import back into Premiere with the widescreen canopus setting (ie like original project). Again image will look squashed (who cares...you're only using premiere as a hop-over in the journey back to tape)...lay out to tape. The final tape output will now not be anamorphic - it will be letterbox, with the correct aspect ratio. This is basically the same procedure (including the same project settings) as you have been using to move footage between AFX/Premiere. It seems to me that this only involves one resize in only one axis (to letterbox - unavoidable in this instance) and one re-render back to DV AVI. This is the least processing you can do.

simon -->>>




Hey Simon, good idea. I tried this and it works well. It seems to be a much better method than importing into Premiere, THEN having to resize, (thus having to render again).

One thing I noticed however is that whatever footage I reimport from After Effects to Premiere has heavy interlacing effects ( I see a lot of horizontal lines over footage in movement). I only see this when I am looking at footage in Premiere that was imported rendered in After Effects. For the original captured footage viewed within Premiere or AFX, I don't see the interlacing.

In Premiere, by right clicking on the clip, I can change the video settings so it says "Always Deinterlace". That takes care of the effect for the most part, but I'm wondering if that is what I should be doing? Do I need my footage interlaced for some reason? It appears to look fine on my NTSC monitor, as well as my preview monitor when I tell Premiere to deinterlace it. Are there any plugins that I should be using for this instead. (totally confused on that issue).

Another thing, I'm exporting the original clips out of Premiere with Lower Fields first, then exporting the rendered clips using the Canopus with the 'lower fields first' setting again. That is the right way correct? And if I shot this in frame mode, then I would select 'no fields' both in Premiere and in After Effects right? Seems obvious enough.

Sorry for all the questions, I just have one more...
Based on this thread, do you recommend shooting in 16:9 (on my fake 16:9 camera) in the future, or shooting 4:3 and cropping in post? Obviously this entire thread wouldn't be necessary for me if I decided to shoot 4:3 and crop in post, (because Canopus does capture standard 4:3 in the correct pixel aspect ratio...it only deviates from the norm for widescreen) so I'm trying to weigh in the benefits of shooting 16:9. I know this is a heated debate with lots of different opinions, I am just curious as to which method YOU think is better, and which method offers better image quality and leaves you the most options.

thanks again for your time with all this.

Ok...working backwards through the questions.....I would shoot 16:9 anamorphic in camera. I have a problem with compression (I don't like it !) and so I prefer to lose resolution on the CCD and gain the extra from the DV compression to tape, if that makes sense. Indeed I think this bears me out:

http://members.macconnect.com/users/...een/index.html


I think I listed the possible disadvantages/advantages much, much, much earlier in this thread in the answer to Boyd - indeed there is a similar thread going on right now in the GL1 forum (don't people know how to use the search function ?). I worked on the post-production of 28 days later (danny boyle movie shot on dv) and this was all done 4:3 and letterboxed later. This did give him the flexibility of reframing a little but I think 16:9 would have been better (he never asked me !!!). To confuse matters further I do seem to remember something on the BBC website that says don't shoot 16:9 in camera on the Canons - here we go:

http://www.bbctraining.co.uk/onlineC...=5173&cat=2781

click the second module and read the pdf (pay special attention to page 1 and page 4)...scary isn't it

Still, you shouldn't believe everything you read - even if it is the BBC....they have some pretty arcane practises going on over there ! (as an aside I think I'll paste that link over in the GL-1 thread...that'll put the cat amongst the pigeons).

Summary: shoot 16:9 anamorphic.

Moving on.

You mention shooting in frame mode. The general consensus seems to be that frame mode really isn't the way to go (I know people here swear by it however). Software tools can do a better job of creating progressive scan than the camera.

http://www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm#anchor129616

read points 12/13

Which leads us on to de-interlacing tools,

If you want to deinterlace try magic bullet, this does far more than deinterlacing but this review is interesting.

http://www.creativecow.net/articles/...end/mb_review/
compares with re:vison fields kit

http://www.revisionfx.com/rsfk.htm

Not sure why you are getting the problem when exporting from AFX to Premiere. As always, I would recheck your setting in AFX/premiere whatever...make sure that you have the interlace settings the same in each (an also when you render). Lower fields first is the normal setting for interlaced footage...and no fields for progressive scan (of course).

De-interlaced footage has a certain look, if that is what you are after then do it.....if not then don't deinterlace !

oh I, nearly forgot

http://www.creativecow.net/articles/...ing/index.html



hope this helps.

simon

great, makes sense to me. Thanks for all the links and info Simon, I'll be doing some reading now. cheers.