-
Aspect Ratio Purgatory – Please Advise
First off – thanks for even looking at this post – having read these forums off and on for several years, I know that they are populated by a lot of talented people who take time out of their busy days (read: making money) to answer sometimes complex (and sometimes completely stupid) questions – so, for that you have my thanks – and my hope that this doesnt fall into the “completely stupid” category.
Here’s my issue:
I have footage that I DID NOT SHOOT, currently residing on several mini-DV tapes. It originated in DVCPRO50 (Ikegami front, Panasonic back, Im told – but I doubt thats in any way relevant). I BELIEVE it was shot in widescreen mode (16×9) and recorded to the original DVCPRO50 tapes. It has been DUBBED to mini-DV. These mini-DVs are what I have in my possession – NOT the originals. Perhaps I will be able to track down the originals, but for now, these dubs are what I have.Of course, on the mini-DVs, the image is squished (or squashed, depending on your preference) horizontally, fitting the whole image from the (PRESUMABLY) widescreen DVCPRO50 into the 4×3 space of the mini-DV.
So my question is: What do I need to do to RECREATE a reasonable facsimile of the correct (ORIGINAL) image – and should I do this during capture, editing, or a combination of the two?
Should my capture be .9 pixel aspect ratio or 1.2? I.e. should I give bias to the originating format or the dubbed format (and do I even have a choice)?
Should my PremierePro project be .9 or 1.2? Should my clip be scaled or re-interpreted?
I’ve tried this a couple of different ways – I brought the .9 clip into a .9 ratio project and then scaled the clip vertically (75% – the difference between 1.33 and 1.77) – this looked OK – and the letterboxing makes no difference to me one way or the other.
I also tried bringing the .9 clip into a 1.2 ratio project and INTERPRETING the clip to conform to 1.2 – and frankly, that looked pretty much the same, of course without the letterboxing.
Which is better? and for that matter, is there a 3rd (or 4th) way that is even better still?
Ill admit I dont have the most discriminating eye in the world – so even though my two tests look relatively alike to me, there may be some red flag or some motion artifacting introduced by one of these two methods that Im just not seeing (but is none-the-less a big NO-NO, technically).
I think thats about it – again, thanks in advance for all your feedback and advice – and if you have nay questions or if theres something I didnt make clear. please dont hesitate to ask. I live to learn.
cheers,
jim -
2 Replies
-
I think that capturing into a 16:9 project would work (1.2)…but I’ve never tried it with footage that “thinks” it’s 4:3…
Otherwise, just capture all of it as 4:3 and import that project into one with 16:9 project settings.
By right clicking on the clip and selecting “interpret footage” and changing .9 to 1.2(which I assume is how you did it in your test), the whole thing will be back to 16:9.
This would be easier than scaling as all the scaling has to render. Straight interpreted 16:9 DV footage in a 16:9 project will be realtime until you add some effects…
TimK,
Kolb Productions,
Creative Cow Host,
Author/Trainer
http://www.focalpress.com
http://www.classondemand.net -
the proper way is to capture the footage into a 16:9 project(1.2) and then interpret the footage to match 1.2
Ken Adolph
Media Group
Editor/Post Supervisor
https://www.mg.ca
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up