-
Aspect ratio change on an image
So I was handed some widescreen SD footage today that is the backplate for an awards show graphic. The text on top will be bullet points so I set it up in After Effects and exported a still frame of the text to drop over the video in FCPX. When I import the still frame FCPX doesn’t see it as wide screen and squeezes it down to 4×3 SD. I have looked high and low for an aspect ration switch to tell X that it the image is 16×9 but have found nothing. Anyway to tell X that an SD image is 16×9?
On a side note I forgot how bad standard def really is… how did we ever watch this blurry stuff??
Thanks,
Michael W. Towe
President M2 Digital Post
http://www.m2digitalpost.com -
5 Replies
-
[Michael W. Towe] “On a side note I forgot how bad standard def really is… how did we ever watch this blurry stuff??”
No kidding… been on an SD project recently… yuck. Anyway… 2 places to look in the inspector when the clip is selected…
1-Info (in “settings” view) there’s an anamorphic override menu when applicable.. widescreen should work.
Also in the video tab under “spatial conform” there are 3 settings to try.
One of those things should work….
Oh… I should add… if the SD stuff is anamorphic (squeezed 720×480) make a compressor export setting with a custom size of 864×480 or you’ll run into… issues.
————————————————————-~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
854
-
[Bret Williams] “854”
864! 🙂 Maybe we’re both right… Here’s a discussion of the 854 vs 864 “problem”
https://www.lafcpug.org/phorum/read.php?1,263245,263275
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
I’d say that 864 there is an obvious typo. The math wouldn’t even be close. Do the math.
16/9=1.77777777777778
854/480=1.77916666666667
864/480=1.8And in actuality 853/480 is actually closer, but as many have pointed out in the past, codecs work best in certain divisible blocks, which makes sense. I’ve even heard the argument for 852 because it’s divisible by 4. And maybe that does produce better results.
But if you look at the Adobe FCP presets for output, it’s always 854.
-
[Bret Williams] “I’ve even heard the argument for 852 because it’s divisible by 4. And maybe that does produce better results. “
As I’m in the midst of an anamorphic SD clusterf… uh, job now. I’ll try the 85x settings and see if there’s a noticeable difference. Also, I was told there would be no math. 😉
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up