Change PAR of project without ruining work that’s already done

[Steve Roberts]

It looks as if you have more than PAR going on. Here’s why:

720×480 @ .91 shows as 4×3 on TV.
872×486 @ square (using the preset for now), when properly converted, shows up as 16×9 on TV.

So you’re taking a 4×3 project and changing it to 16×9? Normally, if you were working in 720×480 @ 1.21 PAR, I’d say “drop it into the 872×486 (or 480) square PAR comp” and render, but it sounds as if this isn’t the case.
If you’re going from 4×3 to 16×9, drop it into the new comp as I described, but scale it up to crop off top and bottom. Or re-do the work in a new comp.

Just to confirm:
1) Did you start at 4×3 and are now moving to 16×9?
2) Why 873×480 square PAR? What’s the deliverable?

[Ryan Moyer]

Yes, I started in 4:3 and need to move to 16:9.

However, everything that happens on-screen happens in the middle, in switching to 16:9 I need only to have the (black) background extended. All of the text can just remain in the middle, looking the same. I guess in that sense, the pixel aspect ratio change is what’s causing issues, not the resolution change (since as far as I can tell, AE just stretches the background when you change the resolution, which is fine by me).

The issue here is this project is for a web video, and the person doing the editing in the video editor (I’m just doing the title intros and segues in AE) is using square pixels and was complaining that when importing my titles, they have jaggy edges (which I’m assuming is because mine are not in square pixels).

[Steve Roberts]

If it’s for the web, yes, you need square pixels.

The frame size however, can be anything, since it’s the web (but see below regarding compression). Here are some thoughts:

864×486 is really 16×9, which can be confirmed if you do the math (common factor being 54). If you want 16×9 for the web, you can use anything from 160×90 to 320×80 to 480×270 to 640×360 and up, and between.

872×486 is the appropriate size for eventual D1 NTSC widescreen output for tape or DVD. This is not a constraint in your case, since you are just going to the web, which can take any size … but probably one with dimensions that are a multiple of 4 for the sake of compression.

However, when giving material to a video editor, you give him what he wants, and make sure it’s documented in an e-mail.

[Ryan Moyer]

So I’m a bit confused now as to which resolution is actually preferred for widescreen content on the web. Not 864×486 then?

Pushing that aside for a sec, any thoughts on the original issue? Is there a way to change my 0.91 pixel aspect ratio to square pixels without mucking everything up, or do I just need to re-do it?

[Ryan Moyer]

That’s what I feared.

Oh well, lesson learned!

[Steve Roberts]

[Ryan Moyer] “So I’m a bit confused now as to which resolution is actually preferred for widescreen content on the web. Not 864×486 then? “

There is no preferred resolution for widescreen content on the web in general. If you’re talking about YouTube, Vimeo and so on, each has its own specs. Other than that, it’s anything you want. 920×384? Sure. 200 wide by 1024 tall? Sure. Get the idea?

HOWEVER … if your client says “you know, I want that great web video on a DVD now”, then you should work in a D1 widescreen square pixel preset comp, and be prepared to drop that sucker into a DV widescreen (1.21) comp preset when the client comes a-knockin’. So I’d work in the D1 widescreen square pixel comp preset just to prepare for that DVD eventuality.