CS5 is still wrong!!!!!!!!

[Kazumi Hatori]

I think there is a more user-friendly to do that,
i.e. keeping both ratio to choose / new or old value switching in preference

[Adam Taylor]

You are forgetting pixel aspect ratio – depending upon how you create your 16:9 will mean you have many options regarding the shape of the individual pixels. Some people work with square shaped pixels, others with rectangular pixels.

Its a bit early in the morning to be sure, and i’ve not had my caffeine yet, but basically i think tvs use rectangular pixels, and computer screens use square ones.

I believe you are looking at a square pixel version of a 16:9 image. If you needed to work for tv, then you’d pick a format that is non-square, and actually has a lower number on the x axis – being rectangular you need less of them to fill the same space.

Also a few months back, i read an article by adobe that highlighted a miscalculation that had been used by the entire industry for years and had lead to everyone working with dimensions that were actually wrong. Only by a few pixels here and there, but wrong nonetheless.

Thats probably why the numbers are not quite what you expected them to be. In fact, they are probably more right than they have ever been. (I may live to regret to regret that last statement if Adobe has got it wrong!!)

Adam Taylor
Video Editor/Audio Mixer/ Compositor/Motion GFX/Barista
Character Options Ltd
Oldham, UK

http://www.sculptedbliss.co.uk

[Bernat Aragones]

Adobe has got it wrong! I completely understand pixel aspect ratios. I have been doing this for long enough to have grey hair and I did start when I was 19. Thats why I use the square pixel example as each pixel is square 1:1. So how does 1050 x 576 equate to 16:9? It doesn’t. Regardless of all of this it needs to match up to any finishing system as you can’t master out of after FX. So anything you do in after FX unless in HD will not simply import into Flame, Smoke, Quantel, Avid DS FCP and so on. Next thing Adobe will tell us is that HD is accually 1955 x 1080!!

Rant over, Chris

[Chris Reynolds]

Adobe has got it wrong! I completely understand pixel aspect ratios. I have been doing this for long enough to have grey hair and I did start when I was 19. Thats why I use the square pixel example as each pixel is square 1:1. So how does 1050 x 576 equate to 16:9? It doesn’t. Regardless of all of this it needs to match up to any finishing system as you can’t master out of after FX. So anything you do in after FX unless in HD will not simply import into Flame, Smoke, Quantel, Avid DS FCP and so on. Next thing Adobe will tell us is that HD is accually 1955 x 1080!!

Rant over, Chris

[Walter Soyka]

The BBC agrees with Adobe — they have specified 16:9 as 1050×576 square pixels.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[Gary Hazen]

Yes, the BCC managed to convince Adobe to correct the pixel dimensions. Chris’ point is that all the other developers are using the same dimensions that have served the industry for a very long time. Will the others change? I doubt it. I don’t understand changing the specs on a format that’s fading away (standard def). This is like changing the harness used for a horse drawn carriage during the dawn of the automobile. Why bother?

At the end of the day the difference between the old 16:9 dimensions and the new 16:9 dimensions is so small no will notice if you use the wrong dimension. Well, no one except the uptight tea sippers at the BBC.

Fortunately HD is square pixels so everyone will be on the same page.

[Todd Kopriva]

Apple made the same fix in Final Cut Pro recently:
https://blogs.adobe.com/toddkopriva/2010/01/final-cut-pro-7-using-correcte.html

We made the change because many companies (including makers of other video software) asked us to. It was the right thing to do. Here’s my summary.

You can always keep using the old, wrong numbers if you like.

———————————————————————————————————
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
putting the ‘T’ back in ‘RTFM’ : After Effects Help on the Web
———————————————————————————————————
If a page of After Effects Help answers your question, please consider rating it. If you have a tip, technique, or link to share—or if there is something that you’d like to see added or improved—please leave a comment.

[Chris Reynolds]

Unfortunately it is not that simple. I wish it was. Any footage that you import has to have a pixel aspect attached to it. So it you work with a comp that is 1024 x 576 which we do so it works with the rest of the suits. Then you have to manually scale every clip that you throw into that comp to fit.

If both Adobe and BBC think they have it that right then how do you fit a 1920 x 1080 (which is 16:9) into a 1050 x 576 comp. It doesn’t fit they are two different sizes. So even in there own program you to manually adjust the scale on the x or y axis to fit the footage.

So Adobe which one is correct. 1920 x 1080 or your 1050 x 1024?

Cheers, Chris

[Todd Kopriva]

If you’ve read through the resources that I point to (especially this one, and especially its last page) and still have specific questions about how to work with the new aspect ratios, I’d be happy to help.

One thing to keep in mind is the difference between production aperture and clean aperture: not every pixel that comes off the camera is usable image; some of it is padding to be cropped away. The mistake that was made back in the 90s when the wrong numbers were perpetuated was that the folks doing the math didn’t recognize that. And we’ve had slight mismatches and subtle distortions ever since. Until we fixed it.

BTW, I already posted the article that says that Apple made the change, too. Now here’s a thread that mentions that the Foundry made the change in Nuke:
https://www.vfxtalk.com/forum/nuke-5-1v6-wrong-pal-aspect-ratio-t20709.html?s=c831babbe3eec924c9a35927ae787473

———————————————————————————————————
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
putting the ‘T’ back in ‘RTFM’ : After Effects Help on the Web
———————————————————————————————————
If a page of After Effects Help answers your question, please consider rating it. If you have a tip, technique, or link to share—or if there is something that you’d like to see added or improved—please leave a comment.

[Chris Reynolds]

Thats fine but it still makes our life harder as every online tool still has the pixel aspect set to 1.42. And you still haven’t answered my question as to which one is right

1920 x 1080 or 1050 x 576 as they don’t match up!!! Make it a preference if you have too.

Software is about ease of use!! Not having to manually scale objects in the x and y to fit comps. As we are in the cross over period for the last couple and probably the next couple of year we are constantly working with both SD and HD. As a graphics artist they preferred pixel aspect ratio of 1:1 hence why we work at 1024 x 576 in SD. If I make a circle at 1024 x 576 and pull it into any of my online suits which we have all been doing for the past 15years it look like a circle. That is with operators who have a train eye. We have broadcast monitors in all those suites along with plasmas. So if we can’t tell the how one earth is the public going to tell. I even measured the circle with a ruler and it is a perfect circle. So one again please explain? I am not some student at home who has a cracked version of FCP. I own a post house and have been working with every software package that exists for post production for a long time. One of the most important things it having a standard, and Adobe has just broken that.

Cheers, Chris