-
Is there a consensus on 852×480 (1:1) VS. 720×480 (1.2 PAR) when it comes to originating material?
The title pretty much spells out what I’m asking, but to reiterate …
If I am originating or receiving material (e.g. 3D animation animation, 2D graphics/animation,) that’s final medium will be Widescreen DVD, is rendering out the original footage as 720×480 with a PAR of 1.2 have any advantage over originating in 852×480 (or 853×480)?
To my eye I think it ends up looking the same, and the quality of the encode is much more key, but I’ve always wondered if there was truly a difference. I use Premiere and Edius, so ingesting into a WideScreen DV project setup is fine either way. (I know in After Effects I always set up projects intended for this format as 720×480, 1.2 PAR. Just seems “right.”)
Thanks!
-Tim
EDIT: Only downside I can see to 720×480 1.2 PAR, is you are squishing and then unsquishing … but it’s not like it is happening during the edit and being re-rendered if you keep everything to that setup. The only time it is unsquished is when it played back on a DVD player, as all anamorphic DVDs do, right?
-
4 Replies
-
There is no standard response to this. Some might say that bringing in the extra pixels makes for a better scale down, but in my experience regarding render times and pixel for pixel compression I would export out to anamorphic for DVD Projects.
If what you are doing will be going to web or upscaled in future then having the extra pixels may be worth it.
– JB
Jon Barrie
Adobe Video Solutions Consultant ANZ
Jon’s YouTube Tutorial Page
follow Jon with twitter -
Thanks, Jon, that’s exactly along the lines of what I was thinking.
Cheers,
Tim -
The MPEG encoding will be at 720×480 regardless. When doing graphics work (in AE or PS) I almost always work at square-pixels, and thus at 854×480 (not 852 — technically it’s 853, I think, but odd numbers scare us away). But as far as the render for the editor goes, it shouldn’t matter — they should render it out anamorphic 720×480.
Ben Unguren
Motion Graphics & Editing
http://www.mostlydocumentary.comSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Vimeo framework” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
Thanks for your input, Ben.
[ben g unguren] “When doing graphics work (in AE or PS) I almost always work at square-pixels, and thus at 854×480 (not 852 — technically it’s 853, I think, but odd numbers scare us away).”
Is that because it is simply a little easier, then working something “squished“? I normally flip on and off the A/R correction toggle in AE if I’m not quite sure how something will look. With a little hack to the prefs file you can improve the resolution of the aspect correct view as well.
Yeah, it’s like 853.333333….. the client just gave me 852×480 (even though I said 853), probably for the exact reason you stated. Another reason I believe I always thought doing 720×480 anamorphic was better, as I wasn’t fretting over that 1/3 pixel, lol.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up