-
Pixel Aspect Madness..
Hi all,
Sorry if this is abit off topic..
I am having trouble understanding pixel aspect for output. We are doing 3d output for PAL widescreen output for the first time.From my testing, I can render out 1024×576 at square pixel aspect or 960×576 at 1.067 pixel aspect from 3d. This footage is then transferred into an After Effects composition of 1.42 PAL Widescreen aspect. Everything seems fine so long as I interpret my source footage accordingly as square or 1.067 pixel aspect.
What confuses me is why render 1024×576 when 960×576 will do? Does the computer actually render less and do less work (faster renders). Or are more pixels somehow crammed in there? =)
Steve.
-
2 Replies
-
Not sure where you’re getting that 960 figure from. My normal workflow is 1024 x 576 (square) or 720 x 576 (non-square)…
JD
John Dickinson
Motionworks
https://www.motionworks.com.au -
By your reasoning, you could also then render at 512×576 with a 2.0 PAR. But that would half your horizontal resolution. 960×576 with a 1.067 PAR will give you fewer pixels than a 1024×576 image. Video resolution is measured in pixels – more pixels means higher resolution.
I’d suggest that you go the 1024×576 route to ensure that you have the maximum resolution required.
HTH
Roland Kahlenberg
broadcastGEMs
customizable animated backdrops with Adobe After Effects project files
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up