Resolution 720×432?

[Tom Brooks]

It’s the correct aspect ratio. You might want to search the Compression Techniques forum to get more thoughts. Most codecs prefer a final size that’s divisible by 8 or 16, for example. You could get there by going to 720×400, cropping two lines off the top and three off the bottom. An alternative is 640×360.

[Marcus Remberger]

But its strange, when you multiply (PAL) 576*0.75 you get 432.
Then you get a third off the original video.
Ill check with the compressions forums, Thanks for all
your help!!!

[Bret Williams]

If the video is already anamorphic, it is 16:9. It simply needs to be scaled, not cropped.

[Marcus Remberger]

In this film a circle appear in some frames. When i convert those frames to 720×405 the circle becomes oval,
but when i convert the frames to 720×432 the circle returns to its original shape.
Why is that??

[Bret Williams]

What can I tell you, math is math. 720/432 = 1.666666666666667
720/405=1.777777777777778
16/9=1.777777777777778

Are you confusing non-square pixels with square or something? Non-square pixels should only be used for standard video frame sizes I think. For example DVCProHD 720p is 16:9. And it’s pixels are 960×720 which, if the pixels weren’t rectangular, would be 4:3.

Anamorphic DV Widescreen is the same way. 720×480 equates to 862×480 in square pixels. So if you don’t convert the pixels to square and are still viewing them as non-square pixels then yeah, 720×432 might be right, because the pixels are elongated. But you can’t use that file format anywhere but in a program designed for video production where you can tell it they are non square pixels. If you open it in QT player, the circle should no longer be oval. If it’s looking round in QT player, you probably didn’t start with anamorphic footage or something got processed incorrectly along the way.