-
Ripped off with image size – 16:9 -> 4:3?
Hi There,
Correct me if I’m wrong but when you drop a 16:9 (4:3 anamorphic) SD PAL clip into SD 4:3 timeline shouldn’t the size be 75% within the letterbox frame?
It just seems strange to me that I should have to scale up to 133% to make the 16:9 image full frame, when it should be exactly the same height with a change to the pixel aspect ratio.
Thoughts?
Jon. -
5 Replies
-
If you drop a 16:9 clip into a 4:3 sequence FCP will adjust the aspect ratio and you will get a 4:3 letterbox (unless you allow FCP to change sequence settings as it will ask you when it is the first clip you drop in).
You can find the aspect ratio in the motion tab of your clip under Distort. It will be -33,33.
Scaling the clip to 133% will make it full frame vertically (no more letterbox) and crop it horizontally.Jaap
-
I’ve found making motion favourites for all the format & aspect ratio changes really helps speed things up here.
Peter
-
Hi
I distrust a +133.33% scaling operation to *exactly* allow the vertical line structure of the frame to remain untouched.
I prefer not to use Scale, and instead adjust the four corner positions in the Distort section of the Motion tab. For PAL 16:9 FHA video I use +/- 480 instead of 360. -
[Jaap Verdenius] “Scaling the clip to 133% will make it full frame vertically (no more letterbox) and crop it horizontally.”
but this is wrong and is what I am saying:
If SD PAL is 720×576 (with D1 pixels), and anamorphic is 720×576 (with rectangular pixels) there should be no need for scaling – it should be just a simple aspect ratio of -33% to change the pixels to a size of 1024×576.
At a 133% scale there is an obvious degradation to the image, when there is no reason to be.
Jon
-
I guess that if you want to make a 16:9 image cover a 4:3 frame fully, with no black bars left/right or top/bottom, then it follows that you have to blow up things one way or another – and that is the unavoidable reason for picture degradation…
Jaap
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up