Sequence Setting Recommendations

[Brian Cooney]

I am presently doing something similar with Snapz for a ProTools and Logic Pro tutorial DVD. I have found that my capture clip dimensions 2560×1440 look superb if I scale down at the same ratio horizontally and vertically… for example.. 2560×1440 scaled down to 1920×1080 is the same ratio of 1.3 Width and height. 2560 to 1440 and 1920 to 1080. The minute i try to go down to 1440×1080 or 1280×720 where (W downscale is 1.7 and H is 1.3) it gets funky. This never happens with the video I down convert. But with the Snapz exports, every time. IT has been a real pain and trial and error to nail this down.. The Snapz exports do look a little better when taken into a ProRez sequence in FCP. But FCP’s animation compression setting and most others I tried only have remained true when the vertical and horizontal down-scaling was done at the same ratio.

[David Roth weiss]

Jit,

There’s no reason to use ProRes HQ, just use ProRes.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™

A forum host of Creative COW’s Apple Final Cut Pro, Business & Marketing, and Indie Film & Documentary forums.

[David Roth weiss]

[Brian Cooney] “The minute i try to go down to 1440×1080 or 1280×720 where (W downscale is 1.7 and H is 1.3) it gets funky.”

1440×1080 is a squeezed anamorphic pixel dimension for HDV or DVCProHD camera original that unsqueeezes to display at 1920×1080. You shouldn’t be scaling down to the anamorphic dimensions. 1920×1080 is full raster 1080i or 1080p, just use that.

Why you’re having an issue scaling to full raster 720p, which is 1280×720, I have no idea. But, if you stick with 1920×1080 you’ll be fine.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™

A forum host of Creative COW’s Apple Final Cut Pro, Business & Marketing, and Indie Film & Documentary forums.

[Jit Gohil]

Hi Brian,

Perhaps my inexperience will show in my next question.. But how did you get 1920×1080 as 1.3 Aspect Ratio? When I do the math 1920/1080 it comes out to 1.7 Am I missing something important in the aspect ratio determination?

Now that you mention it, I’ve always been a bit confused about setting the aspect ratio of a sequence in FCP. Why is it that I have an option to select an aspect ratio, but then given another option to select ‘Anamorphic 16×9’? Does that override the dropdown Aspect Ratio selection? And finally, when I’ve selected either of those (or both) – what does that do to the ‘Correct for Aspect Ratio’ setting in the viewer?

Also, in this case, I did intend to scale my sequence down proportionately from 1920×1080 into 960×540

I guess more at the heart of my question is which compressor to use for the best balance between quality and file size.

[Jit Gohil]

Hi David,

Thanks for the tip! Is that because there is no noticeable difference in quality, while maintaining a smaller file size? Or is it just a best practice for footage destined for the web?

[Brian Cooney]

Hi Jit, maybe I was confusing. what I meant to say was i divided the present width by the desired width and got 1.3 then did the same with the height and got 1.3 so width 2560 divided by new downsized width 1920 equals 1.3 and height 1440 divided by new downsized height 1080 equals 1.3…….Whereas for example width 2560 divided by width 1440 equals 1.7 and height 1440 divided by height 1080 equals 1.3 creating different scaling. So the point being there is an irregular conversion which the capture export seems to be unable to hold up under. 🙂

[Rafael Amador]

Hi Jit,
Forget about “Anamorphic”. You are using SQUARE PIXELS.
Forget 1.7 or 1.3. talk about 16×9 or 4×3.
1920/16 = 120
1080/9 = 120
Or;
1280/16 = 80
720/9 = 80
Just take any number ad multiply for 16 to get the width, and multiply it by 9 to get the high.
Yes the realtion will be 16/9 = 1.7

The same happens when working in 4×3 WITH SQUARE PIXELS.
Multiplay a certain number by 4 and by 3 to get width and high.
The relation will be 4/3 = 1.3
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Brian Cooney]

Hi Jit, maybe I was confusing. what I meant to say was i divided the present width by the desired width and got 1.3 then did the same with the height and got 1.3 so width 2560 divided by new downsized width 1920 equals 1.3 and height 1440 divided by new downsized height 1080 equals 1.3…….Whereas for example width 2560 divided by width 1440 equals 1.7 and height 1440 divided by height 1080 equals 1.3 creating different scaling. So the point being there is an irregular conversion which the capture software seems to be unable to hold up under. 🙂

[Rafael Amador]

[Brian Cooney] “So the point being there is an irregular conversion which the capture export seems to be unable to hold up under. :)”
No.
What you have to think is that 1440×1080 formats use a different kind of pixels (HD) than formats working 1920×1080 (Squared).
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com