-
Stretching in output module vs. Precomposing?
I need help proving a co-worker wrong!
I like to work in Square PAR Comps so when I do rotations it doesn’t skew the image…so when I output to the AVID codec, I use the Output Module’s stretch feature to conform it to the required specs of the codec.
My co-worker believes that it is a better idea (so much so, that he yelled at me today!) to precompose my square PAR comp into a non-square comp and stretch/scale to fit (if needed).
2 Questions:
1) Is there a difference in either way, ANY difference?
2) Does my workflow seem appropriate? I developed it myself, and I really haven’t bounced it off anyone else.
Pre-thanks for the help.
-Jason (your friend in COW)
-
4 Replies
-
1. Does this help settle the argument?
2. The skewing thing is only a problem when viewing non-square pix comps on a computer. On a TV there’s no skewing, and there’s no skewing when you turn on PAR correction when viewing on a computer. So I’d say that skewing is no reason to go square-PAR-only … but there’s nothing wrong with your workflow, in my opinion.
The only time I must work in square PAR comps is when the pixel dimensions are crucial in calculations, say, when making a square 640×640 comp. But that may just be me. There’s nothing wrong with always working in square pixels until the render stage.
For more info, check out Rick Gerard’s “Dr. Strangepixel” (pixel madness) tutorial on the COW. One of the things you might find is that any slight quality loss when choosing between 720×540 and 648×486 depends on your material. If you’re really anal. 🙂
-
Thank you…that was great information, you proved me wrong…considering that we do field rendering, then stretching vertically is the least appropriate option. I read Rick’s “Dr. Strangepixel” a long time ago…it may be time for a refresher course in pixels!
***ohh why can’t we work in square pixels***
Thanks alot…and BTW, my co-worker wasn’t “yelling at me”…I exaggerated for dramatical effect.
-Jason
-
I don’t ever see “skewing” when rotating stuff in AE. As long as you’re in a 16:9 PAL comp (or whatever your local video system is) then you should be able to rotate any solid, layer or bit of footage without the ‘buckled wheel’ look. I just tried with SQ pix solids in a 16:9 comp and also 16:9 solid in 16:9 comp. Doesn’t skew on my broadcast monitor, or comp monitor whether I’ve got PAR correction on or not.
Now my old Paintbox Express….I had to rotate stuff in 4:3 then squish the layer 25% in the X everytime. TOTAL pain!
*Production Studio Premium CS2 / *Combustion 3
————————————-
Win XP Pro SP2 / Intel P4 3GHz / 2GB RAM / GeForce FX5200 / DeckLink Pro / Roland DS-5 monitors / Sony BVM-20G1E / DVS SDI Clipstation / Wacom Intuos 3 A4 / 110GB boot/80GB media/600GB RAID-0 -
I’ve found that you do get better sub pixel rendering if you drop your sq pixel project in a rectangular pixel comp for rendering. You can also apply additional effects to help out problem areas that often occur with text that you can’t do with stretch in the render queue.
besides that, it’s just easier that making sure that you remember to set up stretch.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up