Understanding pixel aspect ratio export problems…I need some guidance!

[David Roth weiss]

[David Cerqueiro] “2) The timeline in FCP is 1440×1080 square pixels with anamorphic box checked (attached screenshot)”

Many things are wrong with your settings David…

First, when working with HD material you will never check the anamorphic box again. The anamorphic box is for SD media only, never HD.

HD anamorphic video is controlled by the pixel shape or pixel aspect, and the proper pixel aspect for HDV is not square, but HD(1440×1080).

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.com

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™

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

[Bret Williams]

Yikes! Do yourself a favor and press the load sequence preset button and choose the one that matches what you’re trying you output. I can’t figure why you’re using jpeg compression. And 1440 x 1080 isn’t square pixels. But it’s not anamorphic. Anamorphic refers to squeezing a different aspect into a standard frame size, with the expectation it will be unsqueezed upon playback. All HD is 16:9.

[David Cerqueiro]

Thanks a lot! I’m not an editor so I struggle a lot when Im forced to deal with FCP. I’m starting to get a hang of the whole PAR…

I appreciate it!

[David Cerqueiro]

Hi Bret,

What do you mean with “press the load sequence preset button”? I’m not sure I follow what you mean. Also, for outputting 1920×1080 shouldn’t I work with a timeline in 1440×1080 with its HDV PAR? (i just learnt with the previous reply to this thread I shouldn’t select anamorphic and square pixel)

I chose Photo Jpeg only because once I was required some footage for a film fest in this compression, and I think it looks fairly ok. What’s so wrong about it? Which one do you recommend for HD?

Thanks a lot for answering!

[Andrew Wilson]

You should set your sequence to match the settings coming out of after effects which is 1920×1080 square pixels. I would use prores 422 instead of jpeg for both your AE render and your fcp sequence settings.

When it comes time to export smaller frame size for review choose a true 16:9 aspect ratio with square pixels. I use 640×360 a lot for client review.

Andrew Wilson
WestView Digital Video & Design
http://www.westviewdigital.com

[David Cerqueiro]

Thanks Andrew.

[Andrew Wilson] “You should set your sequence to match the settings coming out of after effects which is 1920×1080 square pixels. “

So I thought that was the first thing I tried to do and it didn’t work. Now I tried it again and of course it works. Maybe I clumsily chose the wrong PAR or something the first time…

Now, this means there’s no need for me to do the whole anamorphic pixel shifting to 1440×1080 right? I just match my sequence to the original footage and export also that way?

And when would I need to use this HD anamorphic way of editing? What is the practical application of it?

Also, I am working with some footage trimmed down to half of its size (to 960×540 sqr. pixel) to light the weight for FCP, just to use it as a reference for some audio adjustments. Later on I plan on importing the original 1920×1080 footage. The thing is I didn’t know the size of this smaller file at first cause the person who gave it to me didn’t tell me. So, I dropped it in my FCP sequence set at 1440×1080 with its right HD 1440×1080 PAR. (Now I know I’m changing the whole thing back to 1920×1080 sqr. But I just would like to understand)

My question is: Even though its a smaller size, why does it look alright at 1440×1080? It seems to fill the whole canvas with no distortion. This got me all confused now.

I truly appreciate your time on this. Thanks!

[Andrew Wilson]

Like was said by someone else above, the anamorphic setting should never be used when using native HD images. That checkbox is from the olden days when SD cameras (like the XL2) could be set to shoot “16:9” only they did it using a SD frame size and stretched the pixels to essentially letterbox the image. (I never understand the appeal of that). Anyway, those days are long gone.

As for when you dropped your image into the sequence and it filled the frame: check the motion tab – I bet the size is boosted up above 100%. FCP will automatically try to fill the frame best as possible when you edit in a clip. Just like if you’re editing HD footage into a SD sequence, it will size it down to 37%.

I try not to ever work with proxy sizes – I find that the trouble they cause when it comes time to conform far outweighs the benefits of lightning the load on FCP.

Andrew Wilson
WestView Digital Video & Design
http://www.westviewdigital.com

[David Cerqueiro]

Thanks for the help! All of you. Is like light is shining over my computer now.

[Bret Williams]

Not really. Actually, good SD cameras didn’t stretch pixels, they squished them. They didn’t utilize a smaller letterbox portion of the sensor, they actually had 16:9 sensors and squished the image into a full 720×480 frame. Squishing the image horizontally retains the fields intact, while stretching it vertically is a pointless exercise that would create soft field mush.

16:9 is also still an extremely relevant format to edit in. If there’s no chance of needing HD, then you edit in SD anamorphic 16:9. You can mix HD footage with SD anamorphic footage easily and you’re working in the native format of a 16:9 widescreen DVD. DVDs are 16:9 anamorphic.