[Roland R. kahlenberg]

Yup. Still not clear here either. Maybe you can do a still or two covering a small region.

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
https://www.broadcastGEMs.com – Adobe After Effects project files
https://www.myspace.com/rorkrgbspace

[Roland R. kahlenberg]

[Bill ONeil] “I wanted to show the potential of After Effects 3D. I hope it inspires a few people.”

Inpire?!? I give up!

Is there such a thing as a downgrade to Dreamweaver? 😉

Brilliant and original. I’m curious to know how long it took in post, including creating the stage in PS, to put it all together? And did you use any 3D tracking?

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
https://www.broadcastGEMs.com – Adobe After Effects project files
https://www.myspace.com/rorkrgbspace

[Roland R. kahlenberg]

We went through this a couple of months ago. First off, you’ll want Card Dance (CD) and not Card Wipe if you’re after flips and not wipes. Secondly, Randomness is built into Card Dance.

Within a single instance of CD, there shouldn’t be overlaps. And if you want a full-screen of diamond-shaped parts, you’ll have to break up your effect into two parts – two instances of CD. There should be a light y-offset and x-offset to make it work.

Most of your work is required in the planning. Once you’ve got your math sorted out, you’ll know how many pieces you’ll need and how to split the single image into two CD instances.

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
https://www.broadcastGEMs.com – Adobe After Effects project files
https://www.myspace.com/rorkrgbspace

[Roland R. kahlenberg]

Welcome to HDV hell! It seems to be the nightmare format to work with.

Are your Avid and AE on different machines? A white-screen is a QT symptom that you’re missing a CODEC. You will have to install the required CODEC if your AE is on a different machine. To set a 60p comp, just go to your Comp Settings dialog and change its FPS to 60.

Lastly, you may find that working in HDV from AE to be unbearably slow – your mileage may differ depending on your style of work and expectations. Experienced users prefer to use an intermediate CODEC to work with.

Do a COW Search for Intermediate CODEC. Intermediate CODECs are the ‘new thing’ in post production where HD is concerned. It has become a necessity. Until HDV CODECs mature and are more timeline friendly, a firm understanding of intermediate CODECs and how they apply to your workflow is going to be crucial to productivity and sanity.

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
https://www.broadcastGEMs.com – Adobe After Effects project files
https://www.myspace.com/rorkrgbspace

[Roland R. kahlenberg]

Seperate Fields should be off, so you’re OK there.

Just ensure that the layer is set to Best Quality and Comp View is set to Full Rez. & Max quality.

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
https://www.broadcastGEMs.com – Adobe After Effects project files
https://www.myspace.com/rorkrgbspace

[Roland R. kahlenberg]

See if there is a way to work with a smaller image. Either way, cut up the image into smaller components and then parent them to a null and use the null to control the cut-up image.

This allows AE to work with smaller images instead of one gigantasaurus image – which AE has a total dislike for.

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
https://www.broadcastGEMs.com – Adobe After Effects project files
https://www.myspace.com/rorkrgbspace

[Roland R. kahlenberg]

[granix] “just wanted to ask if what iv heard is right , is it true that when moving to after CS3 you can’t load any 7.0version projects or earlier ??”

That’s untrue. It has always been the case that you can open legacy AEPs but not AEPs created in a newer version.

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
https://www.broadcastGEMs.com – Adobe After Effects project files
https://www.myspace.com/rorkrgbspace

[Roland R. kahlenberg]

[duffbeer911] “- I just got off the phone to an engineer at one of our national broadcasters (SBS) … and he confirmed that EVERYTHING that is broadcast SD PAL is 720. Whether it is 16×9, 4:3, everything .. there is no such thing as a 1024 transmission. Everything that a broadcaster receives gets ingested as a type of MPEG-2 at 720×576 … it is only the PAR that determines the final aspect ratio.”

It is 720 but it is either square PAR or non-square PAR. For non-square PAR, you would have to provide the square-pixel equivalent of non-square 720, which is 1024.

[duffbeer911] “The fact that they do in fact broadcast at pure 16:9 should preclude you from wanting to provide anything at 720, unless it’s anamorphic. But from your initial post, they have requested for 1024×576.”
-From the point above I’d now only ever want to provide everything (16:9 or 4:3) at 720 anamorphic as that is how it is going to be ingested.”

That’s fine. The only question is how you’re going to get to 720×576 for 16:9 or even for 4:3. Are you going to work on your computer’s square PAR or try to kung-fu things out on your computer by working entirely in a non-square worfklow?

[duffbeer911] “He also suggested that working at 1024 would result in an incorrect image on your broadcast monitor, because the 1024 is getting down sampled to 720 through your output card(ie for us Blackmagic cards). And that if you send a 1024×576 image to a broadcaster it will lose an every so slight amount of quality in the down sample when it is ingested.”

I can’t see the incorrect image as being an issue. If your monitor has a 16:9, which most if not all broadcast monitors have, then it is really a non-issue.

The workflow that I suggested, working entirely in square PAR until the render stage, where you nest the square PAR comp into a non-square comp should allow you to view 720 anamorphic on your broadcast monitor prior to rendering. Further it precludes any issues related to plugins or AE’s 3D render engine from having to work with non square PAR.

I think you only need to hit the wall once when working in non-square PAR before you realise that it’s not an ideal work situation. Plugins such as CC Sphere, AE’s Render Engine, Digital Anarchy’s 3D Assistants and a few others tend to have problems with non-square PAR layers and comps.

It’s been quite an interesting discussion. My only Q for now is didn’t you say initially that they requested for 1024×576? And that now this engineer that you’ve spoken to says that anamorphic 720 is preferred?

We should take note that working in a square PAR world, computers, and outputting to a non-square PAR format, results in imperfections, either in the workflow or the final deliverable. At issue is which workflow works best for you and how much of an imperfect image you’re happy to live with.

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
https://www.broadcastGEMs.com – Adobe After Effects project files
https://www.myspace.com/rorkrgbspace

[Roland R. kahlenberg]

[duffbeer911] “”Item 2 should show how 1024 gets cut down in size for 4:3 distribution” – Just to clarify this point .. you mean “cropped” rather than “re-sized” .. .right?”

Correct.

[duffbeer911] “But what I’m saying is… the actual PAL signal that is sent out from your broadcaster is 720pixels wide regardless of how you have provided it. So if we work in 720 anamorphic, then upsize to 1024 square, then transmit at 720 anamorphic there has been a redundant re-size and therefore a slight loss of quality …”

It is 720 wide if it the 16:9 is broadcast as 4:3, center-cut. BUT when the 16:9 is broadcast as pure 16:9, then you will get the full glory of 1024 pixels wide.

The fact that they do in fact broadcast at pure 16:9 should preclude you from wanting to provide anything at 720, unless it’s anamorphic. But from your initial post, they have requested for 1024×576.

[duffbeer911] “btw, earlier you said you always work at 1024 … do you also always work at 768×576 for 4:3?”

Always. Everytime. All the time. Once I’m ready to render, I drop my square PAR comp into an anamorphic comp, as and when required. This workflow ensures that everything I see on my computer monitor is accurate and that all plugins work correctly. Take note that plugins which require pixel information for alignment etc. frequently go bonkers when placed within a non-square PAR layer or comp.

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
https://www.broadcastGEMs.com – Adobe After Effects project files
https://www.myspace.com/rorkrgbspace

[Roland R. kahlenberg]

I think it’s best if we agree on three thingies first –

1) the difference between square PAR and non-square PAR
2) 16:9 is broadcast for 4:3, simulcast or otherwise, with a centre-cut
3) 16:9 is also broadcast as pure 16:9

Item 3 above should show why you shouldn’t deliver at 720. Item 2 should show how 1024 gets cut down in size for 4:3 distribution. Item 1 should provide the background info that 720×576 anamorphic is equivalent to 1024×576 square PAR

Lastly, there is a typo in item 3.4.2 in the PDF you’ve uploaded.

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
https://www.broadcastGEMs.com – Adobe After Effects project files
https://www.myspace.com/rorkrgbspace