[Steve Roberts]

[Ryan Moyer] “So I’m a bit confused now as to which resolution is actually preferred for widescreen content on the web. Not 864×486 then? “

There is no preferred resolution for widescreen content on the web in general. If you’re talking about YouTube, Vimeo and so on, each has its own specs. Other than that, it’s anything you want. 920×384? Sure. 200 wide by 1024 tall? Sure. Get the idea?

HOWEVER … if your client says “you know, I want that great web video on a DVD now”, then you should work in a D1 widescreen square pixel preset comp, and be prepared to drop that sucker into a DV widescreen (1.21) comp preset when the client comes a-knockin’. So I’d work in the D1 widescreen square pixel comp preset just to prepare for that DVD eventuality.

[Steve Roberts]

[Tiago Casais] “Steve, thanks for the advice, im squeezing them “as we speak”. “

Don’t go there, man.

😉

[Steve Roberts]

Hey, I’m old! I was doing Super Bowl spots when the boys were still wearing leather helmets! And we had to animate with flip books! Zoetropes! Yeah!

[Steve Roberts]

[Tiago Casais] “Unfortunately for us designers, checking with clients is not so easy sometimes… “

Then you stop work until they get back to you. They have a responsibility to give you the tools and information to allow you to do the work for which you were contracted.

“Anyway, assuming the video will be played in a computer, and … “

ASSUME NOTHING. You have a responsibility to know the technical specs of what you deliver. I tell my students this: if your client has bought time on the Super Bowl broadcast for $100,000, and you mess up the delivery specs so they lose the time slot, they will try to sue you for the $100K. Whether they win or not, your reputation is shot. That’s an extreme example, but you should still ASSUME NOTHING and you must attempt to contact them for the COMPLETE specs. If they do not reply, cover your butt with an “it’s your choice to ignore me, so now it’s not my responsibility” e-mail CC’ed up the line. (Not a direct quote — you get the idea.)

[Steve Roberts]

If it’s for the web, yes, you need square pixels.

The frame size however, can be anything, since it’s the web (but see below regarding compression). Here are some thoughts:

864×486 is really 16×9, which can be confirmed if you do the math (common factor being 54). If you want 16×9 for the web, you can use anything from 160×90 to 320×80 to 480×270 to 640×360 and up, and between.

872×486 is the appropriate size for eventual D1 NTSC widescreen output for tape or DVD. This is not a constraint in your case, since you are just going to the web, which can take any size … but probably one with dimensions that are a multiple of 4 for the sake of compression.

However, when giving material to a video editor, you give him what he wants, and make sure it’s documented in an e-mail.

[Steve Roberts]

By default, AE imports a still sequence at 30 fps.

[Steve Roberts]

It looks as if you have more than PAR going on. Here’s why:

720×480 @ .91 shows as 4×3 on TV.
872×486 @ square (using the preset for now), when properly converted, shows up as 16×9 on TV.

So you’re taking a 4×3 project and changing it to 16×9? Normally, if you were working in 720×480 @ 1.21 PAR, I’d say “drop it into the 872×486 (or 480) square PAR comp” and render, but it sounds as if this isn’t the case.
If you’re going from 4×3 to 16×9, drop it into the new comp as I described, but scale it up to crop off top and bottom. Or re-do the work in a new comp.

Just to confirm:
1) Did you start at 4×3 and are now moving to 16×9?
2) Why 873×480 square PAR? What’s the deliverable?

[Steve Roberts]

So, which one is most enticing as a career path? 😉

[Steve Roberts]

So far so good. Here’s my go, with very narrow definitions:

Video editing: cutting and re-ordering unaltered video and audio clips in time. The metaphor is horizontal.

Compositing: stacking visual elements over each other, at least two of which appear simultaneously. The metaphor is vertical.

Motion graphics: editing and compositing abstract visual elements.

Visual effects: compositing elements over shot footage to give the impression they were present when the footage was shot … simulating reality in the world of the story.

Most of what we do is a mix of those.
There should be audio equivalents, such as “multi-track editing” for “compositing”.
I left out Color Timing and applying effects to footage for a weird effect. Oh, well. I said my definitions were narrow.

[Steve Roberts]

… or scale up the masked lower-res footage, and use that as an alpha matte for the new footage.