[Steve Roberts]

Try searching AE’s help files, then come back if you still need help here.

Steve

[Steve Roberts]

Rectangular pixels are tall in NTSC, wide in PAL.

720×486 looks like 4×3 on a TV because the pixels are tall on TV.
It looks wider than 4×3 on a computer because those pixels are square, and 720 pixels by 486 squares is wider than 4×3.

648×486 pixels looks like 4:3 (normal) on a computer monitor because 648×486 is actually 4×3.

Don’t even mention widescreen. 🙂

Steve

[Steve Roberts]

I switch off PAR correction, then look at the NTSC monitor for final output, then switch PAR back on, and so on. Somtimes I work in D1 without PAR, but the NTSC monitor gives me the final look.

Ideally, a clean-looking non-square pixel setup on the computer would be nice, but it’s not there yet, obviously.

Steve

[Steve Roberts]

Indeed.

And if you just have one dual-proc box, you can set up a render using the multi-machine preset in the queue, then launch another instance of AE, open the project again, and start both renders. You’ll probably get close to 100% usage on both processors.

Then you reimport the stills that you’ve just rendered (sorry, you can’t directly make movie files this way) and convert to a quicktime movie or whatever, pretty quickly.

Steve

[Steve Roberts]

Try the Broadcast Design, Reels, or Business forum on the COW.

Steve

[Steve Roberts]

Your’re right — this applies to still images, 3D CG or video footage, as long as the footage/image remains in one position, one scale.

So what process does the 648 image go through? I can’t see the discrete pixels remaining in the AE comp as 648 discrete wider pixels, so I’d expect that some sort of recalculation is required to turn 648 square pixels into 720 square pixels, since that’s all a computer can display. But if an NTSC monitor is displaying 720 discrete pixels, then those 648 need to be recalculated into 720 anyway … ?

My point is, though 648 may be better (haven’t tested), it may still be subject to some pixel interpolation.

Regarding the industry standard of never working in square pixels, I think we computer graphics guys have never had a choice untill recently. Now, if it can be shown that working in square pixels degrades the image due to the 648-to-720 recalculation/interpolation, then yes, it should now be made an industry standard to never work in square pixels if the image-generating app allows it.

I agree that using 648 in AE, with no resizing-to-fit is easier. I rarely create images in PS, but create them at 648 for that reason. Most of the time I work in AE in D1 comps with PAR correction for previewing.

As for quality loss, maybe 648 is better than 540, but I cannot do a real test, as I stated.

At any rate, whenever I mention creating square-pixel images, I’ll now say 648×486 for simplicity. Maybe I’ll refer the user to a page with a test …

Cheers,
Steve

[Steve Roberts]

You might be able to fake it with multiple instances of Trapcode’s 3D stroke … otherwise you’d need Zaxwerks Invigorator to make 3D (elliptical) cylinders in AE.

Steve

[Steve Roberts]

You might be able to fake it with multiple instances of Trapcode’s 3D stroke … otherwise you’d need Zaxwerks Invigorator to make 3D (elliptical) cylinders in AE.

Steve

[Steve Roberts]

I assume we’re talking about static images here, since animating the image in AE renders (hah!) this discussion somewhat moot, in my opinion. 🙂

Well, we know that when going from 720×540 to D1, scaling happens, so pixels are altered. I guess the question is: are any pixels being altered when going from 648×486 square to a D1 non-square comp? If so, how much?

A test might be to create an image using the clouds filter (or some other fractal generator) in PS at 648 square, and one at D1 non-square, using a recent version of PS. with identical settings to the first. Then the two images would be dropped into a D1 comp in AE, with the upper one in difference mode. If we assume that the D1 image is unchanged, any changes to the 648 image would appear as non-black pixels, found visually or by rolling the cursor over the image and watching the info palette.

I’d do the test, but I haven’t upgraded my PS in a while.

If the 648 image doesn’t match the D1 image through the difference mode test, then we need to compare the 648’s pixel changes to a 720×540 image’s pixel changes to evaluate the quality losses of 648 vs. 720×540. I’d imagine that the quality loss would depend on the content of the image (vertical vs. horizontal lines), but I’m speculating.

Does anyone want to run the test?

Steve

[Steve Roberts]

Nope, sorry.

There used to be ICE cards available, but those were rendered obsolete with the G4, if I recall correctly. Anyway, those who have one can’t give it away now. Paperweight.

Steve