Figuring out frame size & PAR settings

kunal wrote on 6/3/2010, 9:17 PM
I have a 1440x1080i project that was shot on the FX7. It's PAR is 1.33; if I want to render an mp4 file for web (youtube/vimeo) and want that to be displayed as widescreen (16:9), what should my frame size and Pixel Aspect Ratio be set to? Working backwards from the desired storage aspect ratio of 1.77 (16/9), it seems like I should be setting the frame size to 1920x1080 and PAR to 1. Is that right? Alternatively, I could set the frame size to 1440x1080 and increase the PAR to 1.33...is there any advantage to doing one over the other?

How do those settings change if I want to export a .mov?

Thanks.

Comments

farss wrote on 6/3/2010, 9:31 PM
"it seems like I should be setting the frame size to 1920x1080 and PAR to 1"

Pretty much yes.
If uncertain how something will be handled and if you can, use a PAR of 1.

Given that you're uploading to YouTube probably better to downscale it to 720p i.e. 1280 x 720, and again, PAR 1.

Bob.
musicvid10 wrote on 6/3/2010, 9:33 PM
You won't see much difference between 1440 @ 1.33 and 1920 @ 1.0 so the choice is yours. I am sure you will get some varied opinions on this!

Your math is correct but you took the long way around. 1440x1.3333 = ?
kunal wrote on 6/3/2010, 9:34 PM
Thanks Bob. What about if I want to export a .mov file (for use in color correction in FCP using DNxHD codec and re-import into Vegas)?
musicvid10 wrote on 6/3/2010, 9:38 PM
What about if I want to export a .mov file (for use in color correction in FCP using DNxHD codec and re-import into Vegas)?

Then you will have to go with 1920x1080 @ 1.0 PAR. Quicktime does not support PAR. Also use the TR option in DNxHD because you are starting with non-square pixels.
kunal wrote on 6/3/2010, 10:03 PM
Hmm...so what does the TR option do?
farss wrote on 6/3/2010, 10:03 PM
"You won't see much difference between 1440 @ 1.33 and 1920 @ 1.0 so the choice is yours. I am sure you will get some varied opinions on this!"

You'd have to be blind not to see the difference if what reads it ignores the PAR.

Bob.

Chienworks wrote on 6/4/2010, 3:39 AM
Actually, if my goal was to reimport back into Vegas after using FCP i'd go with 1440x1080 and never mind what the PAR is at all. Then when going back to Vegas it would still be a 1440x1080 and i'd manual set the PAR in media properties to 1.333 again.

Why?

Converting to 1920 involves resampling and that will blur the pixels and lose detail. Keeping it at 1440 avoids resampling.

And if all you're doing in FCP is color correcting, who cares if everyone's tall and skinny for the few minutes you're in there? It'll be fine once you get back to Vegas again.
PeterWright wrote on 6/4/2010, 4:38 AM
Yes, wouldn't life be better if we could just deal with real settings in Vegas, and let FCP people worry about their aberrations?
farss wrote on 6/4/2010, 6:10 AM
Actually I'm pretty certain I've sent anamorhic HD into FCP and although it didn't read the flag we could get it to display the images correctly without much drama once we found the right thing to change the PAR. In my experience FCP is generally a lot more capable than a lot of the people who use it.

Bob.
musicvid10 wrote on 6/4/2010, 7:57 AM
In Vegas, MOV renders are 1:1. That includes DNxHD.
I "suppose" one could send squished 1440 over to FCP and bring it back, rendering with the appropriate flag to unsquish it during playback.

To me, it would be simpler and save a lot of questions later to render the DNxHD to 1920 and be done with it. Saying "have to" was perhaps a bit strong.

To reiterate my first response, one won't see much difference between 1440@1.333 and 1920@1.0, assuming the playback device respects PAR. These aging eyes can't tell any difference on a 1920 wide screen.

The TR option is called "thin raster" and is supposed to be better with non-square source PAR. I don't know the intricasies.