@3POINT Ahhh! Thank you. Will try that now.

And some renderers like them to be multiples of 8... I'd try 5104x1688 (or 1680)

@jetdv Thank you. I'll try that next. the "even number" thing suggested by @3POINT didn't work.

@3POINT Ahhh! Thank you. Will try that now.

And some renderers like them to be multiples of 8... I'd try 5104x1688 (or 1680)

5104x1680 is also not accepted by Magix AVC, Magix HEVC and Voukoder no problem.

Still no joy. Tried the above suggestions. Also tried a large bunch of combinations that didn't work. Not scientific, I know, but getting desperate. One that did work, though it wasn't the resolution or ratio I wanted was 1920x817. I got that from an instructional on YouTube. Then I tried multiples of that, hoping to approach the resolution and ratio I was looking for. And those multiples didn't work, either.

Which codec/rendertemplate did you use?

@3POINT The one that "sort of" worked was done with Sony AVC/MVC modified from 1920x1080 to 1920x817. (Worked but wrong resolution and ratio.

I also went to ChatGPT and posed the problem, and it gave me 5462x2160 which didn't work at all.

This was the response from ChatGPT, which was frankly not new information for me.

"An anamorphic 1.333x squeeze lens compresses the horizontal axis of the image by a factor of 1.333. To desqueeze the footage, you need to multiply the horizontal resolution by 1.333 while keeping the vertical resolution the same.

Original resolution:

4096x2160

Desqueezed resolution:

4096 × 1.333 = 5461.33 ≈ 5462 pixels (rounded to the nearest pixel)

So, the desqueezed resolution should be:
5462x2160

Aspect Ratio:

The aspect ratio of the desqueezed clip will be:

Aspect Ratio=WidthHeight=54622160≈2.53:1\text{Aspect Ratio} = \frac{\text{Width}}{\text{Height}} = \frac{5462}{2160} \approx 2.53:1Aspect Ratio=HeightWidth​=21605462​≈2.53:1

This wide aspect ratio is typical of anamorphic footage."

I'm not sure but definitely Sony AVC is limited to max resolution 1920 and Magix AVC is limited to 3840. Try Magix HEVC or Voukoder, which I sucesfully used to render 5104x1688.

So, I went back and set everything to 5462x2160. Everything included properties, the ratio of the clip, and the output ratio, using the customized version of the Sony AVC/MVC. Still didn't work.

@3POINT Thank you. I will try Voukoder again. I had tried that many iterations ago. I didn't know of the max resolutions of Sony AVC and Magix AVC.

@3POINT A 1000 thank yous!!! Whew.Thanks for talking me down off the ledge! LOL Right now, it's rendering out using HEVC and your ratio combo of 5104x1688. Once again, the forum (and you) came through. I have 3 new Sirui anamorphic lenses that will now get a good workout. Black Friday was costly for me. LOL

@3POINT I will try Voukoder next, to see if that speeds up anything.

On what device do you want to play resolutions above 3840? Limit you project settings and renders to 3840x1634 to get a cinemascope aspect ratio. Works with all codecs Magix AVC/HEVC (except Sony AVC). But I always will advice to use Voukoder AVC/HEVC instead.

@3POINT My original intent was to render close to the original resolution, which was 4096x2160. But when I started multiplying vertical dimension by 1.333, as per the formula, I was getting up into the 5462 category (multiplying the vertical dimension by 1.333). This will mostly initially be used on YouTube. I know that is overkill for YT., but I will be working on a project that may be used at a trade show on a larger screen.

One short clip (164 mb) just finished rendering. Took 16.43 minutes, with a fairly quick machine.

It makes no sense to render to higher resolutions than the resolution of the viewing device.

I have no experience with anamorphic lenses. But I think when original is 4096x2160 (4k) with anamorphic lenses, we 're not talking anymore about 16:9 aspect ratio with square pixels.

Could you upload and share a small sample of the original footage?

I will upload a clip tomorrow. It's 1:00AM here. Computer is shut down and I'm (finally) going to sleep. Thanx for your help. I'm embarrassed to tell you how much time I've spent on this.

Here it is 07:00 AM, I just woke up.

@3POINT My original intent was to render close to the original resolution, which was 4096x2160. But when I started multiplying vertical dimension by 1.333, as per the formula, I was getting up into the 5462 category (multiplying the vertical dimension by 1.333). This will mostly initially be used on YouTube.

Upload at 4096x2160 with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.33, that's all you need to do, YouTube will stretch it. Here's the part you won't like the real resolution will be 3840x(auto scale) , so for your resolution probably 3840x1522 but you can't get around that by by multiplying your width by 1.33 before you upload with square pixels you'll get the same result, 3840xauto instead of autox2160.

If you do get a different result let us know.

If indeed the PAR of an anamorphic recording is 1.333 (which I just read now) than just set Vegas project resolution and PAR accordingly:

Render with Voukoder HEVC gives my following media info:

Result:

@3POINT Good morning (here), and thank you for following through. Guessing by your PAL frame rate, you're somewhere on the other side of the "pond," and perhaps sleeping at this time. I'm in Florida. Where are you?

I will dive back into this now. One thing I want to address is my thinking on resolution. It's impossible for me to know how/when some clips will be used. It was only a short while ago that I couldn't understand the need for 4K. And now, the cameras are coming out with 6K and 8K...yes, so that people can watch on their cell phones. But with the price of TVs coming down so drastically, many TV purchases are now measured in feet, and not inches. And as mentioned, some things I do are likely to be used at trade shows, therefore large. Though, I think my understanding of resolution needs to be revised if they go with the new LED screens. I was just asked about producing a video that would be 20 feet across at a trade show booth, where people can pretty much walk up to the screen. Some of this was my motivation (justification?) for buying 3 anamorphic lenses for my Canon C70 this past Black Friday. Any excuse for "GAS." (Gear Acquisition Syndrome.)

I will go to Voukoder for my next experiments, and use some of the numbers that you provided. I just started using Voukoder about a month ago, and liking it.

This particular YouTube video gives an interesting (and different) take on doing the numbers for anamorphic. Your thoughts?