Comments

Chienworks wrote on 9/27/2013, 8:47 PM
If you render to widescreen, it will be widescreen. Pan/crop is irrelevant. Now, of course, depending on your source and how you've cropped it, the *IMAGE* within the frame might be 4:3, but the frames of the output video will be whatever render template you've chosen.
thebrain900 wrote on 9/27/2013, 9:22 PM
What I ment is this.

If I open a 16:9 Widescreen Video and then want to Rander As 4:3 None Widescreen can I just do this?

Go to File Rander As then Pick NTSC DV it says the Pixal Ratio is 0.0909 ?

Or am I right if I do the Widescreen Video will Rander As 4:3 size but it will just keep the Widescreen Video as is in the Center?
Chienworks wrote on 9/27/2013, 10:22 PM
If you put a 16:9 video in a 4:3 project and render to 4:3 output you'll end up with the full widescreen image inside the frame with black bars above and below. If you want to fill the screen and crop off the sides, use Pan/Crop and choose 'match output aspect ratio' to crop it to fit.

These are also very easy and fast experiments that you can try on your own and see what happens.
thebrain900 wrote on 9/27/2013, 10:24 PM
Thank you I will let you know how it goes?
thebrain900 wrote on 9/27/2013, 10:53 PM
Ok things are going good.

I opened my 16:9 widescreen video and did my Edits to it and want to Rander As 4:3.

So I open Event Pan Crop and from the Top Preset I pick 4:3 TV Standard.

But in the Pan Crop window it looks like it still have Black Bars at Top and Bottom.
I forgot do I have to Click Keep Aspect Ratio?

Because it is Depressed?
MSmart wrote on 9/28/2013, 1:14 AM
Is this at all related to where you left off on this topic......???

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=12&MessageID=796317

I hate to keep picking on you but you should continue your existing topics rather than starting new ones that ask the same thing.

Another thing you should do is to render a very short piece of your video using different settings until you get the desired effect. Experiment, if you will. Trying it different ways will gain you experience and knowledge to move you forward with your video editing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't post your questions here, I just think trying different settings yourself will help you answer your own questions. But if you have been, please correct me.
thebrain900 wrote on 9/29/2013, 6:46 PM
I need some help understanding a Video Ratio?

I have an AVi Video of Rain Coming down and it is 720x480 and the Ratio is 3:2 so this meens it is Wider then High.

But 16:9 is Widescreen so would this be Widescreen because it is Wider then High?

I know it is not as Wide as 16:9 but I thought I would ask?
Chienworks wrote on 9/29/2013, 7:27 PM
720x480 is rarely a 3:2 frame. Normally the pixels are either 0.90909 times as wide as they are tall, or 1.2121 times as wide.

If they are 0.90909 then the effective size of the frame is 654.54x480 (655x480) and the result is called "standard" or 4:3

If they are 1.2121 then the effective size of the frame is 872.71x480 (873x480) and the result is called "widescreen" or 16:9.

Note that in both cases, the frame is slightly wider than the name. "4:3" frames are about 4.1333:3, and 16:9 frames are about 16.3633:9. This is why i prefer "standard" and "widescreen" as the names.
thebrain900 wrote on 9/29/2013, 8:15 PM
Thanks again for the help.
thebrain900 wrote on 10/2/2013, 11:29 AM
if a 4:3 Video frame will be 655480 Pixals as a Photo.
And a 16:9 Video will be 873x480 Pixals as a Photo.

Why is the 480 still 480 in both Casses?

When you turn them into a Photo why doe the 480 not change a little?
Chienworks wrote on 10/2/2013, 12:01 PM
Because it's 480 in both cases. Those are the standard sizes that were defined. Why do you think it should be different?
thebrain900 wrote on 10/2/2013, 6:15 PM
Well a 16:9 720x480 Frame as a JPG will be 873x480

The 720 turns into 873 so why does the 480 not change?

I know the 720 turns to 873 as JPG because the shap of the Pixlas are diferant. So why does it not change the 480?
Chienworks wrote on 10/2/2013, 9:04 PM
Because that's the way it is. The electrical engineers who designed digital NTSC video for camcorders just simply decided that the pixels are always 1.0 pixel tall. It's on the the width that changed. This is because there were two image formats they wanted to handle, 4x3 standard and 16:9 widescreen, and they wanted to do so with a single file format. They picked a horizontal width of 720 which was part way inbetween 655 and 873 and allowed the pixels to either squish in narrower or stretch out wider to fit the two image formats. Since the two image formats differ in width only, there was no need to alter the height.
thebrain900 wrote on 10/2/2013, 11:10 PM
OK I think I know what I am doing wrong I am not asking in the Right way I am sorry.

I ment I know a TV 4:3 image is 720x480 but if I turn it into a JPG Image it will use sqware pixals so the new image will be 655x480.

And I get this a JPG Image uses diferant pixals so the image will be 655 not 720.

So because JPG uses sware pixals I thought it would take the 480 Tall and make it 240 or something because a JPG works in sqware pixals.

Did I ask in the right way?
Chienworks wrote on 10/2/2013, 11:16 PM
655x480 is square pixels for standard 4:3. In the video file the pixels are 0.9091 times as wide as they are tall. The only change that has to happen is the width of the image needs to be multiplied by 0.9091. The height gets multiplied by 1.0, or in other words, isn't changed.

You've already been working with 655x480 and 873x480 images and you see that they work, so you know that they are right. There really isn't anything further for you to understand on this topic. It seems like you're continually trying to make it more complicated than it is.
thebrain900 wrote on 10/3/2013, 4:17 PM
I get it now thanks for all the help.
If you want you can Delete this Topic I know I went on and on sorry.