Jump to content


Photo

Pixel Aspect Sd Pal ?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 qbzy

qbzy

    Member Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 03:34 PM

Hi
Iam working on commercial project for tv (Only 3d animation part at the end of the spot). My earlier pipeline was 3dsmax plus after effect.
I decided to work on fusion and i have problem :/. The final frame format must be pal 720 x 576 1,06667 aspect ratio.
During the animation proces the producer gave me one frame from the scanned film, after scaling it to the Pal format i found out that i dont need
to render full Pal frame. So i rendered animation from 3d studio max in custom format 720 x 320 px pixel aspect 1.06667 and image aspect 2,40001.
I finished composition in fusion and rendered out tga (unfortunetly i was working in pixel aspect square 1:1). Than imported tga to after effect and i found out that it doesnt look propertly, becose of frame aspect.
I have changed the setting of the imported sequence in after effect (interpret fotage/ pixel aspect Pal/D1 1.07) Than i outputed the video usind blackmagic intensity pro on my Sony lcd TV. It doesnt look rigt :( the image isnt smoth and you can see pixels on the curves of the animated objects.
And now i have question, what is the workflow to fix it ? There is strange preset setting in fusion for pal secam 768x576 and aspect 1:09375 i always worked in afx in 720x576 and there was only one setting for aspect 1,07 and in fusion you have two number to set (for ex. square pix i s 1 : 1 ?)
I need to finish it for tomorow :( I need your help !!!
Sorry for my english ;)

#2 Pilalitos

Pilalitos

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 04:29 PM

All compositions in Fusion start with some loaders or creator tools. In those tools you can set automatically their size/aspect ratio for PAL.

Go to your plate footage. Click on Format tab. Choose CUSTOM aspect ratio. Right-click where it says CUSTOM PIXEL ASPECT and then choose PAL/SECAM D1. That will do the trick.

If you have a creator tool like a BACKGROUND, click on the Image tab. Then right-click on Width, Height or Pixel aspect and choose PAL/SECAM D1. After that, you can change the frame sizes if you want but the pixel aspect will stay correct.

Change all the necessary tools accordingly and rerender your Fusion composition. You are done.

#3 bfloch

bfloch

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 04:35 PM

I think the source of confusion is that eyeon decided to shrink in Y instead stretching in X.

So a 720:576 * 1.06666:1
has the same aspect as
720:576 * 1:0.9375

Because 1 / 1.066666 = 0.9375

But since Fusion calculates only what is there and uses the aspect for Viewing/Aspect it should make no difference.
At the end there should be 720x576 footage which SHOULD work at 1.06666:1 the same as 1:0.9375

You said that you had 720x320. Maybe thats the source of evil. Why not using a resize to clash it to 720x576 at the end?

#4 Gringo

Gringo

    Associate Administrator

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 04:37 PM

Hi!

You can consider pixel aspect as a multiplier for image width:height.

The standard PAL D1 resolution is 720x576, pixel aspect 1.06(6):1.
PAL Square Pixels has the resolution 768x576, pixel aspect 1:1.
When both pictures are displayed they have the same size: 720*1.06(6)=768, 576*1=576. Image aspect = 1.3(3):1

Fusion thinks PAL D1 pixel aspect is 1:0.9375. The proportion is the same, but if you apply that, you'll get 720*1=720, 576*0.9375=540 which is not convenient when you put together a 768x576 Square pixel and 720x576 D1 pixel pictures.

When you calculate image aspect in PAL, you should remember to apply the pixel aspect.
Perhaps, your scanned frame had the image aspect 2.35x1.
In PAL Square Pixels it would be 768x327, because 768/2.35*1~327
In PAL D1 - 720x327, because 720/2.35*1.06(6)~327

The issue is AE CS4 defines PAL D1 as 720x576 pixel aspect 1.09:1. They say it's more correct aspect, but they are the only such clever guys in the industry... So CS4 isn't compatible to any software I know including previous versions of AE in terms of aspects.

You can use my formats preset which contains PAL D1 720x576 1.06(6):1.
Just put the attached file to your Fusion: folder and remove the .txt extension.

Attached Files



#5 Gringo

Gringo

    Associate Administrator

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 04:43 PM

:-D This triple answer should satisfy any needs :)

#6 qbzy

qbzy

    Member Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 04:45 PM

Thanks for reply :)
Unfortunetly i was playing with the project settings and now my pal/D1 is square pixel. So i need to change it in custom tab but i dont realy know what to type in.
I found info in help: pal is set like this (PAL (D1) - 1: 0.9375) -- is it corect ? I always used settings in after effect like this 720 x 576 D1/DV PAL (1,07).
fusion is first program that i need to type pixel aspect i two dimensions i assume x and y.
Q

#7 Lukasz Omasta

Lukasz Omasta

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 04:53 PM

Just as Blazej said:

If you wan't normal DV PAL (1.07) you have to type in y: 0.9375. So yes. It is correct.

Just to add to Gringo's question. Why won't you render out as full frame DV PAL (720 x 576). It's not like you will
get much difference in render times. Resize it, recropp it or sth. If the problem persists you will know what to blame.

#8 qbzy

qbzy

    Member Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 04:59 PM

Thank you guys i think i know how to fix it :)
I rendered 720 x 320 just becose of smaller render time :? bad idea ! i wont do that again.
Bab info about AFX, lame soft
You were faster than my first reply
Thanks again, now i get the poin of 1.06666:1 And 1 : 0.9375
Q

#9 Gringo

Gringo

    Associate Administrator

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 06:21 PM

fusion is first program that i need to type pixel aspect i two dimensions i assume x and y.

The advantage of such an approach is you can set any custom pixel aspect such as 1:0.5 for anamorphic or 1.3(3):1 for 1440x1080 HD

#10 ChadCapeland

ChadCapeland

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,975 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 08:46 PM

fusion is first program that i need to type pixel aspect i two dimensions i assume x and y.

The advantage of such an approach is you can set any custom pixel aspect such as 1:0.5 for anamorphic or 1.3(3):1 for 1440x1080 HD


Or you can combine two different resolutions. Fusion will take the ACTUAL pixel "size" not just the aspect ratio. So a 1024x1024 image at 1:1 is the SAME SIZE as a 512x512 image at 2:2. Fancy, eh? Makes proxy work really nice, or working in a multi-format project, where you are compositing some 4K foreground over a 2K background with some D1 elements.

- Chad

#11 bfloch

bfloch

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 04:17 AM

Actually working at lower resolutions isn't that bad. I often work on half y resolution if I can get rid of the fields (in a dump fashion) and vertical resolution does not matter that much.
So e.g. I can work on 720x288 at 1.06666x2 after striping one field. It also saves rendertime and diskspace. Of course there are better ways to deinterlace but if it's ok why not. Fusion handles it well. At the end I still resize so I can go back to NLE: 720x576

Cheers
Blazej

#12 Gringo

Gringo

    Associate Administrator

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 05:39 AM

Blazej, Chad, nice ideas!

The only restriction is per-pixel tools such as CustomTool or ChannelBoolean. They won't scale the image dimensions according to its pixel aspect.

It can be solved by a Scale tool with simple expressions: XSize = Input.XScale and YSize = Input.YScale
Input.XScale and Input.XScale are X and Y pixel aspect values of the input image.

#13 ChadCapeland

ChadCapeland

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,975 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 12:14 PM

Actually working at lower resolutions isn't that bad. I often work on half y resolution if I can get rid of the fields (in a dump fashion) and vertical resolution does not matter that much.



Making a note... no subcontracting interlaced jobs to Blazej.... :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users