has anyone seen this res for broadcast.

Has anyone seen this res before in a broadcast application? I have to correct it for another production house. They really dont mind the aspect but i do.




""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Go to qt pro and check aperture, encoded pixels.



www.strypesinpost.com

Ignore EVERYTHING the GET INFO window shows you for dimension. Typically wrong. Bring into FCP and see what it says.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

What do you know, GET INFO was right.

But, that is an absolutely wrong dimension for broadcast. No broadcaster I submit to would accept that format.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Just to double check, open the QuickTime window, hit apple j and toggle aperture to encoded pixels. If it really is that oddball frame size, check with the house that submitted the footage and check how the oddball frame size came about.



www.strypesinpost.com

strypes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to double check, open the QuickTime window,
> hit apple j and toggle aperture to encoded pixels.
> If it really is that oddball frame size, check
> with the house that submitted the footage and
> check how the oddball frame size came about.

The dimensions (1440 x 810) have an aspect ratio of 16:9.

I would guess that someone was "over-thinking" things and
decided for some unknown reason to resize an anamorphic 1080 image "down"
(1440 x 1080 originally, which, of course, is meant to be displayed as 1920 x 1080).

And, why is the frame rate 30 fps, instead of 29.97?

Someone goofed up, most likely. That frame size wouldn't even be optimal for the web, as 810 isn't a multiple of 16.



-Dave

That would definitely mess up the interlacing if it was interlaced.



www.strypesinpost.com

AND its interlaced. Its the same size in QT info also.

I put it in the 720 TL you see there and made it make sense i also went to 29.97fps. I figured if you guys had not seen it before and i hadn't then discussing this with the creators would be futile.

The funny thing is my contact at the station says that they could play it because it would auto convert. That's sketchy.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

>I figured if you guys had not seen it before and i hadn't then discussing this with the creators would be futile.

No. It certainly would not be. I would get them to re-export, and if I can, I will check their project settings. It will almost certainly mess up the interlacing as vertical lines in an interlaced frame should be properly treated when up/down converting. If you down convert an interlaced frame like a progressive frame, you will lose temporal resolution and it will also result in jagged saw tooth artifacts.



www.strypesinpost.com

interesting

Yeah, interesting.

It looked the same kind of ugly when i was done though.

The makers are 3 guys between the ages of 19 - 25. It was done in Vegas. They are the owners son & nephews. I did talk to them today but it was like training some one to use basic common sense rules. The only have their output file which is the same as what i have.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Hey strypes,

what would u suggest in this case when the file i have is the only one available?

should i have converted in Compressor.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

I don't usually work with oddball formats to say for sure. I may try a variety of stuff to get rid of the interlacing/get back proper interlacing, such as dropping it into an HD sequence, nest that and deinterlace the nest. I had some luck inverting the fields on some oddball formats.



www.strypesinpost.com

I do have to work quite often with odd formats or formats which need to be de-interlaced, re-timed and scaled.
My swiss army knife still is Twixtor (though I use it with AE). The results are used with FCP.
Twixtor definitively is not cheap and does have some learning curve, but results are great if you do it right.
The reason I use AE is that AE has a better handling of nested stuff. So you can use Twixtor (in this case) to make a slomo with de-interlaced frames (but you can use the board means of AE as well), then scale the nested result and then again take out the 'half speed' to get back to interlaced within one project. Everything in these steps is controllable - but it takes time to setup and render -- and needs to be charged.

Andreas