Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 4828129 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:27:51 +0200 Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Hsb06jvS c=1 sm=0 a=kxnugH6Wy5bl5vZ3xW/I5w==:17 a=DQZvOVXRM6cA:10 a=Zq2FpVYgtBoA:10 a=bjq9PpNSDe0A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=0DE8fIijhLcA:10 a=LaNeyJ9lAAAA:8 a=3uk2aAWUAAAA:8 a=wkeOB0n8AAAA:8 a=HCaajj4T-TzvmXBdpAIA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=2m6KpOshel0A:10 a=G8hwkzEB35gA:10 a=kxnugH6Wy5bl5vZ3xW/I5w==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 24.24.234.97 Received: from [24.24.234.97] ([24.24.234.97:47129] helo=[10.0.1.2]) by hrndva-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 81/81-01602-6DD0D305; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:28:39 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:28:37 -0700 Subject: Re: [AE] Aspect Ratios From: Lachlan Westfall To: After Effects Mail List Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [AE] Aspect Ratios Thread-Index: Ac2FSvBYLyaZsvE+EeGE3wAfWzIHkA== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Chris, Ah.... Forgot about the "brute-force" squeeze method. I guess I can now make any pixel aspect ratio I want. Thanks. -L On 8/28/12 11:10 AM, "Chris Meyer" wrote: > Sounds like you're talking about anamorphic HD? The "new" (actually, the old > correct) PAR is 40/33. > > Making the issue even more confusing, is that in addition to the correct pixel > stretch, there are additional "unused" pixels beyond the Clean Aperture (the > actual image used) to form the Production Aperture (a wider size used as slop > to accommodate shortcomings in pixel processing). > > If you need to use the old size, you can always create a square pixel comp the > size you want, and manually scale it in the Output Module. > > But really - all the hardware out there actually uses and has used the "new" > (old correct) spec; people just prepared things wrong for years. Do things the > right way now - 872x286 square, squeezed to 720x486 on output, and life will > be good. > > http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/cmg_keyframes/story/par_for_the_course/ > P2/ > > - Chris > > > > On Aug 28, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Lachlan Westfall wrote: > >> I'm sending stuff to a client for display on a stadium video board. >> >> The are saying that the specs aren't right (i.e. It's not loading), but they >> won't tell me what's wrong. >> >> I think it may have to do with pixel aspect ratios. >> >> When I inspect my stuff in QT is says: >> 720 x 486, actual size 872 x 486 >> >> When I look at their previous stuff is says: >> 720 x486, actual size 864 x 486 >> >> My understanding is that the aspect ratio of 1:1.2 was "corrected" to 1:1.21 >> a while back and this caused the difference. Is this right? >> >> If so, is there any way I can render something out of AE CS5.5 that has the >> old 864 x 486 specs? There is no pull-down for a 1:1.2 aspect ratio. >> >> Help!! >> >> -Lachlan Westfall >> Quiet Earth Design >> >> >> >> +---End of message---+ >> To unsubscribe send any message to > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to