PDA

View Full Version : AE Render settings for FCP - 16:9



J_Farina
06-24-2004, 03:53 PM
This seems like the sort of issue that would have been raised already, but I couldn't find the info.
If you know where it is, let me know. For now, here is my problem:

I have 16:9 "SQUEEZE" footage shot in 24PA.
I want to use After Effects to comp some footage, then return it to the FCP timeline and have it match up with the original footage files.
I have already figured out that you must render out of AE uncompressed (in my case, Blackmagic 8 bit 4:2:2) in order to get full quality images back from AE. It is well worth the re-render time in FCP.

What I can't figure out is how to deal with the comp and render settings for the aspect ratio.
This is what I have tried so far.
1. D1/DV-NTSC @ 720x480: This yields the proper frame size, but the footage is oddly oversized in AE at 100% and needs to be reduced by 25% in order to fit the entire width of the image and the correct amount of black (top & bottom) for the letterbox. So it is obviously stretching out the image? This one looks as close to the original footage as I could get, but it seems weird that it stretches the image out beyond the "100%" width?

Other settings that I have tried include:
2. I tried settiing the same comp to match the width of the stretched footage (at 100%) and it came out at 960x640. When I dropped this on the time line I noticed three things, It automatically resized it to 75%, the color had shifted blue slightly and the pixel aspect was altered to -12 This new ratio actualy looked better than the original. The image lost a little clarity, but the aspect ratio seemed more proportionate. Which makes we wonder if the SQUEEZE setting is actually still too distorted after anamorphic capture in FCP?

3. I also tried using the D1/DV-NTSC @ 720x480 - Widescreen setting. This one had to be rendered out at 720x407 or dropped on the FCP time line and resized there.

None of them seemed to drastically different, but I am concerned about using the best settings because I don't want any surprises. There has got to be a formula that makes the most sense from a techinal/mathematical perspective.
Anyone know what is is?

Thanks.
J.
j@axessmediainc.com