Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR) Tutorial

Huy Vu

Veteran
It feels like a lot of people are confused about how Pixel Aspect Ratio affects their image. So if you're wondering why your widescreen footage comes out looking squeezed when it's rendered, read here.

First of all, Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR) is NOT the same thing as Aspect Ratio. Aspect Ratio (like 16:9 or 4:3) is the ratio between the number of pixels within the image, i.e. 720 x 480 or 1920 x 1080. PAR is the ratio between the width and length of each pixel that make up that image i.e 1.33 or 1.0.

When we talk about widescreen or fullscreen footage, we really have to define what PAR we're talking about. For example, HDV footage is 1440 x 1080 with a PAR of 1.33. Well, everybody knows that the footage is supposed to be widescreen (16:9 or 1.78), but if you take 1440 and divide it by 1080, you don't get 1.78, but 1.33 (4:3), and if you try to view the footage, it'll look squeezed. This is because the pixels are not square, so you can't just divide the aspect ratio. 1920 x 1080 footage with a square (1.0) pixel however will give you 1.78 or 16:9 footage. So you really have to check what PAR you're working with.

Here's another example, NTSC SD video is 720 x 480, but both the widescreen and full screen version works at this resolution. Just try shooting something with your SD camera in 4:3 and 16:9. The difference in this case is again, PAR. SD 16:9 has a PAR of 1.2; SD 4:3 has a PAR of .9.

So as you can see, most camera uses PAR, both in SD and HD. Where this comes into play is that certain applications like Quicktime Pro and places like Youtube don't recognize anamorphic pixels. They just assumed everything is square pixels and so you end up with squeezed video. So you have to convert your video with anamorphic (non-squared) pixel into squared pixel. Here's how

Let's say I have an SD video shot at 720 x 480 with a PAR of 1.2. Now I want to compress a 16:9 video with square pixel. Simply take the ratio that I'm trying to achieve (16:9 or 1.78) and divide the length of the video

720/1.78=405

So I would render out the video at a resolution of 720 x 405 with square pixel and it'll be 16:9 no matter which player you used. The deal here is after you set it to square pixel, you're trying to keep the ratio of the width and height of the picture to whatever the ratio is that you're trying to achieve (16:9 in this case). If I want to shrink the video a bit for example I would use 640 x 360 because 640/360 is also 1.78.

Hopefully this will clear up some confusions.
 
following steps to get below results.. sequence set at DVCPROHD 720P24.
drop HD 720x24pn (23fps) into my timeline. file>export>using qt conversion.
Format set to QT Movie/ Clicked options and made the following changes:
SETTINGS> Compression Type changed to DV/DVCPRO NTSC under MOTION i changed frame rate to 29.97 (with intent to match my SD footage i will be doing my final edits with) SCAN MODE left at Interlaced and Aspect Ration set at 4:3..

Under SIZE option i Dimension at Compressor native and click ok...

i got the following results below.

Everything looked good that i can tell expect this did NOT chnage the frame rate from 23 fps to 29fps as i had selected in my settings outlined above. Left pict (Viewer- SD footage -29fps) compared to right side (Canvas - converted HD to SD footage with settings above looks a little- a little squished in)

I compared the two settings and you can see the frame rate do not match. Any ideas how i can get 23fps to match my 29fps?


Huv Yu!! Thanks for the write up. Sounds like this is my problem? Im not sure, but sounds like it. As you can see in my example screen pic's the pic on the right compared to the left looks squeezed in.

Any thoughts? (click here to see my original post with pic's)
 
Huy Vu thank you so much for posting this, it is really helpful! Question from a FCP user though, would 720x405 be a good resolution to export to for the web? I want to keep all the width I want while still retaining a square pixel ratio. Also, maybe you should do a write-up on compression techniques. I've seen some amazingly good quality from Matt Matheson. I don't know how he does it, but his bitrates are really low in proportion to the video rendered.
 
Huv Yu!! Thanks for the write up. Sounds like this is my problem? Im not sure, but sounds like it. As you can see in my example screen pic's the pic on the right compared to the left looks squeezed in.

Any thoughts? (click here to see my original post with pic's)

I believe that your PAR is wrong. Widescreen needs to be 1.2 if rendering out at 720 x 480.
 
Huy Vu thank you so much for posting this, it is really helpful! Question from a FCP user though, would 720x405 be a good resolution to export to for the web? I want to keep all the width I want while still retaining a square pixel ratio. Also, maybe you should do a write-up on compression techniques. I've seen some amazingly good quality from Matt Matheson. I don't know how he does it, but his bitrates are really low in proportion to the video rendered.

720 x 405 is about the maximum resolution you can get when rendering out as square pixel.

In general, compression is done either single-pass or multi-pass. Multi-pass gives you comparable quality at a smaller file size in exchange for longer render time. h.264 is just about the most efficient compression codec available today, I use it exclusively. My general workflow is: export uncompress, load Quicktime Pro, use bitrate from 1500-1800 kbs for SD video, and 2000-2500 kbs for HD video and make sure that the audio codec is AAC. Multi-pass render for h.264 can take a while with longer video so I don't use it unless size is really important.
 
Huy Vu,

I'm using FCP so I'm not sure whether or not it gives you the option for square or non-square.( I know Premiere Pro does) So If I set it to that custom resolution it will be fine? Also, I'm using Apple Compressor and FCP to do my exports. So if I want to export uncompressed, what setting do I use? None? Right now, I have a 3min video intended for Vimeo that is around 220megs at a 11mb bitrate. Is this too big? I just don't like how h.264 desaturates my video even though I always use multi-pass. Basically, I just want to get good results, here is a link to a video with great quality/compression:

http://www.mattmatheson.com/blah/2.php?subaction=showfull&id=1211914517&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&
 
It feels like a lot of people are confused about how Pixel Aspect Ratio affects their image. So if you're wondering why your widescreen footage comes out looking squeezed when it's rendered, read here.

First of all, Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR) is NOT the same thing as Aspect Ratio. Aspect Ratio (like 16:9 or 4:3) is the ratio between the number of pixels within the image, i.e. 720 x 480 or 1920 x 1080. PAR is the ratio between the width and length of each pixel that make up that image i.e 1.33 or 1.0.

When we talk about widescreen or fullscreen footage, we really have to define what PAR we're talking about. For example, HDV footage is 1440 x 1080 with a PAR of 1.33. Well, everybody knows that the footage is supposed to be widescreen (16:9 or 1.78), but if you take 1440 and divide it by 1080, you don't get 1.78, but 1.33 (4:3), and if you try to view the footage, it'll look squeezed. This is because the pixels are not square, so you can't just divide the aspect ratio. 1920 x 1080 footage with a square (1.0) pixel however will give you 1.78 or 16:9 footage. So you really have to check what PAR you're working with.

Here's another example, NTSC SD video is 720 x 480, but both the widescreen and full screen version works at this resolution. Just try shooting something with your SD camera in 4:3 and 16:9. The difference in this case is again, PAR. SD 16:9 has a PAR of 1.2; SD 4:3 has a PAR of .9.

So as you can see, most camera uses PAR, both in SD and HD. Where this comes into play is that certain applications like Quicktime Pro and places like Youtube don't recognize anamorphic pixels. They just assumed everything is square pixels and so you end up with squeezed video. So you have to convert your video with anamorphic (non-squared) pixel into squared pixel. Here's how

Let's say I have an SD video shot at 720 x 480 with a PAR of 1.2. Now I want to compress a 16:9 video with square pixel. Simply take the ratio that I'm trying to achieve (16:9 or 1.78) and divide the length of the video

720/1.78=405

So I would render out the video at a resolution of 720 x 405 with square pixel and it'll be 16:9 no matter which player you used. The deal here is after you set it to square pixel, you're trying to keep the ratio of the width and height of the picture to whatever the ratio is that you're trying to achieve (16:9 in this case). If I want to shrink the video a bit for example I would use 640 x 360 because 640/360 is also 1.78.

Hopefully this will clear up some confusions.

So if my PAR is 1.2 then the math would be 720/1.2 = "600". My compressor output setting should read 720x600 (NTCS) instead of 720x480? I dont want widescreen though. Will my Aspect ration still be 720x480? this is my target delivery (SD).

I like your explanation and this should BE A STICKY for sure!! Any chances we can get a video tutorial on this? Man, this needs to be put on a DVD and sold. I would pick one up quick.. i think im close on figuring out my problem..
 
Last edited:
Let's say I have an SD video shot at 720 x 480 with a PAR of 1.2. Now I want to compress a 16:9 video with square pixel. Simply take the ratio that I'm trying to achieve (16:9 or 1.78) and divide the length of the video

720/1.78=405

is there a general list other than what is published here of what makes you PAR 1.78, 1.2, 1.33 etc? Is there a cheat sheet out there on this that we can post here?
 
So if my PAR is 1.2 then the math would be 720/1.2 = "600". My compressor output setting should read 720x600 (NTCS) instead of 720x480? I dont want widescreen though. Will my Aspect ration still be 720x480? this is my target delivery (SD).

No, that would be confusing PAR with aspect ratio. You can't divide by PAR and get the height, you have to divide by the aspect ratio (i.e 1.78 or 1.33).

The easiest way is to ignore whatever PAR of the footage is. Just ignore it. The only thing you need to know is whether your footage is 16:9 or 4:3 and what kind of resolution output you're looking for. Assume that it's all square pixel and based your calculation on that

For example, the HVX shooting 1080p produces an image that is 960x540 with a PAR of 1.5. I could be wrong on the PAR, but it doesn't really matter because I just ignore it. Let's say I want to go for a full 1920x1080 16:9 image with square pixel, then I would just set the export to square pixel and takes 1920/1.78 and i'll get 1080.

If I decide that I want to downrezz to 720p, then I would again assume square pixel and set the width at 1280, then divide that by 1.78 to get 720.

Now if I want to make a 4:3 720p image, then I'll take 1280/1.33 to get 962. The resulting image will be squeezed because it was originally widescreen, but you get the point.

It's really not as complicated as people think. There's really only a few resolution that you're going to use over and over again and each time you simply assume square pixel and use that in your calculation.
 
Another note is that if you go to DVD, it's a good idea to just keep the original PAR (1.2 or 1.33 etc.) instead of using square pixel. The DVD player or the TV will be able to properly interpret it.
 
First of all, Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR) is NOT the same thing as Aspect Ratio. Aspect Ratio (like 16:9 or 4:3) is the ratio between the number of pixels within the image, i.e. 720 x 480 or 1920 x 1080. PAR is the ratio between the width and length of each pixel that make up that image i.e 1.33 or 1.0.

I think you may have unintentionally misstated this; 4:3 and 16:9 are not statements of the number of pixels -- indeed, as you point out, in DV, 4:3 and 16:9 are both 720x480 -- same number of pixels, different aspect ratios.

The frame Aspect Ratio is the ratio of units, width to height, assuming square units, so 16:9 is always 16:9 no matter what the actual units are -- pixels, inches, centimeters, etc. -- 16 will always be the prime factor of the width; 9 will always be the prime factor of the height. The upshot is that it is always exactly the same shape, no matter the actual number of pixels. Mathematically, assuming square units, the width divided by the height is always 1.777777... 1920x1080, 1280x720 -- different numbers of pixels; same aspect ratio. It's about the proportions of the whole picture, not the numbers or shapes of pixels.

The way to think about the number of the PAR is this -- for 16:9, width x PAR / height = 1.7777777.... (1.78) For 4:3, width x PAR / height = 1.333333.... (1.33)

So 1920 x 1.000 (square) / 1080 = 1.78.

1440 x 1.333 /1080 = 1.78.

1280 x 1.5 / 1080 = 1.78

1280 x 1.000 / 720 = 1.78.

960 x 1.333 / 720 = 1.78

The SD ratios don't come out so perfectly (they're slightly wider than 16:9 and 4:3), but that's because they're only digital approximations of NTSC and PAL which were around long before there were pixel aspect ratios.


It's super-confusing, of course, when there's a frame aspect ratio and a pixel aspect ratio which are mathematically the same -- 1.333 -- but the one doesn't apply to the other.
 
ooh! i need to catch up on posts since my last post.. i see my theory in my last post was wrong.. (sigh) i need a training class on this, i'd pay!. There is a FCP advance class on wheels coming to dallas 1 Q 09 that i will inquire if this is covered in the training material.. if anyone is interested PM me. I;ll share the details. I appreciate the replies in advance. This is a topic of importance that we should all know and understand 100%..
 
ok thanks for the help!! I am still a bit confused though..

I shot a movie with the cannon hf100

my sequence setting for my 16 minute FCP movie are:
frame size: 1440 x 1080
aspect ratio: HD (1440x1080) (16:9)
pixel aspect ratio: hd (1440x1080)
field dominance: upper (odd)
editing timebase: 29:97
compressor hdv 1080i60

So I think my PAR is 1.33

at the moment I want to compress my edit into a smaller format to post on vimeo, to get some feedback on my work

I'm trying to make the right compressor setting for this. Doing the math based on your tutorial 1440/1.78 is 809. However I would like a smaller size in the 500-600 range for vimeo. This is where I am confused...

Thanks again for the help!
 
Start with the size that you want (let's say 500 pixel wide) then divide that by 1.78. For example a common size is 640 x 360.
 
cheers, I did get that far and made a compressor setting that is 640X360 but got a super funky result..ds

--i think i'm botching the other settings on in this "geometry tab" in my custom compressor setting..

I set the pixel aspect ratio right below the frame size to square but it did not work. I also have a source inset (cropping) tab which I set to 16x9 1.78:1

I checked on the non self contained quicktime movie I exported from FCP that i'm using in compressor. It is actually 1920 x 1080 (which is also 1.78 when you divide the two!). In inspector it also says the PAR is HDV 1080i (16:9).

I just tried running compressor with a frame size of 600 x 337 (600 divided by 1.78 is 337) with the crop set to "custom" and the Pixel Aspect set to
"1.33 and custom"

Thanks again I'll let you know how it goes.

Aslo clicked on your demo reel, it look awesome! Nice Work, I hope all is well with your projects!

~renan
http://rockmonkeyart.com/HOME.html
 
Last edited:
ok it worked but when I uploaded to vimeo it is a square and not 16:9.... i'm confused again, i think vimeo converted it back to 4:3!
 
you don't want any online video hosting service to resize the frame size of your footage, because it degrades the picture quality more than if you did the resizing in your software editor... so upload it to vimeo at the standard 720p 24fps format.
 
If you're taking your width and dividing it by 1.78 to give you your height, you always want to set the pixel aspect ratio to 1.000 (square).

If it's anything else, you will end up with a misshapen image, as you've seen.
 
Back
Top