HD 1.33 PAR and all that

[ndfrizzle]

Working in Premiere, I want to UPREZ SD footage that is 1.33 to 1 into a sequence that I wish to be this same 1.33 ratio but in HD (1440x1080 PAR?). 

What sequence preset should I use?  When I choose AVCHD, I'm not finding a PAR option for the 1.33 aspect ratio.  What's more the project monitor is 16:9, and when I bring in a graphic to my sequence, it fills this 16.9 ratio monitor.  What is the problem?

[Richard TOULON]

Hi, you can customize your sequence in PPRO CC. Click on new sequence, choose Settings box and chose in editing mode, personalise. You can choose now every aspect of your sequence.( I have the french version of PPRO so I have tried to translate the options for you to understand but it can be a little different but I'm sure you'll find.

Richard.

[Ann Bens]

Are you sure your SD footage is 1.33. That PAR is specific to HDV footage.

Run the SD file through Mediainfo and post the analysis in treeview here on the forum.

http://mediainfo.sourceforge.net/en

[excited_Genie16B8]

What sequence preset should I use?

As there is no such thing as 4:3 HD, there are no 4:3 HD presets.  You'll need a custom sequence.

[ndfrizzle]

Like all discussions about aspect ratio the subject soon bogs down in semantics, theories, etc. 

Early geeration digital camcorders offered TWO native image aspect ratios, 4:3and 16:9.  In North America's NTSC system the most prevant practtice was that both were registered by squeezing a square pixel image area of 720 by 480.  4:3 was achieved by a horizontal squeeze.

It is projects I shot in this standard definition image aspect ratio of 4:3 that I wish to UPREZ to high def.

Surely this need is so universal that there exists one or more high definition sequence presets to accomodate this need optimally.

Perhaps the ONLY way is to work (as I currently do) within a picture area of 16:9 with side bars.  I can live with this, but my concern is that when my project calls for scaling a graphic to effectively 'zoon in' on it, the graphic intrudes upon the 16:9 picture area outside the 4:3 boundary I desire.  Obviously this violates the integrity of my original project's 4:3 picture area. 

I can't believe I have to resort to masking the 16:9 picture area sides to effectively maintain the 4:3.  In fact, I could swear I have in the past stumbled upon a project preset that gave me a 16:9 work space, but automatically masked for my UPREZed 4:3prject so that I have no issies with the area of graphics in my project that strayed beyond tyhe sides of my 4:3 picture area.

Please, no theories and fussy tangential issues. I just quest to find that magical sequence preset that best accomodates bumping up to high defintion the 4:3 picture area standard that after all dominated both televsion and the movies for most of their history.

[excited_Genie16B8]

Surely this need is so universal

Not really.  Upressing usually looks pretty bad.  (At least with the tools most of us can afford.)

And as there are no 4:3 HD formats, there are no 4:3 HD sequence presets.

[ndfrizzle]

Nonsense.  If there were not the desire to get the most out of legacy projects, UPREZ would not exist.   In fact, I understand that the UPREZ filter is in great demand.

I am over the moon that at high def is at long last breathing new life into some classic 4:3 television,  As a matter of fact, I get stunning UPREZ results myself (after sensitive processing),  I concede that there's a current trade-off of artifacting.  But this is merely a matter of immature processing tools that need urgent attending to.

In any case, I'm not asking for a value judgement, Jim, I'm seeking a solution.  I concede that I necessarily have to work within 16:9.  That's perfectly fine with me.  But I expect to work within a 16:9 setting that recognizes and accomodates editing and processing of the 4:3 project within it.

Is this too much to ask for?.  (The correct answer is NO.)

Thanks anyway.

[Steven L. Gotz]

You appear to be using UPREZ as a Proper Noun. The name of a third party product from Boris.

I don't think you made that clear to begin with. At least I didn't catch it.

So, let's start again. You want to edit in true 16:9 HD using 1920X1080. Right? And you can live with pillar boxes (bars) on the sides.

OK. If you want your 4:3 images to look good in a 16:9 frame, and Boris does a good enough job for you, then great! Use it happily and live with your bars on the sides.

However, now it seems that you want to zoom in even further into the 4:3 footage using the Motion effect. Is that correct?

In order to do that, you might want to create a 4:3 ratio sequence, do your zooming in that sequence, which will automatically restrict the frame to a 4:3 ratio. Then just nest that sequence into the original. That will give you a zoomed in image at exactly 4:3.

You are not, as Jim pointed out, going to find a 4:3 HD project setting. So, one way people deal with that is to use theater curtains on the sides, or they stretch out a copy of the video, reduce it's opacity, blur it, and put it behind the 4:3 footage. Or, and I hate this choice, they merely stretch out the video and make people look fat. Or, there are plug-ins, I believe, that can stretch the edges more than the middle in order to make it less annoying.

[ndfrizzle]

Assume nothing, I guess.

Yes, the UPREZ is a product of Boris, but the principles involved here would be the same if I just scaled my video from its original 480 height to 1080.

The stadard I'd prefer to work in is 1440 by 1080, which is 4:3 in square pixels, is it not?  Regardless of square or not, I would at least eliminate the problem I have that requires the inelegant preposerous grotesque and counter-intuitive use of blotting our a part of my scren area with two rectangles for the pillarboxing since the 1440 sequence, even with graphics that overlap sides of the picture area will not be visible when couched within the 1920 by 1080 standard.

As it stands, Adobe appears to have eliminated the 1440 PAR options, so I'm forced to edit in 1920x1080.

O.K. so far?

I don't want to zoom in on the sequence, Steven, I am using graphics within my project.  Let's say I want to introduce a map and zoon in on it.  Then for the sake of argument only, the map is nicely cropped for 4:3 ratio at 4000 by 3000 pixels.  My map insert works fine starting down to its starting position, but when I scale it up over time (i.e. zoom in), I will start to fill in the sides of the 16:9 ratio.

Please understand, I grasp that16:9 is the de facto standard I have to work with. 

1440 by 1080 PAR I assume would only allow me to work to my heart's content in 4:3 ratio (oversize graphics and all) and would work intelligently within the 1920 by 1080 standard and output my 4:3 project that STAYS 4:3 throughout, with an absence of image (black) that would pillerbox my 4:3 prject.

I hope I haven't just made things more complicated.

[Ann Bens]

The stadard I'd prefer to work in is 1440 by 1080, which is 4:3 in square pixels, is it not?

No they are not square pixels, they are rectangular. Hence the 1.33 PAR.

[SAFEHARBOR11]

ALL HD formats are 16:9. Period. There is no 4:3 HD format, and perhaps you're not understanding the whole 1440x1080 thing. Adobe has NOT gotten rid of it - look under "HDV" sequence preset, there it is. Yes, 1440x1080 comes out to 4:3, but only with square pixels, which is not part of the anamorphic HD spec. As pointed out by other posters, the rectangular 1.333 pixel shape actually means that the 1440x1080 video really is still 16:9 (1440x1.33=1920), with 1440x1080 acting like 1920x1080 when viewing the material.

So use the HDV editing preset, but as others have said, simply add black bars to fix the zooming thing, meaning go into the Titler and make your black pillar box overlay and use that to hide the sides when adding zooms. Simple.

Thanks

Jeff Pulera

Safe Harbor Computers

[Greg Baber]

I think we're running into issues with the terminology.

If you want a sequence that will be 1440x1080, then you can use AVCHD 1080p Anamorphic settings.  That is 1440x1080 with a PAR of 1.33:1

If that's not working, maybe it'd be easier if you told us what is not working the way you want.  Maybe give us a screen shot. That way we can address your issue without getting bogged down in terminology.

[Kevin-Monahan]

Yes, the UPREZ is a product of Boris

Hi ndfrizzle,

If you are a Creative Cloud customer, I would like to tell you and others about a new feature of After Effects CC (12.1) regarding upscaling your footage. It's called the "Detail Preserving Upscale effect" you might want to check out to compare results.

More details here: http://blogs.adobe.com/aftereffects/2013/09/after-effects-cc-12-1-whats-new-and-changed.html

Video: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adobe-at-ibc-2013/after-effects-cc-detailpreserving-upscale/

[ndfrizzle]

I was most anxious to try the Detail Preserving Upscale Effect when it came out, but felt it did not compare favourably with UPREZ.  I don't recall why, but I'm going to check it out again in case it has addressed whatever issues I had in using it.

ndfrizzle

[Steven L. Gotz]

Remember when I said you could create a 4:3 sequence to fit your new footage? (Post #9)

Well, I suggest that you do it manually just to be sure. Use a custom frame size of 1440X1080 but use square pixels. Or try dropping it on to the New Item button just to see what sequence settings it decides to use.

And yes, you can export it that way. All you are really doing is exporting a 1440X1080 frame. Just avoid calling it HD and you will be fine. Otherwise you are really confusing the issue. As stated above, there are no 4:3 HD settings because such things do not, and should not exist. That doesn't mean you can't do it. But it is just SD blown up bigger, not SD blown up to HD. If your footage was widescreen SD to start with, that would be a horse of a different color.

However, that said, feel free to create you own sequence the way you want it.

But now what? There you are with a frame size that many players will automatically think is using non-square pixels (thinking it is HDV) and they will stretch out your video to 16:9.

You can't put it on a Blu-Ray that way, and it would confuse YouTube.

So, your best bet is to edit in the 1440X1080 frame, and when you are ready to export, drop it, as is, into a 16:9 sequence and export from there to get your bars and avoid any confuson.

[Greg Baber]

Couple of things - Ann is right, SD footage is rarely 1.33 PAR, if anything it is 4:3 with letterboxing to make it seem widescreen.  If it truly is, then you have two options for sequence settings - you can use AVCHD Anamorphic editing mode - this is a usually 1.33.  Alternatively, you can use a Custom editing mode which will let you change the resolution and PAR to the settings you need.

In terms of your graphic - not sure the behavior you are describing.  Make sure that the graphic you are using is also using 1.33 PAR if that's what you want in your sequence. Graphics should have a PAR baked into them.  If I'm not understanding your issue, can you describe the situation in more detail, like how the graphic was created and maybe give a screen shot to describe the issue better.

[excited_Genie16B8]

SD footage is rarely 1.33 PAR

He never said the footage was 1.33 PAR.  He just said it was 1.33:1, which means normal 4:3 footage.  Chances are he's just confusing the 1.33 PAR of the HD presets, which don't correspond to anything he's got.