How to create Black aspect ratio bars like in Final Cut Pro.

[AzzieScott]

I would like to know the best way to create the black aspect ratio bars the same way you can in FinalCut Pro. For example a 2.35:1 bars. Can some one assist. I dont know why this is not already a installed preset. Premeire CC is supposed to make our life easier.

[JaysonM-Y]

AzzieScott wrote:

Premeire CC is supposed to make our life easier.

It does but you have an uncanny request. Even when using FCP I don't use 2.XX:X bars. I usually edit in native dimensions then export to whatever dimensions I want and tell compressor to scale or crop the dimensions to fit my export.

You can create your bars with the title tool. One rectangle at the top and the other at the bottom.

[AzzieScott]

Now hold on, dont get it confused,  I love PP CC way better than FCP but im just suprised that some simple like apsect Ratio Bars are not pre installed.

[excited_Genie16B8]

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1010578?tstart=60

[AzzieScott]

awesome, I will try it. Thank you.

[shooternz]

Instead of bars...why not work in an aspect ratio (of whatever your choice) without fake bars?

Black bars were never part of any film. 

IMHO: Its a pseudo aspect ratio  effect that is cliche becaused its not correct when done this way.

The alternate way to advice given above is to work in a Custom Sequence.  This allows you to pan and scan your footage around to fit  (I assume it was not shot 2.35?).

BTW: who ever told you this..

Premeire CC is supposed to make our life easier.

[excited_Genie16B8]

why not work in an aspect ratio (of whatever your choice) without fake bars?

One reasons is because it may need to be delivered with bars, for example, Blu-ray or DVD.

[JaysonM-Y]

But... then you could just export the final file as 1080p or SD and it'll auto scale and give you a file with bars...

[excited_Genie16B8]

You could.  But if the material is 1080, and it was shot with 2.35 framing in mind, it's simpler to just work at 1080 using the effect I posted earlier.

[AngeloLorenzo]

Agree with the others: edit in a custom sequence to allow pan & scan. Once you ready yourself for export with Media Encoder, you'll find that it will add black padding to fill the aspect ratio whether it be 16:9 standard HD or 4:3/16:9 SD, and so on.

[excited_Genie16B8]

Here's another way to do things.

http://adobe.ly/17bDeWt

[Greg Popp]

As you may need other sizes at some point (for example, "House of Cards" is framed 2.0-1 - that's right, 2-1, as it feels cinematic but doesn't leave as much of one's LCD unused), I fould this tutorial the best out there.  The kid sweetly mumbles through it, but for a non-Photoshop user like myself, I found it really easy to follow and make my own.  I even had to make a mask for a 1.85 4K file that was cropped 2.35.  Enjoy!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk41-MS2nCk

[jamesp2]

It's much easier to do this within PPro itself -- just use the crop filter and either make a preset or create a new sequence and add the crop effect to an adjustment layer, then copy that layer into any subsequent sequence. 

In both methods, you have to do the rudimentary math, so it's not as if you save yourself anything by going to Photoshop.

And you don't have to listen to that insufferable kid.....

BTW, the aspect ratio filter in FCP was, at least in the earlier versions, a big problem:  moving the footage around to reframe it reduced resolution in many cases.  The workaround was a garbage matte -- pretty much like the PPro method.

[Ann Bens]

And its so easy to make in the Titler for a 1920x1080 sequence.

2 black rectangulars 1080 wide and 132 high (even numbers) placed top and bottom.

Make into template and done.

[excited_Genie16B8]

In both methods, you have to do the rudimentary math

Already done and saved as presets in post 2.

[joe_bloe_premiere]

Maybe it's me, I don't get the fascination with 2.35:1.

¯\(°_o)/¯

[excited_Genie16B8]

Originally, 2.35:1 movies (updated to 2.39:1 in the 70's and now with MPEG often changed to an exact 2.40:1) were wider than the other cinematic norm - 1.85:1.  The curtains on the sides of the theater screen would actually slide over, widening the presentation.  Back then, you actually got more screen for your movie.

With fixed resolution digital projection becoming the norm in theaters, we're losing that truly wide screen, and are getting a cropped presentation, with curtains covering up the unused portion for 2.39, rather then revealing more screen like they used to.

Still, the look of the wider screen appeals.

[joe_bloe_premiere]

If it originated in that aspect and needs to conform to 1080, sure.

But to 'emulate' that look by chopping off the top and bottom

of 1080 video seems sorta faddish and semi-pointless.

And if it's only about aesthetics, why the need to be so 'pixel exact'?

(A rhetorical question)

[excited_Genie16B8]

.But to 'emulate' that look by chopping off the top and bottom of 1080 video seems sorta faddish and semi-pointless.

Cameron agreed when he shot Avatar in 16:9.

I still like the wider aspect, though.  I'm old school.

[JaysonM-Y]

[shooternz]

That image is demonstrates what I hate about faux aspect ratio manipulation.

Great image as clean.. crap with the distracting black bars.

Is he peering into a letterbox?

[jamesp2]

shooternz wrote:

That image is demonstrates what I hate about faux aspect ratio manipulation.

Great image as clean.. crap with the distracting black bars.

Is he peering into a letterbox?

But since all consumer displays are 16:9, how else is anyone going to view 2:39:1 material , whether faux or "real", without "distracting black bars"?  The same objection could have been raised to letter-boxed 1:85 material, when most TVs were 4:3.

[excited_Genie16B8]

faux aspect ratio manipulation.

If that's Clint, it ain't faux.  Sergio wanted that precise framing.  Letterbox is the only way to watch it correctly on a TV.

[joe_bloe_premiere]

Exactly.

If it originated in that aspect and needs to conform to 1080, sure.

David Lean didn't crop the top and bottom of 1080 video for this look:

[shooternz]

If that's Clint, it ain't faux.  Sergio wanted that precise framing.  Letterbox is the only way to watch it correctly on a TV.

Sure but keep in mind it wasnt shot with TV as the primary presentation method.

It was originally seen "clean" (sans bars) at the cinema as Sergio intended.