sequence cropping for super-8 film files

[#1]

I'm using some super8 film files transfered at 720 x 486 in pro-res hq and am wondering how Premiere Pro handles the aspect ratio if edited with sequence settings at 720 x 480. Does it just cut the extra frame size equally? Wondering what the best work flow is for me in this situation. I'm running PP 14.7. 

(Parenthetically I've got some jitter at the bottom of the frame in some clips where i needed to change speeds - if 780 X 480 cuts that out it would be fine, otherwise i might need to blow up the frames on those clips to 102% to eliminate. Don't want to lose image resolution!)

Thanks for your help!

[#2]

Depends on your settings in Preferences.

• If you have the scaling option set to "none", it simply puts the 486 clip on the sequence using the PAR (pixel aspect ratio) of the clip at 'normal' size. So on a 1080 sequence, the clip will come in (typically) in correct proportions but showing centered with a fair amount of black pixels around it.
• If you have scaling set to "set to framesize" it will bring in the clip at correct PAR and auto-zoom until the first 'border' of the clip is reached. If the clip's framesize ratios are the same as the sequence, as for FHD (1920x1080) clips placed on a UHD (3840x2160) sequence, the image will fill the frame. If not, one 'dimension' will have black bars. And the full pixel resolution data is available for any scaling you may choose to do.
• If you have scaling set to "scale to framesize" it will do the above ... except!!! ... it will have mathematically computed the new image at the sequence frame-size, and any 'zoom' or image scale changes you make will be from the computed framesize, not the original pixels. If placing a UHD clip on an FHD sequence, this means ... that clip is scaled by Premere from 3840x2160 to 1920x1080. And if you then say "zoom in" by enlarging the image in scaling settings on the sequence, it recalculates the image from the 1920x1080 pixels up ... rather than using the original image. Which kills resolution of course.

You may note that neither of the above have anything to do with settings for PAR ... so there is always some user-choice involved. Are the pixels square, or not? Is the frame-size aspect width to height the same? Those are for the user to control.

Neil

[#3]

Thanks, Neil!

I am using square pixels:

Image Size: 720 x 486
Frame Rate: 29.97
Pixel Aspect Ratio: 0.9091

My current sequence size is 720 X 486 - once I've finished my final picture
cut I was going to see what it looks like if drop it into an FHD sequence
with pillar box - does that make sense? I just don't want to lose
resolution.

Thanks for your help,

Dave

[#4]

Thanks, Neil!

Pixel info below:

Image Size: 720 x 486
Frame Rate: 29.97
Pixel Aspect Ratio: 0.9091

My current sequence size is 720 X 486 - once I've finished my final picture cut I was going to see what it looks like if drop it into an FHD sequence with pillar box - does that make sense? I just don't want to lose resolution.

Thanks for your help,

Dave

[#5]

720x486 w 0.9091 ... I  think that's basic 16:9 ratio, if I recall correctly, so dropping it on an FHD 1080 sequence should give the proper aspect ratio. There is a bit of an issue with upsizing the image of course, but that's going to happen with that older frame-size image.

Neil

[#6]

Thanks again, Neil - its tough cos I'm not using a calibrated monitor - will do an up res test to see how it looks. I'm expecting most folks to be watching online but we will see...

[#7]

Usually you match source stuff  (what you shot ) with what you edit.

You might have other ideas and there's a link somewhere where you can make requests to the progammers and colorists who make these programs your dream land.

[#8]

102% on a 720 X 486 may not make a noticable difference.

And if it does, Neat Video does a good job to help SD media:

https://www.neatvideo.com/

[#9]

Thanks! I was hoping that the quality wouldn't take too much of a hit at that size. - I'll also check out the neatvideo.

[#10]

I am not sure of the quality but I imagine it is better than VHS. If so you can try different scaling methods as seen in the video below at 6:30. If it is for a client ask them which method they prefer.

[#11]

Thanks, Andy!

[#12]

You are welcome.