720x480 vs. 856x480

Brad Simmons · May 6th, 2003, 12:14 PM

Thanks Simon, you've been a tremendous help, especially with this last post. That is some sound advice on how to effectively maintain quality working between Premiere and After Effects.

I will follow that method. No need to apologize for being so explanatory, it is exactly the information I need to know. I'd rather know 'why' something is happening, instead of just 'how' to do it.

And yes, you are correct in that when I export my footage from After Effects into Premiere, using the Canopus codec, it imports easily into Premiere - no rendering needed at all.

One question about what you mentioned though...when exporting from Premiere, should I use the Canopus Codec as well? I usually choose Microsoft AVI and use the canopus codec. OR, should I use Microsoft DV AVI instead? I've always been confused about the difference between the two.

Also, I'll need this footage to be viewed letterboxed on a 4:3 monitor, so I'm assuming I can import the widescreen version into a standard 4:3 project, and then transform vertically 75%. I'll see if that works. Thanks again.

Simon Orange · May 6th, 2003, 12:45 PM

When exporting from premiere you should use the canopus codec.

To prove the point (to me and you): I think you will find that the microsoft DV codec will throw an error if you try to export a 856x480 project (just tried this in AFX and it does indeed give an 'invalid image size' type error- but premiere seems to do a resize on-the-fly - but you are still losing 136 pixels worth of image quality).

To prove the point II - the export using the correct canopus dv codec from premiere should be the fastest (compared to using microsoft DV AVI settijngs)...this should be the format that the AVI files are stored at - and therefore it is just doing a file copy..not a recalculate - (transitions and filter would still need some calculation but this should have been done on the preview). This superfast export proves (!?!) that you are just creating a clone of the files....therefore no quality loss. However you might find that both exports are so fast so that I haven't proven anything !

One final last point (I promise).....you will find that all the AVI files you are using in premiere actually exist on your hard drive somewhere. This depends on where you set your capture directory. If you gave the clips sensible names when you captured them you should easily be able to find it...you can pull this straight into AFX and work on it - export as AVI and import into premiere. This system might not work for you as the clips you are compositing might actually be an edit with transitions/filter/cuts etc....but bear it in mind - it is occasionally useful.

simon

PPS.....(broken my promise already)... some codecs (dunno if the canopus one)...will squirt the image out of the capture card during any edit using this project...this means you might be able to preview your AFX comp on your TV/cam....or you might not !!!!!! If not try out echofire www.echofire.com (might work with your canopus card - works a treat with a standard firewire card).

Brad Simmons · May 6th, 2003, 01:39 PM

thanks Simon.
I did a test based on all your advice and everything appears to be working as it should. I worked on an 856x480 comp in After Effects, exported using the canopus codec, everything worked smooth in Premiere's widescreen mode. I exported the clip from premiere and encoded it with Sorenson...now I have a nice little widescreen Quicktime file. I even created a 4:3 comp in Premiere and squished the image to make it letterboxed, which worked smoothly - though I think I will do that in After Effects instead later on. I'm thinking importing back into a standard Premiere project results in some quality loss from going from 856x480 to 720x480...but this was the recommended method at such sites as http://members.macconnect.com/users/...een/index.html
Exporting out of Premiere with the Canopus codec does seem faster than usual, so I do think your right. I'll probably do most of my basic edit in Premiere, then export the whole thing into After Effects (this will only be a 5 minute short).

The Canopus does export the image from Premiere to an NTSC monitor which is nice, but to do so in After Effects, Canopus offers a special AE plugin just for the canopus I believe, but it costs extra for the old version. I believe the newer DVStorm 2 has this included (not sure though). Funny enough, I was looking at that echofire site earlier this morning, because I think it may be cheaper than the Canopus Plugin. I'll check to see if it works with the Canopus. Thanks again.

Simon Orange · May 6th, 2003, 02:24 PM

Your right about the new storm2 card..I was looking at it a while ago and I noticed that it had an AFX preview...that led me to finding echofire...

Not sure quite what you are referring to on the widescreen site link you gave - but the 856x480 is very non-standard. Most advice that you will see is really only relevant for standard DV (ie 720x480 square or widescreen).

Before you do the final letterbox you need to think about what you want to letterbox version for.....

If it is for broadcast let the broadcaster do it ...they do a better job. The moral here is always hang on to the widescreen original version.

If it is to make a sorensen quicktime...then who cares what method you use.

If it is to lay back out on DV tape using premiere what I would do is this: I would definitley do the letterboxing in AFX (just personal preference). What I would do is make the AFX project 856x480 (again - no quality loss). Then shrink vertical to 75%. This will mean that the image will look squashed in your AFX project - who cares, you're only gonna render it straight out. Then render out using Canopus widescreen codec. Import back into Premiere with the widescreen canopus setting (ie like original project). Again image will look squashed (who cares...you're only using premiere as a hop-over in the journey back to tape)...lay out to tape. The final tape output will now not be anamorphic - it will be letterbox, with the correct aspect ratio. This is basically the same procedure (including the same project settings) as you have been using to move footage between AFX/Premiere. It seems to me that this only involves one resize in only one axis (to letterbox - unavoidable in this instance) and one re-render back to DV AVI. This is the least processing you can do.

There would be other ways to do this - maintaining the same quality as above- but it seems to me most of them probably require rescaling on 2 axis (vertical and horizontal) and this means more quality loss than rescaling on just one axis...it would also depend on the size of the non-widescreen canopus DV codecs (720x480 ???? - standard or 640x480 ???? - nonstandard but extrapolated from widescreen canopus settings????). If you set your AFX setting to the non-widescreen frame size you can pull the footage in and resize blah blah blah...this method requires a two axis resize...not as good !!!!! (I have lied a little in this - because the canopus codec does a sneaky resize when it lays this widescreen footage down to tape in the version I suggest !)

simon

Brad Simmons · May 6th, 2003, 04:15 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Orange :

If it is to lay back out on DV tape using premiere what I would do is this: I would definitley do the letterboxing in AFX (just personal preference). What I would do is make the AFX project 856x480 (again - no quality loss). Then shrink vertical to 75%. This will mean that the image will look squashed in your AFX project - who cares, you're only gonna render it straight out. Then render out using Canopus widescreen codec. Import back into Premiere with the widescreen canopus setting (ie like original project). Again image will look squashed (who cares...you're only using premiere as a hop-over in the journey back to tape)...lay out to tape. The final tape output will now not be anamorphic - it will be letterbox, with the correct aspect ratio. This is basically the same procedure (including the same project settings) as you have been using to move footage between AFX/Premiere. It seems to me that this only involves one resize in only one axis (to letterbox - unavoidable in this instance) and one re-render back to DV AVI. This is the least processing you can do.

simon -->>>

Hey Simon, good idea. I tried this and it works well. It seems to be a much better method than importing into Premiere, THEN having to resize, (thus having to render again).

One thing I noticed however is that whatever footage I reimport from After Effects to Premiere has heavy interlacing effects ( I see a lot of horizontal lines over footage in movement). I only see this when I am looking at footage in Premiere that was imported rendered in After Effects. For the original captured footage viewed within Premiere or AFX, I don't see the interlacing.

In Premiere, by right clicking on the clip, I can change the video settings so it says "Always Deinterlace". That takes care of the effect for the most part, but I'm wondering if that is what I should be doing? Do I need my footage interlaced for some reason? It appears to look fine on my NTSC monitor, as well as my preview monitor when I tell Premiere to deinterlace it. Are there any plugins that I should be using for this instead. (totally confused on that issue).

Another thing, I'm exporting the original clips out of Premiere with Lower Fields first, then exporting the rendered clips using the Canopus with the 'lower fields first' setting again. That is the right way correct? And if I shot this in frame mode, then I would select 'no fields' both in Premiere and in After Effects right? Seems obvious enough.

Sorry for all the questions, I just have one more...
Based on this thread, do you recommend shooting in 16:9 (on my fake 16:9 camera) in the future, or shooting 4:3 and cropping in post? Obviously this entire thread wouldn't be necessary for me if I decided to shoot 4:3 and crop in post, (because Canopus does capture standard 4:3 in the correct pixel aspect ratio...it only deviates from the norm for widescreen) so I'm trying to weigh in the benefits of shooting 16:9. I know this is a heated debate with lots of different opinions, I am just curious as to which method YOU think is better, and which method offers better image quality and leaves you the most options.

thanks again for your time with all this.

Simon Orange · May 6th, 2003, 06:23 PM

Ok...working backwards through the questions.....I would shoot 16:9 anamorphic in camera. I have a problem with compression (I don't like it !) and so I prefer to lose resolution on the CCD and gain the extra from the DV compression to tape, if that makes sense. Indeed I think this bears me out:

http://members.macconnect.com/users/...een/index.html

I think I listed the possible disadvantages/advantages much, much, much earlier in this thread in the answer to Boyd - indeed there is a similar thread going on right now in the GL1 forum (don't people know how to use the search function ?). I worked on the post-production of 28 days later (danny boyle movie shot on dv) and this was all done 4:3 and letterboxed later. This did give him the flexibility of reframing a little but I think 16:9 would have been better (he never asked me !!!). To confuse matters further I do seem to remember something on the BBC website that says don't shoot 16:9 in camera on the Canons - here we go:

http://www.bbctraining.co.uk/onlineC...=5173&cat=2781

click the second module and read the pdf (pay special attention to page 1 and page 4)...scary isn't it

Still, you shouldn't believe everything you read - even if it is the BBC....they have some pretty arcane practises going on over there ! (as an aside I think I'll paste that link over in the GL-1 thread...that'll put the cat amongst the pigeons).

Summary: shoot 16:9 anamorphic.

Moving on.

You mention shooting in frame mode. The general consensus seems to be that frame mode really isn't the way to go (I know people here swear by it however). Software tools can do a better job of creating progressive scan than the camera.

http://www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm#anchor129616

read points 12/13

Which leads us on to de-interlacing tools,

If you want to deinterlace try magic bullet, this does far more than deinterlacing but this review is interesting.

http://www.creativecow.net/articles/...end/mb_review/
compares with re:vison fields kit

http://www.revisionfx.com/rsfk.htm

Not sure why you are getting the problem when exporting from AFX to Premiere. As always, I would recheck your setting in AFX/premiere whatever...make sure that you have the interlace settings the same in each (an also when you render). Lower fields first is the normal setting for interlaced footage...and no fields for progressive scan (of course).

De-interlaced footage has a certain look, if that is what you are after then do it.....if not then don't deinterlace !

oh I, nearly forgot

http://www.creativecow.net/articles/...ing/index.html

hope this helps.

simon

Brad Simmons · May 6th, 2003, 06:32 PM

great, makes sense to me. Thanks for all the links and info Simon, I'll be doing some reading now. cheers.

May 6th, 2003, 12:14 PM	#31
Brad Simmons Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Washington DC Posts: 304	Thanks Simon, you've been a tremendous help, especially with this last post. That is some sound advice on how to effectively maintain quality working between Premiere and After Effects. I will follow that method. No need to apologize for being so explanatory, it is exactly the information I need to know. I'd rather know 'why' something is happening, instead of just 'how' to do it. And yes, you are correct in that when I export my footage from After Effects into Premiere, using the Canopus codec, it imports easily into Premiere - no rendering needed at all. One question about what you mentioned though...when exporting from Premiere, should I use the Canopus Codec as well? I usually choose Microsoft AVI and use the canopus codec. OR, should I use Microsoft DV AVI instead? I've always been confused about the difference between the two. Also, I'll need this footage to be viewed letterboxed on a 4:3 monitor, so I'm assuming I can import the widescreen version into a standard 4:3 project, and then transform vertically 75%. I'll see if that works. Thanks again.

May 6th, 2003, 12:45 PM	#32
Simon Orange Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: London, UK Posts: 48	When exporting from premiere you should use the canopus codec. To prove the point (to me and you): I think you will find that the microsoft DV codec will throw an error if you try to export a 856x480 project (just tried this in AFX and it does indeed give an 'invalid image size' type error- but premiere seems to do a resize on-the-fly - but you are still losing 136 pixels worth of image quality). To prove the point II - the export using the correct canopus dv codec from premiere should be the fastest (compared to using microsoft DV AVI settijngs)...this should be the format that the AVI files are stored at - and therefore it is just doing a file copy..not a recalculate - (transitions and filter would still need some calculation but this should have been done on the preview). This superfast export proves (!?!) that you are just creating a clone of the files....therefore no quality loss. However you might find that both exports are so fast so that I haven't proven anything ! One final last point (I promise).....you will find that all the AVI files you are using in premiere actually exist on your hard drive somewhere. This depends on where you set your capture directory. If you gave the clips sensible names when you captured them you should easily be able to find it...you can pull this straight into AFX and work on it - export as AVI and import into premiere. This system might not work for you as the clips you are compositing might actually be an edit with transitions/filter/cuts etc....but bear it in mind - it is occasionally useful. simon PPS.....(broken my promise already)... some codecs (dunno if the canopus one)...will squirt the image out of the capture card during any edit using this project...this means you might be able to preview your AFX comp on your TV/cam....or you might not !!!!!! If not try out echofire www.echofire.com (might work with your canopus card - works a treat with a standard firewire card).

May 6th, 2003, 01:39 PM	#33
Brad Simmons Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Washington DC Posts: 304	thanks Simon. I did a test based on all your advice and everything appears to be working as it should. I worked on an 856x480 comp in After Effects, exported using the canopus codec, everything worked smooth in Premiere's widescreen mode. I exported the clip from premiere and encoded it with Sorenson...now I have a nice little widescreen Quicktime file. I even created a 4:3 comp in Premiere and squished the image to make it letterboxed, which worked smoothly - though I think I will do that in After Effects instead later on. I'm thinking importing back into a standard Premiere project results in some quality loss from going from 856x480 to 720x480...but this was the recommended method at such sites as http://members.macconnect.com/users/...een/index.html Exporting out of Premiere with the Canopus codec does seem faster than usual, so I do think your right. I'll probably do most of my basic edit in Premiere, then export the whole thing into After Effects (this will only be a 5 minute short). The Canopus does export the image from Premiere to an NTSC monitor which is nice, but to do so in After Effects, Canopus offers a special AE plugin just for the canopus I believe, but it costs extra for the old version. I believe the newer DVStorm 2 has this included (not sure though). Funny enough, I was looking at that echofire site earlier this morning, because I think it may be cheaper than the Canopus Plugin. I'll check to see if it works with the Canopus. Thanks again.

May 6th, 2003, 02:24 PM	#34
Simon Orange Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: London, UK Posts: 48	Your right about the new storm2 card..I was looking at it a while ago and I noticed that it had an AFX preview...that led me to finding echofire... Not sure quite what you are referring to on the widescreen site link you gave - but the 856x480 is very non-standard. Most advice that you will see is really only relevant for standard DV (ie 720x480 square or widescreen). Before you do the final letterbox you need to think about what you want to letterbox version for..... If it is for broadcast let the broadcaster do it ...they do a better job. The moral here is always hang on to the widescreen original version. If it is to make a sorensen quicktime...then who cares what method you use. If it is to lay back out on DV tape using premiere what I would do is this: I would definitley do the letterboxing in AFX (just personal preference). What I would do is make the AFX project 856x480 (again - no quality loss). Then shrink vertical to 75%. This will mean that the image will look squashed in your AFX project - who cares, you're only gonna render it straight out. Then render out using Canopus widescreen codec. Import back into Premiere with the widescreen canopus setting (ie like original project). Again image will look squashed (who cares...you're only using premiere as a hop-over in the journey back to tape)...lay out to tape. The final tape output will now not be anamorphic - it will be letterbox, with the correct aspect ratio. This is basically the same procedure (including the same project settings) as you have been using to move footage between AFX/Premiere. It seems to me that this only involves one resize in only one axis (to letterbox - unavoidable in this instance) and one re-render back to DV AVI. This is the least processing you can do. There would be other ways to do this - maintaining the same quality as above- but it seems to me most of them probably require rescaling on 2 axis (vertical and horizontal) and this means more quality loss than rescaling on just one axis...it would also depend on the size of the non-widescreen canopus DV codecs (720x480 ???? - standard or 640x480 ???? - nonstandard but extrapolated from widescreen canopus settings????). If you set your AFX setting to the non-widescreen frame size you can pull the footage in and resize blah blah blah...this method requires a two axis resize...not as good !!!!! (I have lied a little in this - because the canopus codec does a sneaky resize when it lays this widescreen footage down to tape in the version I suggest !) simon

May 6th, 2003, 04:15 PM	#35
Brad Simmons Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Washington DC Posts: 304	<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Orange : If it is to lay back out on DV tape using premiere what I would do is this: I would definitley do the letterboxing in AFX (just personal preference). What I would do is make the AFX project 856x480 (again - no quality loss). Then shrink vertical to 75%. This will mean that the image will look squashed in your AFX project - who cares, you're only gonna render it straight out. Then render out using Canopus widescreen codec. Import back into Premiere with the widescreen canopus setting (ie like original project). Again image will look squashed (who cares...you're only using premiere as a hop-over in the journey back to tape)...lay out to tape. The final tape output will now not be anamorphic - it will be letterbox, with the correct aspect ratio. This is basically the same procedure (including the same project settings) as you have been using to move footage between AFX/Premiere. It seems to me that this only involves one resize in only one axis (to letterbox - unavoidable in this instance) and one re-render back to DV AVI. This is the least processing you can do. simon -->>> Hey Simon, good idea. I tried this and it works well. It seems to be a much better method than importing into Premiere, THEN having to resize, (thus having to render again). One thing I noticed however is that whatever footage I reimport from After Effects to Premiere has heavy interlacing effects ( I see a lot of horizontal lines over footage in movement). I only see this when I am looking at footage in Premiere that was imported rendered in After Effects. For the original captured footage viewed within Premiere or AFX, I don't see the interlacing. In Premiere, by right clicking on the clip, I can change the video settings so it says "Always Deinterlace". That takes care of the effect for the most part, but I'm wondering if that is what I should be doing? Do I need my footage interlaced for some reason? It appears to look fine on my NTSC monitor, as well as my preview monitor when I tell Premiere to deinterlace it. Are there any plugins that I should be using for this instead. (totally confused on that issue). Another thing, I'm exporting the original clips out of Premiere with Lower Fields first, then exporting the rendered clips using the Canopus with the 'lower fields first' setting again. That is the right way correct? And if I shot this in frame mode, then I would select 'no fields' both in Premiere and in After Effects right? Seems obvious enough. Sorry for all the questions, I just have one more... Based on this thread, do you recommend shooting in 16:9 (on my fake 16:9 camera) in the future, or shooting 4:3 and cropping in post? Obviously this entire thread wouldn't be necessary for me if I decided to shoot 4:3 and crop in post, (because Canopus does capture standard 4:3 in the correct pixel aspect ratio...it only deviates from the norm for widescreen) so I'm trying to weigh in the benefits of shooting 16:9. I know this is a heated debate with lots of different opinions, I am just curious as to which method YOU think is better, and which method offers better image quality and leaves you the most options. thanks again for your time with all this.

May 6th, 2003, 06:23 PM	#36
Simon Orange Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: London, UK Posts: 48	Ok...working backwards through the questions.....I would shoot 16:9 anamorphic in camera. I have a problem with compression (I don't like it !) and so I prefer to lose resolution on the CCD and gain the extra from the DV compression to tape, if that makes sense. Indeed I think this bears me out: http://members.macconnect.com/users/...een/index.html I think I listed the possible disadvantages/advantages much, much, much earlier in this thread in the answer to Boyd - indeed there is a similar thread going on right now in the GL1 forum (don't people know how to use the search function ?). I worked on the post-production of 28 days later (danny boyle movie shot on dv) and this was all done 4:3 and letterboxed later. This did give him the flexibility of reframing a little but I think 16:9 would have been better (he never asked me !!!). To confuse matters further I do seem to remember something on the BBC website that says don't shoot 16:9 in camera on the Canons - here we go: http://www.bbctraining.co.uk/onlineC...=5173&cat=2781 click the second module and read the pdf (pay special attention to page 1 and page 4)...scary isn't it Still, you shouldn't believe everything you read - even if it is the BBC....they have some pretty arcane practises going on over there ! (as an aside I think I'll paste that link over in the GL-1 thread...that'll put the cat amongst the pigeons). Summary: shoot 16:9 anamorphic. Moving on. You mention shooting in frame mode. The general consensus seems to be that frame mode really isn't the way to go (I know people here swear by it however). Software tools can do a better job of creating progressive scan than the camera. http://www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm#anchor129616 read points 12/13 Which leads us on to de-interlacing tools, If you want to deinterlace try magic bullet, this does far more than deinterlacing but this review is interesting. http://www.creativecow.net/articles/...end/mb_review/ compares with re:vison fields kit http://www.revisionfx.com/rsfk.htm Not sure why you are getting the problem when exporting from AFX to Premiere. As always, I would recheck your setting in AFX/premiere whatever...make sure that you have the interlace settings the same in each (an also when you render). Lower fields first is the normal setting for interlaced footage...and no fields for progressive scan (of course). De-interlaced footage has a certain look, if that is what you are after then do it.....if not then don't deinterlace ! oh I, nearly forgot http://www.creativecow.net/articles/...ing/index.html hope this helps. simon

May 6th, 2003, 06:32 PM	#37
Brad Simmons Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Washington DC Posts: 304	great, makes sense to me. Thanks for all the links and info Simon, I'll be doing some reading now. cheers.