Skip navigation
fungerar_inte
Currently Being Moderated

Media Encoder, huge pixel aspect ration bug! :(

May 7, 2009 4:50 PM

I just reported a nasty bug that makes Adobe MEdia Encoder totally useless. It cannot even read the pixel aspect ratio of a ProRes file. It really sucks bigtime.

 

If I import a PAL ProRes file (obviously with non-square pixels), AME THINKS that the file has square pixels. It wants to add black bars on both sides of the footage, or it wants to make me crop the top and bottom of the image. That is all the options this program gives, there is no option for overriding the pixel aspect ratio of the original file.

 

I know the file is definetly not with square pixels. Premiere reads it correctly, Final Cut reads it correctly, my DVD Authoring program reads it correctly. AME is the only program that goes "Oh... oh... SQUARE!" Incredible. Why on earth are there no options for setting the correct pixel aspect ratio? LEt me freakin override the ****** software that cannot read the pixel aspect ratio automatically!

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 8:13 AM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    Welcome to the forums.

    If you load the clip into Premiere Pro you can override the PAR before sending it to AME.

    Details are in the PPro Help.

    You will also find links to many free tutorials in the PremiereProPedia that will quickly show you how things are done in Premiere Pro.

    Cheers
    Eddie

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 12:28 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    Just leave Final Cut and ProRes out of it.  Do it all with Adobe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 12:42 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    You have another, and I would say better, option: Avid QuickTime Codecs 2.0. You want to use the DNxHD codecs included in the package. DNxHD and ProRes are pretty similar, with the former being generally regarded as having a higher level of quality. What's nice about the Avid codecs, as well, is that they can be used for both read AND write on Macs AND PCs--the same cannot be said for ProRes, which limits PCs to playback only.

     

    And you can always go uncompressed, if needed--though the file sizes can be a bit unwieldly.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 12:53 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    Well I would if Adobe had a codec as good as ProRes

     

    Adobe doesn't need a codec as good as ProRes because Adobe edits everything natively.  There's no need to use such a codec.  You ingest the media directly, edit that, send it to AE without rendering, bring back to Premiere without rendering, and even send it off to Encore without rendering, keeping everything native, using only the original media for final transcoding.  You just can't get any higher quality that that.

     

    So there's yet another reason to go all Adobe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 12:59 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte
    and not uncompressed

     

    Well, if you're going to intentionally hobble yourself...

     

    Without that self-imposed restriction, cards like those from AJA and BlackMagic are typical solutions for your scenario.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 4:04 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    You just DON'T get it do ya pal. The reason FCP uses prorezz is because it can't edit the footage that was shot right out of the camera. Adobe can...so can Edius there are plenty of good codecs out there (there's a few great free avid codecs that are 10 bit and are aroubd the same size as pro-rezz)

     

     

    Why not just edit with whatever codec the camera shot instead of wasting time going to another codec anyway.

     

    The whole point of CS4 is being able to edit the footage your camera shot without having to makwe new files and lose a generation. Why is that so hard to understand for FCP people?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 4:51 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte
    Apparently you guys have no idea what you are talking about regarding codecs, why on earth have you made this into a pissing contest?

     

    C'est le ton qui fait la musique...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 4:56 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

     

    What kind of camera shoots shoots footage so compressed you can't edit it BTW? Do might let us know the codec, resolution and PAR of the footage you have to transpose?

    Here it is, avids verson of Prores and it's even free. Works just as good if you have to have an intermediate.
    BTW I'm not being a smartass when I say that Premiere is made and advertised to edit the media natively. It is an advantage to not have to make new files just to edit.


                                   

    Avid DNxHD is a revolutionary HD codec  technology engineered to create mastering-quality  HD media at dramatically reduced file sizes, shattering the barriers to  real-time HD productivity, whether using local storage or in real-time  collaborative workflows.

    Native HD camera compression formats are efficient, but simply aren’t engineered to maintain quality during complex post production effects processing. Uncompressed HD delivers superior image quality, but data rates and file sizes can stop a workflow dead in its tracks. Avid DNxHD delivers both efficiency and quality without compromises.

    “DNxHD allows you to do things you couldn’t otherwise afford  to do”
                       - Joe Beirne, Executive Vice President of Technology, PostWorks

    Key benefits

    • Optimal mastering picture quality
    • Minimal degradation over  multiple generations
    • Reduced storage  requirements
    • Enables real-time HD sharing  and collaboration
    • Improved multi-stream performance

    Details

     

    * Support for selected DNxHD resolutions

            
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 5:02 PM   in reply to joshtownsend

    Tell us what codec, resoltion and PAR (pixel aspect ratio) your footage is. Tell us your Sequence settings. Then tell us what your export codec, resolution and PAR are.

     

    If you can tell us all that we can stop bickering and fix your problem alright?

     

    There are no known PAR bugs in AME so it's just a wrong setting most likey.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 5:49 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/AfterEffects/9.0/WS3878526689cb91655866c1103906c6dea-7f3aa.html

     

    Adobe did change the PAR values for CS4. Read the above. DO you think that might be it? Can you explain what's wrong with the pic, is it stretched horizontal or vertical. Your files are fullscreen right?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 7:39 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    Wearing my Moderator hat:

     

    I think a lot of the frustration and anger expressed in this thread is due to a simple misunderstanding.  I suspect that the OP is mistaking Avid DNxHD for some flavor of AVCHD.  The two are not related at all.

     

    It seems that things have calmed down - kudos to the involved parties.

     

    Wearing my Community Expert hat:

     

    How thick are the black bars on the sides?  If they are thin, then I think the different PAR calculations between apps is the problem.  I don't use FCP, but I suspect it creates PAL 4:3 (non-square) with a 1.066 PAR and Adobe now uses a PAR of 1.094.

     

    If the black bars are thick, then there is a mismatch in settings and interpretations.  I did some Googling, and it seems that both FCP and Quicktime Pro have several settings that seem to be similar or that have logical names, but are not, in fact, the correct settings.  In that case, I recommend that you retrace your steps through all the FCP and ProRes capture and export settings, just to be sure you're getting what you expect out of FCP.  I also recommend that you go through the Video tab of the AME settings to make sure everything there is what you expect.

     

    You've said at least twice that Premiere is seeing the PAR correctly.  If you try to export from Premiere, does the AME interface from inside Pr show you the proper PAR?

     

    -Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2009 9:45 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    A card is not a solution. A card is merely a way to get the signal to the computer. Then you need a codec, be it DV, DVCProHD or ProRes.

     

    Fine.  The AJA card uses the V210 codec, which is a 10-bit 4:2:2 Uncompressed Component YCbCr format, taken directly from the SDI inputs on their card.  Premiere doesn't do Uncompressed so well on it's own, so it uses third-party cards to add that functionality.

     

    Actually I don´t like it all that much. I like the user interface of Premiere more

     

    Which is why I suggested an all Adobe workflow.  An AJA or BlackMagic card will allow that while keeping the quality you desire.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2009 5:33 AM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    fungerar_inte wrote:

     

    I don´t think there is anything wrong with the PAR of the file since Premiere, Final Cut and Compressor reads the PAR correctly. My first thought was that there is something wrong with the files, but since I cannot get any other software than AME to reproduce the incorrect PAR I believe that AME is the bad guy here.

     

    I can't get the AME to misbehave like that here.  I'm using NTSC footage and an all-Windows, all-Adobe workflow.  I only mention that so that you have a data point to reference.  Pr CS4 has had multiple issues with .mov files and Quicktime in general, so it's quite possible that PAR interpretation in the AME when using .mov files, QT, FCP and ProRes is smurfed.

     

    How would a all Adobe workflow give me a way of capturing and encoding files with ProRes quality, without going for uncompressed

    Can I capture to  DNxHD with Premiere through a uncompressed SDI connection? I didn´t think that was possible.

    Only if your current setup allows you to capture with Premiere to a codec other than uncompressed.  Apparently you can already do that with FCP.  You should test the Pr workflow before you install DNxHD.

     

    I don´t want to go uncompressed, I only have some 40TB drive space and I need a format with top quality that I can deliver on hard drive to my clients. They don´t have the arrays top play/use uncompressed HD, and I don´t have enough drive space.

    Did you say 40 Terabytes?  As in forty-thousand Gigabytes?  And you still don't have enough drive space?  Wow.

     

    -Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2009 4:56 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    Yeah I found this out too, really annoying and not fixed even in the latest updates.

     

    The way I got around this (sort-of) was in FCP begin the sequence (we're talking DV PAL 16:9 here) with a 1-frame solid colour video generator in the top layer. With opacity at 0% it just sits there BUT since it is inheretly a square pixel format, Media Encoder now seems to read the entire FCP exported sequence as square pixel format. You can check the difference in quicktime info with in the size settings now showing 720x576 (1024x576) rather than 720x576 (768x576).

     

    The final flash encode isn't completely in a perfect 16:9 aspect ratio (it has thin bars at the top) but it's very close and can be cropped by resizing the frame height and checking the output window.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 30, 2009 11:05 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    Was this ever resolved?

    I'm getting a similar weirdness with a PAL DV QT exported from FCP. Adobe Media Encoder 4.0.0.374 tells me it is 786x576. That's right. 786, not 768. Weird. So when I downrez to 4:3 ratio for web delivery, instead of a setting like 256x192, it puts it at 262x192!!! If I set it manually, it has black letterboxing. Annoying as hell from a best practice standpoint regarding the ratios.

    I never had this issue with FLV export from PAL DV QTs from FCP before Media Encoder. The old Flash 8 exporter worked. Not sure if it's QT or AME.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2009 3:00 AM   in reply to maltinghead

    Ok. I discovered that, yes, the PAR issue is because CS4 Media Encoder now correctly represents PAR on non-square pixels that most other systems still don't (eg FCP, QT).

    Also discovered flv, and presumably f4v (???), always use square pixels.

    Also discovered that the easiest thing right now, aside from Exporting via Compressor as a H264 with an extension of .f4v instead (which reads fine by Flash) and loosing a little bit of convenience (though saving on another conversion) is to set the FCP timeline to Square pixels. So I did that.

    And I also changed the codec from DV to ProRes and changed the 720x576 pixel ratio to PAL sq (and it correctly jumped to 768x576),

    BUT

    when I exported as a QT and dump in the CS4 Media Encoder, it still didn't resize correctly. Media Encoder is still incorrectly reading it as 720x576!!! wtf?

     

    So it looks like I may have to Export through compressor after all. This is getting ridiculous.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2009 7:45 AM   in reply to maltinghead

    Leave FCP out of it.  Do everything in CS4 apps.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2009 8:01 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    That's an extreme solution to small problem, esp as I prefer FCP to Prem Pro.

    I'll use Compressor and listen out for a fix.

    I'm not running Snow Leopard with Quicktime X, so perhaps that doesn't have the issue?!?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2009 8:17 AM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    But is it an Adobe bug or a "feature" where they claim it now reads PAR correctly, whereas all the other guys don't?

    It's small comfort even if that's the case, because most people have to work with the other guys.

    But it seems bizarre that if it were a tiny Adobe bug in reading Quicktime non-square pixels, they wouldn't have fixed it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2009 10:25 AM   in reply to maltinghead
    But it seems bizarre that if it were a tiny Adobe bug in reading Quicktime non-square pixels, they wouldn't have fixed it.


    I agree it is bizarre, but not on Adobe's side, on the side of Apple/Qui(R)ckTime.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2009 11:40 AM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    Rules of engagement:

     

    1. Adobe is always right
    2. In the very rare instance that Adobe messed up, rule 1. applies
    3. Other parties are always wrong
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2009 3:16 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2009 3:42 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2009 5:54 PM   in reply to fungerar_inte

    Didn't work with plain ol' PAL DV codec either.

    But I seem to have been given explanations of sorts on another thread over here...

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/2359722#2359722

     

    I can at least crop and scale it down now, but I still have no idea why Premiere would display it "correctly" and AME wouldn't, unless AME was the only app upgraded with the Truthful new PAR specs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)