I'm prepping a TV advert for broacast in the UK and the station require an SD 16:9 1.44 pixel ratio 720x576 (1024x576), the problem is this just doesn't seem possible in after effects or any adobe porduct I can see ?
The only thing I can do is render out a 1.46 pixel ratio 720x576 (1050x576) version.
Any help on this would be greatly apreciated !
Beyond that you are not making much sense. Pixels are pixels. 720x576 will always be just that, no matter based on which square pixel equivalent it has been created. Nothing stops you from creating a 1024x576 and then either manually fitting it or adjusting your footage interpretation rules file.
Ok let me explain, for broadcast in SD 16:9 you have to use a 720x576 comp with a pixel ratio of 1.44 in order for it to correctly display. Adobe changed the 1.44 standard to 1.46 and this isn't acceptable for submision to the stations. I've had to export to FCP and then use that to export out correctly, very anoying and costly !
Why don't you use Adobe Media encoder, uains a custom preset to get the pixel aspect ratio you seek?
Personally, I've never had any problems getting AE to make a custom comp in any pixel aspect ratio I wanted.
With broadcast sized frames the PAR is interpreted by the frame size not the PAR. Make your comp the right size for the Specifications, make it the right frame rate, and don't worry about the PAR being exactly on. Many codecs don't even support a PAR tag in the meta data. That's all it is. PAR has nothing at all to do with what's contained in the original pixels.
If you're going for broadcast and they want it compressed (more and more do) I'd use the Adobe Media Encoder to compress your final delivery. You have much more control for rendering to compressed formats. It's also highly unlikely that AE will produce the best audio for your project through the Render Cue because of the limited audio settings available.
As explained above, there really is no difference between the two square pixel PAL standards if you are delivering in anamorphic 720x576 pixels. So long as you provide your final output at 720x576, there is no real-world difference between the content of either standard.
I'm sorry but your wrong, the pixel aspect is does affect how its "interpreted" at playback and as a result one of the largest broadcast networks in the uk (ITV) won't accept footage tagged with the 1.46 ratio, its cleary stated in the white pages. An for what ever reason adobe's decision to pull 1.44 has nearly caused the company i'm working for to louse £12,000.00 in late submission and lost airtime fees. The only thing that saved my *** was Final cut pro. If you can tell me how to tag footage with the 1.44 pixel ratio in any adobe product I will gladly reduct my comment.
1.44 is actually wrong according to the specifications. The PAR for NTSC footage is also wrong. There's an article somewhere on the Adobe site that explains the decision and there's an article by Chris and Trish Meyer on the subject. Adobe changed it to be more, not less compliant. It wasn't that long ago and we were working with 640 X 480 as the standard video size for digital production. The very best workflow is to work in square pixels anyway and only squeeze the image as a final step. And as I said before, there are dozens of codecs that don't even have a spot in their container to define PAR. For some it's like trying to add PPI info to a .gif -
What codec do they require? What data rate? Where's the white paper. I'd be glad to read it. In practical terms, and for every network from the US, to France, to Japan, that I've ever submitted work to, match their request for delivery format and they never look back. They just take your money and play your stuff. Only once in more than 40 years of submitting programming to television did I have to send a network a different file or tape.
You can't be the only AE artist producing for broadcast in the UK. I've been in television since 1969 and was one of the first utilizers of desktop production in a major US market. It's about scan lines and timeing (frame size). Go to Angie Taylors's blog and ask her the question. She's one of the top AE artists and trainers in the UK.
Here's the article that Rick was referring to:
Look guys your totally missing the point of all this !
I submitted work and it WAS REFUSED by the networks becasue of the issues i've talked about, weather right or wrong their should at least be the option of exporting with both pixel ratrios. As a result I had to use none Adobe software to my greate dispare, having gladly left behind apple products and FCP many years ago I now found myself turning back to them once again.