No, it isn't. Please refer to the help files ( http://help.adobe.com/en_US/AfterEffects/9.0/WS3878526689cb91655866c1103906c6dea-7f3aa.ht ml ) for as to how and why it has been changed.
What the F***? Does this mean that every single non square project i did in previous AE versions will be screwed up? As soon as there are square pixel stills or Illustrator files involved I'll probably end up re-interpreting or re-adjusting all position-, anchor point- and scale values instead of just hitting render.
In more than 10 years of broadcast work not a single TV station ever complained about my projects being in a wrong pixel aspect ratio. Every other animation or comp app I've used till today uses the old aspect ratio settings how am i supposed to exchange footage and camera settings with them?
At least there should be a per project option to use legacy settings if not I'll stick to CS3.
guess us "old schoolers' can still use a custom square pixel 1024x576 preset, just i thought it was odd the stock preset had changed width
Old projects are not affected. Nothing will get distorted. Everything still works, this new PAR ratio is just more accurate and matches the formulas used by many other apps.
But what happens if I re use existing elements from older AE versions with new footage and comps (wich happens quite often for promo packages logo animations and so on)? Looks like i have to be extra careful with my interpretation settings as soon as I start using CS4 at work (gonna wait for the first bugfix anyway).
As for the other apps: mine all use the old settings and so do those of my colleagues.
>As for the other apps: mine all use the old settings and so do those
>of my colleagues.
Depends on which apps you use and how their import/ export functions behave, I guess. If you e.g. use Avid systems, they will automatically convert everything to full width regardless whether the ratio is correct or not which can have some side effects. Now arguably 26 square pixels being converted to anamorphic PAL will make about 0.03 pixels difference per full pixel and not matter much, but there are those who would argue they see "egg-heads" and to them such a technicality would matter. Anyway, it's just a matter of getting used to it more than anything else.
Chris Meyer explains why the new/improved/corrected pixel aspect ratios are better and how you can deal with the very minor ramifications in the "New Pixel Aspect Ratios" video in the After Effects CS4 New Creative Techniques series.
I've just asked the folks at Lynda.com to make that video available for free, because I think that Chris's explanation is perfect.
The bottom line, though, is that many large broadcasters and software companies have been asking for this fix for a long time. In the Help page about pixel aspect ratios, there's a link to a BBC document that explains the problem from their perspective.
Thanks Todd, for the comment on the Help page.
Nevertheless this will cause confusion in mixed resolution workflows and Adobe should mention this change more clearly since eg. many 3d applications don't use the "correct" values.
Referring to Lynda.com for giving away their tutorials or the BBC doc isn't a very open way, maybe Adobe should post a video themselves and clearing all details. It's like parents communicating to each other indirectly over their kids...
> Referring to Lynda.com for giving away their tutorials or the
> BBC doc isn't a very open way, maybe Adobe should post a video
> themselves and clearing all details.
My thought was that pointing to these other sources would show that it's not just a few Adobe folks in their ivory towers who think that this is a good idea but, rather, that there is a pretty broad consensus on the issue.
That said, I agree with your point about us needing to make sure that you have full information about this.
I have to second watching the video. I wish I had it when I was implementing the PAR change as I explained it more times than I can remember. This change wasn't taken lightly, but many of our customers (not all of course) were asking for it.
I'm glad the HD formats got rid of the Production vs. Clean Aperture issue.
HELP! PLEASE! If you make a video with a circle twisting around itself in CS4 in a comp like dvpal (PAR 1,09) and export to other system like smoke, flame, avid, final cut, the video is ok, but if you want twist de video around itself, the circle deforms like an oval or an egg. This dont occur in later after effects with PAR 1,07 because the settings match with the other systems (avid, etc) The same occur whit if you make a cicle in a still image. Make a circel in CS4 in DVPAL (1,09) and export like still image, rotate in other softare, it look like an egg. So what happen with this? This new Pixel aspect is no compatible with the other softwares!. This is bad!!!Whats the solution? Sorry my english. Diego (Argentina)
CORRECTION: If you make a video with a circle twisting around itself in CS4 in a comp like dvpal (PAR 1,09) and export to other system like smoke, flame, avid, final cut, When import, the video is ok, but if you want twist de video around itself (IN SOME OF THIS SYSTEMS) the circle deforms like an oval or an egg. This dont occur if you do the circle in previous after effects with PAR 1,07 because the settings match with the other systems (avid, etc). The same deformations occur whit if you make a circle in a still image. Make a circle in CS4 in DVPAL (1,09) and export like still image,import and rotate in other software (avid, finalcut, smoke, etc.), it look like an egg. So what happen with this? This new Pixel aspect is no compatible with the other softwares!. This is bad!!!What's the solution? Must wait for the correction in all the other softwares? I don't think so. Sorry my english. Thank's. Diego (Argentina)
A proposal: to play with a perfect circle in different aspects of pixel.
Exporting a perfect circle by rotating the new After Effects CS4 DVPAL 1,09 for example to autodesk flame.
The result is wrong! The circle is deformed.
Will be very complex sequences 3d work in the new after effecs CS4...
maybe a custom pixel aspect would be fantastic...
if any work began and ended in After Effects CS4 would have no problems, but the workflow can be different.
eg 3ds Max => After Effects => Autodesk flame (now difficult!!!)
Some systems (read: Avid) choke on importing other sizes than the old (and wrong) such as 1024x576. Please note that the pixel-aspect ratio isn't actually an information that gets baked into your renders, so you can choose that however you want.
However, don't try to out-smart AE, instead either choose a non-square comp size from the presets and render to that, or work in a sqaure comp (again from the presets) and drop that comp into a comp that is the size of the output.
Most problems come from people thinking they have to trick AE. Instead AE handles this beautifully if you just set it up correctly.
Who said video was easy? :-/
- Jonas Hummelstrand
I have tested this problem thoroughly and there is absolutely no problem mixing projects started in CS3 or earlier with CS4 providing you were properly setting up your CS3 or earlier projects.
The worse case scenario would be to create a solid in a nonsquare comp in CS3 using a nonsquare CS3 solid, use the elliptical mask tool constrained to create a perfect circle, rotate that circle about it's center, and then bring the project into CS4 and render it. It works in all cases.
Where you get into trouble is when you've either misinterpreted the footage originally or you have used the Fit command to force footage to completely fill the frame horizontally and vertically. This has always been the wrong workflow because unless the frame aspect ratio exactly matches the footage aspect ratio you'll end up with different X and Y scale values and your footage will be distorted. You should be using the fit horizontally command (Ctrl/Cmnd + Alt/Option + h instead of f) so that pixel aspect ratio is maintained.
It's also a common mistake to believe that you must fill every pixel in the frame with your images. It's just not the case. If you examine the footage from nearly every video camera ever made that's captured using nearly any system ever developed you'll find a black bar on the left and right side of the frame with no picture information.
There's more info in the live docs section of the AE4 help files. There's a subtle clue in one of the bullet items about half way down the page. It says:
To scale and center selected layers to fit the width or height of the composition frame, while preserving the aspect ratio of the layer, choose Layer > Transform > Fit To Comp Width, or Layer > Transform > Fit To Comp Height.Properly interpret your footage and keep the X and Y values equal and you will always end up with undistorted footage. A circle may look a bit like an oval on some displays if they are not properly setup, but it won't wobble if you spin it about it's center.
Sorry, i think you are not understanding the problem, maybe for my bad english and explanation, sorry, im form argentina. "Ther is no problem" with de output of after to other softwares like avid, etc., is perfect. The problem is if i wanna rotate de circle that i made in after cs4 IN OTHER SOFTWARE (no rotate in after, render out and play in other software), the circle is distorted, because the standard in others is 1,07, and in after is 1,09 (in PAL), OK? Thanks for you time and patience.
If the non-AE systems are using a PAR of 1.07 and you are creating graphics in AE with 1.09, then yes they will not match.
Two simple solutions:
Either you change the PAR in the non-AE systems to 1.09 (which is the technically correct PAR for 4:3 PAL) or use a PAR value of 1.07 in AE.
Just because the presets in AE CS4 have changed doesn't mean you have to use them, they are just presets! Create your own or enter all values manually...
- Jonas Hummelstrand
Thank yoy very much Jonas, but the PAR is not customizable in AE, image ratio yes is customizable but the pixel aspect ratio is not, Thats the reazon that im writing here and making this question. And in other softares, the PAR is not customizable, because pal 1,07 is a standard that cannot touch. Understand? so? (in 3dsmax yes, i change the PAR, but then i most go to other softwares for compositing). Thanks Jonas!
Ah, I see, you can't make your own PAR setting. Didn't realize that.
Just drop your final comp into a new comp set to square PAR and whatever your final (non-square) size is (such as 720x576 for PAL).
- Jonas Hummelstrand
Thanks Jonas you are very polite, thanks for your time and help. Im going to do that and then i tell how it works. Greetings!
Ok Jonas, work perfect!, precompose to square pixel 720x576, render, and import in eyeon fusion in a comp 720x576 PAR 1,07. The circle is ok and if i rotate is ok to. The only problem is the waste of some pixel on the borders of the width of the composition when precompose in after effects, but I find, based on what you said, that if you precompose in 788x576 square pixels, the comp fit perfectly without waste of pixels and work well to in eyeon fusion. Now, THIS IS OK WITH VIDEOS that WE MAKE INSIDE after effects cs4. If i import a video with older PAR like 1,07 PAL captured in other plataform (every day i must work with this PAR, because i work in a workflow with avid, smoke, flame) there is now way to interpretate the video in 1,07 (is not in the list), after effects interpretate like 1,09, and deforms your aspect, even interpretating like square, or even precompositing in any format. I really apreciate your help Jonas and i hope you understand the problem, even with my bad english. So... sorry but i cannot find the solution. Thankyou again!.
Everybody worries far too much about wasted pixels. The top, bottom, and sides of the frame are cut off on all video monitors, even the lcd and plasma TV's. DVD output, and even BlueRay players cut off a few pixels. Most cameras, in fact all that I've ever used in the last 12 years have blank or black pixels on the left and right edge.
The only time you need to worry about the entire frame is when you're rendering for the web or for delivery directly from a graphics adaptor to a computer monitor. That's the only place you'll be able to see those dead wasted pixels.
First of all, I cant understand why should I use this aspect ratio if
I'm doing a composition for DVD, wich wouldn't pass through a DVE so
the aspect will not be correct cause there wouldnt be 9pixel stripes,
so no stretching!
Second, I've seen this stripes lots of times in DVCAM footage but they
arent 9 pixels at letft and 9 pixels at right but they are both at the
right side! Also if I capture from TV stations I've noticed these 9
pixel stripes at the sides. What I cant understand here is why some
devices like a computer doesnt need the stripes and other like DVEs
need them. If all the people becomes using the stripes it would be
noticed by the increasing number of people using LCD or plasma screen
with the full scan option... It it doesnt seems like an evolution. I
dont see stripes at DVDs by example, or some DV cameras, so seems like
they aren't really necessary.
Hope someone can give an explanation.
All video broadcast or viewed on TV sets do NOT show the entire pixel area you see in After Effects. There are two things that determine how much of your image is actually seen:
1. The amount of "over scan" = how much the TV (yes, all TV's, even HD plasmas and LCD's) "zoom in" on the image = how much of the borders are cropped. This is known as the "safe areas."
2. "Production aperture" is the how much of the image is actually used for image data. Shoot with any kind of video camera and you'll get black bars on each side of the image. In analog video this was referred to as blanking and I think one reason for this was to have a black area (low voltage = few electrons emitted) on each end of the electron sweep so that slower cathode beam ray cannons wouldn't leave streaks. To do "legal" video you shouldn't have any image data outside the production aperture.
So what does this have to do with AE CS4 and the corrected pixel aspect-ratios (PAR)? Back in the early days of digital video someone, somewhere calculated the PAR not from the image area/production aperture, but from the entire pixel area, which we've been stuck with since then. In CS4 they are now correct and hopefully the rest of the business will follow. I would have wished Adobe would have kept the old values available (you can bring them back via editing a text file) but you can't get everything you wish for.
In short; this issue has confused many people but the fact is that is very seldom a real problem.
- Jonas Hummelstrand
I still have problems with this function.
My old projects are affected, whatever the experts say here.
Old projects are converted to 1050 aspect ratio projects, causing gaps at the side that I can't repair on massive multi-layer projects.
I need to redo old projects and the result must fit seemlessly to old renders.
I can't get it right.
Is there any quick way to set old converted projects back to 1024 aspect or prevent AE from converting at all?
There is a deadline so please hurry!
I found it: set the project on custom 1024X576 square and don't touch the footage or the layers. Instant repair.
Thanks, this will help to stop some irritation!
Thank you very much and best regards,