Jim is right. Blu-ray spec does not allow 4:3 for HD resolutions.
Following are the Encore supported Blu-ray compliant dimensions :
720 × 480 4x3 29.97 Interlaced
720 × 480 16x9 29.97 Interlaced
720 × 576 4x3 25,00 Interlaced
720 × 576 16x9 25.00 Interlaced
1280 × 720 16x9 23.976 Progressive
1280 × 720 16x9 50.00 Progressive
1280 × 720 16x9 59.94 Progressive
1440 × 1080 16x9 23.976 Progressive
1440 × 1080 16x9 25.00 Interlaced
1440 × 1080 16x9 29.97 Interlaced
1920 × 1080 16x9 29.97 Interlaced
1920 × 1080 16x9 25.00 Interlaced
1920 × 1080 16x9 23.976 Progressive
Encore has a feature called "Asset Based Transcoding" for Blu-ray. In this, if Encore gets an asset which has dimensions from any of the above listed, then Encore will create a timeline based on the asset's dimension and will transcode according to that only. It will not consider the project settings in this case.
But if the asset has any other combination of dimensions, then Encore will create a timeline based on the project's settings and will transcode the asset based on that only. Asset's properties will be ignored in this case.
Since your asset is 1440x1080 with 4:3, which is not Blu-ray compliant, so Encore will want to transcode the asset. As premiere pro does not go into the burning process, so it does not change the sequence settings there.
OK I have found a fix. I used H264Info and set the output resolution to 4:3 and the file imported as Don't transcode. This fix does not seem to have any logic to it.
There is however another problem is that both encore and premiere think the file is progressive. I don't think this is a problem as it shouldn't transcode it.
When he says "4:3", he means that it has a PAR of 4-divided-by-3, or 1.333, which is correct. And when he says 50I, he's using camera mfrs. terminology -- it's the same thing as 25 fps interlaced in your list.
So his 1440x1080i50 (4:3) file is really a 1440x1080 (1.333) 25 fps interlaced file, which is spec-legal, if I've parsed his posts correctly.
To the OP: did you try Revert to Original? It may save you the HDInfo hassle.
Please note the tool I used was h264info to fix the file.
I did try the revert to original but that did not work.
Complete name : C:\Users\trevor\bluray\stockholm\stockholm5.264
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
File size : 213 MiB
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L4.1
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 4 frames
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 30.0 Mbps
Maximum bit rate : 35.0 Mbps
Width : 1 440 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 25.000 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : MBAFF
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.772
Writing library : x264 core 125 r2200 999b753
Encoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=5 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x113 / me=umh / subme=8 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=36 / lookahead_threads=6 / sliced_threads=0 / slices=4 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=tff / bluray_compat=1 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=1 / b_adapt=2 / b_bias=0 / direct=3 / weightb=1 / open_gop=1 / weightp=0 / keyint=25 / keyint_min=1 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=25 / rc=2pass / mbtree=1 / bitrate=30000 / ratetol=1.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / vbv_maxrate=35000 / vbv_bufsize=30000 / nal_hrd=vbr / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00
Color primaries : BT.709-5, BT.1361, IEC 61966-2-4, SMPTE RP177
Transfer characteristics : BT.709-5, BT.1361
Matrix coefficients : BT.709-5, BT.1361, IEC 61966-2-4 709, SMPTE RP177
x264 declares scan type as MBAFF but mainconcept sets it to Interlaced. Mainconcept also has a scan order: Top Field First. I have not found any way to change these in the file. I notice that there is a x286Pro plugin for Premiere which seems to have fixed alot of problems in Premiere.
MBAFF support is built-in now to x264. I'm not a real expert on x264 settings, but as I understand MBAFF, even if --tff or --bff is specified in the x264 settings, if the adaptive encoder doesn't find any "gaps" that should exist between scan lines in interlaced video, then it will still encode as progressive.
Is this video from a STB? If so, it's possible the content was progressive, but encoded with MBAFF for broadcast; or encoded with MBAFF at the STB by the box's encoder. Kind of a "fake interlaced" result, maybe?
Anyway, if that's the case, then it makes sense that Pr/En see the footage as progressive.
Ok I think I have made some progress. I installed the trial version of x264pro and found that it worked correctly when the streams were reimported to premiere and encore. I compaired the compiler setting using media info and I notice that the compiler was set to bottom field first. So I tried --bff and I found that premiere interpreted it as top field first with a par 0f 4:3. Really odd!!!. Importing into encore still gave me the wrong par so I will have to dig a little deaper.
I think I have found the reason Encore or premiere get the aspect ratio wrong. In the H264 header there is a field called aspect_ratio_idc. For a sar of 4:3 this is set to 14 by x286. For other encoders which do work with adobe it is set to 255 which indicates an "Extended" sar and the next 2 byte in the stream correspond to sarx and sary. The aspect_ratio_idc of 14 was only added to x286 recently.
The only fix I see at the moment is to modify the header but I have not found any tool to do this reliably.
I was using megui but I have found id does not pass the sar option to x264.
I thought this would be appropriate to post in this thread as it is a very similar issue with just a codec difference.
Specifically, I shoot at 1440X1080i/60 with a Canon HV20. With CS4 and 5 I have always used AME to render to MPEG2 at 1440x1080i. Encore never re-encoded my footage. So while the OP used H.264, I am using MPEG2. I was going to use H.264 but I had enough room for HQ MPEG2.
So in this particular project, when in CS6, I rendered using MPEG2 in AME and then brought it into Encore CS6 at 1440x1080i. Like the OP, it immediately began transcoding. No way to stop, the file transcode option is greyed out, etc. This is even though I setup the project initially at 1440x1080. This setting must be made when you start a new Encore project...it cannot be changed.
So I tried the same footage in CS5, I setup a new project in Encore, chose 1440X1080 for my new Encore project and when I put the exact same footage into Encore CS5.1 after making the project 1440x1080, it comes up "Don't transcode" (as it should) and its properties say 1440x1080.
Now perhaps I should be transcoding my video to 1920x1080 and I know some recommend that, but I've had good results with keeping my renders at the source footage ratio and they look great on Blu-Ray players which of course changes the pixels to HD widescreen. But I don't think Encore should FORCE us to transcode since 1440x1080 is an approved ratio.
Is this a new workflow decision by Adobe or a bug?
Is there any way to just tell Encore to leave the video alone? In the asset property box there is a blu-ray transcode drop down, but before you can even get to it, it starts transcoding to 1920x1080. Which again, makes no sense since the project was indeed setup at 1440x1080. I even just double checked as I thought I was losing my mind!
For now, I am just going to use Encore CS5.1 since it doesn't care that the video and audio were rendered in CS6, it won't even know the difference. Thanks to some great advice from people on this forum, I was advised to leave CS5 on my machine. Great advice!
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
brought it into Encore CS6 at 1440x1080i. Like the OP, it immediately began transcoding.
I don't think that's what the OP said. I don't know what process in Encore would transcode without you telling it to do so. The only thing that EN does automatically (other than examining the file) is audio caching etc.
What are you seeing that tells you it is transcoding? This is immediately upon importing "as asset" or "as timeline" or what?
I imported the video clip as an asset. In the Blu-Ray column to the right of the filename, within seconds it switched to 5%.....then 6%....etc.etc. I let it run to conclusion, and sure enough the properties on the clip had changed to 1920X1080. Clearly it transcoded it.
I just finished running the same clip through Encore CS5. It stuck with "do not transcode" and definitely built the BD image without transcoding the video.
It appears to be ignoring the project resolution you choose (and cannot change) when you start a new project.
If that was set to 1920X1080, I would expect it to transcode right away.
I guess the setting I am looking for is the "do not transcode" setting/preset. In CS5 with that set it won't transcode if it is BD compliant.
After re-reading, perhaps it is not autmatically running for him, but it is forcing him to transcode when previously he wasn't. Sorry if I mixed up the issues. When it happened to me I actually remembered reading this post!
I tried two things. I setup a new encore project and imported the same clip, it sending pending for a few seconds and then began transcoding.
Then, just to be sure that it was not something strange with my clip wrapper or something, I took another clip (same resolutions, etc), brought it into encore cs6 and it did the exact same thing. It began rendering.
It may not be the project setting that is doing it but there is something with the encore/render interface that is grabbing that high def preset immediately and rendering.
And since it does not que up and just starts, you have no chance to change it.
It would be like if AME just fired up immediately before you had a chance to tell it what to do.
I would assume it is repeatable with another 1440x1080i clip.
I guess back to CS5 Encore for now.
I did see something in the Encore preferences about using AME for rendering but not sure what it did and I was having enough problems. Wonder if there would be some joy there.
Okay......sorry about that.
I am very sensitive to starting new double post threads...however I was not aware that trying to tap into another thread that has a group of people subscribed to it that may not see another thread (that perhaps they were not subscribed to) was not allowed. Unfortunately I did not see the other very detailed analysis and technical solution in that other thread until after I had posted the first time.