First a question...
What does it look like in the Adobe Media Encoder Output tab?
ie. is it as you wish and expect?
That's the funny thing - looks fine there. It's only when I play the file in QT after it's rendered does it have that squeezed look.
If export out a 16x9 file, then import it into a 16x9 project in PPro or AE and do an interpret footage to widescreen, it looks fine while editing.
The problem is when I have to give that file to someone else to do something with. I can't give them a file with a squeezed iamge.
Open file in qt Pro player
Press Apple / "J"
Click on Video track
Click on Tab - Visual Settings
Un click Preserve Aspect Ratio
Change the vertical dimension
Math Formula to change dimension is:
Horizontal width divided by Aspect ratio (eg 1.79)= Vertical Dimension
Thanks, Craig, all that would be great but I don't have Quicktime Pro, and I'm not on a Mac...
QT Pro works on PC and its only about $35 to get it.
A very useful must have tool.
I've yet been able to get QuickTime Player to properly "unsqueeze" an anamorphic QT video. It seems that the anamorphic flag gets written into the file, but the player won't read it. Meanwhile, Media Player Classic and VLC will display the video at its proper ratio. Depending on your application and intended use of the exported QT, you might have better luck going with square pixels and calculating the proper horizontal dimensions of your video. For example, an SD-sized, 16x9 video would be 854x480, square pixels.
Have you tried my solution Colin? Works for me.
Interesting ...your figures and my math formula.
16/9 = 1.777
854/1.77 = 480.58525 (ie 854x480)
> 854/1.77 = 480.58525 (ie 854x480)
NTSC: 720 * 1.2 = 864 x 480
PAL: 720 * 1.422 = 1024 x 576
... using PPro's PARs.
NTSC and PAL "16x9" are, in fact, a little wider than 16x9. PPro's PARs are not that accurate either, but closer than your suggestion.
Whoops. Fat fingers ;) I meant to type "864x480". This is a holdover from me doing web exports in mod16. I've never been clear whether it's better to do the math with PAR or SAR--so I just go with the easily divisible numbers, and call it good.
I am certainly not going to "debate " math with you Dan cos I am a math klutz and I would lose.. :-)
But anyway I use the formula in my PAL world and as soon as the letterbox bars dissapear in the QT I know I have it sorted. The result is a widescreen QT as GOD (not Apple) intended it to be.
BTW: Thing about my DVCProHD 720p PAR is that it is 1.333 Anamorphic (as is the Project) but I am not sure this has any bearing on this at all.
When a QT is exported from AME, one sets the appropria PAR at that stage. Clicking the Output TAB shows if it is interpreted correctly. The issue then is in QT Player and the mov file needs to be reflagged as per my little process I outlined.
I generally recommend just not using Quicktime, either the file format or the player. Problem solved.
The squished 16:9 video has been an ongoing bug, particularly with PAL video. It's really annoying. The application treats the video as square pixel. That said, if you're using it to move to another edit or playback application you shouldn't have a problem because all the pixels are there, they're just not being displayed correctly.
The alternative is, if you're exporting to web output, use square pixels.
Quicktime has some particularly good codec choices for certain uses. The Quicktime player is one of the first things I install on any workstation I'm using.
Closing ones eyes to Mac/QT does not solve anything and recommending not using it is simplistic and un workable for many thousands of film makers.
Working cross platform with the "big boys" in top facilities involves a little more flexibility and effort than found with a simple DV tape based workflow.
New workflows for delivery of high end content for broadcast and serious fx processing are file based and working with creatives (usually Mac based) also challenges us in this regard.
I also have clients that request QTs so they need to be acommodated as well and if they want a QT...thats what they get and pay for.
Where's the problem? (It works fine for me and all of my colleagues)
*Admit I am one of the few in a Windows environment and the only one using Premiere but thats the point. I need QT to be able work with them. Not the other way around.
>recommending not using it is simplistic and un workable for many thousands of film makers.
Well, if Eric is one of those thousands, there are other views offered here. If he's not, my suggestion is perfectly workable.
Wow...who knew my question would get so many responses.
I've cut 14 short videos that are going to a web designer for compression to Flash to go online. The web person asked for Quicktime files, and being that I shot everything 16x9, working this all out has been part of today's fun.
They asked for 320x240 Quicktime files - so I'm not sure if they'll want a letterboxed image - which I've been able to produce. I'll find out Friday. I did adjust the image size and got a 16x9 frame out of AME in Quicktime format.
Thanks guys for all the responses. As always, you all have been a great help.
If you can't get it to work, I'm certain you (and the designer) can use something other than Quicktime.
This really isn't a solution. I am producing video to be posted on the web. People will be viewing the video using Quicktime. I have not control over what they use. It has to work in Quicktime as well as Windows Media player. Sticking your head in the sand doesn'tsolve the problem.