The green line is the least of your worries.
292x219 is an awfully odd resolution for video. How was it shot and when was it cropped or resized?
And why would you want to use a lossy codec like H.264 in AE?
I agree with Dave's concerns. What is the source of this file? What processing has occurred to it before this step?
Thanks for the concern
Yes, the footage source has been compressed and was scaled down because this project file and its footage elements are to be packaged as a .zip for download, so the actual footage elements need to be compressed and light. This project file is for educational purposes (downloadable tutorial) only, so the package itself needs to be very light--that's why the spatial resolution is so small as well.
Now, back to the actual problem. . . has anybody experienced this issue with their footage of any size, type, compression, etc.?
Yes, the footage source has been compressed and was scaled down because this project file and its footage elements are to be packaged as a .zip for download... for educational purposes (downloadable tutorial) only, so the package itself needs to be very light--that's why the spatial resolution is so small as well.
If you ever saw it in full-size and full-resolution video with a real-live traceable provenance, I'd say you had reason to worry.... but this stuff? Why even sweat it?
I'm not really sweating it per se, I'm just wondering why it appears in AE CS5, but not in AE CS3. Seems like something that should be fixed in AE. I mean, yeah, all software ships with bugs, but a bug that artifacts a base footage element should be looked at. I could always throw a penny into the Adobe Bug Reporting fountain, but it won't solve the problem. I was hoping to get some guidance as to how to fix. . .
There's nothing to solve and there is not a bug. For MPEG of any kind, all dimensions must be multiples of 2. It's inherent in how the compression works. You can't have a 219 px high footage and not have it be cropped or expanded by one pixel, with all the negative sides. I would assume that the file is in fact already 220px high, the only difference being that CS3 might more correctly interpret Quicktime's display area flag, whereas in CS5 that doesn't happen. That could be seen as a "bug", but since Apple don't provide a 64bit Quicktime and Adobe had to reverse-engineer things, who do you blame? again, there is not realyl anything wrong here. In fact the same file viewed on another computer or in a different media player software might expose the same issue even wehn working from CS3. So the only real "fix" is to properly encode the file to 218px or 220px height. And fields don't belong into desktop footage. Outside AE the jagged lines will also show up no matter how AE only displays one field at a time internally. You need to deal with this properly, even if you may not want to.
Thank you very much for your incisive reply, and for the time you spent writing it. The details you provided for why it was occurring was precisely what I was looking for.