conforming 720x480 for HD timeline

Question

Bleakley Author

Level 1

4 points

conforming 720x480 for HD timeline

Hi,

I want to use 720x480 footage in a 1920x1080 hd timeline.

My original 480 footage was shot on a Sony TRV900, 720x480, interlaced,29.97, DV/DVC-Pro, non-square pixels, etc.

The timeline I want to edit into will be 1920x10880, progresive, 23.98, Apple ProRes 422, square pixels, etc.

Now I need my sd footage to be fully windowboxed and keep the 4:3 aspect ratio. But, I need it to be bigger than 720x480. But, not all the way up to 1440x1080, which would give me pillarboxes.

So, should I use Compressor to convert all the footage to 1440x1080 and then just scale it down in FCP with the motion tab to a size I like, or should I choose the size I want (say 1280x960, which I know is some weird frame size) and convert to that in Compressor?

Thanks,

Bleakley

Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.4), 2x3 GHz DC Intel Xeon | 8 GB ram

Posted on Oct 8, 2013 12:00 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Oct 8, 2013 12:08 PM in response to Bleakley

Use compressor to scale it to 1920x1080 pillarboxed with frame controls on with resize and retiming and deinterlace options all set to the best quality. Post back if you need help with this. The results will be much better than scaling in fcp. For even better quality, go to a facility and have it uprezed with a hardware device like the terranex.

Reply

Answer 2

Shane Ross

Level 8

43,110 points

Oct 8, 2013 12:22 PM in response to Bleakley

What do you want to see? How big do you want it? Look at these examples...

What are you looking to accomplish?

Reply

Answer 3

Bleakley Author

Level 1

4 points

Oct 8, 2013 12:24 PM in response to Michael Grenadier

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the quick reply.

Why would I want to go all the way to 1920x1080? When I've done this process before and wanted to keep the 4:3 aspect ratio I'd go to 1440x1080. This time I know that will be too big of a frame size for me since I want the image to be windowboxes with black on all sides. So would scaling down in FCP (I know scaling up is always crap) be ok in this instance or should I pick the exact frame size I want (likely near 1280x960) and just use compressor to convert all the footage to that size?

Reply

Answer 4

Bleakley Author

Level 1

4 points

Oct 8, 2013 12:27 PM in response to Shane Ross

Hi Shane,

Thanks for the reply.

I want the windowboxing, the lower example. but I want the footage to keep the 4:3, 1.333 aspect ratio, since that was its original aspect ratio. 1280x720 gives me 16:9, 1.777.

Reply

Answer 5

Shane Ross

Level 8

43,110 points

Oct 8, 2013 12:28 PM in response to Bleakley

Then you want 960x720.

Reply

Answer 6

Bleakley Author

Level 1

4 points

Oct 8, 2013 12:46 PM in response to Shane Ross

Hi Shane,

I saw you replied to use 960x720, but I don't see that message here....

Anyway. I'm worried 960x720 may still be too small (this may be weird, but the aesthetic choices for the amount of black are very important to this project) and I want to know if I can go to some weird non-hd frame size, like (1280x960) which I think will be close to what I want and I could do minimal scaling in FCP from there. Or, in this case would going to 1440x1080 and downscaling in FCP be my best choice?

Thanks!

Reply

Answer 7

Oct 8, 2013 12:52 PM in response to Bleakley

the top example keeps 4:3 with the black bars on the left and right.

Reply

Answer 8

Bleakley Author

Level 1

4 points

Oct 8, 2013 12:54 PM in response to Michael Grenadier

Yep. But, it is pillarboxed and I need window box.

Reply

Answer 9

Shane Ross

Level 8

43,110 points

Oct 8, 2013 1:22 PM in response to Bleakley

Do what we do. Test. What you need to do is try something and see if it works. That's what I do when I need to see how something will look. So test and test and test and test some more We have given you two options, a large size and a smaller size. So test which one you like and see how it works. Either go big and scaled-down, or go smaller and scale up all in FCP.

Reply

Answer 10

Bleakley Author

Level 1

4 points

Oct 8, 2013 9:35 PM in response to Shane Ross

True. Thanks!

Reply