Hi all,
I'm creating a some graphics to project on big screen LED for live concert & later the editor might use these graphics in his ntsc 16x9 29.97fps digibeta source cut so which is the best way?
1- 853x486 square pixel, progressive, 29.97fps
2- 853x486 square pixel, lower field, 29.97fps
3- 853x486 square pixel, progressive, 60fps
I'm thinking option 3 render w/ motion blur on is the best since it would produce whole frame so that the editor can freeze frame or do what ever he wants.
Re: motion graphics & frame rate by Chris Wright on Sep 8, 2008 at 6:40:36 am
his digibeta is 16:9 which is NOT square pixels, its 0.9 widescreen. and any progressive footage goes onto an interlaced digibeta anyway, so progressive isn't a big issue. 853x486 is not digibeta NTSC (720×486) or PAL (720×576) at 10-bit YUV 4:2:2 so you won't need to export to him higher than that anyway.
Re: motion graphics & frame rate by jason Nguyen on Sep 8, 2008 at 6:54:02 am
853x486 square pixel is 720x486 16x9 non square. IF the editor use it gonna be incorporated in fcp. I'll design in 853x486 just wonder the 60fps would help or just do in 29.97f.
Re: motion graphics & frame rate by Chris Wright on Sep 8, 2008 at 8:46:58 am
i didn't see the part about freeze frame, oops...As for 60 fps, it allows for better slow motion and freeze frame effects with less line twitter. There's more information, basically, but you would have to work in a 60 fps comp to keep the information or AE might interpolate each frame back into a field again.
you must mean 864x486 NTSC D1 Widescreen Square Pixel uncompressed SD; to stretch a video back to widescreen after it gets "squished" when you export it from a system that doesn't understand pixel aspect ratios.
you only need frame blending if you are doing frame rate changes, and if you did, pixel motion is way smoother than frame blending anyway.
The compositions pixels aspect ratio setting should match that of the final output format. So keep that in mind.
