4:3 aspect ratio not respected in rendered files

I'm creating a short title sequence for a 4:3 project, 720 x 486 NTSC. The clips are three 4:3 PNGs. All the project settings, clip attributes, and render settings in Deliver are for 4:3 720 x 486 NTSC. Everything is a perfect 4:3 in the Edit, Color, and Deliver viewers, but looks too narrow and tall in Fusion. A previous user commented that this was a known bug that didn't matter in my case because it is only a preview window and I was only adding film grain and slight gate weave effects. Fine. Everything worked to that point. But even though the image is a perfect 4:3 in the Deliver viewer, the aspect ratio of the rendered file is something closely approximating 6:5--too tall and narrow. I've tried everything I could think of, but nothing seems to fix this. I would be very grateful for some expert advice.

720x486 NTSC doesn't use square pixels. It uses rectangular pixels that are taller and narrower than the square pixels. You should be using 720x540 or 640x480 for 4x3 square pixels.

If this is for an actual NTSC project, surprising in this day and age, than 720x486 would be fine once brought into the NTSC project.

Thanks for your reply, Mike. I'm not using square pixels. When set to square pixels the image is much too wide in the edit, fusion, color, and deliver viewers. I have the pixels set at NTSC, which gives a perfect 4:3 image in edit, color, and deliver, though the image in the fusion page is still too tall and narrow. Although the image is a perfect 4:3 in the deliver viewer, the rendered export is too tall and narrow, something close to 6:5. Nothing I do seems to remedy this.

The reason why this short sequence is a 4:3 project is because it is being added at the head of a larger project made up entirely of 720 x 486 SD transfers from 50 year old NTSC 1" tape and NTSC VHS, both of which were copied from now lost 16mm originals.

Then if this larger project specs is 720x486 NTSC, you're fine. The export image looks tall and thin because you are looking at it with the square pixels of a computer monitor. If you bring the rendered image into a 720x486 with NTSC pixels, project, It would match that footage.

However, I wonder why you'd make a 720x486 today. I'd think you'd at least convert the pixels to square in a 720x540 project. But I think most people would put it in a 720p or 1080p project and upscale the footage.

Hi again, Mike! When I switch to square pixels, the images in the edit, fusion, and deliver viewers gets wider not narrower. As it is, pixel aspect ratio is set at NTSC, which gives a perfect 4:3 image in edit, color, and deliver, though the image in the fusion viewer is still a bit too tall and narrow. But the real problem is when I render the final file and export it from deliver, it is no longer 4:3, but again too tall and narrow, something closely approximating 6:5. If the pixel aspect ratio is set to square as you suggest, not only are the images in all viewers much too wide, but the rendered and exported file is too. As far as upscaling goes, I prefer to edit the materials at their original resolution. The main project (for which this problematic title sequence was made) is 50-year-old 4:3 archival material transferred at 720 x 486. It is what it is, and isn't pretending to be anything else. Upscaling at this point can only result in bigger files and poorer resolution, though when the project is finished I may experiment with upscaling using some of the better AI software that can interpolate latent detail. My problem at this point is that I cannot render and export the short 4:3 title project and have it stay 4:3; it always comes out too tall and narrow, something approximating 6:5. Nothing I try seems to get around this. As for the images looking too tall and thin because of the computer display, as you suggest, the perfect 4:3 images on the edit, color, and deliver viewers on displayed on the very same screen and look fine.

Is your final output file 720x486? If it is, then it's fine. As you said, your archive footage is 720x486. So they all match. Divide 720x486, it's 1.48 not 1.33, which is 4x3. These pixels are rectangular, not square. When played in an app that is not taking that into account, each pixel is displayed 1 for 1 and the ratio will be off. Resolve is adjusting the view and stretching it because it understands non-square pixels and you have told it these are non-square pixels.

I promise I won't bring this up again, but one last point. Nobody is going to be watching this on a display with non-square pixels, so you should really consider stretching it out to square pixels. Otherwise, you are depending on whatever people are watching it on or converting it to, to do the scaling. Which you have no control over. At least if you do the scaling, you can approve that it's good and solid.

Thanks again for your help, Mike. Really appreciate it.

I just tried creating a 720x486 ntsc project in Resolve, and bringing in an ancient ntsc SD file I had done. The viewers in the edit and cut page were not compensating and the image was slightly stretched wide. The viewers in Fusion and Color did compensate for the nonsquare pixels and squeezed the image to be correct.

So first off, ntsc pixels are stretched width-wise on a square pixel display. But also, maybe you don't have something set up as non-square pixels. Right click on your raw footage, go to clip attributes, and set the clips pixels to NTSC. Also is your timeline in project settings set to 4:3 standard definition?

If you upload your project file, I'll take a look at it.

Hello again, Mike. I had already done what you suggested with clip attributes and timeline settings. It's very kind of you to offer to look at the project file. It's relatively small--only 19 seconds long. How do I go about sending it to you?

It's probably a pretty small file, so I think you could zip it and and just do an upload attachment here. I think.

I'm not sure what you mean. Don't know how to upload it as an attachment.

By the way, the 16:9 version (intended for use with future 16:9 projects), made with three very similar but differently configured PNGs, rendered perfectly. You can see it here:

Mike-- Does this work? I dragged the zipped file here:


/Users/danareemes/ObeliskTitle4x3copy.drp.zip

That just looks like a path on your specific computer. If you look underneath the box for typing in these reply messages, is there a tab for "upload attachment"? It may not work, but I think it should.

16x9 uses square pixels, so it doesn't run into these issues of looking different on today's monitors.

Not always. There were cameras shooting in 1440 by 1080, to be stretched to 1920.

ObeliskTitle4x3.drp.zip

(52.61 KiB) Downloaded 6 times

Hi, Mike-- Boy, am I dumb. I think I've figured it out now, thanks.

Mike--

For what it's worth, here is a link to an upload of the final render of the 4:3 version, which is not 4:3 but too tall and narrow--something like 6:5 or so. I tried viewing the file itself on several players on three different computers, always with the same result.

I can't look at the project file yet, my computer is running an output, but if you're just using still logos for this, they are most certainly square pixels. So while leaving the project settings/timeline as 720x486 with 4:3 standard definition size pixels, since that is your final output; you should set the clip attributes, where you right click on a clip, go to clip attributes, and set the ratio of the pixels, to square not NTSC. Then Resolve knows to stretch the square pixels of the still images to the non-square pixels of NTSC.

Then the final output should will look a little stretched wide if the app you're watching on doesn't know to compensate for non-square pixels, which hopefully it's tagged as. Or correct if it does.

Not always. There were cameras shooting in 1440 by 1080, to be stretched to 1920.

And film cameras using cinemascope would shoot using lenses that squeezed the image 2:1. And there's even anamorphic lenses for digital cameras today. And HDcam tape used 1440x1080 that was stretched to 1920x1080.

But how is any of that relevant? OP is using non-square pixels in the project, and delivering a final file that uses non-square pixels. That's where the confusion lies. Not stretching a non-square acquisition into square pixels. OP had no problem with the 16x9 version because it was a square pixel project.

I opened the project and the assets are 3 1500x1125 still images all labeled as being 4x3. So those are square pixels. You should right click them, go to clip attributes and change the pixel aspect ratio to square.

The problem with setting the pixels to "square" in clip attributes, is that it makes the image in the edit, color, and deliver viewers too wide, something like 6:4 instead of the desired 4:3. This was the first problem I encountered when I began the project. This was remedied by setting clip attributes pixels to NTSC. Now that you have a copy of the project file, you can try it yourself and see what I mean.

Are you sure about the color and deliver pages. I made a 1500x1125 still brought it in. The edit and cut pages are shown wide (pixel for pixel), but the color, deliver, and fusion pages compensate for the non-square pixels.

With the clip attributes set to square pixels, do an output and it should be what you want.

Hi, Mike--

Thanks for your timely reply. Took your advice and set the clip attributes to square. Now the image in the edit page viewer is much too wide, but the image in the fusion viewer finally looks right, and deliver is OK too. I rendered and exported just fine, thanks to you. Still weird about the stretched image in the edit viewer, though. At least this short project should now be able to serve its purpose integrated at the head of some 4:3 720 x 486 NTSC archival material that I'm restoring and re-editing.

Anyway, thanks so much for your help. I was an "underground" filmmaker in SF fifty years ago, and now that I've retired, I'm trying to restore some old stuff from surviving fragments before going on to new projects. I was pretty good with all that photochemical technology, but am just starting out with digital, so need all the help I can get.

Thanks once again--and here's the happy result of your sage counsel and patience:

Glad to hear it worked out. Hopefully you don't have to deal too much with your progressive film material getting a 2:3 pulldown (pullup?) into the NTSC masters. If so, unless Resolve has gotten better at dealing with it in the last few years, there are better apps at auto-judging the pulldown pattern and removing it.

DR is doing it pretty well these days if the material is unedited, i.e. has a steady pattern.

DR is doing it pretty well these days if the material is unedited, i.e. has a steady pattern.

If it is edited, breaking the pattern a lot, I found Apple's Compressor (if I remember right) the best I've found. But that was many years ago.