720x480 footage to 960x640 not filling up in premiere

[diddy1960]

I have some footage recorded using a Panasonic GS-120, which was captured at 720x480. I am trying to include this footage with other footage shot using a Canon T31 at 1920x1080.

When I enlarge the original footage to fit the higher screen width, of course the quality is severely lacking. After a bit of testing, I finally decided that increasing the resolution to 960x640 was acceptable, and then I could use it in a split screen type arrangement in combination with the DSLR footage reduced by 50% to make up the other 50%. Sounds ideal...

However, when I enlarge the 720x480 footage to 960x640, it does not fill half the width of the 1920x1080 screen in Premiere and I've found that I need to increase it further to 1056x704 in order to get the 50% screen coverage.

Although this is not a major problem, and the quality isn't really suffering in any major way, I'm wondering why this is the case. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it doesn't seem logical to me. Any ideas?

[poisondeathray]

In short, "square pixels" vs. "non square pixels"

720x480 is probably 4:3 footage. The square pixel equivalent is 640x480. You can think of it as when it gets played back it gets squished to 640x480 (which is 4:3 AR using square pixels. 4/3 = 640/480 x 1/1) . 720x480 using square pixels would be 1.5 AR

Similarly , 960x640 is also 1.5 AR using square pixels. To retain the 4:3 AR (so circles look like circles not stretched to ovals), the square pixels equivalent is about 854x640

The short version is there are different ways and methods to calculate AR (ITU and non ITU). Premiere doesn't use the full frame when calculating pixel aspect ratios, it bases on the inner 704 (actually 702 width) of the 720. That's why the calculations might seem a bit off . Because based on the full frame , it should take 1080x720 (960x720 is the square pixel equivalent, 960 width being exactly half of 1920)

[diddy1960]

In short, "square pixels" vs. "non square pixels"

720x480 is probably 4:3 footage. The square pixel equivalent is 640x480. You can think of it as when it gets played back it gets squished to 640x480 (which is 4:3 AR using square pixels. 4/3 = 640/480 x 1/1) . 720x480 using square pixels would be 1.5 AR

Similarly , 960x640 is also 1.5 AR using square pixels. To retain the 4:3 AR (so circles look like circles not stretched to ovals), the square pixels equivalent is about 854x640

The short version is there are different ways and methods to calculate AR (ITU and non ITU). Premiere doesn't use the full frame when calculating pixel aspect ratios, it bases on the inner 704 (actually 702 width) of the 720. That's why the calculations might seem a bit off . Because based on the full frame , it should take 1080x720 (960x720 is the square pixel equivalent, 960 width being exactly half of 1920)

Yeah, I was thinking it was something to do with the AR, I was just surprised when I edited the original footage in AE so that the composition was 960x640, and then imported it into Premiere and expected it to be half the frame width, only to find I had to go back and re-edit everything to 1056x704, which seemed an odd number. I'll have to test the 1080x720 idea and see what happens...

Thanks for the reply.

[johns0]

diddy1960-in the future please use a more descriptive subject title in your posts to allow others to search for similar topics. I will change yours this time.