Premiere: How make a project at 704x576 resolution?

[Gameshow Host]

This is baffling me! I'm working with video clips that are 704x576 (this is a standard DVD resolution).

When I bring the clips into Premiere, it says they are 720x576, and pads them out to 720 (adding small black borders either side).

I had already created a sequence without realizing it was 720x576. I've put a lot of work into it and don't want to have to re-create that whole sequence from scratch. Is there some way I can just change the resolution?

I also need to export it as a DVD and the settings for DVD don't seem to allow 704 resolutions?

[manono]

Let's assume you'll be encoding for 16:9 because, apparently, DVDs encoded as 16:9 require 720x576.

I'm working with video clips that are 704x576 (this is a standard DVD resolution).

Standard for 4:3 DVDs, I believe. What's the big deal? You don't like those little black bars?

[DB83]

I recall that the old Ulead programs could create mpeg2 & DVD @704*576.

These clips going to DVD ?. The bars are retaining the SAR but 720*576 or 704*576 will not be displayed like that so why fret over it.

[smrpix]

You can go to Sequence/Sequence Settings... then change DV PAL to Custom and replace 720 with 704 manually. But don't do it. Premiere is handling the material correctly.

[Gameshow Host]

What's the big deal? You don't like those little black bars?

Having those black bars makes the image wider, which distorts the image, making everyone look slightly slimmer than they are. Not to mention it makes a non-widescreen video even "less widescreen".

I've also found that the video I exported with those little black bars seemed slightly blurry/soft (even at high quality 9 Mbps). That might be because the video has been shifted across 8 pixels, therefore when it's compressed, the block boundaries are now in a different place, resulting in more obvious degradation of quality.

[poisondeathray]

1) Option 1 - You can nest PP sequences . When exporting, use "match sequence settings" and the MPEG2 DVD preset in AME

(ie. take your 704x576 within 720x576 sequence - lets call it sequence 1 - and place it into sequence 2 which is a custom 704x576 25fps sequence). Sequence 2 is the one you actually send to AME

You might have to use some custom AR interpretation (interpret the AR), because PP (and most NLE's ) use ITU aspect ratios. So it partially depends on what the actual source AR was, and what PP "thinks" the AR is. Do some mini tests on a small section first before you commit fully

2) Option 2 is either to a) frameserve out with debugmdode frame server or advanced frameserver , or b) export using a temporary lossless/near lossless intermediate and use another encoder. You can specify a crop in the avs script when feeding something like hcenc . This 2nd option will work for sure but is more convoluted



EDIT: correction for #1 - don't use "match sequence settings", start with MPEG2-DVD but select "custom" that unlocks it so you can enter 704 width. But personally I would use option #2, because Adobe's MPEG2 DVD encoder is buggy and produces low quality output. Also you will be certain that it's working correctly with the proper AR if you export out and do you manipulations elsewhere. So at least you save all your edits and work

[DB83]

What's the big deal? You don't like those little black bars?

Having those black bars makes the image wider, which distorts the image, making everyone look slightly slimmer than they are. Not to mention it makes a non-widescreen video even "less widescreen".

.

That statement, in my eyes, does not make sense. There really should be no aspect difference for 704*576, padded out to 720*576. That is if the AR of the original clips is set correctly. If the image as you view it looks wrong then that is what you should check. Both should finally display as 768*576.

Of course the display in your nle could suggest distortion but that is not what you finally get.

Have you actually exported any clips for the dvd ?

[hello_hello]

There was another thread recently where this was discussed and someone said they always use 704x576 or 704x480 for 16:9 DVDs (no padding for a 720 width), although the consensus seems to be it's not a legal DVD resolution for 16:9 (only 4:3).

On the upside it appears most (or all) DVD players don't care and will play it anyway, and apparently it should always display correctly.
Software players generally always resize to exactly 16:9 or 4:3 for 720x576, so 704x576 with black bars each side for a total width of 720 will be a bit squished, and because the HDMI spec says 720x576 is exactly 16:9 (or 4:3) the same squishiness will probably apply. Apparently DVD players tend to be a bit schizophrenic in their attempts to be complaint. Bluray players may be the same.

I rarely encode video for DVD these days but if I did I'd probably go with 720x576=16:9 (most pressed 16:9 DVDs seem to), or 704x576=16:9 without padding if your authoring software doesn't force you to use 720x576. Not that I've tested playback of 704x576 16:9 DVDs myself. In my experienced most (virtually all) pressed 4:3 DVDs tend to be ITU, or 704x576=4:3 with padding for a width of 720, but I suspect that just means 4:3 DVDs tend to be old and not that they'd necessarily display correctly on modern TVs. In fact I'm curious now, so I'll test it later.

I've also found that the video I exported with those little black bars seemed slightly blurry/soft (even at high quality 9 Mbps). That might be because the video has been shifted across 8 pixels, therefore when it's compressed, the block boundaries are now in a different place, resulting in more obvious degradation of quality.

I've read similar comments, even when referring to encoding Bluray video with the x264 encoder. And I kind of remember testing it a long time ago myself and deciding encoding with black bars definitely has a potential to blur the edges. Mind you when viewing DVDs you're not supposed to be able to see those edges.

[Gameshow Host]

hello_hello,

Thanks for the interesting comments.

poisondeathray,

Thank you, that is very useful indeed. And interesting to know that Adobe's MPEG2 DVD encoder is buggy. This seems kind of crazy for industry standard software! As does the mandatory 'source scaling' option I have just noticed. Scaling videos destroys quality, so why scaling is mandatory in a professional-standard NLE is baffling.

There really should be no aspect difference for 704*576, padded out to 720*576.

There won't be any aspect difference, the video will always be 4:3, hence if you pad the image it will be distorted.

Let me give you an example to clarify. Let's say you took a 720x576 image and padded it with 360 pixels either side, meaning you have now doubled the resolution. So when you watch this on TV, half the TV screen is black bars and the original image is now only half the width it used to be. In order for it to be half its width, but the same height, this means that it has been distorted.

Or you can just look at 704 video padded to 720 and see with your eyes that it is very clearly distorted and everyone looks thinner than they should be.

[poisondeathray]

poisondeathray,

Thank you, that is very useful indeed. And interesting to know that Adobe's MPEG2 DVD encoder is buggy. This seems kind of crazy for industry standard software!

Yes, it's very buggy and the GOP makeup isn't optimal with the DVD presets. The quality is clearly lower in many situations. There are plenty of comparisons and examples around. They licence a version from Mainconcept, but it just happens the one they licensed is not one of the the higher end ones

As does the mandatory 'source scaling' option I have just noticed. Scaling videos destroys quality, so why scaling is mandatory in a professional-standard NLE is baffling.

Not sure what you mean by mandatory 'source scaling' ?

There really should be no aspect difference for 704*576, padded out to 720*576.

There won't be any aspect difference, the video will always be 4:3, hence if you pad the image it will be distorted.

Let me give you an example to clarify. Let's say you took a 720x576 image and padded it with 360 pixels either side, meaning you have now doubled the resolution. So when you watch this on TV, half the TV screen is black bars and the original image is now only half the width it used to be. In order for it to be half its width, but the same height, this means that it has been distorted.

Or you can just look at 704 video padded to 720 and see with your eyes that it is very clearly distorted and everyone looks thinner than they should be.

This isn't always true - it depends on how the receiving hardware or software interprets the AR. The short version is there are different rules for AR interpretation, basically ITU and non-ITU . Moreover, there is a display sequence extension that defines which part of the image is supposed to be scaled. So for the 704 with 8+8 case, the inner 704 can be considered (ignoring the padding), so you would get exactly the same thing , at least in theory. But the problem is some software and hardware might treat it different - thus inconsistencies. For the PAL 4:3 case, the PAR is either 12:11 or 16:15 depending on which set rules you go by. AR is a big topic and there are threads literally 100's of pages long discussing it. And that's the thing - most DVD hardware players actually use non ITU rules, but Adobe uses ITU rules (the inner 704 width, rounded from actually 702)

But I agree with you, in that it's usually better to keep things the same as the source if possible, unless the source was buggered up in the first place (circles look like ovals under 1 set of AR rules) . But most people don't care about the slight AR differences

[manono]

Or you can just look at 704 video padded to 720 and see with your eyes that it is very clearly distorted and everyone looks thinner than they should be.

I don't believe that for a second. 704x576 will look exactly the same as 720x576 with 16 pixels of pillarbars. If it doesn't then there's something wrong with the player. Maybe because you used a non-compliant resolution (704x576). Or maybe because the video is supposed to be 720x576 without any black bars. If you're getting this from Adobe then, well, I trust their products about as far as I can throw them.

I've also found that the video I exported with those little black bars seemed slightly blurry/soft (even at high quality 9 Mbps). That might be because the video has been shifted across 8 pixels, therefore when it's compressed, the block boundaries are now in a different place,

You are seeing what you want to see. MPEG-2 encodes in 8x8 blocks. The block boundaries remain at exactly the same places.

[SameSelf]

And interesting to know that Adobe's MPEG2 DVD encoder is buggy. This seems kind of crazy for industry standard software!

I think calling Adobe "industry standard software" is a stretch. While After Effects, Photoshop, and Illustrator are serious tools, there is nothing special about Premiere Pro or the DAW except maybe the Dynamic Link feature. The boys and gals in Hollywood authoring DVDs and Blurays use software that costs thousands upon thousands of dollars (and often special hardware as well to function). It is well known that the version of MainConcept's encoder that is bundled into AME/PP is a lite version for users who don't really pay attention to encoding quality (good enough for wedding photographers, I guess). Compare this to MC's full featured encoder which starts at $450. But you might ask yourself, what is the point of spending $450 or more on just an encoder when there are free MPEG-2 and H.264 encoders that are arguably as good or better?

Poisondeathray has outlined two great workflows for getting your timelines out of PP into a DVD compliant format.

Personally, I prefer Option 2 where he rec's either Debugmode Framserver or a lossless intermediate. I use lossless intermediates when I need to encode as 2-pass VBR for DVD/Bluray. If I am delivering to the web, I frameserve out of PP as 1-pass CBR. But, as he mentioned, Option 2 is more convoluted: requires fluency with Avisynth and the use of outboard encoders. However, despite all that, I stopped using the built in MainConcept encoder a while ago and have never looked back.

Now with all that said, what is your authoring program? If Encore, to my knowledge, it treats 704 pixels wide as non-DVD compliant. It will trigger the transcode flag. You will need to encode as 720 to get Encore to accept the footage. That is why PP adds blackborders if you choose MPEG2 DVD. As a rule, I always encode my footage to ensure the authoring program (Encore, DVD Architect) does not trigger the transcode flag. It can be a frustrating process figuring this stuff out.

[usually_quiet]

Or you can just look at 704 video padded to 720 and see with your eyes that it is very clearly distorted and everyone looks thinner than they should be.

I don't believe that for a second. 704x576 will look exactly the same as 720x576 with 16 pixels of pillarbars. If it doesn't then there's something wrong with the player. Maybe because you used a non-compliant resolution (704x576). Or maybe because the video is supposed to be 720x576 without any black bars.

I agree that 704x576 and 720x576 DVD-compliant video should both look the same when using 16:9 aspect ratio. ...but 16:9 aspect ratio is supposed to be allowed for both 704x576 and 720x576. At least that is what I recall from a discussion that I had with Cornucopia. (He is one of our pro members, for those who are unfamiliar with the name.) According to him, the information in "What Is DVD?" here at VideoHelp is incomplete, and the actual DVD-Video specification permits 16:9 aspect ratio to be used with 704x480 and 704x576 as well as 720x480 and 720x576.

704x480 DVD video does seem to work OK with my players when using a 16:9 display aspect ratio. I have an older Panasonic DVD recorder that records 704x480 rather than 720x480. After the US digital TV transition, I used a digital to analog converter box set to output anamorphic widescreen with the Panasonic DVD recorder to record 16:9 OTA TV. Since the video is already DVD compliant MPEG-2, I didn't need to re-encode the video. I just patched the video headers to 16:9 display aspect ratio before authoring, then authored 16:9 DVDs, and they played correctly. However, I don't use Premiere Pro for authoring.

[SameSelf]

I agree that 704x576 and 720x576 DVD-compliant video should both look the same when using 16:9 aspect ratio.

From my testing of PP and Encore, it doesn't treat 704 pixels wide as DVD compliant. DVD Architect has the ability to choose either 704 or 720. But Encore will re-encode as 720 if you import a 704 media file which is far worse than whether the aspect ratio is wrong. I have never tried to author a DVD straight from PP, but my guess is the behavior isn't any different.

[jagabo]

Or you can just look at 704 video padded to 720 and see with your eyes that it is very clearly distorted and everyone looks thinner than they should be.

I don't believe that for a second. 704x576 will look exactly the same as 720x576 with 16 pixels of pillarbars. If it doesn't then there's something wrong with the player.

They will not look the same at the player's HDMI outputs. The black borders of the padded 720 pixel wide frame will be visible at the sides of the 16:9 TV screen (if the TV doesn't overscan). The 704 pixel wide picture will fill the 16:9 TV screen. The DVD/MPEG2 spec is clear: the full frame comprises the DAR, not a 704 pixel portion as in the ITU spec. Every DVD/Blu-ray player I've checked (granted only about a dozen) does this.

[usually_quiet]

Or you can just look at 704 video padded to 720 and see with your eyes that it is very clearly distorted and everyone looks thinner than they should be.

I don't believe that for a second. 704x576 will look exactly the same as 720x576 with 16 pixels of pillarbars. If it doesn't then there's something wrong with the player.

They will not look the same at the player's HDMI outputs. The black borders of the padded 720 pixel wide frame will be visible at the sides of the 16:9 TV screen (if the TV doesn't overscan). The 704 pixel wide picture will fill the 16:9 TV screen. The DVD/MPEG2 spec is clear: the full frame comprises the DAR, not a 704 pixel portion as in the ITU spec. Every DVD/Blu-ray player I've checked (granted only about a dozen) does this.

Yes. If 8 pixel wide black bars are added to the left and right sides of 704x576 video to create 720x576 video, the bars will be visible if the TV does not overscan.

I agree that 704x576 and 720x576 DVD-compliant video should both look the same when using 16:9 aspect ratio.

To be clear about what I was describing above, it is what I see when when no padding is used so the the video is left in its original resolution. In that case, when the video is expanded to display with 16:9 aspect ratio, 704x480 and 720x480 look the same.

[Skiller]

704x576 will look exactly the same as 720x576 with 16 pixels of pillarbars.

They will not look the same at the player's HDMI outputs.

Not that I have tested it, but I reckon they do look the same if the HDMI output is set to a non-HD variant such as 576i/p or 480i/p, where the player outputs a frame size of 720x576 or 720x480 via HDMI and likely (?) won't resize a 704 source video to 720 but rather pad it.

[manono]

Or you can just look at 704 video padded to 720 and see with your eyes that it is very clearly distorted and everyone looks thinner than they should be.

I don't believe that for a second. 704x576 will look exactly the same as 720x576 with 16 pixels of pillarbars. If it doesn't then there's something wrong with the player.

They will not look the same at the player's HDMI outputs.

Okay, fine, and I stand corrected. Thanks for that. If it's correct. The reason I qualify that is, haven't you mentioned before that you turn off overscan in your television? Or am I misremembering something? Anyway, the DVD Demystified guy supports my original statement (I think):

720-pixel and 704-pixel sizes have the same aspect ratio because the first includes overscan.

http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.5
I think he's saying 16:9 704 and 16:9 720 minus the padding get stretched to the full width of the television. He also seems to say 704 is perfectly fine for 16:9 DVD, making the statement here on videohelp.com (to which I linked earlier) incorrect (as mentioned earlier by both usually_quiet and hello_hello):

      720x480   720x576
      704x480   704x576   352x480   352x576
4:3     0.909     1.091     1.818     2.182
16:9    1.212     1.455     2.424     2.909 (same link as above) 

If true (and the DVD Demystified guy knows his stuff), it's just another example of Adobe not recognizing DVD-compliant material. As far as I know, this supposed difference in appearance between 720 with padding and 704 wasn't demonstrated on a television where 720 with padding might make people look thinner (in jagabo's tests?), but within Adobe. And earlier pdr said Adobe uses ITU resizing which should make both (704 and 720 with padding) look the same:

... most DVD hardware players actually use non ITU rules, but Adobe uses ITU rules (the inner 704 width, rounded from actually 702)

And following the DVD Demystified guy's statements, once encoded with the padding, it should look 'normal' (no skinny people) when viewed on television.

[Gameshow Host]

I am new to authoring DVDs and I was (naively) assuming all DVD players play everything 4:3 regardless of the resolution. poisondeathray has corrected me on that, since apparently some hardware can be 'told' to ignore padding. I didn't know about this because I have not encountered any settings for this. I use DVDStyler and it merely asks me to specify the resolution. I haven't seen any settings to tell it about padding.

This is my first DVD and I'm not looking to over-complicate things and I want to get it finished and burned asap. I don't want to get too technical here, I just simply don't want padding and I don't want any risk of a distorted image because image distortion really bugs me.

In any case, I have solved my problem now: I simply changed the sequence to 704 in the sequence settings! I had read somewhere that this was impossible, but it seems that with CC you can change the resolution of a sequence.

As for the problem I had with video being exported blurry, I solved that in the export settings by changing 'source scaling' from 'stretch to fit' to 'stretch to fill'. When I do that, the image becomes crystal clear, you can see the difference right there in the preview. It doesn't quite make sense why this works as scaling should make no difference (the source resolution matches the output resolution so no scaling should be possible). But it works, so I'm just going to go with it.

Interlacing
Well I now have a new issue to ask about, and I don't want to spam the board with a new thread so I will simply ask your advice here…

The project I've made uses interlaced source videos, and I am keeping the final project interlaced (de-interlaced video is too low definition for my tastes). Well I think the interlacing has worked properly, but the thing is I have no way to check: when I view the movie in my media player of choice (Daum PotPlayer), I can only advance a frame at a time, rather than a field. So all I can see is two fields at once, and have no way to verify that they will animate smoothly and in the correct order.

Basically I am asking, is there any software I can use to inspect a movie field-by-field rather than frame-by-frame? So I know that the fields are in the right order. I know that fields can go wrong if you get the wrong choice of UFF or LFF and I have no way of knowing what field order the source videos were.

Edit: I have just looked at a sequence of grabbed frames in Photoshop and by creating a scanline effect I can see the fields individually. And it does appear that the two fields are in reverse order! So now I am wondering not only about how to check this, but how to remedy it and make sure I've got it right!

[jagabo]

http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.5
I think he's saying 16:9 704 and 16:9 720 minus the padding get stretched to the full width of the television.

At the upscaled HDMI output every player I looked at stretched the entire frame, 704 or 720 pixels wide, to the full width of the 16:9 TV screen (viewed with overscan simulation turned off, pixel-for-pixel mapping on a 1920x1080 screen). For 4:3 DVDs the frame, 704 or 720, is stretch to 1440x1080 pixels.

The story is different at the composite and s-video outputs. Those follow the ITU spec and match what the dvddemystified author says. When playing a 720 pixel wide image the inner 704x480 pixels (I only tested 4:3 NTSC) is the 4:3 frame. If there is image data outside the center 704 pixels it appears outside the 4:3 frame -- ie, the 720 pixel frame is slightly wider than 4:3. When playing a 704 pixel wide image the player pads the frame with black borders to 720 pixels, then outputs that with the 4:3 image in the inner 704 pixels.

I originally made all these tests 10 years ago. But I repeated a few of them again recently for another thread, using upscaling players to upscale to 1920x1080 viewed on 1920x1080 HDTVs, and an oscilloscope to view the composite signal being output by the player (since CRT displays overscan). So players are schizophrenic: they follow the ITU spec at the composite and s-video ports, the MPEG spec at the digital HDMI port.

See posts later in this thread:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/375874-Downrezzing-Advice?highlight=scope

Post #52 includes an ISO image if you want to burn a disc and test your players:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/375874-Downrezzing-Advice?p=2424224&viewfull=1#post2424224

[SameSelf]

Thanks, jagabo. That thread should be a sticky. A ton of good information in there.

You have to figure out a workflow that works for you. This is what I learned from that experience. It came down to two things:

1. What does the authoring program accept? If the authoring package accepts 704 pixels wide as DVD compliant then, sure, give 704 all the love you want. DVD Architect accepts both 704 and 720, but I really see no point in choosing 704, a holdover from the analog broadcast days. If the authoring package considers 704 pixels wide non-DVD compliant and will transcode, you are stuck. You have no choice but to encode as 720 pixels wide. At this point it is up to you whether you want to add black borders or stretch the video. As for which one to do, refer to the next rule.

2. Does the display show the black borders? No way of knowing for sure without a test. Here is what my set up through a modern DVD/BD player, HDMI, and modern HDTV does: it displays the black borders. Ugh! So, going forward, if my authoring package forces me to encode as 720, I will be stretching the video because that is far more aesthetically pleasing than ugly black borders. This is of particular importance when downrezing HD content for DVD.

Optional Rule 3: So your dinosaur player and TV don't display the black bars/overscan area. Now your stressing about the edges of your image getting cropped. Your coming here for advice. You get confused and don't know what to do. Here is a tip. Embrace 720. One of these days the dinosaur player and TV will go to the dump, and it will be like a gift of 16 pixels that you never knew you had.

Happy encoding

[hello_hello]

And earlier pdr said Adobe uses ITU resizing which should make both (704 and 720 with padding) look the same:

... most DVD hardware players actually use non ITU rules, but Adobe uses ITU rules (the inner 704 width, rounded from actually 702)

And following the DVD Demystified guy's statements, once encoded with the padding, it should look 'normal' (no skinny people) when viewed on television.

I tried a quick test with a 4:3 DVD and a Bluray player yesterday. The TV is fixed at 1080p so I assume the Bluray player is upscaling. I also encoded a small section of the DVD using 768x576 worth of square pixels and also 786x576 worth of square pixels. The PC's also connected to the TV at 1080p so it's easy to pause the DVD and MPC-HC at the same place and switch TV inputs.
The Bluray player was definitely up-scaling the 4:3 720x576 DVD to exactly 4:3. Overscanning was disabled. I'm pretty sure it still upscaled to exactly 4:3 with over-scanning enabled but it was a bit harder to compare as I can't enable it for the PC when it's connected via VGA. I'll have to find that spare HDMI cable..... or buy another one.

If the DVD was 704x576 I assume it'd still be upscaled to 4:3 so it'd have to be either squished or stretched in one case.

Later on I might try putting the TV in 4:3 mode and let the player output 720x576 to see how the TV resizes and upscales. I'm pretty sure it upscales 720x576 16:9 video to exactly 16:9 but I'm not sure about 4:3. I suspect it'll do the same, at least when the input is HDMI.


As a side note, a while back I encoded an "NTSC" Bluray. The movie was 1080p, but much of the extras were 16:9 720x480. So I thought I'd look to see which PAR would be required for the NTSC video to match the 1080p video, aspect ratio-wise (there were a few identical shots in each so I could compare them fairly accurately).
Assuming the 1080p picture was correct, I found it interesting the 720x480 video wasn't using mpeg4 PARs. It was very close to being exactly 16:9. I haven't compared any similar video since, but it did make me wonder if the mpeg4 PARs are being ignored by the industry. It'd probably be good if that's the case, given the HDMI spec ignores them. Or maybe the person responsible for the extras wasn't all that fussy about aspect ratio.....

For the record, they weren't exactly 16:9. Something like 1.767, I think. I pretty sure I encoded them like this to match the 1080p picture aspect ratio:

crop(2, 0, -2, 0)
Spline36Resize(832,468)

[hello_hello]

Optional Rule 3: So your dinosaur player and TV don't display the black bars/overscan area. Now your stressing about the edges of your image getting cropped. Your coming here for advice. You get confused and don't know what to do. Here is a tip. Embrace 720. One of these days the dinosaur player and TV will go to the dump, and it will be like a gift of 16 pixels that you never knew you had.

As far as I know, most TVs don't let you disable overscanning when the input is standard definition. My Plasma's not too much of a dinasour but I'm fairly certain when I set the input resolution to 720x576 or 720x480 it overscans whether I want it to or not. About 5% overscan, from memory.
4:3 mode also overscans standard definition. The TV adds bars down each side and hides the edges of the video underneath.
In 4:3 mode when the input is 1080p..... I don't think it overscans. Or maybe it lets you disable it, I'd need to check. There's different rules for different inputs and resolutions and I'm easily confused.....