|
fact,
Yes, it is anamoprphic. Anamorphic basically means that various shaped non-square pixels are used such that you achieve the full resolution regardless of the aspect ratio. You shot HDV, which is a native widescreen format (1440x1080 with a PAR of 1.333). (PAR=pixel aspect ratio). You then converted it to SD… now you said NTSC, did you mean that ? Assuming you did – you created a DVD which is the full NTSC resolution (720x480), with the NTSC Widescreen PAR of 1.2121. You’ve lost about 75% of the original HDV resolution of course, but you are getting full NTSC resolution.
The questions I have are:
1) Why NTSC?
2) What makes them think it is non-anamorphic?
Note that NTSC is lower resolution than PAL – so by going to NTSC you are losing about 17% of the resolution compared to PAL. Also, converting is not easy… as well as the lower resolution Vegas has to deal with converting the frame rate. This will all impact the quality.
So you have a double-whammy – NTSC isn’t a good as PAL, and the conversion itself makes it worse. It could be that this quality hit is what is making your audience think it must be non-anamorphic.
Now if NTSC was a typo and you meant PAL, then the question is still what makes them think it is non-anamorphic, and is there something in your workflow that impacted the quality? Here one thing to check is that when you render out to MPEG2 for DVD that you set the “video rendering quality” to “best”. This is independent of the bitrate used; it has to do with the altogithm used to rescale the video. If you are not changing the resolution (e.g. converting DV to DVD) then “good” is fine; but here as you are downscaling you need to set this to “best” for the best quality. (Even if you must create NTSC for some reason, you want to use this “best” setting).
|