Get new scripts via email
Compify 720×486
A lot of people like to work at 720×540 square pixels, but need to final output D1 aspect ratio 720×486. This usually involves a tedious process of creating a 720×486 D1 Comp, adding the 720×540 Comp to it and resizing it to fit. This script automates that process with the option of adding the new D1 comps to the Render Queue. The script also allows for user definable prefix and suffix to be added the names of the new 720×486 Comps. Basically the script takes any selected Comps (they can be any size, but i imagine the more common sizes will be 720×540 and 648×486) and puts them in a newly created 720×486 D1 Comp and resizes them to fit. It then asks you if you want to add these new Comps to the Render Queue.
*** New features in AE7 now allow adding an Animation Preset to the newly created Comp. Check the link below for that new script***
Note that if no Comps are selected, it processes all the Comps in the project.
* If there is enough interest, I can create a PAL version of this script.
Credit goes to Byron Nash for writing the original Compify Script.
Download:COMPIFY-720×486
NEW AE7 ONLY script allows adding an Animation Preset:
COMPIFY-720×486_w_Preset-AE7
If you want to do the same thing with Footage items instead of Comps, use these scripts:
Footage_COMPIFY-720×486
Footage_COMPIFY-720×486_w_Preset-AE7
Footage_COMPIFY_w_Preset-AE7 (leaves footage at it’s original size)
I appreciate this is an old post, but I couldn’t help myself…
Why on earth would you mess around with using animation presets when you could just create an output module setting with a “stretch to” setting?
Or perhaps more pertinently, why work at 540 and stretch to 486 if you know your output is going to be one or the other in the first place? All you’re doing is running the risk of introducing resampling artifacts (not to mention processing overhead) into your workflow if it’s so easily avoidable.
Anywho… you’re scripts are awesome, keep up the awesome work. Enjoy the beer.
S.
Hey Steven,
Both of those are fair arguments, but here’s the reasons. Firstly, working at 540 allows you to work in square pixels when you don’t have the luxury of having a broadcast monitor attached to your workstation which is the case in 99% of all design shops i’ve ever worked in which completely outweighs the resampling that will need to happen to eventually get to 486. Resampling definitely happens but after having done this for over 12 years i’ve never had it be a problem, and depending on the content I sometimes find myself softening my final output to make it more film-like. Secondly, the reason you can’t always just do a stretch in the output module is because if you are introducing pulldown or interlacing on output, AE’s order of operations is such that it is done in before the stretching and therefore it stretches the interlacing which is definitely a problem.
-Lloyd
Hey Lloyd,
Yeah I suppose you’re right. I’m one of the blessed ones. I not only have a broadcast monitor, I’m also working in Australia (PAL instead of NTSC).
So not only do I work natively in my target res, but even if I wasn’t:
1. In PAL square pixels means 768 (or 1024) x 576, for a native 720 x 576. So the stretching is horizontal rather than vertical and hence, has no impact on fields.
2. We never ever have to deal with pull down unless its for something that comes from the states anyway.
We just run our film cameras at 25fps, or just play back 24fps at 25. Sooo much easier…
Sorry to gloat; and I’ll retract my earlier statements for NSTC users. But what I said holds for PAL people. It simply wouldn’t make sense to work that way.
-Steve.
Keep up the good work…
Yo!
Awesome work here man. I’ve got a plethora of questions! I was wondering if there was a way that I would be able to talk to you more directly.
Let’s chat! And have a great one!
Rock out!