Righty, I was expecting that. Thank you for getting back on this Frank.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Frank Rueter|OHUfx <fr...@ohufx.com> wrote: > If you mix different PAs you have no choice but to physically > squeeze/stretch to match. > I tend to set up Reformat nodes to bring the supplementary clips in line > with the main plate and ensure that transform concatenation is solid. > > But that's pretty much it. Technically using a 0.5 scale in your transform > is fine too. You have to do what you have to do. > > > > > On 16/02/17 5:31 AM, Sven Schönmann wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > I have the same situation like Lee has in the forum: > > https://community.foundry.com/discuss/topic/129006 > > In my case I hit the point that mighty Frank is mentioning: > > "Unless you are mixing different aspect ratios you should not have to > physically un-squeeze the footage (which would only introduce filter hits)." > > So, that's exactly my case. How should I approach the workflow when > bringing in standard square pixel footage to merge? Using a Transform with > a width of "0.5" seems awfully wrong. Is doubling the pixel width of my > anamorphic footage the correct way? Seems also not very attractive to > double the pixel count...and also some filter issues like Frank mentioned. > > Cheers > > Sven > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing listnuke-us...@support.thefoundry.co.uk, > http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >
_______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
