i reported this but just curious if its just me. .
I’m not sure that there’s anything to report…
Yeah, a case can be made that the software should be capable of any configuration, but if you step back a bit there’s probably a reason why this particular configuration isn’t a direct option.
If you consider how a professional team would use software like this, they are generally working on a particular project. And each scene is generally used for that particular project. And the product of that project is typically defined by someone other than the guy operating the software. The client needs a certain format for a TV spot, or the producer wants a certain format for digital projection, or whatever.
So from the perspective of the guy pushing software buttons, he generally doesn’t want to be able to screw up his output settings. Can you imagine rendering a scene over a couple of days, then finding out you had the wrong aspect ratio for one of the cameras?
Yes, I know that this particular software isn’t generally used by professional teams, but the concept is the same. The scene is generally used for a particular “project”, and you generally don’t want to mix aspect ratios for that project. And in the real world, when you have a set (such as a TV shoot with multiple cameras) they all have identical aspect ratios, and you can switch between them for the final output. The concept here is the same. Each camera is just a different view of the scene, and generally you don’t want them to have different outputs.
So I’m curious, why do you want different aspect ratios for the different cameras?