WorkPrinter and 720 x 480 Frame Size

Post by **super8film** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:51 pm

Since most (if not all) video applications capture MiniDV Firewire video at 720 x 480, I'm curious as to how this affects capturing S8 frames with a WorkPrinter. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like prior to starting a WorkPrinter project, one would need to decide whether the video will be viewed primarily on a television or on a computer display. For example, if the shot of the WorkPrinter is set up just by viewing the camera output on a TV, the sacrifice is that when viewed on a computer, there will be unwanted frame portions on all four sides of the image. On the other hand, if the WorkPrinter shot is framed by viewing the camera output through a capture program, the tradeoff is that a portion of the frame will be lost when viewed on a TV.

Given these factors, is there a logical, easy way to work around this issue...perhaps some form of letterboxing?

Post by **mattias** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:35 pm

720x480 uses rectangular pixels, so it's really 4:3 just as the super 8 frame and square pixel 640x480 images, so there's no losing anything in either case.

/matt

Post by **mattias** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:38 pm

oh, i just realized that you're not talking about 720x480 specifically, but about the overscan area on the tv? always use the entire frame for framing and don't worry about the tv cropping. if you have a lot of action taking place near the edges, overlay a tv safe mask and make sure it's all inside it..

/matt

Post by **Dave Anderson** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:54 pm

I always figured that for the work I'm doing, I would never be sure how it would end up being used. So I opted to shoot the frames full with a bit of 'unwanted' black border. This displays the most image in my monitor. I figured that for my own projects, most of the time they will be viewed on a TV so it's nice to have as much image as possible. I figure that if I ever needed to use the footage on my PC, or other uses, I would just crop out the borders before exporting.

The idea of letterboxing to be able to show the entire image on the tv sounds interesting. I'm guessing you'd have black borders on the TV to be able to show the full image?

Dave

Post by **super8man** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:28 pm

I basically scan it to juuustttt the edge of the black fram line on any given side - top or bottom depending on my mood. Then, in Vegas, I can either place a solid black frame around the edge or zoom the entire timeline by like 110% to get the image out to the edges of the pc frame...TV always crops so I end up with the best of both worlds.

Anyway, it really all becomes moot once you own a workprinter since you can decide for yourself (and this is a wonderful thing) how you want to crop the image and where - in the original WP capture via the zoom of the camcorder, on the timeline on the computer, whatever. The cool thing is, if you really want to capture the sprocket hole with that extra information (and especially in regular 8 when there really is a whole lot of information btween the two regular 8 holes), you can.

So, until you actually see for yourself, I would say, don't worry about it - you will not be disappointed.

Cheers,
m

Post by **studiocarter** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:27 am

There would be a need for two captures, one for TV with black and sproket holes,and one for PC zoomed in to just the image. More pixels would be used for the actual image instead of lost on the black areas.

If the image between the sproket holes was present, as I have seen it on films, then I'd want it. Premiere allows one to make title overlays that would be masks for the white sproket holes. That would black them (it) out and allow one to see the extra image area. Regular 8 works best as the holes are on the frame lines.

Sometimes there was a dirty gate used during filming. It shows as a lumpy outer edge to the image. One film had a stalagtite (holds TIGHT to the cieling). What to do? Projection gates eliminate such things by design. So, crop in. Sometimes there was a ugly hair. Crop in more. Or just let them show.

No matter how you do it, there is a lot of messing about in film transferring. More than one capture is the norm for best results.

Post by **mattias** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:34 pm

regular8mm wrote:There would be a need for two captures, one for TV

surely you mean a few billion transfers then, one for every tv? or are we talking transfers where we know in advance exactly which tv set will be used?

/matt

Post by **teadub** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:41 pm

mattias wrote:
regular8mm wrote:There would be a need for two captures, one for TV
surely you mean a few billion transfers then, one for every tv? or are we talking transfers where we know in advance exactly which tv set will be used?

/matt

Matt is right. Every TV crops slightly different, depending on the set. I think it also has to do with how much plastic borders the tube as well. TV sets don't have edge to edge glass, a portion is covered.

I would imagine those with an LCD TV would experience a lot less cropping than someone with a clunky old CRT set from the 70's or 80's.

Post by **studiocarter** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:12 pm

My widescreen TV crops sideways even though there isn't anything there at all, that is, 4:3 on a widescreen. The top and bottom are flush.
The same file isn't cropped at all on a PC.

Post by **teadub** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:45 am

regular8mm wrote:My widescreen TV crops sideways even though there isn't anything there at all, that is, 4:3 on a widescreen. The top and bottom are flush.
The same file isn't cropped at all on a PC.

I meant a 4:3 LCD would crop less than a 4:3 tube TV. Because there is a higher percentage of glass exposed to viewer. (maybe like 5 %)

On your TV, maybe they want the broadcast/title safe margins to be equal all around? Even if the source material isn't widescreen.