User

30 minutes ago, Brian Flint said:

I don't know if any of this helps , but that is what I do.

Thanks for the insight Brian.
In the end I wasn't able figure out how to remove the 'padding' as @androidlad had mention and got fed up searching around on how to do that. So in the end I exported two files.
1) Original format. 720x480 with back pillars so wide that I had a nightmare that they were following me around everywhere.
2) 720x480 with the width stretched from 100 to 110 to fill a widescreen monitor just a tad more, but not fully. This looks just fine for what it is.
Loaded both to Vimeo, I like the original best. And actually the interlaced version looks best despite the jagged combing crap.
I tried to figure out how to best deinterlace without losing quality but that became a slippery slope. The truth is that the interlaced material has a perceived sharpness... maybe it's just that the interlacing gives the feeling that the material is sharper. But actually there is less artifacts in the shadows and somehow the colour didn't shift a tad on export like the deinterlaced Prores file did. Strange?
Anyway.

One of my favourites now live streaming!

https://www.visionsdureel.ch/en/forum/masterclass-peter-mettler

5 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Handbrake/Vidcoder's decomb and Bob does a pretty solid job on most things. It's probably the easiest unless you're familiar with something like AviSynth. 

Well said Newfoundmass, thanks.
With the empty Chinese food boxes splashed out on the table, it was the last meeting of the NTSC designers late that Friday night. And you know what the last words that were said.... 'Fuck it'. 

Massive thread on broadcast standards, 720x480 etc:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/312656-Can-someone-EXPLAIN-the-whole-720x480-thing-to-me/page2?s=6dcace21254ec014db1d6a13a87cefd6

Consumer 8k on the horizon, I'm headed back to 2002 ;)

Alright. New remix complete and exported. Killer.
Of course, part of working with interlaced footage is deinterlacing and that means a serious loss of quality especially in that the footage is shot in those crazy sodium vapour lit streets way out there.
I've exported an interlaced file from PPro with the hope that I can run it through a 'quality' deinterlacer.
Anyone have a suggestion on how to pull the max out of this compromised tech?

31 minutes ago, androidlad said:

NTSC 720x480 with 0.9091 PAR with the padding removed is 704x480, then converted to square pixel results in 640x480.

Padding removed?

Can you simply walk me through this? I'd be curious to see the results?

*Edit. I'm in PPro.

Thanks again Androidlab... good to have the 'proper' method as well. I'm on a Mac and did a bit of searching but nothing yet, can you recommend a decent upscale tool?

3 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

I work with a lot of SD footage still and I never "stretch" it. I do, when mixing it with HD footage, upscale and crop sometimes but only if there's not a lot going on in the clip and the framing looks OK, like a talking head. I usually pillar box it if there's action going on. Depends on the project. 

If you're just remastering stuff I'd do it in it's native aspect ratio. If you're putting it on YouTube I'd probably upscale it just so you get that bump in bit rate, but definitely keep the 4:3 aspect ratio. 

Always appreciate the 'extra' insights amigo. Big thanks!

Export 720x480. Solved.

Ok I'm lost.
For comparison, I looked at a friends Vimeo page, he used the same 640x480 camera as I did. Here is the thing, when I click the streaming 'quality'  tab on his Vimeo page it says 480. And then when I click the tab to make the video full the screen, the image goes to the top of my screen with only some pillars on the side. On the other hand, after having exporting a 960x720 frame from my film via PPro and uploading to Vimeo, the image does not go to the top of my screen (using Quicktime or Vimeo) which I somehow thought it would with only some pillars on the sides.
Can someone @androidlad explain things? And suggest an easy to path forward that will keep the aspect ratio while allowing the frame to reach the top of the screen. Also, should I be using upscaling software instead of PPro? Any suggestions?

15 minutes ago, androidlad said:

From an academic point of view, what you are doing is essentially "digital curation" (well, a ghetto version).

You would want to preserve all of the "significant properties" of the digital objects and only "transform" the intended property, which in this case, is the resolution.

That means square pixel, HD with original 4:3 aspect ratio (960x720 or 1440x1080, depending on how good the upscaling algorithm is). The frame rate should also remain unchanged.

I now like the idea of keeping things as original as possible. I'll go with your point on 960x720 and stick with 29.97. Thanks Androidlad!

And to export what about Frame Rate and Pixel Aspect Ratio? Somehow I'd like to ditch 29.97 for 23.976.

The original files are: Image Size: 720 x 480, Frame Rate: 29.97, Pixel Aspect Ratio: 0.9091

*Edit. I just read the Toutube/ Vimeo prefers square pixels.

Hiya folks.
In an effort to somehow ground myself in the past, so that I carry forward, I've been remastering some old standard def. 4x3 films. Though in that I'm left wondering about stretching the width of the images so that they fill a 720 frame. This of course makes the subjects look a tad fatter... though I wouldn't say it looks objectionable. I'm curious, could anyone make a case for leaving the image 4x3 for authenticities sake? Does the SD frame have it's own merit?

Interesting. Though remember to bring a person for location sound with you... unless you ok with doing music videos.

I'm  not going to step back... I'm going to stand back.

😉

Hi Jimmy, I appreciate the effort.

This is very simple. I have a FCP 3 project file. It's like one Mb. I need someone to import it into FCP 7. Then export a XML.

Anyone?

Whoops, forgot to turn notifications on.... thanks Anaconda and Ben.
Apologies, I should have mentioned it but... I don't have and can't run run FCP 7 on this Macbook Pro.
Anyone?


 

Hiya folks,
Curious if someone here can convert an old FCP 3 project file into a PPro XML for me?
I'm thinking the route is:
Open project file in FCP 7 and then export and XML file. Then, if possible, using something like 7toX, bring that XML file forward to FCPX or HOPEFULLY PPro!
Anyone firmly sitting here today, with one strong anchor in the past?
Mucho apreciado

Haven't been keeping up with your Vlog amigo but my offer still stands on the brothel... and bring that 8mm as the rooms in Bangladesh a very very small  

2 hours ago, Parker said:

I agree, he's super over the top and kind of annoying to listen to for more than a few episodes. For filmmaking-related podcasts, I prefer the Go Creative show and its short, really good interviews with top-level DP's and actual pros about what they're shooting. 

The T-Stop Inn is also pretty good, lots of really cool insights from legends of the industry. 

If you're more interested in the purely entrepreneurial, 'from the bootstraps-up' type of indy filmmaking that Wandering DP provides for a lot of people, then Alex Ferrarri's Indy Film Hustle is decent, although I haven't listened to a huge number of episodes, his personality can also be a little much. 

I'm able to keep my hand in close to the fire by hunting down masterclass talks (mostly from festival screenings) from folks I admire, though they are often few and far between. But I'll certainly give your links a go. Thanks Parker 😎

Although it's more about the process of making a doc films, here is a fantastic free talk by a wonderful filmmaker (and his cinematographer) who left the world a few years ago doing what he loved best:
https://americas.dafilms.com/film/8411-planete-doc-film-festival-presents-masterclass-michael-glawogger

Warning, these are Europeans (Austrians), where nothing said is "amazing" or 'awesome" and nobody 'flies in' another light. The uncomfortable comedy comes with the Polish moderator quickly arriving the losing end of his insight and intellect. Beer is drank, references to ass fucking, creative approach, etc.

4 hours ago, sanveer said:

The guys at Cinema5d tested the new Full Frame Canon C500 Mark ii, and ranked it for the highest dynamic range for any camera they've tested (at 13.1 Stops), apart from the Arri.

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-c500-markii-lab-test-dynamic-range-latitude-rolling-shutter/

 

They've obviously not rested any of the REDs and many other cameras, and I also suspect that the Arri would have scored a hair under 14stops, but they didn't have the guts to release the score, fearing backlash. Also, people have been mocking their dynamic range tests, like everyone else (including that former BBC affiliated gentlemen who scored the GH5s at 14.7 stops). 

 

The S1H has the same sensor as the S1, which has a dynamic range of 14.5 stops in Stills mode (according to DXO mark, though not sure at what exact signal to noise ratio). Cinema5d calculated its dynamic range to be 12.7 stops for Video (different mode than stills, since it's for video, and 10-bit instead of 12-bit).

So, if the Canon C500 Mark ii was a stills camera, in still mode, one could probably add another 1.8 stops (+/-), to get about 14.9 stops or so. Which means, that Canon seems to have caught up with Sony's Image Sensors and maybe even surpassed them (the C500 Markii also has Class Leading Rolling Shutter for a Full Frame sensor). Also, the ability to pull up an image from almost 5 stops of underexposure, is also probably class leading for a camera at that price point (and maybe many above). 

This probably means that the Canon R5 and other R Series cameras are also going to be extremely competitive for video as well as for stills. For the longest we've been ranting about Canon not having enough dynamic range, for stills or video, but I am guessing it's not just caught up with Sony, it's probably even beating it in many aspects.

If Canon can price their R Series reasonably, and not do the old Canon trick of disabling features, it could pose a serious threat to Sony and everyone else around. 

 

Can't say I know his work but vintage gear (as we know) certainly has its place in influencing look and feel... and if that contributes to story, then it's a job well done.

And if I see a tall man with a very long beard walking around the world with a F23/ F900R on a reinforced self stick... I'll be sure to stop what I'm doing and take you to the nearest brothel  

51 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

ohhhh... I just suddenly clicked from watching your video that you're Mike Krumlauf!

Had many times read your stuff over on other sites, but had never realized that you're @User here on EOSHD 

 

Oh shit. Apologies folks. I didn't mean to say that I'm Mike Krumlauf, only that I found this clip after capturing a bunch of material from my PD150. Mike certainly makes great use of his material.

I tried to get through an episode last night and to be honest, it gave me a head ache... which may be indicative that the 'industry' may no longer be a place for me. I mean, I get it that Wandering DP needs/ wants to put a whole lot of 'passion' into his talks, but it just seemed a little too much with the manner and type of language used to express everything. Is there anyone else who couldn't get into his talks?

On the other side, if this guy had a regular podcast, I'd be right there:
 

I just captured ALL of my 1993 Hitachi VM-H38A (SD Hi8) AND Sony 2003 PD-150 (SD DV)material to a hard drive. The footage was from 2 epic journeys I did in Asia. Quite incredible how far things have come in camera tech... but so good to finally see these old moments from my travels and sonic youth! 

I've now put the Sony PD-150 (which I haven't shot with since 2007) up for sale. However, I just watched this clip and I have to say that - maybe I'm feeling a little nostalgic here but - I'm now a little reluctant to part with it though I know I'll probably never fire it up again. But I'm curios, can anyone suggest a reason why I wouldn't want to sell it?

I might be willing to trade the camera if I can go back to 1999