G
Guest
Guest
I took advantage of the new frame grab site to upload these. All were color corrected in HD then downconverted to 480p.
jaronheard
Active member
Re: 2:35.1 and 1:85 grabs
wow these are some really nice looking grabs! looks like color correction in hd definitely paid off (no grain or artifacts)
wow these are some really nice looking grabs! looks like color correction in hd definitely paid off (no grain or artifacts)
Carrington Benz
Well-known member
Re: 2:35.1 and 1:85 grabs
I took advantage of the new frame grab site to upload these. All were color corrected in HD then downconverted to 480p.
Hi - how would you go about doing this ?
I dont get it - by HD - you mean high def right ?
How is it possible to up the resolution etc - im way off I know - so please could you give me a brief education on what you done here.
Great grabs by the way.
I take it this is with the dvx100 A & the electronic squeeze or did you do the squeeze in post.
Cheers
I took advantage of the new frame grab site to upload these. All were color corrected in HD then downconverted to 480p.
Hi - how would you go about doing this ?
I dont get it - by HD - you mean high def right ?
How is it possible to up the resolution etc - im way off I know - so please could you give me a brief education on what you done here.
Great grabs by the way.
I take it this is with the dvx100 A & the electronic squeeze or did you do the squeeze in post.
Cheers
G
Guest
Guest
Re: 2:35.1 and 1:85 grabs
Was the footage shot with the 16x9 anamorphic lens (and the 2.35 footage cropped further) or was it 4x3 and then cropped?
(ARGH! for some reason I login, but then when I go to post, it says I'm not. Weird...)
Was the footage shot with the 16x9 anamorphic lens (and the 2.35 footage cropped further) or was it 4x3 and then cropped?
(ARGH! for some reason I login, but then when I go to post, it says I'm not. Weird...)
darkavenger
Active member
Re: 2:35.1 and 1:85 grabs
Mike, I had the same login problem. Check the date, maybe it's set wrong and it thinks you've logged in too long. (I had the wrong year)
Mike, I had the same login problem. Check the date, maybe it's set wrong and it thinks you've logged in too long. (I had the wrong year)
G
Guest
Guest
Re: 2:35.1 and 1:85 grabs
The video was upconverted to 720p in AE and then color corrected (some with the HD magic bullet suite). From AE they were downconverted to 480p.
I didn't use S-spline because I felt it oversharpened the picture too much, but I can honestly say I didn't spend enough time with the program to try all the different options. Basically it was a bicubic upsampling from an uncompressed 480p file.
No anamorphic lens was used. The 16:9 was shot in letterbox, and the 2:35.1 was shot with the LCD taped.
The video was upconverted to 720p in AE and then color corrected (some with the HD magic bullet suite). From AE they were downconverted to 480p.
I didn't use S-spline because I felt it oversharpened the picture too much, but I can honestly say I didn't spend enough time with the program to try all the different options. Basically it was a bicubic upsampling from an uncompressed 480p file.
No anamorphic lens was used. The 16:9 was shot in letterbox, and the 2:35.1 was shot with the LCD taped.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: 2:35.1 and 1:85 grabs
Here's another one of the govenator. same process
Here's another one of the govenator. same process
Re: 2.35:1 and 1:85 grabs
Re: 2.35:1 and 1:85 grabs
Nice pics Mark.
But I don't quite follow why you scaling these up to 720p for color correction? Are you doing this just to work with the HD version of Magic Bullet's 'Look Suite'? (Does this have some benefit over their Standard Definition plug-in?)
Although it seems there would definitley be a benefit to doing CC in a broader color space like 4:2:2, what effect are you shooting for by uprezing the image then resizing it back to 480p? Why not just work in a 4:2:2 codec at 480p?
Best,
Clayton
Re: 2.35:1 and 1:85 grabs
Nice pics Mark.
But I don't quite follow why you scaling these up to 720p for color correction? Are you doing this just to work with the HD version of Magic Bullet's 'Look Suite'? (Does this have some benefit over their Standard Definition plug-in?)
Although it seems there would definitley be a benefit to doing CC in a broader color space like 4:2:2, what effect are you shooting for by uprezing the image then resizing it back to 480p? Why not just work in a 4:2:2 codec at 480p?
Best,
Clayton
G
Guest
Guest
Re: 2:35.1 and 1:85 grabs
The reason for doing CC at 720p is that you get more information in the picture (or at least the illusion of more detail) when you downconvert to 480p again.
If I can find them, I'll post the side-by-side tests I did of this.
The reason for doing CC at 720p is that you get more information in the picture (or at least the illusion of more detail) when you downconvert to 480p again.
If I can find them, I'll post the side-by-side tests I did of this.
Re: 2:35.1 and 1:85 grabs
I haven't seen the segment you're referring to, but I imagine in "Seven" they wouldn't be upconverting to HD, they would be going from a higher format (35mm) down to HD or the like for color correction on telecine. Is this what they were talking about?
Best,
Clayton
I haven't seen the segment you're referring to, but I imagine in "Seven" they wouldn't be upconverting to HD, they would be going from a higher format (35mm) down to HD or the like for color correction on telecine. Is this what they were talking about?
Best,
Clayton