Procedure for uprezzing 4x3 letterbox to 16x9

Wow - hey - thanks Waltind! I was planning on trying to do a similar test at some point to see how much difference I could appreciate. My project is likely staying on small screens (and LCD projectors), so I may just stay with the NLE or photoshop method.

Then again, photozoom sure does look nice, doesn't it?.... :)
 
Dr. Stupid- (and it does feel a bit odd calling you that, but at least it is Dr. and not Mr.)

Yeah, if it is just staying on the small screen the NLE, and Photoshop do a fine job, not stellar, but acceptable. PhotoZoom Pro sure does a nice job ...

Thanks for your addition to the test. :beer:

I agree, Vegas apparently does just as good as a job as Photoshop. And you do not have to export and inport anything which is a huge time saver.
 
I followed these incstructions rather closely, even purchased Photozoom (great program), yet when I import the new TIFF files back into Premiere, I see nothing but black. Every single frame, ones that used to have picture, are now black. What happened?
 
Not sure. When you imported them into Photozoom Pro, did you see anything on the frames? If you don't recall, check one of your original TIFFs in photoshop to track where things went wrong.

If you can't figure it out, try a test of just a few seconds long and see if you can duplicate the problem.
 
When I open the files in Photoshop I can see the image. But in thumbnail mode in Windows XP, normally where the thumbnail of what the file looks like would be there but it displays only white. Then, when brought into Premiere it is black. To import the TIFF's into Premiere, I did File-->Import--> then selected the first file then clicked "Numbered Stills" at the bottom. What am I doing wrong? Images do show up when opened in all picture based software.
 
Sounds like your TIFFs may be saved in a color space other than RGB. Open up one of them in Photoshop again and from the top menu, choose IMAGE->MODE and see if the image is set to RGB. If it is not, that's your problem. If it is RGB, I'm not sure what to tell you...
 
On a similar topic...Does anyone know of a way to make regular 4x3 footage WITHOUT the 16X9 mask, 16X9? Either anamorphic or just with the top and bottom mask?
I basically want those top and bottom bars on my 4X3 footage.
Thanks!
 
waltind said:
I believe that you'll need QT Pro inorder to do what you need. Here is how you do it:

- Put all of the TIFFs into one folder seperate from any other files.
- Open Quick Time.
- Go to: FILE - OPEN IMAGE SEQUENCE
- Select the folder that has the images in them.
- (After it has opened) Save the new file as an MOV file.
Click to expand...

Don't just select the folder, you need to select the first image in the folder, but the rest is correct.

Joe
 
It's aaaaaaall good.

It's aaaaaaall good.

waltind said:
Joe-
Thanks for that correction.
Click to expand...

Waltind- you are the MAN! I just added that because in animation I seem to have to convert image sequences into .mov files every day.:happy: Only adding to your brilliance, not questioning it!:thumbsup:

Joe
 
disjecta I recently aquired a dvx .. ex xl1 user. Sorry to bring up old thread everyone. But I tested this technique today as I killed an 16:9 lense and looked for workaround as Im shooting atm. I have been asking around but to no avail and a new one is a two week wait here in Tokyo. Anyway thanks for the info... checked out your vid links tonight great stuff. I cancelled my order.
 
thought id put my own sample up. it really is amazing!

ah.jpg


guess which is which hah..
 
disjecta said:
(I believe there is a limit of 1170 frames per batch so you may need to do multiple batches). EDIT: I have since imported more than 1800 images without a problem....so not sure what the limit is.
Click to expand...

Just a thought. It may not be a limit on how many files there are, it may be a limit due to filename length. It's a Windows limitation. (Actually, it's a limitation due to the way the programmer chose to handle a list of filenames. They took easy, built-in way, rather than going through the hassle of writing their own list handler.)

Clarification: What I mean is if the images are saved as frame001.tif, frame002.tif, frame003.tif and so forth, the program might be able to process more of them if they were named fr001.tif, fr002.tif, fr003.tif etc, instead.

Dan
 
OK.

Anyone who wants to play, I've written a standalone program (Windows only), that will resize images.

For now, it just does PNG images (actually, there is code in there for TIFF, but it doesn't work very well).

Here's the link to it: http://www.changedcrocodile.com/Software/Resizer.html Just click Download program and save to your hard drive. And maybe save the page for the instructions, too, but it's pretty straight-forward.

There are 5 different algoriths to choose from. Some will work better than others for different types of images (large solid areas, lost of detail areas, whatever). It defaults to Lanczos3, which I think looks the best, but...experiment.

I've no idea (still) what I'm doing with the whole Uprez thing...I keep getting tangled up in pixel shapes and aspect ratios, but this was fun to write. Ahem.

Let me know if it's any better/easier than the other methods mentioned here.

Or if it doesn't work, for some reason.

Dan
 
excellent tip for extending value in the dvx
Thank You
.I have a 100a .
Did you have anything special to say on
1) camera settings that you advise for this subject and this workflow ?
2)What subjects by shape pattern or contrast work well with htis conversion or
the same question in the negative sense for subject?
3) What seem to not do so well through this conversion work flow ?
4) i percieve quite an increase in contrast was this done in the nle or the special software by choice ?
or was it just a consequence of the final product that went through this uprez process .?
I recall that some matt painters and cinematographers could increase contrast via paint contrast ,filters .light ratios .subject material or camera stock and the "acutance "o contrast would increase without really increasing resolution and that this gave the appearance of a sharper image .
Thanks fpr a reply ..
Bruce
 
I have a question for you all, not sure if this is the correct partition of the forum but it does have to do with 4:3 and methods of getting 16:9 out of it. Maybe the info is here in the archives somewhere...

When you letterbox a 4:3 frame to 16:9, aren't you effectively losing resolution??? I am not talking about digital stretch or squish. Just shooting so that you throw away top and bottom (chopping off pixels) to get a frame ratio of 16:9 from the original 4:3 chip. That's entirely why you guys are uprezzing and reconstructing chroma, right?

I have tried to draw what happens when you letterbox a 4:3 collection of pixels to 16:9 and then use this as a substitute for a "real 16:9" frame to some people to explain the concept but some people just won't believe the math. I guess it could be better explained by the masters. Will anyone volunteer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top