Wonderful information. Thanks Dave. On Jun 26, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Dave Tetzlaff <djte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was thinking it would be an expensive process to remove digitally. > > It's not necessarily _monetarily_ expensive. You can do it manually if you > can afford the time. Of course, you want as clean a transfer as possible, but > there are still likely to be some big nasty dust spot every X number of > frames. > > The trick to manual dust removal is that your spot is only on one frame while > the image likely persists over several frames. > > 1. So you put the film in a timeline in FCP or Premiere or whatever in two > layered tracks. > > 2. The top is the copy-to-be-repaired and the bottom os the "patch". > > 3. Offset the bottom track/layer a couple frames in either direction. > > 4. Make a four-point garbage matte around the first dust spot, applying a lot > of smoothing to the outline and a lot of feather to the edge. > > 5. Voila. The frame below should now fill in the dust spot. > > 6. Copy the matte, paste it into the other frames with dust spots, and move > it over the spots. (This is easier than drawing a new matte). Frames with > more than one spot need more than one matte. > > 7. Review each filled spot. Most will probably look OK as the part of the > patch frame peeking through will be similar to the hole in the repaired > frame. Where the camera or subject have moved enough, though, there will be > no match and the patched hole will as obvious as the original spot. So we > need to get a proper fill under the hole: > > A. Cut and trim the video in the patch track, so you can move this > particular patch frame around without messing up any others. > B. An appropriate fill area is likely to be available either in some other > part of the patch frame, or a on a frame offset in the other direction - i.e. > if your patch track is +2 frames offset from the main track, a frame at -1 > offset might work. > C. To save time you'll prefer to do one or the other: 1) offset the XY > center of the existing patch frame, 2) try a different patch frame a few > frames away, but not both unless it's absolutely necessary. > > 8. of course, you only want to perform this operation on frames that are for > sure going to be in the finished film, so it comes after you have a tight > edit (but before you do any slo motion effects in software...) > > ... > > Yes, I've done this for a half-hour film. Yes, it was incredibly tedious. > Yes, it took a very long time. Yes, it took several passes because I kept > finding spots I'd missed on the previous pass. Yes, the results were worth > it. In this case anyway. > > As Jeff noted I think only half-jokingly, a certain amount of imperfections > can be part of a filmic aesthetic. It all depends on material and purpose. > Sometimes you'll want a little dust, sometimes it won't matter, sometimes you > need the frame to be really clean to preserve the fragile poetics of a shot. > So when I say my labor was worth it, that's contextualized by how much > clean-frame-vs.-dusty-frame mattered in terms of the aesthetics of the > particular work at hand. YMMV. > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks Roshanak roshanakelmendorf.com
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
