Absolutely. I was compressing a film that I shot on film -- Super16, which is 1.66. I cropped my film to 1.77 (same as 16x9) and wanted to post it to the web in some kind of 16x9 ration bigger than cropped 320x240 but smaller than 640x480 (I forget the 1.77 ratio math I was using...) I ended up in all kinds of trouble, though, since the computer was throwing out 1/3 of the interlacing, instead of 1/2. When we crop from 480 lines to 240 lines, half of the data is thrown out -- either the odd lines or even lines. When we keep it 480, all the lines are used, even and odd. But trying to create something in between was disastrous. It looked like crap!
I didn't use Cinema Tools to remove the 3:2 pulldown from the telecine transfer, so any attempts to remove the pulldown upon compression were a mess too. None of by A-frames lined up... not a good idea. I wish I had removed the pulldown before I started editing. (I didn't spend time on it originally, because I didn't plan to match-back to film. It didn't occur to me that this would become an issue for the web). So meanwhile, I still have a lot of questions about how to make films that are something different than 640x480 and 320x240. I'm excited by the possibilities of making all kinds of sizes -- square movies (like how about 400x400?)... but I haven't spent any time experimenting to see how to make great looking stuff without crazy interlacing lines. When I do have time, my next plan is to try 24p footage (that doesn't have any interlacing on it). Thoughts anyone? Anyone figured this out yet?? jen jenSimmons http://www.emergingawareness.org http://www.inclinationsthemovie.com http://www.jensimmons.com On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:45 PM, Kevin wrote: > Hello all! > > First, I just want to say that I have been trying to make it to the > video conferences over the > past 4-5 weeks and something always comes up... drives me nuts. So, I > just wanted to let > everyone know my frustrations, because I just love those conferences! > I do watch the > archives, but obviously lose the interactivity. > > I love love 320x240 and am one of those people that likes to watch > videoblogs small, in a > window vs. full screen. But, then I have this obsession with the look > of 16x9 videos. True > 16x9, not just a black bar on the top and bottom. I recently posted a > 16x9 video, the > resolution was 480x208. I know this is breaking the rules, but it was > done intentionally as > an experiment. The video satisfies my needs when played through the > browser or when > downloaded and played on Quicktime. But, when played on FireAnt or > iPodderX, its forced > to either 320x142 with black bars or it is just resized to whatever > you have FireAnt set to. > So, then I felt that, in the long run, its not worth going through all > the trouble, as most > people won't realize the true resolution. Nevertheless, it was a fun > experiment! > > So, I'm posting just to hear your thoughts on videoblogging in 16x9. I > believe there are a > few other videobloggers doing the same and was curious to as if it > really changes anything > to the viewer. Some people hate watching widescreen dvds on their tv, > because, even > though it is not necessarily true, they think they are getting gypped > on the whole picture. > The PSP is set as 16x9, even though it does not yet support true 16x9 > video formats. What > are your thoughts on the future of videoblogs resolutions (480x272 > being the new > 320x240)... too early? Maybe someday? Who cares? At the end of the > day, I will do what > ever I want, most likely continuing to use 320x240, but was curious to > all of your > thoughts... especially as the HD format (which is usually in 16x9) is > becoming more > mainstream. > > Also, I have a question. There seems to be two 16x9 resolutions. For > instance, using a 480 > width ratio, I had two options that seemed to be standard. 480x272 > (most quicktime > trailers and PSP resolution) or what I really love and used 480x208. > Can anyone help clarify > if there are names to these two different resolutions that are usually > just labeled 16x9... I > have a feeling 480x208 is called something else. > > All done! Thanks for reading :) > > The video I'm talking about can be found here if you would like to see > it :: > http://www.lgt2.com/limeblogbeta/2005/08/23/vlog-reoccurring-dream/ > > Kev! > LimeBlog > http://blog.lgt2.com > feed :: http://lgt2.com/limeblogbeta/wp-rss2.php > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hkfuqd4/M=362335.6886445.7839731.1510227/D=groups/S=1705554021:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1125002344/A=2894361/R=0/SIG=13jmebhbo/*http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/education/digitaldivide/?source=YAHOO&cmpgn=GRP&RTP=http://groups.yahoo.com/";>In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers. At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!</a>.</font> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
