Best software for 4:3 to 16:9 conversion?

Boyd Ostroff · July 14th, 2003, 08:08 PM

Actually what really impressed me was the film "28 Days Later" which I saw on the big screen in the theatre. They shot this in 4:3 on a PAL XL-1s, cropped to 16:9, then scaled to 1.85:1 before printing to 35mm film. Although the resolution wasn't as good as film, there was really no evidence of pixellation. Of course they spent some real $$$ doing the film transfer.

Michael Robinson · July 15th, 2003, 01:14 AM

Boyd, I hope you don't mind--but I respectfully disagree. 8 seconds per frame really isn't that big of a hit if you remember that a few years ago it was standard for certain effects to have even longer rendering times per frame. If you're used to dealing with complex motion graphics and animation (loads of layers w/multiple effects per layer) this could really seem a breeze. I can understand the apprehension in wanting to delve into a process that might include some frame by frame work (roto is very mind numbing--been there), but this is the basic building block for any program that we're using today. Until we see consumer HD at an affordable price, we're going to have to find workarounds. That being said, would I do this for every project? No. But I'd like to try it to see how it comes out. A possible way to do it would be shooting double-anamorphic like Martin has done, uprezzing with Genuine Fractals, and then scaling it back down for DV output...I don't know if we can cheat resolution this way but it's worth trying.

I don't expect software applications to do everything I'd like on first go round...it takes some reverse engineering to get what you want sometimes, and until I can Vulcan mindmeld with a computer...I expect to be scratching my head and figuring out glitches and cheats (even if they often mean going the long way) for quite some time.

Boyd--it's good to see another member from Philly on here (hadn't noticed before). I'm in the process of moving from it to the Harrisburg region myself.

Boyd Ostroff · July 15th, 2003, 02:32 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Robinson : Boyd, I hope you don't mind--but I respectfully disagree. 8 seconds per frame really isn't that big of a hit if you remember that a few years ago it was standard for certain effects to have even longer rendering times per frame.

No argument there. I was just thinking back to the original question, where the desire was to take video that was letterboxed at 4:3 and make it anamorphic. The fact is that you have a rather limited amount of information to deal with there, notably 720x360 pixels. I'm sure you can smooth it out using various software techniques, but you aren't going to create any detail that was lacking in the original image. Therefore it seemed to me there would be cheaper, faster, easier ways to do this by scaling in your NLE as opposed to a frame-by-frame approach. But I suppose it all depends on what you expect from the end product.

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Robinson : Boyd--it's good to see another member from Philly on here.

Thanks Michael, and good luck with your move to the state capital ;-) Actually I live in South Jersey, and there appear to be several other dvinfo.net members there.

Bram Corstjens · July 19th, 2003, 07:28 PM

In the end it's all about how it looks.

Maybe losing 25% sounds scary, but when the source image is clean and a *good* resizing application is used. 25% less detail does not look 25% worse. It's all about how much detail an average human can see. How much can be removed without affecting overal quality and how much of the interpolated pixels (because of cropping and resizing) are 'guessed right'

Yes, there is a difference, but it's very small. Especially when the image is moving.

Michael Robinson · July 20th, 2003, 12:42 PM

There's a new resizing plug-in that was just released--I haven't used it yet, but there's a downloadable demo at--

www.digitalanarchy.com

The filter is included in the Anarchy Toolbox set. This might be better than doing it frame by frame in Photoshop, if it looks good.

Alturo Nguyen · July 21st, 2003, 06:58 PM

after effects plugin for letterbox to anamorphic

the manual for the digital anarchy resizer has no support or tutorial...

http://www.mykaskin.freeserve.co.uk/myksvideopages/plugins.html
haven't used it, saw it, let us know how it works
good luck

July 21st, 2003, 06:58 PM	#21
Alturo Nguyen Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 52	after effects plugin for letterbox to anamorphic after effects plugin for letterbox to anamorphic the manual for the digital anarchy resizer has no support or tutorial... http://www.mykaskin.freeserve.co.uk/myksvideopages/plugins.html haven't used it, saw it, let us know how it works good luck

July 14th, 2003, 08:08 PM	#16
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,801	Actually what really impressed me was the film "28 Days Later" which I saw on the big screen in the theatre. They shot this in 4:3 on a PAL XL-1s, cropped to 16:9, then scaled to 1.85:1 before printing to 35mm film. Although the resolution wasn't as good as film, there was really no evidence of pixellation. Of course they spent some real $$$ doing the film transfer.

July 15th, 2003, 01:14 AM	#17
Michael Robinson Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Philly, PA Posts: 40	Boyd, I hope you don't mind--but I respectfully disagree. 8 seconds per frame really isn't that big of a hit if you remember that a few years ago it was standard for certain effects to have even longer rendering times per frame. If you're used to dealing with complex motion graphics and animation (loads of layers w/multiple effects per layer) this could really seem a breeze. I can understand the apprehension in wanting to delve into a process that might include some frame by frame work (roto is very mind numbing--been there), but this is the basic building block for any program that we're using today. Until we see consumer HD at an affordable price, we're going to have to find workarounds. That being said, would I do this for every project? No. But I'd like to try it to see how it comes out. A possible way to do it would be shooting double-anamorphic like Martin has done, uprezzing with Genuine Fractals, and then scaling it back down for DV output...I don't know if we can cheat resolution this way but it's worth trying. I don't expect software applications to do everything I'd like on first go round...it takes some reverse engineering to get what you want sometimes, and until I can Vulcan mindmeld with a computer...I expect to be scratching my head and figuring out glitches and cheats (even if they often mean going the long way) for quite some time. Boyd--it's good to see another member from Philly on here (hadn't noticed before). I'm in the process of moving from it to the Harrisburg region myself.

July 15th, 2003, 02:32 PM	#18
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,801	<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Robinson : Boyd, I hope you don't mind--but I respectfully disagree. 8 seconds per frame really isn't that big of a hit if you remember that a few years ago it was standard for certain effects to have even longer rendering times per frame. No argument there. I was just thinking back to the original question, where the desire was to take video that was letterboxed at 4:3 and make it anamorphic. The fact is that you have a rather limited amount of information to deal with there, notably 720x360 pixels. I'm sure you can smooth it out using various software techniques, but you aren't going to create any detail that was lacking in the original image. Therefore it seemed to me there would be cheaper, faster, easier ways to do this by scaling in your NLE as opposed to a frame-by-frame approach. But I suppose it all depends on what you expect from the end product. <<<-- Originally posted by Michael Robinson : Boyd--it's good to see another member from Philly on here. Thanks Michael, and good luck with your move to the state capital ;-) Actually I live in South Jersey, and there appear to be several other dvinfo.net members there.

July 19th, 2003, 07:28 PM	#19
Bram Corstjens Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 126	In the end it's all about how it looks. Maybe losing 25% sounds scary, but when the source image is clean and a good resizing application is used. 25% less detail does not look 25% worse. It's all about how much detail an average human can see. How much can be removed without affecting overal quality and how much of the interpolated pixels (because of cropping and resizing) are 'guessed right' Yes, there is a difference, but it's very small. Especially when the image is moving.

July 20th, 2003, 12:42 PM	#20
Michael Robinson Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Philly, PA Posts: 40	There's a new resizing plug-in that was just released--I haven't used it yet, but there's a downloadable demo at-- www.digitalanarchy.com The filter is included in the Anarchy Toolbox set. This might be better than doing it frame by frame in Photoshop, if it looks good.