Uprighting Super 8

6 replies [Last post]
tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

Transferring some Super 8 film to tape for a client yesterday I came across something I'd read about but not experienced to date. In 1960 Mr Client had filmed his little daughter running into the surf. No problem with that. Nice steady camera work, good exposure on Kodachrome II. Only Mr Client thought he'd turn the camera by 90 degrees to better fit his daughter within the 4:3 frame.

I can see him wibbly-wobbly hand holding his projector on it's side when these bits appeared on screen, or the whole audience craning their necks through 90 degrees...

Premiere's filters offer all sorts of solutions, and the one I chose under "Camera View" allowed the whole (uprighted) frame to be viewed (with black bars left and right of the frame) right up to a screen filling zoom in - rather like the options open to those with a 16:9 TV.

I chose a neutral grey for the L & R bars and only hope it wasn't some intentional special effect that he'd been after all those years ago.

tom.

Unicorn
Offline
Joined: Apr 12 1999

I get quite a few funny looks from people when I turn my TRV900 sideways to shoot stills when I'm on holiday ;).

Then again, I'm quite happy to turn it close to sideways when shooting video if it's the only way to get the shot, and it fits with the story; you don't have to always keep the camera locked flat on a tripod.

P4-3.06/2GB RAM/2500GB IDE/SATA. Avid Media Composer, Liquid Edition, Premiere 6, Lightwave, Vue 6, eyeon Fusion 5. DV and HDV editing/compositing.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

I agree, the Dutch tilt can be very effective in a movie and as you say the 900 can happily be used in the portrait format when doing stills. But because the cine filmer hadn't twisted the camera while shooting the take, I took it to be a mistake, and have applied the correction in Premiere.

What I forgot to say was that the post production twisting through 90 degrees distorted the picture in an anti-anamorphic way - ie the people got fat and vertically squashed. Something to do with the non-square pixels probably, but again easily rectified with Premiere's filters.

tom.

Alan Roberts at work
Offline
Joined: May 6 1999

Yes Tom, video pixels aren't square (at least, not the official Rec.601 pixels). the 4:3 image fits into the central 702*576 of 720*576, so you have to stretch by 1.33333/1.21875 to get it the right shape in square pixels. And, if you've imported a rotated image and want to rotate it back, you'll have to undo that, and do it the other way, i.e. (1.33333/1.21875)^2=1.485 (or its inverse, depends on the directions).

Hope that confuses sufficiently.

------------------
alan@mugswellvillage.freeserve.co.uk. Delete village for a spam-free diet.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

I judged it by eye, then looked at the correctiomn I'd applied. 30% it said, so not a bad visual guess.

tom.

Richard Choroszewski
Offline
Joined: Sep 28 1999

I was on holiday recently where the main mode of transport was golf buggy.

I needed a sequence where the camera was just above ground when travelling forward to show the scene and the fast spinning front wheels. All this while cameraman (me - vlb, very low budget) is driving the buggy.

Screwed the camera (tight!) to a monopod and held it upside down. Premiere should turn this the right way round no problem.

Just another little trick that you just couldn't get away with before NLE

------------------
Regards
Richard Choroszewski

Storm/Edius3.01 PAL 3Ghz Pentium in ASUS P4G8X M/board WinXPProSP2. 3x120G ATA & 2x300G Sata Raid0. 1024Mb DDRAM, Matrox Parhelia, 2xTFT 20" +SB Audigy2Platinum

Alan Roberts at work
Offline
Joined: May 6 1999

Nice one Richard. Never be limited by the kit, think laterally. It's the intelligence behind the viewfinder that matters, not the intelligence in the camera.