Frage von Bruce:
Hi,
I wonder for a long time, whether it is possible in the Magix Video Deluxe 2005/06 Pros render a Quicktime video that has the format of 2.35:1. I have a lot of playing around with different settings but so far I have not yet managed to create a Quicktime video that is not 4:3 with letterbox is ...
I want a film that was recorded in 4:3 to 2.35:1 playing without the annoying "bar" (letterbox)
The film should be finally look like this clip:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3692001718102957134&q=in+flames+only
Has anyone done with the experience?
Many thanks in advance
Greetings, Bruce
Antwort von Axel:
Salut Bruce!
The example video is good - at least here in Google - 16:9 with letterbox.
It works like this (not an exact method, but by eye, any format can be set up to) without Letterbox:
Original s.Von a 4:3 basis, that you walk in 1:2,35 want, you must first while maintaining the image width of 720 pixels in the editing program cropping up and down 135 pixels, so that the image height is now 306 pixels is (306 : 720 ~ 1:2,35).
b) Now, you draw the picture by free transform (or a combination of scaling and warping, know not what your NLE for Settings) in your preview window so that this is not exactly 4:3 letterbox.
c) The final DV movie exportierst you with Quicktime (Options> Product> own) as 720 x 306 pixels, done.
d) If you have your 16:9 material and Magic provides a non-anamorphic display, do you follow just as in a), finally, nothing changes s.der image height.
e) 16:9 material that you want to export for the web without letterbox, requires adjustment in the ninth NLE. Here, the export of sufficient size 1024 x 576
Naturally, this works only for Web films. As a DV Quicktime so I can not believe a format to export with H.264, but it goes straight again tested.
Antwort von Anton:
Thank you for the detailed answer.
Get it right try it ...
Antwort von PowerMac:
If someone is interested, in fact, there are 1970 no more 1:2,35, 1:2,39 but what one rounds to 1:2,4 and " 'scope" calls. For 30 years, which is already spread false. It is time that we abandon this half-knowledge.
Antwort von jabone:
I know you like to report, but can you tell me once, then why draufsteht on each DVD with a film in this format on it posterior 2.35:1. The movie industry is too dumb to do to satisfy your needs and only you are right?
Antwort von Anton:
For Those who are interested in a little tutorial for creating a makeshift 2.35:1 - film (movie format)
(= Enlargement of Axel's tutorial)
1.) 4:3 letterboxed video with (build 2.35 - Ratio) and render
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Image_cropping_235x1.jpg
Here is a picture should look like the video 2.) the video rendered to restore into MVD and it "straighten" up
The beams are no longer visible.
3.) In the Render Settings Resolutionin one 2,35:1-money
type (eg pixels 235:100, 470:200 pixels, etc.)
4.) The selectable 4:3 aspect ratio in the Render Settings
set (and not 2.35:1!) 5.) rendering ...
So the even if it were synonymous ...
Thank you again s.Axel
Greetings, Bruce
Antwort von Axel:
If someone is interested, in fact, there are 1970 no more 1:2,35, 1:2,39 but what one rounds to 1:2,4 and " 'scope" calls. For 30 years, which is already spread false. It is time that we abandon this half-knowledge. I know you like to report, but can you tell me once, then why draufsteht on each DVD with a film in this format on it posterior 2.35:1. The movie industry is too dumb to do to satisfy your needs and only you are right? I was corrected in an earlier thread as well. Copying the format works call remains "Cinemascope" and "1:2,35". The fact is that the desired output format is 1:2,39. It is achieved by masking the previous 1:2,35 image, ie, a narrow black bar separates the frames that would otherwise collide directly. Not always this bar is copied in with.
I could only imagine that depending on the method of the physical section (negative, intermediate positives or A / B was copying) Problems in the theaters, since one of an umbrella body of 1:2.35 on the screen (top and bottom short Blitzer when changing settings, such as cinema copy of
Star Wars Episode I) Another technical reason as such can not exist in any case, since a difference between decimal 35 and decimal 39 is academic. Circumcision in the Movies is stronger.
Antwort von PowerMac:
I know you like to report, but can you tell me once, then why draufsteht on each DVD with a film in this format on it posterior 2.35:1. The movie industry is too dumb to do to satisfy your needs and only you are right? I'm right. That is little knowledge of what has resulted from a mix of amateur, consumer and Profiwissen.
All professional sites confirm this. Just because a false knowledge is a thousand times and passed around is so, it is not right!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_ (image)
http://www.ifnfilm.com/RC/profiles/aspectdetail.php
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001P.shtml#p
Maybe Kodak has a "small Manufacturer" of 35mm right.
When has a projection in the Movies' Scope, a mathematical ratio of 1:2,39. Basta. 1:2,35 there since 1971 no longer.
What is a DVD back on it, not interested. This is either incorrectly specified or gecroppt on DVDs. One can not always understand.
If you do not believe this, ask one copy of a work or a camera that rotates in 'Scope on film.
Antwort von Gast1:
Maybe Kodak has a "small Manufacturer" of 35mm right.
When has a projection in the Movies' Scope, a mathematical ratio of 1:2,39. Basta. 1:2,35 there since 1971 no longer.
What is a DVD back on it, not interested. This is either incorrectly specified or gecroppt on DVDs. One can not always understand.
If you do not believe this, ask one copy of a work or a camera that rotates in 'Scope on film. In the video area that still seems to be quite common. Could it be that Bruce wants to produce gecropptes video and not 35mm film, it might not show in the Movies and here you are comparing apples and pears?
Antwort von PowerMac:
Once again, an anonymous guest who bangs on the drum!
Antwort von Wiro:
Hello,
I can not synonymous, adding one final touch mustard?
The boundary Talk 2.35 or 2.39 is indeed very interesting to read, but my opinion does not meet the theme of the thread. It will - as I see it - a computer - video to a letterboxlosen widescreen video to be made. And it will halt its 1:2,35, was solls.
I would describe proceed as synonymous of Axel, the final export would be at the square pixels, as designed for PC display. Want to say that the issue should be 768x326 or 384x163 square square.
Is struck with when reading.
Gruss Wiro
Addendum:
Another "hook" that struck me. If one picture just above and below the same amount of cuts, it will be synonymous to cut heads, rooftops, mountain peaks and treetops. One must therefore cropping the scene as cropping and individually.
Antwort von Gast1:
Once again, an anonymous guest who bangs on the drum! Oh timpani, your favorite instrument :-)
I strive in principle to introduce my arguments objectively and at worst somewhat ironic. And if nothing occurs to me, then I shut up and labels no spelling or "Anonymous Guest" Discussion on.
However, I would here and now time to make an exception:
Currently are about 70 non-registered guests at the forum active, but only 4 registered. If you ever try WÜD your much-quoted logic, maybe you'd see that the probability that you one unregistered guest's attention to a possible error does make is greater than the reverse. If you still your own "habitus" dazulegst, you will come up that the (chances?) / The risk of not pleasing your response still increased significantly.
But perhaps you're a masochist? :-)
Antwort von PowerMac:
I myself have noticed that anything with the theme itself, as one spends in "1:2,35" has to do. I noticed only in general terms that the "1:2,35" no longer exists. I do this because many think the average pseudo-filmmaker, now I do boah huge black bars at the top and bottom out and then I got "THE 1:2,35 cinemascope format. That there is no more and is based on a false tradition, and thus it has relevance. If even moderate-movies, then right. It is now so synonymous not even a format like "Video" or "film" that have different aspect ratios because of their own have, but the aspect ratio associated with a film itself. This is on 'Scope nunmal correct "1:2,39"! So it makes no sense to say, would be on video "1:2,35" correctly. That's just since 1971, and in general, regardless of the format used anymore. That everywhere continue "1:2,35" stands, probably because it has become incorrectly.
Antwort von Gast1:
Well, I've even seen. Thanks :-) (no irony)
