iMovie 3 - Widescreen

BrainSushi · March 16, 2003, 08:15:11 PM

Just upgraded to iMovie 3, and there's a new Letterbox effect. I put some scotch tape on the lcd screen of my camera so I can frame my movies in Widescreen, and put in the Letterbox. It's so friggin cool.

Kumar · April 01, 2003, 01:15:35 AM

Do you need OSX?

sphinx · April 02, 2003, 07:09:01 PM

that's the silliest thing i've ever heard. they have fake letterboxing, but it won't bother important footage shot in 16x9? is there an option to do so in imovie2? haven't tested with 3 yet...,

bonanzataz · April 02, 2003, 09:52:01 PM

this is semi-related, but, there are cameras that shoot in real widescreen (as in, it squeezes the picture so you utilize all the pixels of the ccd's) and those that don't (it crops the image in your camera so you don't utilize all the pixels). filmmakers that want to preserve quality will often shoot with the canon xl1s (which doesn't have the squeezy picture) so they will shoot the movies full screen and crop them later in post. what are the benefits of that rather than just shooting in the cropped widescreen option the camera offers?

Cecil · April 02, 2003, 09:55:43 PM

Quote from: bonanzataz.what are the benefits of that rather than just shooting in the cropped widescreen option the camera offers?

im assuming its for video release, they can just unmatte and have the picture play full frame for tv

bonanzataz · April 02, 2003, 10:00:21 PM

no, that wouldn't make sense because the reason they crop it is to transfer it onto film and that costs a lot. the picture looks very different after transfering to film so the look of the film would be weird if they just transferred it directly from the full screen dv to the home video versions and they definitely would not make a new negative just for the video release.

sphinx · April 02, 2003, 10:02:33 PM

Quote from: bonanzataz.this is semi-related, but, there are cameras that shoot in real widescreen (as in, it squeezes the picture so you utilize all the pixels of the ccd's) and those that don't (it crops the image in your camera so you don't utilize all the pixels). filmmakers that want to preserve quality will often shoot with the canon xl1s (which doesn't have the squeezy picture) so they will shoot the movies full screen and crop them later in post. what are the benefits of that rather than just shooting in the cropped widescreen option the camera offers?

i shoot with an xl1s and it does shoot in 16x9 'squeezy' mode option, if you will

xl1s does have widescreen guides, which is what soderbergh used when he shot full frontal, i believe. they're tiny white lines near the top and bottom of the frame that tell you where the image is going to be cropped

shooting in real 16x9 with the xl1s preserves resolution, 'cuz if you were to watch a cropped movie on a widescreen television you'd get a third of the resolution that you would if you had filmed it in 16x9.

bonanzataz · April 02, 2003, 10:08:11 PM

yeah, but i read soderbergh cropped the image instead of using squeezy...

Pedro · April 02, 2003, 10:35:45 PM

Quote from: bonanzataz.yeah, but i read soderbergh cropped the image instead of using squeezy...

this "squeezy" business crack me up

sphinx · April 02, 2003, 10:43:36 PM

Quote from: bonanzataz.yeah, but i read soderbergh cropped the image instead of using squeezy...

Quote from: sphinxxl1s does have widescreen guides, which is what soderbergh used when he shot full frontal, i believe. they're tiny white lines near the top and bottom of the frame that tell you where the image is going to be cropped

what did sphinx just say

Cecil · April 03, 2003, 01:30:41 AM

Quote from: bonanzataz.no, that wouldn't make sense because the reason they crop it is to transfer it onto film

no, if youd actually look at 35mm film which is of 1.85:1 ratio, youd see "black bars" on the top and bottom. when shooting on actual 35, some filmmakers actually shoot with whatever it is that prints the "black bars" on the actual film negative (aperture, or gate, whatever), and others shoot full frame while still framing for 1.85, and crop it later in post. again this is for when the film is distributed on video, the crop is removed. as for the ones that burn the crop on the actual film negative, they usually do that so its impossible to view the film other than in widescreen (i dont think a studio film allows that).

Ghostboy · April 03, 2003, 02:15:54 AM

Keep in mind that what Cecil is talking about is for 1:85:1 (this is why you sometimes see the boom mic in films if they're slightly out of frame, or why you see the pulley system moving the road signs in the VHS of Pee Wee's Big Adventure)

It you want 2:35:1 on a professional film, you'd use an anamorphic lens (although I believe a few filmmakers do crop to this format later...Cameron did it on Titanic). Likewise, an anampophic adaptor on your DV camera will yield better results than the in-camera 'squeezer.' I'm a fan of cropping 4:3 footage just because it keeps the saturation levels up, but it's true that said footage won't ever be able to be formatted to fit widescreen TVs.