the cons of cropping 1080p to 720p? Or cropping in general? Is the final crop worse than if shot in lower resolution?
Pros and cons of cropping?
the cons of cropping 1080p to 720p? Or cropping in general? Is the final crop worse than if shot in lower resolution?
Wouldn't cropping reduce the amount of the actual image shown, whereas dropping from 1080 to 720 resolution means that the same image is shown, just with reduced detail (which may not be noticeable to the human eye depending upon display medium?)
When I was doing split scenes, I cropped the horizontal to half of what it was filmed in (by trimming left and right) so I could put 2 images on the screen at once, each with the equivalent of the original resolution per pixel and no distortion which I think I would have got if I just compressed the horizontal and held vertical constant, in a resizing process.
Yes, cropping. My final outputs are always 720p, so its a pretty logical question, i dont know why i havent dug more into it.
So you want an output of 1280 x 720, but you are thinking of capturing at a higher resolution like 1920 x 1080?
If so, when you crop you will lose 360 pixels of height (probably 180 top and 180 bottom if the subject is framed centrally) and you will lose 640 pixels of width (320 left and right for central framing).
This would then be the issue, that you would need to ensure the shot that you wanted to depict in final display was inside the 1280 x 720 "window" within the 1920 x 1080 frame of reference. I guess you could do this with grid line markers on your viewfinder / monitor if you have that option, or mask-off your viewfinder with tape or something?
I found that Virtualdub did the cropping quite well. If you don't quite get your framing right you could, clip by clip, change the left, right, top or bottom cropping to end up with 1280 x 720 framed on your topic of interest. (eg if you shot the subject a bit to the right and the right crop of 320 cut the subject in half, you could crop less on the right and more on the left to still have 1280 width)
I guess that the final product would have the resolution of 1080, but would play as 720 (because all of the surplus has been cut off). Will the display media mean that the audience will appreciate the difference?
size-580x326.png
Imagine the 1280 x 720 box is in the centre of the 1920 x 1080 box to imagine how you might frame your shots.
Resizing from 1080 to 720 will always look better than cropping because when you resize, each resultant pixel is actually an average of the surrounding pixels from the original size.
If shot with the same camera, yes.Originally Posted by blondandfun
But:
I'm doing something like this right now, but I am cropping a good quality 1080p to a decent quality wide PAL resolution from different cams.
It works fine.
Actually cropping, or just downsampling? If you crop, it means you apply something akin to a 2.2x teleconverter...
Cropping, yes.
Was able to "zoom" in substantially without it looking bad. But then again, as mentioned, going from 1080p (5DMKII) to "576p" (DVX) footage, so...
Its different from cutting a piece of paper where the size hasnt changed in the end. The image gets "zoomed in" to the new 1280x720 frame.
The pixels were more dense in the iriginal 1080p. But does it matter since the render is 720p anyways?
I may get. 4k camera and i wont have to zoom as much, i will just crop since im planning on staying 720p for another 10 years on output.
Keep in mind that is does look somewhat weird, depending on the lens used.
I did it sparingly, and only when needed. I'd not advise it as a rule or habit.
Crop by zooming or cropping by deleting parts of the picture?Huh? You some kind of maverick? Considering the rest of us will be well into 4k by then, you'll be on an island by yourself. Anyway, your 4k will be an excellent way to crop if you intend to merge it with 1080p without any loss in resolution.
Last edited by Krane; 2012 August 11th at 20:21.
4k on internet? Yeah right! If anything personal PCs are getting smaller. Hell i watch most movies on my ipad and thats growing.
I think 720p will still be considered HD 10 years from now and a high quality.
I think the correct terminology might be "720p trimming". The 4k panasonic camera does "full HD trimming " of the 4k image.
But from what ive heard, maybe the canon DSLRs in particular have such a "soft" look maybe its not a good idea.
Maybe i should test it on a real video camera not the soft "muddled" look of the unimproved t4i that has caused many people to abandon canon altogether like im planning on doing soon.
No, not on the internet. But you capture in the highest quality you can afford.Perhaps, but only as a novelty. Nothing more.If anything personal PCs are getting smaller. Hell i watch most movies on my ipad and thats growing.
Unlikely. Especially when you consider that 720p was only a stop gap on the way to full HD from the start.I think 720p will still be considered HD 10 years from now and a high quality.
Good, then why not adopt that method instead? At least is appear to be a more feasible application of the merger of the two resolutions.I think the correct terminology might be "720p trimming". The 4k panasonic camera does "full HD trimming " of the 4k image.
To what end may I ask? Canon is a tried and true accepted method. Why mess with what works?But from what ive heard, maybe the canon DSLRs in particular have such a "soft" look maybe its not a good idea.
Maybe i should test it on a real video camera not the soft "muddled" look of the unimproved t4i that has caused many people to abandon canon altogether like im planning on doing soon.
.
This is all subjective, but IMO 1080p is useless for screens that are smaller than 20". And viewer distance from screen matters also. Get it through your thick head that not all media is consumed on a large screen TV, and that is if anything, only bound to increase over time.
I sure hope your comments are just trolls, because your logic is fallible. Your blind technocratic BS only completes the picture of your vain narrowminded persona.
[/QUOTE]
b&f, I am totally with you on this one.
I am back States-side for a few weeks, and we have a 50" Panasonic Plasma display (GREAT PIECE OF EQUIPMENT!) - and it's 720p max resolution.
I simply can't tell the difference between it, and a 1080p TV.
It's as good as my eyes can perceive a movie.
Once we tell ourselves we NEED 4k at home, we are doomed as a species!
The entire world is on the verge of economic collapse. We are not capable of bandwidth needed for much more than what we have now. The creaters of bluray had no idea how the bandwidth issues and moving society towards the internet would disrupt their precious 1080p delivery, which is slow and overpriced. Consumers and the companies that are in charge of bandwidth cannot afford to update their infrastructure, they are barely in business as we speak.
My thick head? For your information I am on the cusp of technology so I know all about the tiny screen handheld device revolution. Its just not something I'm particularly interested in. And unlike dinosaurs like yourself, I make it my business to stay current. I was only attempting to bring you into the 21 century. Now that I'm aware of your salty disposition, I won't bother next time.
Someone of my caliber does not "troll," so you can dispel those plebeian thoughts from your mind. And one more thing, my logic is incontrovertible.I sure hope your comments are just trolls, because your logic is fallible. Your blind technocratic BS only completes the picture of your vain narrowminded persona.
What caliber should that be?
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Is there a particular reason that you adopt an arrogant and pretentious tone in so many of your posts?
Start at the top and read down. When you get to the part where things get personal you'll know. Or, just read my response. I highlighted it for clarity.
Incidentally, you might want to go back and read my posts. I give opinions and/or advice, sometimes they're direct, sometime they're subtle. But I never start out and attack people personally. You probably haven't noticed that. But if you don't like my posts just say you disagree, and explain why you feel different. You might even convince me.
But when you make a personal attack, it shows that you have little or no knowledge of the subject and simply want to attack those that do. That's not productive, not productive at all.
Last edited by Krane; 2012 August 12th at 15:49.
Yes, I was the first response in the thread. I've read it.
You came in at Post #12 with:
I'm not sure how BnF felt about the post, the term 'maverick' as used here, or the statements about 'the rest of us' or BnF being 'on an island', but it seems that your post started the thread into having statements that you describe as 'personal'.
Except that you did with post #12 here, so your statement is demonstrably false.
I expect that you will defend you posts in whatever way you can, but that does not excuse them. You made the first of the 'personal attacks' in this thread. Based on your own stated world view:
A political style "spin" on words? Really? Is that stretch to make your point the best you can do?
Here's the reality: Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence: maverick politicians; a maverick decision.
When you perceived everything from a insult perspective you say more about you personal lack of self-esteem than what is coming from others. I'm sorry your is so low but I'm not a therapist and there's nothing I can do about that except end this dialog. Intelligent converse is not possible so there will be no further response to your posts. I hope you can do the same.
There's a slight difference between self esteem and arrogance.
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Here's a government website with a list of hotline phone numbers you can call to get more info on treatment. Focus on the section "mental illness"
http://www.nih.gov/health/infoline.htm/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote