Jump to content


Photo

Common top frame 16-9 (1-1.85) 1-2.35 crop


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 22 September 2016 - 11:08 PM

There was a thread about this recently David Mullens posted on the OP,s question.. but I cant find the thread anywhere .. looking for info on the topic anyway.. 

Basically shooting normal 16-9.. but with 1-2.35 "fake" anamorphic safe .. to avoid excess head room on the 16-9 frame .. have the top frame common and crop up from the bottom..  I have shot like this before.. but is the best way to keep both frame,s .. how difficult or easy is this in post..

 

Thanks


  • 0

#2 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1632 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 22 September 2016 - 11:31 PM

Personally, I frame for 235 all the time, and just mask the center portion. Heck, even the cheap $140 7" production monitor I have has 2.35:1 safe guards. It's much easier to simply bring that into Resolve and add a center crop then trying to manually crop out certain parts of the frame for each shot. But then again, I'm not as experienced as David.

 

Part of the advantage, in my mind, to cropping center is that you can use either top or bottom portions if you need to reframe in post. If you frame for the top 235:1, you have no leeway on top. 

 

If your monitor does not have a 2.35:1 safe marker, simply hook it up to something that will feed it a 2.35:1 letterboxed feed. Then makes notes of how large the top and bottom boxes need to be. You can then cut out some black paper and mask your monitor. This is what I do anyway, since my monitor just provides basic line grids - which I can't stand. 


Edited by Landon D. Parks, 22 September 2016 - 11:34 PM.

  • 0

#3 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2700 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 September 2016 - 12:21 AM

I find that a 2.40:1 center extraction works from 16:9 90% of the time without any adjustment. Quarter offset 2.40:1 works pretty well, Common top, not so much


  • 0

#4 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 12:29 AM

Ok thanks.. but then how do you avoid too much head room in your 16-9 frame.. I know its not huge.. but still could look bad on a tight frame.. ?.. or just frame the head room for 16-9 and go with the slightly tighter 2.35 crop.. 

 

What is quarter off set..

 

Thanks


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 23 September 2016 - 12:40 AM.

  • 0

#5 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 12:36 AM

Personally, I frame for 235 all the time, and just mask the center portion. Heck, even the cheap $140 7" production monitor I have has 2.35:1 safe guards. It's much easier to simply bring that into Resolve and add a center crop then trying to manually crop out certain parts of the frame for each shot. But then again, I'm not as experienced as David.

 

Part of the advantage, in my mind, to cropping center is that you can use either top or bottom portions if you need to reframe in post. If you frame for the top 235:1, you have no leeway on top. 

 

If your monitor does not have a 2.35:1 safe marker, simply hook it up to something that will feed it a 2.35:1 letterboxed feed. Then makes notes of how large the top and bottom boxes need to be. You can then cut out some black paper and mask your monitor. This is what I do anyway, since my monitor just provides basic line grids - which I can't stand. 

 

 

Thanks.. Yes my camera has the 235 lines.. but then the 16-9 will have too much head room no..?  thats why I thought a near to common top frame would be easier for both.. of course I,d rather they went for 2.35.. but seems they want to keep the 16-9.. for future use I suppose.. 


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 23 September 2016 - 12:41 AM.

  • 0

#6 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2700 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 September 2016 - 12:46 AM

Ok thanks.. but then how do you avoid too much head room in your 16-9 frame.. I know its not huge.. but still could look bad on a tight frame.. ?.. or just frame the head room for 16-9 and go with the slightly tighter 2.35 crop.. 

 

What is quarter off set..

 

Thanks

I just find that a center extraction works well. The headroom in a 16:9 frame is reduced in the 2.40:1, but that's fine because the crop makes it a tighter shot. It may depend on how much headroom you like, but for me it seems to work most of the time.

 

A Quarter Offset is where the 2.40:1 frame is midway between Common top and Centered.


  • 0

#7 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 02:00 AM

ok thanks.. I always keep headroom very tight.. maybe thats why I worry.. its the first I,ll notice, is too much head room.. even a little bit just looks bad and smacks of not really knowing what your doing.. unless its a style and the head room is huge..or to incorporate some background.. but you know what i mean.. that gap thats just too big.. but only by a small margin.. pet hate..

 

Anyway thanks for your time sir..


  • 0

#8 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1632 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 23 September 2016 - 02:53 AM

I actually found a neat little trick... I took some window tint and placed it over a piece of plastic transparency. I then cut that down so it fits my monitor. In that sense, the area outside of the 2.39:1 center marker is slightly less bright, which helps me with framing. Kind of off topic, but it's an idea I'm throwing out that others might find appealing.

 

Additionally, I treat the area outside of the 2.35:1 but within the 16:9 as a 'danger' buffer zone. Doing so helps prevent the accidental 'boom in the shot' effect among other things.

 

When I'm framing for 2.35, I never worry about trying to get a 16:9 out of it later. If at some point you think 16:9 is needed, it's probably best to just frame it for 16:9 initially, keeping in mind that you intend to crop to the center in post. It's more difficult to do right, but it's probably possible. 


Edited by Landon D. Parks, 23 September 2016 - 02:53 AM.

  • 0

#9 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 23 September 2016 - 02:59 AM

Here is that thread, with illustrations of the "Fincher Ground Glass"

http://www.cinematog...showtopic=66243
  • 0

#10 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 03:19 AM

I actually found a neat little trick... I took some window tint and placed it over a piece of plastic transparency. I then cut that down so it fits my monitor. In that sense, the area outside of the 2.39:1 center marker is slightly less bright, which helps me with framing. Kind of off topic, but it's an idea I'm throwing out that others might find appealing.

 

Additionally, I treat the area outside of the 2.35:1 but within the 16:9 as a 'danger' buffer zone. Doing so helps prevent the accidental 'boom in the shot' effect among other things.

 

When I'm framing for 2.35, I never worry about trying to get a 16:9 out of it later. If at some point you think 16:9 is needed, it's probably best to just frame it for 16:9 initially, keeping in mind that you intend to crop to the center in post. It's more difficult to do right, but it's probably possible. 

 

 

Yes my camera has that system but a bit more sophisticated :)..  I can have a hard line..in about 6 different colors .. or a mask that can have different density from 0 to 15.. but only in the centre..

Its not my choice re using 16-9.. the client wants to use both.. 2.35 for the actual spot.. and I guess 16-9 for what ever they will use it for combined with other footage in the future or just archive.. its a fairly common thing now.. not quite as bad as the 16-9 but 4-3 safe thing that used to be around years ago.. ! 


  • 0

#11 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 03:21 AM

Here is that thread, with illustrations of the "Fincher Ground Glass"

http://www.cinematog...showtopic=66243

 

You rule sir..Im unworthy of your attention.. 


  • 0

#12 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 05:36 AM

Ah yes now I remember the 1/4 off set..  I wish I could set this in my camera.. but it will only do centre crop.. before I just went with common top ...that worked ok on the other shoot.. also helped by 90% handheld Bournescope style I guess.. no precise static frames..  this ones the same ..  bit annoying I cant just use the centre crop and not worry about 16-9.. 


  • 0

#13 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 23 September 2016 - 09:41 AM

Can't you just mark the ground glass ;)

A bit shocking that Sony doesn't have common top line options...I think you've mentioned you're on F55? Is it not practical to use a monitor like the Odyssey? I think those can be set any which way re: framelines
  • 0

#14 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19103 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 September 2016 - 10:00 AM

I used the ARRI 1/4 Offset for "90 Minutes in Heaven":

90M_framing.jpg

 

Similar to the Fincher 3-perf 35mm offset groundglass.

 

I don't like true common top because I think for TV you want a little bit of air around the edges, you don't want heads bumping the top of the TV screen, plus there is no reframing ability if the operators miss the headroom. Plus it is even harder then to clear dolly tracks from the bottom of frame. And any issues with not being optically centered in terms of corner fall-off, curvature / barrel distortion, etc. become even more obvious with true common top.


  • 0

#15 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 10:01 AM

Im on a F5.. well Im not sure alot of camera,s of that level will have a 1-2.35/2.40 off set marker,or common top.. maybe the F65 has.. the F55 doesn't either.. 


  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19103 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 September 2016 - 10:06 AM

Maybe this helps?

http://community.son...ine/td-p/288573


  • 0

#17 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 10:08 AM

I used the ARRI 1/4 Offset for "90 Minutes in Heaven":

90M_framing.jpg

 

Similar to the Fincher 3-perf 35mm offset groundglass.

 

I don't like true common top because I think for TV you want a little bit of air around the edges, you don't want heads bumping the top of the TV screen, plus there is no reframing ability if the operators miss the headroom. Plus it is even harder then to clear dolly tracks from the bottom of frame. And any issues with not being optically centered in terms of corner fall-off, curvature / barrel distortion, etc. become even more obvious with true common top.

 

Yes its that thread of yours that I was looking for .. for exactly this topic.. and I had remembered all the info about 16-9 to crop.. I wont have dollies etc to worry about.. its very going to be at least 90% handheld.. but see what you mean about true common top.. I wont have the luxury of that ground glass.. I,ll just try to leave a bit more head room on the 16-9 than i might usually.. I,ll just have one zoom Canon CN7.. 


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 23 September 2016 - 10:17 AM.

  • 0

#18 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 10:11 AM

 

Ah ! good idea .. didnt think of the user box.. ! I wonder how I can accurately set it though..   actually your frame grab might be helpful.. I have actually saved it to my desktop as a reference,(if thats ok) and the charts..


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 23 September 2016 - 10:19 AM.

  • 0

#19 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 23 September 2016 - 11:00 AM

I bet if you rang up some camera houses they could tell you the accurate settings. 


  • 0

#20 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:00 PM

Had an idea..set the aspect marker to 235..User Box is a separate menu item.. I,ll try to adjust the user box so its exactly over the aspect marker.. then count the clicks of the adjust K N O B.. to get the top frame line up near the top of 16-9 and do the same with the bottom.. to shift it all upwards..  genius !


  • 0


Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Pro 8mm

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Quantum Music Works

Tai Audio

CineTape

Zylight

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Pro 8mm

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Quantum Music Works

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineLab

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Zylight

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc