Lines at top of capture

[Jerry Hofmann]

No it wouldn’t.

Jerry

Apple Certified Trainer, Producer, Writer, Director Editor, Gun for Hire and other things. I ski.

8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17″ MBP, Matrox MXO2 with MAX Cinema Displays

[Jiggy Gaton]

yup, no one has ever complained here about us doing that:)

Phoenix Studios Nepal: A small A/V Production House in Kathmandu.

[Bouke Vahl]

[Michael Gissing] “Sorry Bourke but you clearly haven’t had footage like this rejected by a broadcast tech check.”

No, indeed. My stuff does not get rejected.
In the last couple of weeks i have delivered 20 shows to a local network. Shot on DV-cam, delivered as DV-cam, including the widescreen flag. No problems at all.

[Michael Gissing] “ou absolutely MUST zoom up to remove both the VITC from the top of frame and the black edging around the frame”

Why is that? The black edging used to be on all betaSP material.
Also, at the time DV and DV-cam came out, non-linear was not good enough for output for broadcast. Most of the editing suites back then did not have a DVE to scale up, and if they did, you only touched it for effect work, as the image suffered severe.
Most of them even did not have a mixer to crop. And those suites pumped out broadcast stuff.

[Michael Gissing] “As someone who delivers for broadcast all the time, I cannot get a shot like that past a tech check without removing side bars, bottom bar and VITC. Jerry’s remarks were correct and far from “ridicolous””

As someone who defined the specs for a broadcaster here,
i rather have black bars left and right than a blown up image.

Besides, if you have VITC in your active image, you got a serious problem with your setup. Check your reference 🙂

[Michael Gissing] “For the web, I would zoom up also to make the image sit neatly. It looks amateur to see VITC and uneven black bars. We are talking about a zoom of about 2%, hardly a catastrophe.”

We’ve discussed VITC.
Now why would you scale up first, then scale again to get a proper internet format? You like the render? You like the improved quality?
Or are you outputting 720 x 480 non-square pixel to the web?
(Let alone that ‘true’ ntsc broadcast is 486…)
Talking about looking amateurish, not cropping to the actual intended framing is really amateur in my book.
(and that means cropping of about 10%, then scale)

And now i will flag this post to get it moved to the basics forum, where this all belongs.

Bouke

https://www.videotoolshed.com/
smart tools for video pros

[Sascha Engel]

Wow, what a long thread of posts. Guys, calm down, as we say in German: “Leave the church in the village!”
We all forget one thing here – being so nerdy and tech geeks: It is what you see in the frame also! Not all about esthetics and looks.
And there’s never on right way to a thing in video and film.
It’s all about how the final result looks like. If the scaling makes sens or not, depends on the footage resolution and quality in the first place – I think, in some cases you get away with 2% scaling, in some not.
Same for black frames around the image – for certain things it will look acceptable – in other cases not.
To Ian: Trust your eye – that is all that counts at the end of the day.
There’s as many opinions and solutions as there’s fish in the see.
And I did encounter cases in my work, where the most so called amateurish solution, was not only the fastest, but the most convincing.

To all the Nerds and Geeks out there (including myself) – let’s count together to 10 and calm down 😉

Sascha

[Ian Luckraft]

Thanks Sascha,

I didn’t expect this to happen, I thought someone would just say “change a certain setting up a couple of points” but it turned into quite a debate.

It’s made for interesting reading though and given me plenty to think about.

[Sascha Engel]

ut.

[Ian Luckraft] “It’s made for interesting reading though and given me plenty to think about. “

Well, you are so right. For me also thinking a lot about, not to be just stuck of our technical side of the work. As an editor, I am still more interested in the artistic side of a project, than tech talk. But hey, I also like the old Star Wars better than the new ones 😉

Have a great Day!

[Jerry Hofmann]

Actually I’d be prone to expand the video. Probably 101-2% would do it, then raise the position of the video up a couple of lines. Don’t want black in the full raster in the case of say a web stream where the full raster is displayed. That said, I can’t see any loss of quality expanding all the way to about 105% (depending on the quality of the source material)… if you don’t see it (even though technically there IS loss) it is simply not important. If you can’t see a difference there ISN’T a difference that matters.

Jerry

[Jiggy Gaton]

yes that’s what I always have thought too Jerry, if you can’t see it, don’t worry about it. but that was before i started losing my eyesight. now not sure what to think…except for the conundrum: if my new iPhone display resolution is higher then what the human eye can see, what am i missing besides phone calls?

Phoenix Studios Nepal: A small A/V Production House in Kathmandu.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Just to throw a little gasoline on this little brush fire…

Back in the day, (I guess “my day,” since I’m apparently now an old man), stations had fairly straightforward and consistent technical standards with regard to horizontal and vertical blanking (what the kids now call “those strange black bars”). If your video had wide blanking (esp. horizontal), your tape was rejected. Period. Wide blanking was considered amateur and not fit for broadcast. Having vertical blanking descend into the active picture area would get you laughed out of the room. This all served to generally keep the riff-raff out of the edit bay.

Heck, when NBC first set up their broadcast quality nonlinear operation (for the infamous NBC2000 “seamless content & branding” operation), they rejected using Avid because the video wasn’t full raster. No ifs, ands or buts. That’s why they used the Video Cube from Imix. Eventually Avid provided a full raster codec (AVR 76 and 77) and they switched to Avids.

The bottom line was “keep the blanking legal and within our standards.” Which was not a problem if you knew how to deal with color framing, system timing and good engineering practice. If you couldn’t deal with it, get out of the edit bay (or at least stay in offline with the “artistes”).

Now, all bets are off at most stations. I mean, if people are shooting with formats that aren’t full raster (I’m looking at YOU, DV, HDV, etc.), this kind of thing is going to happen. You could squeak by in SD and CRTs with the usual overscan. But HD, little or no overscan on flat screens, and pillar-boxed SD in HD feeds…it’s a mess out there.

So suck it up, boys. Zoom in the video to lose the vertical and/or horizontal interval. If you’ve got VITC or other crap in your active picture area, then you’ve probably got bigger problems than worrying about any loss of quality from a 2% zoom.

Uh oh, here comes Zelin. Run for cover.

[Jiggy Gaton]

Enjoyed this one…there is an old man here that talks of his ABC days in NYC, similar stories. As my grandmother from Brooklyn always said, “Never Forget.”
Cheers,
jigs

Phoenix Studios Nepal: A small A/V Production House in Kathmandu.