data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/06230/06230ea361926c33580e9328c52e06870094a6f9" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2ab4c/2ab4c4b0950442d6a54d7bb2eb999617e803b18f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bfead/bfeadfc5c3762d1829a023a608b06ebf6cad2241" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/71f64/71f64a8439eade7d46f7ee173a7d1f712eec17ed" alt=""
I was looking at my test footage at full 853 x 480 resolution (16 x 9). Everything looks big! It's that framing problem I keep running into where I tend to frame really tight. The footage looks better the smaller it displays on screen. So I got the idea of changing the aspect ratio of the film from 16 x 9 to the super-wide 2.35:1. To do this you stay at 853 x 480 but add bars to the top and bottom.
When I looked through my footage I found that it's really easy to make this conversion. I light with so many black shadows that all I have to do is fill in the empty space with more black. To sell the effect I just need to composite something in the black space here and there (you know, lightbulbs). This opens a whole can of worms adding even more effects shots to the to-do list. Where do I stop? I just eye-balled the test images above which is why the aspect ratios aren't consistent.
No comments:
Post a Comment