Exporting a 2.35.1 video from 1920x1080?

[micrors4racer]

I used filmic pro on my 4S to capture 24fps video along with a 2.35.1 overlay guide so my video composing will work once everything is edited. I have edited the video in iMovie with 1920x1080 24fps project settings and now I want to export it. Some videos I have seen recommend putting a picture of 2 black bars over the video but I think this is a waste of time and space since I will have to render the 2 black bars.

What would be the correct way of exporting my video with a 2.35.1 aspect ratio in iMovie? It would also be good if there are guides for Final Cut, and Adobe Premiere since I intend to try these out too.

 

[initialsBB]

I doubt you can do this directly in iMovie, but someone else may contradict me. However, iMovie will let you export a 1080p movie file which you can then compress to MPEG 4 via MPEG Sreamclip using their "adjustments" you can crop the top and bottom.

Just note that once you upload that cropped file to a video sharing site, it may add the bars back in any case !

 

[floh]

The black bars are not ideal and it's understandable that you want to get rid of them. But like initialsBB said, there is no way (to my knowledge) to do that in iMovie. In FCPX and Premiere, you can choose a custom pixel size and aspect ratio for your projects and therefore produce a 2.35:1 image.

However, I usually don't even do that. The reasons are:

1. If I publish this movie anywhere that is not a computer playing back a file (DVD, BluRay, youtube, vimeo, ...), the black bars will be added later because it's all 16:9 except for the cinema. And sometimes the video quality actually suffers from that if it is done badly...

2. The storage space that these two black bars take up is not as high as you might expect. In modern codecs like H.264, large areas of the same color can be compressed a lot. And since they don't change, all the motion-jpeg information is zero. I can't do the math exactly since it depends on the encoder, but it's not like "one third of the screen isn't stored so the file is two thirds the original size" but rather like "you save 5 to 10 percent at best".

If you still want to get rid of the bars in iMovie, you can still refer to the tool initialsBB has mentioned to crop the bars after you have exported. Be aware however that your video will be re-encoded for the crop and might actually look worse than when it had the bars while saving you 5-10% of disk space. So make sure to double check the quality if you decide to do so.

 

[Babybandit]

1. If I publish this movie anywhere that is not a computer playing back a file (DVD, BluRay, youtube, vimeo, ...), the black bars will be added later because it's all 16:9 except for the cinema. And sometimes the video quality actually suffers from that if it is done badly...

Vimeo actually supports it 2.35:1 (And I assume, Every other aspect Ratio), which was quite the pleasant surprise after I uploaded my video. Youtube however, does not.

My 2.35:1 Video on Vimeo

 

[WRP]

Why you'd want to further reduce your resolution is beyond me.

 

[handsome pete]

Well he's technically reducing the overall resolution, but does it really matter if he's just cropping out inconsequential material?

 

[WRP]

If he shot and framed for it, no. But my point was why shoot and frame for such a dramatic reduced resolution. This isn't being put on the big screen, this was shot with an iphone. And to the person up there who did a 30 seconds of a dude spray painting it makes even less sense.

 

[Babybandit]

Why you'd want to further reduce your resolution is beyond me.

I shoot with 1920 by 818 in mind, taping the top and bottom of my viewfinder. I'm not really reducing resolution if my intended resolution was 1920 by 818. Is it? Now, if I shot 1920 by 818 and shrunk it down to 1080 by 460. Then Yes, I am essentially reducing resolution.

As for reducing Resolution, it's actually very common practice. In The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, David Fincher shoots at 5K, but he doesn't fully utilize it. He does this so that he can reframe in the edit. You can watch more about this in the Bluray Featureless. His eye for doing this is actually quite amazing. One Example is that he decided that a pan should happen slightly quicker in Post. Another reason one might do it, is to assist image stabilization to have more leeway with footage.

I shoot 1920 by 818 in mind because I much prefer it's aesthetics, and it helps create a tighter relationship with the subject while being able to show more of it's context with the relative wideness. It just suits the short better.

 

[WRP]

I shoot with 1920 by 818 in mind, taping the top and bottom of my viewfinder. I'm not really reducing resolution if my intended resolution was 1920 by 818. Is it? Now, if I shot 1920 by 818 and shrunk it down to 1080 by 460. Then Yes, I am essentially reducing resolution.

As for reducing Resolution, it's actually very common practice. In The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, David Fincher shoots at 5K, but he doesn't fully utilize it. He does this so that he can reframe in the edit. You can watch more about this in the Bluray Featureless. His eye for doing this is actually quite amazing. One Example is that he decided that a pan should happen slightly quicker in Post. Another reason one might do it, is to assist image stabilization to have more leeway with footage.

I shoot 1920 by 818 in mind because I much prefer it's aesthetics, and it helps create a tighter relationship with the subject while being able to show more of it's context with the relative wideness. It just suits the short better.

I'm not talking about reducing the quality of the image, I'm talking about the resolution as in dimensions. If you have the ability to shoot 1920x1080 you are effectively cropping your resolution.

Pan and scan and resizing has been going on for ages. But these newer aspect ratios are just getting dumb. Why you want to lose screen real estate is beyond me.

 

[micrors4racer]

I know it is giving me less viewspace but to me the black bars add to the effect once it is shown on tv. I found the QuickTime export in the Share tab on iMovie and it seems to have a crop setting.

Here is a screenshot from another site of the window

On this window should I have 1920x817? And the preserve aspect ratio, should it be letterbox, crop, or fit within dimensions?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Pan and scan and resizing has been going on for ages. But these newer aspect ratios are just getting dumb. Why you want to lose screen real estate is beyond me.

How is 2.35:1 a new aspect ratio? 35mm film, for example, is more square than not so cropping (either by way of a hard or soft matte) is standard practice to get the aspect ratio you want. Standard widescreen for a movie is 1.85:1 which is still wider the 1.78.1 of HD.

On this window should I have 1920x817? And the preserve aspect ratio, should it be letterbox, crop, or fit within dimensions?

Never used that function like that before but I say give Crop a shot.

 

[WRP]

How is 2.35:1 a new aspect ratio? 35mm film, for example, is more square than not so cropping (either by way of a hard or soft matte) is standard practice to get the aspect ratio you want. Standard widescreen for a movie is 1.85:1 which is still wider the 1.78.1 of HD.

What part of I understand "pan and scanning and resizing as been going on for ages" did you not understand? I know this. But go 10 years ago and 2.35:1 was not widely used. More and more people are going wider and wider and losing headspace. I see it more and more. And I'm not talking about features on theater screens mind you.

And you guys can stop quoting me and arguing. I just simply said it is beyond me why you would want to do it. I'm allowed to have my opinions, you all don't have to justify yourselves over everything you say.

 

[handsome pete]

But go 10 years ago and 2.35:1 was not widely used.

For digital video acquisition maybe, but it was certainly widely used long before then with film.



My point was simply that if he's framing things with that aspect ratio in mind, the loss in vertical resolution is meaningless.

It doesn't matter if it's never going to be projected on a big screen. After all, not every photographer keeps their images at their native 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio. There are obviously artistic reasons for the cropping.

 

[LethalWolfe]

What part of I understand "pan and scanning and resizing as been going on for ages" did you not understand? I know this. But go 10 years ago and 2.35:1 was not widely used. More and more people are going wider and wider and losing headspace. I see it more and more. And I'm not talking about features on theater screens mind you.

The OP just wants to output a native 2.35:1 frame as opposed to a 16x9 frame matted to contain a 2.35:1 image. How does pan and scan factor into this? He's not looking to use pan & scan to reformat a wider image to be viable full screen on a narrower display (i.e. a 1.85:1 movie on a 1.33:1 SD TV).

As to why you are seeing more TV shows or made for TV movies shooting wider than 16x9? Maybe it's being done for artistic reasons, maybe it's being done just because someone in charge thinks it looks more cinematic. As long as it's framed appropriately it shouldn't give you feeling of less head room but of more looking room (unless of course everyone is always looking up or down). I see this in video games all the time. When 4x3 was standard all the cutscenes would be 16x9 to give them a cinematic feel. Now that 16x9 is normal I see a lot of cutscenes in 1.85:1. I think it's weird an unnecessary in those cases but whatever.

And you guys can stop quoting me and arguing. I just simply said it is beyond me why you would want to do it. I'm allowed to have my opinions, you all don't have to justify yourselves over everything you say.

Why don't you stop quoting other people and arguing? Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. You don't have to justify yourself over everything you say.

This a message board on the internet, it's a place specifically designed for people to discuss things.

 

[WRP]

The OP just wants to output a native 2.35:1 frame as opposed to a 16x9 frame matted to contain a 2.35:1 image. How does pan and scan factor into this? He's not looking to use pan & scan to reformat a wider image to be viable full screen on a narrower display (i.e. a 1.85:1 movie on a 1.33:1 SD TV).

I wasn't having a discussion with the OP, I was talking with someone else who mentioned shooting in a higher resolution to allow to reframe in post at a smaller resolution. You know... you have to read what someone quotes to get the correct context of what the said instead of jumping on them and say they are wrong.

It makes you look bad and I know you are a smart guy, who unfortunately has probably been in LA a bit too long.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I wasn't having a discussion with the OP, I was talking with someone else who mentioned shooting in a higher resolution to allow to reframe in post at a smaller resolution.

My bad. I was apparently distracted by your odd use of "pan & scan" to refer to reframing in post. Might be a regional thing 'cause I've only heard pan & scan used in reference to formatting a widescreen image to be viewed on a 4x3 TV.

You know... you have to read what someone quotes to get the correct context of what the said instead of jumping on them and say they are wrong.

Jumping on you? I'm just asking questions and trying to have a discussion. I thought you had to have a thicker skin than that to survive on the east coast.

It makes you look bad and I know you are a smart guy, who unfortunately has probably been in LA a bit too long.

I'm not quit burned out yet. I'll know I've been here too long when heading to Boston sounds like a smart career move.

 

[Babybandit]

Never used that function like that before but I say give Crop a shot.

To OP.
Definitely Crop! How'd you pull that up on iMovie? I've only seen it on FCP / Compressor!

 

[micrors4racer]

No need to fight lads! I understand all the view points and we can all agree that 2.35.1 gives a cinematic feel when viewed on a 16:9 and thats the effect I am going for and framed for.

I tried the crop feature and I got exactly what I want however, I have getting artifacts/pixelated blacks in some of the darker scenes. Why is this happening? It looks like what would happen if you over compress a video but I selected the best settings in iMovie. Should I got with a custom bitrate?

Babybandit I got it by going to share on the top tab and click in export using quicktime.

 

[ppc_michael]

lol at WRP. He's the only guy on my ignore list.

I don't know anything about iMovie, but it's something I do occasionally with other applications:

In Final Cut or Premiere, what I would do is edit in full 1920x1080, then send it out to Compressor (for FCP) or Media Encoder (for Premiere) and crop it down there. Some compression applications such as Sorenson Squeeze even have cropping presets for standard aspect ratios like your 2.35:1.

--
Another option: In FCP or Premiere, again edit in full 1920x1080. Then create a second sequence with the custom dimensions (1920x818 or whatever). Now drag your first full-res sequence in to the new custom sequence. It might be pillarboxed at first, but you can use the Motion controls to zoom your embedded sequence to 100% so that the top and bottom are cropped off the way you want. Then export that way.