On 2013-06-03 13:53, Randy Little wrote:
David I might know a little about how shots used in a commercial settings. Before 9/11 I had delivered well over 15,000 images for use in advertising and publications. Since then Most of my work has been Feature films Maybe the people you work for don't know what their layouts are going to be. But I usually get a layout that has the exact dimensions of what ai am shooting.
Doesn't happen in editorial shooting for a magazine, though, which is what I was doing.
As for paper sizes. WHAT? Matting maybe? You know you don't have to use the whole paper?
Yeah, I heard that somewhere :-). And I know a few people *did* print to the film aspect ratio consistently. But only a few.
and a proper undistort tool LIKE WE HAVE IN THE CINEMATOGRAPHY WORLD properly scales the frame to match the undistorted image. They other thing we can't really do is crop. we Frame for a delivery aspect ration and shoot for 3 common frames. Common top, Center and Common bottom. Doing ANY cropping is just asking for problems in that world as you will get different type of softening in Film and digital. Which on a 40 foot screen will JUMP all over you. Paying for repo either via the time of having to show up for a session or the cost of paying for optical repo's doesn't make producers very happy usually. Happens all the time. You are trading one problem for a new problem and then picking which is the lesser of 2 evils.
Unless it's doing content-aware fill on the edges (successfully, without human intervention, which would be FAR better than Photoshop manages), what you describe is impossible. Or I'm not understanding your description, which is perhaps the most likely. But I don't get what you think is wrong with the ACR or Photoshop options.
I'm an amateur in film, too; I was assistant camera operator (and loader; small crew) for a no-budget feature shot in 16mm, plus did class project stuff back in college and video in the field (especially at SF conventions) in the 70s some. Mostly (except the feature) we were at the level where optical printing wasn't even on the table, so no size adjustment was conceivable. But as you say it was a fairly drastic move in movies anyway.
again if you find that you have to crop a lot to make your images *_work_* then more framing practice is probably in order. When I was 17 this is one of the photographers that worked in the studio I was apprenticing at. http://www.richardsprengeler.com/ You can open pretty much any of these shots and find that they are all the same aspect ration as the 4x5 camera he shot them with. Why because he knows how to frame his shots. Then later when I was working for Mr. Crop (Arnold Newman) We still did everything we could to not have to crop but I would bet we could take any shot we cropped and print it full frame and it will still be a good shot because it was FRAMED PROPERLY because obviously Arnold knows how to compose a shot.
There are lots of views. My own is that harnessing yourself to the basically random dimensions of the camera frame isn't the best way to make good photos.
-- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
