Posted by nappy on 05/08/07 01:51

<yarock@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178587339.876772.10650@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 1:16?pm, "nappy" <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> "Bill" <t...@chromehorse.net> wrote in message
>
> news:FvudnT9JeuyyzaLbnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@golden.net...
>
> > Take the 4:3 stuff, use Cineon or some other software to render it out
> > to
> > look like 16mm film, stretch it to cover the 16:9 proportions, and
> > charge
> > extra for the "classic" film look on portions of the video.
>
> > Seriously... if the camera is good quality, like a VX2000 or similar, it
> > won't look bad in standard definition, and if it was close-up on the
> > bride, you have some room to maneuver. It may not even look all that bad
> > in HD.
>
> > Personally, I'd make full disclosure. If the quality of the 4:3 is good,
> > you might try this: "we feel that the impact on the quality of your
> > video
> > will not be great and would like you to view the final product to
> > determine for yourself. If you feel in any way that the quality is not
> > what you expected, we are willing to negotiate a discount with you."
>
> agreed. Especially the full disclosure part. But.. maybe do it AFTER you
> have setup your method for cutting this footage in. Then, you ought to be

Does anyone have experience with digitalanarchy's "resizer'?
Bruce
> able to show them and they.. will .. like it.

fraid not.. I have PRemiere and COmbustion here which seem sto do fine.
Have you tried any fixes yet? How do they look?

[Back to original message]