Scm 2160

[Fisseha Aranda]

TREM2160 Media Literacy 3 hours; 3 credits

Survey of the field of media literacy, an emerging movement focused on critically understanding and using media forms and content. Foundational theories, concepts, projects, and current practices. Emphasis on the digital media environment. Course culminates in research-based media literacy projects. Starting Spring 2024 satisfies Pathways Flexible Core Individual and Society requirement.

DISCLAIMERThe City University reserves the right, because of changing conditions,to make modifications of any nature in academic programs and requirementsof the university and its constituent colleges without advanced notice.Students are advised to consult regularly with college and department counselorsconcerning their programs of study.

Access the college's current and recent course bulletins.

Hey guys, I'm editing some Arri Anamorphic 2k footage, aspect ratio is 2944 x 2160. If you're familiar with this ratio, you know that once you desqueeze the footage and bring the clips into Premiere, it has extra black padding on the left and right.

My final delivery will be in 1080p, by the way. So, I'd like to edit everything in the high res sequences, lay graphics over the top etc. and then export out at 1080p, unless that's not the best way. Would love to hear suggestions.

Ah, I see. Guess I was wondering what the industry standard workflow is when dealing with this 2K, 2944 x 2160 anamorphic footage shot on the alexa mini, when delivering for broadcast at 1080p. Maybe there isn't one? From what I gather, it's pretty much up to me to determine how the end product should be cropped within the 1080 comp.

Sort of. I'd edit in a sequence at the correct aspect ratio, scaling them down to that (or not, if reframing is needed). The software would add the necessary black bars for 1080 delivery, but still allow a proper "no black" export of 2048 x 848.

Ah, so that sort of gets to my other question. Is 2048 x 848 the aspect ratio I should be editing these clips in? I had been editing them in the native 2994 x 2160 sequence, and then scaling them up slightly to get rid of the padding left and right. Editing in a 2048 x 848 sequences, I'd obviously need to scale and adjust the clips a bit more to fit. And exporting out a 2994 x 2160 edit at 1080 vs Exporting out a 2048 x 848 edit at 1080 is going to look different obviously. The former, having a slightly thinner letter box. I don't know which is correct.

Picture attached for reference. The red area indicates a classic 2.39 letterbox area. The video you see in the frame is the full 2994 x 2160 (scaled to get rid of the padding) dropped into the 1080 comp. (white box added to protect the innocent)

The footage is already de-squeezed. I don't need to do it. I'm just trying to determine the proper sequence settings to edit my picture in,taking in consideration I'll be delivering for broadcast at 1080. I want to make sure I'm framing the footage correctly etc. and getting the most out the native framing and how it was intended to be viewed.

Oh, right. For that question, I've seen several editors with workflows where they used a mask to proportion on a track above the media, but left the media sequence at native pixel dimensions. They could toggle the mask layer on/off at will of course to see what the 'final' would look like. One commented he preferred this to automatically scaling to final as this way he could see exactly where he wanted to scale the underlying clip up/down on the track as it tended to vary per clip, even at times within a clip.

Of course, depending on how well the DOP shot it, it might work to just set per final ratio and auto-scale. With Set To rather than Scale To set as your option in the preferences, you still have scaling after-the-drop as needed.

Thanks Neil, appreciate the response! That being said, in the below reference you'll see an image of a 1080 comp. The red matte represents a 2.39 letterbox matte, I think like you were mentioning some editors using, it's just colored red for this demonstration. The video you see is at native pixel dimensions, set to to fit the 1080 comp. I personally don't mind the slightly narrower crop. But I'm guessing it's not best practice to keep the crop that way, but rather scale it up to fit the broader 2.39 mask? I guess I don't understand why the native dimensions are not made to fit the 2.39 crop, if that's the crop that people want to see as the end result. Any thoughts?

I guess what I'm asking is, should I just scale the native clips to fit the 1080 comp, and just apply the 2.39 matte over the top? Just feels like strange workflow. Just don't understand why the clips don't desqueeze to automatically fit the 2.39 crop. The extra step is annoying.

Arri found prores works better in groups of 128 so they black side padded 64 pixels or 32 each side. as a fun note, the anamorphic acts as a pixel ratio converter of x 2. other formats you multiply to get a new AR. cool, huh?

Awesome, thanks for all the info guys. One last question I pose. If you guys where in the same situation working with this padded 2K anamorphic material, and you were cutting an ad for broadcast, and also where going to run it on web as well. How would you proceed? Would nest the 2k anamorphic sequence into a 1080 comp and apply a 2.39 mask over the top? Or would you confirm the footage to a anamorphic sequence, that had the appropriate 2.39 aspect ratio, and upon export choose 1920x1090 and scale to fit, so that you end up with a 16x9 export with the appropriate bars top and bottom or lastly would you just export the video with a true 2.39 aspect ratio and deliver that to stations and web, not sure if the web and broadcast stations automatically scale to fit the 16x9 screens.

In the project panel where the clip is located, right click on the clip and select New clip sequence. With this you configure the correct resolution. If you want a more fluid edition, otherwise it will increase the processing during editing.

Regardless of how you perform your de-squeezing, scaling etc. you should probably work in a 1920x1080 sequence - some effects (such as denoising) and text might not render at their best if you are working in a frame size different from your delivery and applying scaling after the fact.

The DI-2160 features programmable capture modes to detect events (when the events happen), states (how long between events) and counts (how many events). An internal real time clock provides time and date stamping for each captured quantity, and storage is accomplished to a removable USB thumb drive. Data storage format is comma-separated value (CSV) so recorded files are human-readable and easily imported to other applications like Microsoft Excel.

The unit is to be powered by an AC adaptor (included), and SuperCap technology is employed to close file properly during sudden power loss. Please note, SuperCap can't support continuous recording and the last unfinished interval will be lost, UPS is needed if non-stop operation is desired.

Thanks so much. So basically I should edit the original 2944 x 2160 clips in a 2048858 sequence, and scale the clips accordingly? My final output will be for broadcast tv, so is there anything else I need to consider, knowing this?

That being said, how do you feel about this workflow: nest my full 2k (2944 x 2160) clips into a 1920 x 803 sequence, and lay all my graphics and effects etc. into that sequence. Then export out at 1920 x 1080, and scale to fit so that we maintain the widescreen look with the proper 2.39 letterbox.

Our new, reinvigorated interpretation of a classic stereo receiver: the RR2160MkII provides clean, neutral, and accurate playback. As a fan of classics, we'll begin and end this in a similar way as we did when we released our RR2150, over a decade ago: The RR2160MkII delivers solid, no-compromise two-channel performance.

As a product designed for music listening, even the most demanding musical peaks are not a problem thanks to ample filter capacitor reserves. We built this receiver for those who still love sitting back and watching a record spin; for the Outlaws who enjoy the album art and listening to a record from start to finish; for the enthusiast who has bins full of compact discs; for the working class Joe who wants to kick up his feet and listen to radio stations from all over the world.

As such, when my longtime modest tube amp, Jadis DA-88S, needed to be re-tubed, this prompted some broader searching around what amp could anchor my system for the next 10+ years of my audio journey. A number of sources communicated to me that their opinion was Boulder was the best amplifier made in the United States. One Boulder dealer I respect indicated that in 20 years of carrying the product he has had less than 5 service incidents (!) This, other research, and a discount opportunity ultimately led to the purchase. My signal path for this review is: Roon Nucleus->Rossini Apex->Boulder->SF Guarneri.

3a8082e126