On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 02:40:45 GMT, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:

>> Yes - but you can also export the flash frame, modify it
>> in a photo editor (export a normal frame for reference...),
>> and insert it in place of the original flash frame...
>> Or, within the editor you can cut the edges of the single
>> frame and mofify it using the editor's picture filters.
>> The result should be better than the black-frame
>> substitution, which will be quite visible...

>Interesting idea - if there is enough info in the frame to make it
>look similar to the other frames - I am just thinking (from my film
>experience) that a single frame of bad info is much more visible than
>a single frame gap of nothing. The persistence of vision covers it or
>something. But of course both methods would have to be tried for
>visibility. And difficulty. I imagine not that many of the flash
>frames would be grossly overexposed - unless, of course, you are
>shooting the same frame that the still photographer is shooting. If
>you examine one of those frames, it looks like a white cat on a snow
>pile at noon. Not possible to correct.
>Gary Eickmeier

Yes - most flash frames I've seen are not washed out, but
are lighter, with a different color balance - not hard to
bring to at least a darker than average, color-corrected
state that blends well. I find a single black frame quite
visible, though. Better than these are things others
recommended: either removing the bad frame and closing
up the gap, or filling it with either a blend of the previous
and next frames at 50% transparency, or with a copy of
one of the adjacent frames... I had forgotten about these,
which I used to correct needed LP footage that even the
Mini-DV camera I shot it with could not play without
glitched frames...