Auto Focus blur correction?

Editing a two camera shoot as logged in a few recent posts. One of the camera's had to be set at auto focus. Movement on stage periodically pulled the camera out of focus for about 5 or 6 frames. It looks like a quick blur at full speed.
Anyone have any ideas about fixing this????

I personally have never seen a sharpen filter that didn't make your image look even worse than soft and blurry...so if other people have recommendations, I'm all ears.

My guess is no, but this is me ready to write down any good ideas.

Koz

That wooshing sound you hear is everybody stepping aside for everybody else.

Cut aorund it? I don't think there is a rescue for the actual out-of-focus video.

Koz

I know lots of people will disagree, but I personally never use auto focus when shooting. I always need the control of being able to put things out of focus myself. Also, auto-focus "drifts" always look worse than if you do a move yourself and the focus stayed constant, because you tend to get that "slightly soft" look with auto focus that never looks intentional. With manual focus, you can often claim artistic intent!

<<<you can often claim artistic intent!>>>

That's what I was going to say. Fuzz up everything else and call it art.

Back in the days of wet process still photography, people would ask me if I could "fix" a fuzzy photo.

"Sure," I said, " Kodak makes 'Focusing Solution' and it's just the ticket."

Unfortunately, it only comes in the 3-1/2 gallon size and it doesn't keep, so you have to use it all at once. It also only works really well in a Kodak VersaMat-2 Processor so the whole job can't cost any more than $15,000 or so.

Koz

thx guys.
I only needed an excuse to go pour another one.


p.s. It's a long story but I have a second camera that has problems with focus, but....... I had to use it. I don't normally use the auto mode for many of the same reasons. (piece of sh---).

Koz and I were only half-joking (well, I was). If you set up a stylistic motif whereby you can *increase* the blur when it happens, you might be able to fudge it. Another thing I do with extraordinarily crappy footage is to shrink the picture with a picture-in-picture effect. On an EPK I cut two months ago, I got a segment of the Leno show, but the cheapos who provided the materials gave it to me on VHS...taped off a TV, with saturation out in the stratosphere. So I put a B&W background in it, put a rounded rectangle matte around the footage, and put it onscreen at 60 per cent size. Made it look somewhat decent, actually.

Those same cheapos wouldn't even give me a decent-quality Photoshop/TIFF of the music group's logo despite my repeated pleading. I had to freeze a frame from a music video of theirs which had a logo on it (!!!). There's a thin white line at bottom I can't get rid of (or it'll chop up the logo). Well, they reap what they sow! At least my exec. producer was aware of the dilemma and didn't say anything about it.

<<<Koz and I were only half-joking (well, I was).>>.

No. I was all joking.

Koz

I've had to help a friend with a similar problem- only do this for good friends or for money because it's not worth "the experience".

If the problem is only for 5 or 6 frames and the camea head did not move, try locating the action within the frame that moved- if is not a lot, put a matte around it. Then create a still frame of the last frame that is in focus and extend it for the 5 to 6 frame duration.

Add a second layer with the cobbed or matted action over the still. The majority of the frame should be in focus and the action area will blur. You might need to play with the matte edge to blend it.

If the frame is full of action, this won't work but if you have only 20% or so, say a person walking across the stage.

This equates to a virtual rotoscope job but it can help minimize the distraction if the action within the frame is limited.

Hope it helps.
Tim

<<<Movement on stage periodically pulled the camera out of focus>>>

In other words. You're dead.

Koz

thx Tim.