16:9 / 4:3 letterbox - requirements?

[EditPhish]

In the rules it said:


* Use a DVX100 or HVX200, shoot 24p and 16x9 (either squeeze or letterbox)
We shot our footage in letterbox.

So here's the question...

If I export the quicktime and/or encode the mpeg2 as 16:9 anamorphic I realize it will be stretched out on widescreen TVs, and look right on 4:3 standard TVs. Fine, whatever...

But it will ALSO look all stretch out when converted for the internet, no? When I open the mpeg-2 file it is all stretched looking.

If I convert and/or encode the mpeg2 as 4:3 it will have the same result on the TV as in scenario #1, but it will look right when converted to the internet. But the requirements say files must be delivered as 16:9 anamorphic.

So how do I deliver my movie content so that it follows the rules but also looks CORRECT when converted for internet viewing? From what I understand we can only upload one file, the mpeg-2.

...

One other thing. Because I use FCE I don't edit in a true 24 fps timeline. So our short is exported out of FCE at 29.97 fps and encoded as such. Are we not allowed to participate because it isn't true 24 (we did shoot in 24p).


Thanks all!

[pastywhiteboy]

In the rules it said:


We shot our footage in letterbox.

So here's the question...

If I export the quicktime and/or encode the mpeg2 as 16:9 anamorphic I realize it will be stretched out on widescreen TVs, and look right on 4:3 standard TVs. Fine, whatever...

But it will ALSO look all stretch out when converted for the internet, no? When I open the mpeg-2 file it is all stretched looking.

If I convert and/or encode the mpeg2 as 4:3 it will have the same result on the TV as in scenario #1, but it will look right when converted to the internet. But the requirements say files must be delivered as 16:9 anamorphic.

So how do I deliver my movie content so that it follows the rules but also looks CORRECT when converted for internet viewing? From what I understand we can only upload one file, the mpeg-2.

...

One other thing. Because I use FCE I don't edit in a true 24 fps timeline. So our short is exported out of FCE at 29.97 fps and encoded as such. Are we not allowed to participate because it isn't true 24 (we did shoot in 24p).


Thanks all!

You need to set your project to 16:9, crop off the letterboxing so the image fills the entire frame, then export as 16:9. Not sure about FCE, but this article (http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/24p_in_FCP_nattress.html) tells you what you need to do for 24p delivery in FCP.

[EditPhish]

Cropping off the letterboxing reduces quality substantially... I already tried this in After Effects.

How would you suggest to do it?

I don't have FCP and FCE does not edit in true 24 fps. The whole project is already edited together and done. Since I'm working with a 29.97 timelines, that is the only option I have for output at this point. It said to SHOOT 24p (which I did) and that letterbox was ok (which I did).

Could someone provide more clarification? Ideas on how to crop the letterbox without losing a lot of quality? MUST the file be exported and encoded for 24fps?

[Brandon Rice]

In Avid I created a resize layer and increased the vertical length of the frame to 133. This in essence stretched your video to cover the mask. Then when you compress the file to an Mpeg2 select 16:9, and it will squash your video back down to the right size, and eliminate the letterboxing.

[EditPhish]

briceman - how much quality did you lose? When I did the same in After Effects I could CLEARLY see the quality loss when I brought the file back into FCE (and viewing on my TV monitor). On the computer I couldn't see the quality loss.

[Brandon Rice]

Actually, I believe the resolution is better than if I was to keep a 4:3 file and play it on a DVD. I believe it doesn't lose any quality. I'm not sure your method, but it shouldn't lose very much quality, if any at all.

[EditPhish]

That goes against everything I've read... and I even talked to a guy at a video production house and he agreed with what I read. Cropping out the black bars then resizing vertically loses a LOT of quality. I gotta say, when I looked at the results I accomplished through AE, I'd agree.

[Brandon Rice]

Not my experience. I did shoot 4:3, maybe there is another method for when you shoot 16:9. I don't know.

[EditPhish]

Are we talking about the same thing? Did you shoot 4:3 letterbox or just 4:3?

Anyone else have any thoughts?

[Brandon Rice]

I shot 4:3 on my DVX. I then used a 16:9 mask in Avid to help me align my shot. Then I did the resize thing, then exported.

[EditPhish]

We shot in letterbox... and using FCE I have no idea how to resize so there isn't a huge loss in quality. I also just tried cropping in AE and then resizing in QT Pro and the results were even nastier!

[Brandon Rice]

I'm not familiar with Final Cut, sorry. Anyone else using this NLE?

[Shaun Patrick]

We're working through it right now in FCP and will try to post our method sometime tonight or tomorrow. EditPhish, it might be worth it to post your problem in the FCP section of the site as not everyone probably reads the Sci-Fi threads.

[smelni]

i would like to chime in with the saemm issue in avid.

If you scale and then size you do lose detail because you are spreading the image info into space normally taken by the black bars in letterbox. If you letterbox the image is not spread out.

The loss in quality appears to be quite significant - letterbox would be a better option if available - it would look MUCH sharper

[EditPhish]

Thanks Shaun... I'll look for your reply later and will also post in the FCP forum -- Problem is, if the solution required Compressor... well, I don't have that :(

I have been looking for a solution and running a variety of tests since yesterday and am absolutely no closer... so any help is greatly appreciated!

[Brandon Rice]

I do not agree. I did not know how to create an anamorphic MPEG2 file until I asked krestofre. His method worked wonderfully! I shall paste it into this post.

Once you finish your edit, make two new video tracks. On the lower of the two tracks make add an edit at the begining and end of the track then apply a 16:9 mask effect to that track (that effect is in the Film category in the effect pallet).

Then, on the higher of the two new video tracks add and edit at the beginning and end again, then add a Resize effect (under Image in the effect pallet). Go into the effect controls and scale the image vertically until the 16:9 mask disappears (I believe that the vertical number will be 133).

This will make you video look incorrect. Everyone will be stretched. That's OK. Export a QT ref of that timeline, then in Sorenson encode it with the 16:9 flag set. Then the resulting MPEG-2 file will be properly resized by the software or DVD player, depending on what you're using.

Hope this helps the Avid folks.

The compression method in Sorenson I have been using is as follows.

Video Output: MPEG2
Pixel Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Field Encoding: Progressive
Data Rate: 8000 kbs.
Method: Constant Bit Rate
Format: NTSC
I Frame Rate: 6 Frames

Hope this helps!

[Shaun Patrick]

Thanks Shaun... I'll look for your reply later and will also post in the FCP forum -- Problem is, if the solution required Compressor... well, I don't have that :(

I have been looking for a solution and running a variety of tests since yesterday and am absolutely no closer... so any help is greatly appreciated!

Well if you don't have Compressor, you're going to need some sort of program that can encode into mpeg2s. iDVD can but you won't have much control over the results.

[smelni]

briceman - that will work, but it defintely is a loss of quality over letterboxing

the orignal frame is 720x480 but part of it is masked out - then you resize to expand less then the full frame to the full 720x 480 - this resizing will by definition add artifacts because one pixel becomes more then one pixel.

letterboxing is the only way to keep pristine quality of the original/.

[Brandon Rice]

But when the pixels are changed to the correct size 16:9 is does not lose quality. I have compared the two side by side and see no loss in quality, actually I see an improvement with the 16:9.

[EditPhish]

Briceman,

Thanks for the explanation... this clued me into where to look in FCE for something similar, and I found it. I'm rendering it out now.

I CAN tell you though, there IS a quality loss. I'm going to take it into my wide-screen TV in a little while to see exactly how much. It isn't as bad as the results I got in After Effects, but it is easily noticable... at least to me. Just the fact you are stretching the footage (pixels) to fit a larger area tells you there HAS to be quality loss... it just depends how much.

If anyone has better solutions, I'm all ears.

[FabioRafael]

Anyone knows how should I do it in Vegas ?

[Brandon Rice]

Briceman,

Thanks for the explanation... this clued me into where to look in FCE for something similar, and I found it. I'm rendering it out now.

I CAN tell you though, there IS a quality loss. I'm going to take it into my wide-screen TV in a little while to see exactly how much. It isn't as bad as the results I got in After Effects, but it is easily noticable... at least to me. Just the fact you are stretching the footage (pixels) to fit a larger area tells you there HAS to be quality loss... it just depends how much.

If anyone has better solutions, I'm all ears.

I still tend to disagree that there is a quality loss with this method. I don't understand how there is. I've watched this DVD on my HD 16:9 TV, and it looks eons better than a 4:3 letterboxed project played on the same TV.

[smelni]

it might look better on your hd tv due to the high contrast or other things - or the upscaling algorithms - but for SURE, the blown up version has a high loss - i just created both and i see the difference

[EditPhish]

I still tend to disagree that there is a quality loss with this method. I don't understand how there is. I've watched this DVD on my HD 16:9 TV, and it looks eons better than a 4:3 letterboxed project played on the same TV.

I can only guess as to why -- probably because your plasma is doing a crappy job when stretching the 4:3 footage across the whole wide-screen area.

Even on my 13" cruddy TV I can see the difference from the original (not stretched in any weird way) and the upsized version... and it is NOT a slight difference, the quality loss is easily noticable on the upsized one. Now, that was with AE... I'm burning a DVD now to test the results using FCE scaling options directly. Previewing on my small monitor it looks better... but it there is still some loss.

[Brandon Rice]

Ok, I just watched the DVD again on my 13" Sony Trinitron Production Monitor. I have to say the footage looks identical in quality, and clarity as my originally captured DV25 footage from Avid. I don't understand why you all are having issues with it.

[EditPhish]

Briceman... I can't argue with your eyes and what you see, since I can't see it too :) -- All I can tell you is that everything I read said upsizing from 4:3 letterbox to 16:9 anamorphic was going to cause quality loss... and that's been my experience in all that I've tried so far. You are taking a 720 x 372 image area and stretching it vertically by 133% -- there is no way it DOESN'T cause quality loss... whether it's truly noticable or not probably depends a lot on your level of pickiness, your method and/or software used, what you're viewing it on etc.

I only read (and saw examples) of one way that didn't cause noticable loss, and that was an extremely time-consuming way, exporting the movie out as individual .tiff frames.

[Brandon Rice]

Well. I'm still confused as to what process you are going about doing the conversion. Theoretically, it should not lose any quality, because it takes your stretched footage and corrects it. How it loses quality is still beyond me. Sorry I could not be of more help. I hope the best for ya!:thumbsup:

[EditPhish]

Somehow I think we are talking about two different things.

I am talking about taking a film I shot in letterbox (blackbars already there)... cropping the black bars off (resulting size is 720 x 372) and scaling vertically so the whole shot covers the screen (scaling vertically so the final image is 720 x 480).

It corrects it on your TV, but that doesn't mea you aren't sizing the image vertically to get the TV to do it. At the source, if you're upsizing like that, there's going to be quality loss.

[Brandon Rice]

Well, I applied a mask to my 4:3 footage, essentially making that footage 720 x 372. I then took that and stretched it to the correct size. I think we're talking about the same thing. I just watched the DVD again on my 62" HD LCD TV, and it looked as good as anything I've seen from the DVX. I've played my 4:3 letterboxed DVD's on the same TV and they look horrid. This looked good!

[EditPhish]

Well all I can say then is it must be the way Avid resizes. Results were NOT good with After Effect or Final Cut Express. I don't have Compressor so that doesn't work for me.

If someone has any idea how to do this with Final Cut Express... or some way...

[spidey]

so say you have your movie in 4:3 mode timeline then you have widescreen mask on it at 2.35.1 what do you do next? take that put it in 16:9 timeline then export it then make into a mpg2 file? or what?

[Brandon Rice]

I don't know about 2.35.1.

[macgregor]

I shot in thin mode. Then i crop the video and make a 16.9 mpeg2 file in Vegas.

It looks a lot better than standard letterbox.

[Brandon Rice]

I shot in thin mode. Then i crop the video and make a 16.9 mpeg2 file in Vegas.

It looks a lot better than standard letterbox.

Finally, someone who agrees with me!

[EditPhish]

By thin mode I assume you mean 16:9 stretched. If that's what you mean, that's different than letterbox.