Moderators - Can we submit letterboxed

[smelni]

Can we submit letterboxed? - blowing up to 16:9 pixels has a high loss of quality. It would be nicer if we could leave it letterboxed.

thanks
s

[bena]

I concur.. its way too late in the game to be tossing the whole anamorphic issue at us at the last couple days. I got my hands full finishing up my fx shots and I may not be able to get my filtered shots re-rendered.

[Norm Sanders]

As I posted in another thread as well, this has been known for litterally months ... why would they change the rules now?: http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=39467

[bena]

per the original rule:

Use a DVX100 or HVX200, shoot 24p and 16x9 (either squeeze or letterbox)

I see no Anamorphic requiremen there.... and I did letter box.

[CallaghanFilms]

per the original rule:

Use a DVX100 or HVX200, shoot 24p and 16x9 (either squeeze or letterbox)

I see no Anamorphic reference there.... and I did letter box.Same here.

[BrianV]

Just concurring from the other thread, it states the shooting format can be either, and states nothing about the finished format.

Fuel for the fire.

Burn :)

[Brandon Rice]

And, I will stand by my argument that if done correctly, 16:9 will look better than 4:3 letterboxed.

[BrianV]

And, I will stand by my argument that if done correctly, 16:9 will look better than 4:3 letterboxed.

And I agree. I'm finalizing in 16x9. I'm just for the guys and gals who are crunched.

:engel017:

But you're definately right, briceman.

Now let's just hope the server doesn't crash. :) *so knocking on wood, no jinx*

[smelni]

16:9 resized will not and can not look better - it just doesnt make sense - you are taking less lines and making them more - the stretching wont compensate for that period.

Perhaps some people have better tools that do the resize better - but that makes for an uneven playground.

I will submit 16:9 if i have to but my 4:3 letterboxed looks loads better

[BrianV]

but when you view it on a 4X3 monitor it's resized. True, you're stretching the pixels and can notice the stretching on a 16X9 monitor... but, if you have a letterboxed video being shown on a 16X9 monitor, it would have to be automatically zoomed in anyhow to fill the frame.

so in the end, they meet up the same. its just a question of your viewing medium.

....perhaps.

*fuel*

[Brandon Rice]

but when you view it on a 4X3 monitor it's resized. True, you're stretching the pixels and can notice the stretching on a 16X9 monitor... but, if you have a letterboxed video being shown on a 16X9 monitor, it would have to be automatically zoomed in anyhow to fill the frame.

so in the end, they meet up the same. its just a question of your viewing medium.

....perhaps.

*fuel*

Yes, all true, the only thing I have noticed is that when zooming a 4:3 video on a 16:9 monitor it renders much less quality than having a 16:9 file to begin with, which is much crisper.

[smelni]

brian - you might be right on tv monitors - but people are judging on the internet - so, for sure, the 4:3 letterbox will look better since nothing is resized. The 16:9 will look more pixelated

[Brandon Rice]

16:9 in theory isn't resized either. It's resized initially and then converted back to the correct ratio. Hey EditPhish, I found an interesting article on FC and 16:9 files.

http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/?page_id=162

[smelni]

thats just not true -

how many lines are image lines in a letterboxed image?

then after the 16:9 conversion there is 480 lines - that is more then before.

It doesnt matter if the pixels are shaped differently - those new lines needed to be created from the other lines and will only be approximate.

Remember - we are working in a digital world so you arent just stretching and shrinking - you are creating new lines and then resizing those digital lines

[Brandon Rice]

All I can say is what I see. And, I see a much cleaner image. I don't know about all the math and stuff, but it worked for me.

[smelni]

that is because you are looking on a 16:9 monitor - on your pc i suspect the 4:3 will look better

[EditPhish]

I read that article already... if you read down further on the page he talks about how you have to "distort" the footage:

"Which means that at some point before delivery, you have to vertically stretch your video."

Stretching is where you lose all the quality, and is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Brandon Rice]

that is because you are looking on a 16:9 monitor - on your pc i suspect the 4:3 will look better

I viewed it on my PC, and on a laptop, and on four different TV's, and I've viewed both versions with multiple individuals, and they've all agreed that the 16:9 just looks better.

[Brandon Rice]

I read that article already... if you read down further on the page he talks about how you have to "distort" the footage:

"Which means that at some point before delivery, you have to vertically stretch your video."

Stretching is where you lose all the quality, and is exactly what I'm talking about.

Well, try it. You might be surprised. I stretched my video too, and it maintained the quality.

[EditPhish]

Dude, you are making my blood pressure go up ;) !! I think I've mentioned quite a few times I HAVE been trying a variety of different ways. I've used After Effects, AE Plugins, Final Cut, Encoders... and if you look in my garbage can there are the 10 DVD-Rs to prove it. They all looked like crap on 4:3 TVs and big screen 16:9.

[Brandon Rice]

Dude, you are making my blood pressure go up ;) !! I think I've mentioned quite a few times I HAVE been trying a variety of different ways. I've used After Effects, AE Plugins, Final Cut, Encoders... and if you look in my garbage can there are the 10 DVD-Rs to prove it. They all looked like crap on 4:3 TVs and big screen 16:9.

Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. I'm really trying to help. I mean I am searching online for Final Cut solutions right now. I am not familiar with that system, so I am sorry. I'm only trying to help out.

[EditPhish]

Dude, I'm just frustrated... I have tried so many different ways and they just look like garbage. And it's even more frustrating that when I convert out my own internet version (as letterbox) I get something I'm happy with, as opposed to all stretched out or soft quality.

[Brandon Rice]

Well... I am talking with a friend who has worked on both Avid and FC, and he said the method is essentially the same. Stretch the footage. He said he did that on some of the shots for a Linkin Park DVD he made. I think that's what you'll end up having to do. Sorry I can't help more.

[EditPhish]

Well I did that already and it looked poopie on my 16:9 TV. Horrible? Maybe not, but definitely not as sharp as prior to stretching... and I really don't want to be submitting a film that looks soft... that's not why I bought this expensive camera :huh: