16:9 / 4:3 letterbox - requirements?

EditPhish

EditPhish

Well-known member
In the rules it said:

Jarred Land said:
* Use a DVX100 or HVX200, shoot 24p and 16x9 (either squeeze or letterbox)
Click to expand...
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!
 
EditPhish said:
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!
Click to expand...

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 tells you what you need to do for 24p delivery in FCP.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Are we talking about the same thing? Did you shoot 4:3 letterbox or just 4:3?

Anyone else have any thoughts?
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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
 
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!
 
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!
 
EditPhish said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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/.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top