16:9 black bars question

[dasonras]

We have now 16:9 chips today for video projects where the main focus is for specific output to widescreen television sets.

35, 16, and 8mm film's real native dimensions is somewhat closer to academy ratio NOT WIDESCREEN. The widescreen part of film comes into play when we discuss the interaction of lenses, specifically SCOPE lenses. Overall, super35 is becoming today a very popular film stock because it gives you a lot more flexibility.

You'd have to study up on the history of cinema to understand the reasons why cinema featured the changeover from academy ratio to widescreen proportions.

But, what you should do is shoot 4:3 (only DVX) and on your video tap monitor / viewfinder, you should draw crop lines so you can frame correctly. Anything above, below, or to the sides of the drawn in crop lines, you are safe to place microphones etc. In post, you don't necessarily have to add a mask.

In sorenson or other compression software, you insert crop lines so that when the software is compressing the mpeg-2 file it will only render the portions of your desired viewable area that you determined during the principal photography. You should however drop so that the image resembles closely a common aspect ratio (e.g. 2.35:1 or 1.85:1). I keep using the term "sorenson" because i think sorenson is the best compressor for PC that i have used thus far. For the MAC, i suggest a software called "compression master."

In my experience, using squeeze mode in the dvx will result in noisy video inappropriate disproportions. Again, remember that 16:9 chips and squeeze is intended for widescreen video with the ratio close to 1.77:1 not cinematic ratios like 2.35:1 or 1.85:1.

 

[benandaim]

(I own a HVX, Is SQUEEZE the same as the DVX?) Thanks for the info, although i don't fully understand a lot of what your saying i can see what u mean. So unless i want to shoot a film would u say that SQUEEZE may be acceptable for(weddings, events, TVC's?) I actually use sorenson squeeze myself and agree it's awesome.

 

[Joshua Provost]

DO NOT USE SQUEEZE! Shoot 4:3 and in post add bars. Then, when exporting in sorenson, define the cropping areas and export as a widescreen video.

He wants 2.35:1, so there is no reason not to use SQUEEZE mode AND he will still have to crop in post. If he wanted 16:9 final output, most people (including myself) would recommend shooting 4:3 and cropping in post, so you have the flexibiliity to reframe in post.

What is this about exporting in Sorenson? Most of us are doing productions for broadcast, DVD, or projection. What does web compression have to do with it?

Have you used SQUEEZE mode? I find that most of the bashers have never used it. It's a good tool in the right circumstances. Anamorphic adaptor is great, but not an option for many.

This way you do not lose resolution and you will end up with a true widescreen video (not just black bars in a 4:3 space).

The resolution of SQUEEZE mode compared to 4:3 upscaled to widescreen in post will be about the same. SQUEEZE mode has the theoretical potential to be better.

SQUEEZE is true anamorphic widescreen DV footage. LETTERBOX mode is black bars in space, and I have never heard anyone recommend LETTERBOX mode.

Um.... where did you guys get the idea that shooting 4:3 and adding bars is the wrong thing to do? I've been a cinematographer working in film for 8 years and this is how it is commonly done. Ever hear of Super 35? Super 35 is pretty much shooting 4:3 and then cropping the desired viewable space for theatrical output.

I'm actually working on that exact workflow right now on a short film: 4:3 cropped to 16:9 in post. It was the right choice for that project, but for other projects SQUEEZE was a better solution.

 

[JWoozers]

OK... If that's how it's done why do we have native 16:9 chips? Isn't SQUEEZE mode true widescreen? Also rendering black bars onto every frame has to take a lot of extra time right?

The "widescreen" option may not be the exact ratio as feature film, but it's good enough for whatever you may do with the DVX. Some will say that it's better to do it in post, but it takes time and extra video track etc., things you don't need to worry about if you just shoot it in procinema. Plus, in post you will have to figure out if the matte will correctly frame each of your shots properly, whereas on set, you can figure that out before you shoot. The truth is, better to do it properly while shooting than have to matte it in post. You don't want to waste time rendering, especially if it's a looot of footage. The procinema option on the DVX100 is great with the squeeze because it's similar to that stretched widescreen look on HD/plasma televisions.

Because no one shoots 4:3 in the field, better get used to the letterbox whether you do it on the set or not. And it's the preferred look for demo reels as well. Just get used to using it so you don't have to waste time later when you can use that time for logging or whatever. If you need a different kind of screen ratio, which will probably be narrower than that, then throw a matte over all that in post.

 

[evanesce]

I rarely ever use the flip-out screen on my DXV, and I was wondering if there is any software that can be loaded into the camera to create letterbox crop marks in the viewfinder.

Regarding shooting in letterbox mode, the biggest problem that I have found with it is that any fx effect (Magic Bullet, etc.) that is applied in post will lay over the letterbox black bars, because they are in the 4:3 image space.