4:3 or 16:9 DVD?

4:3 or 16:9 DVD?

  • 16:9 content, on a 4:3 DVD/Menu

    Votes: 5 20.8%

  • 16:9 all the way, including DVD/Menu

    Votes: 17 70.8%

  • 4:3 DVD all the way, with 16:9 content actually letterboxed in 4:3

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Total voters
    24
Norm Sanders

Norm Sanders

Script Wrangler
Just curious to see what you all feel the best format is for your DVD authoring, specifically at the menu end of it with regards to look/layout.

While I always buy widescreen DVD's, I've noticed the menu is typically in 4:3, or at least it fills the screen perfectly on my standard def TV's.

So ALL of the special features will be widescreen, with the possible exception of the picture gallery for BTS photos, etc.

I could future proof the DVD, and simply have everything set to widescreen, but really don't like how the menu then looks on a 4:3 TV, with the black bars above & below, even though I'm only navigating (I know, I'm picky).

Again, curious to see what you all deliver in....
 
K, I'm sold. 16:9 all the way, although I'll have those nasty bars at the top/bottom on the menu.... :)

Stefan, how've you been?! I'm sorry ... I think I got a VM from you a while ago, and can't recall if I got back to you or not? We need to catch up! :)
 
No worries Norm, I've been great, keeping busy as always. Feel free to give me a call anytime. By the way, I was meeting with Steven Dempsey the other day and I saw some footage of you in one of the projects on his site. Hope all is going well.
 
I'm not recommending anything. :) I only state what I do, and what I do is widescreen presentation.

I will say that I don't particularly care to watch anything that's supposed to be cinematic in a 4:3 aspect ratio.
 
C'mon, you have to love Fritz Lang's M or Citizen Kane or any movie made before the competition from television forced Hollywood studios to adopt widescreen.

P.S. I also shoot in 16:9.
 
Well now, let's not get off track with the poll, folks. The question wasn't about what we shoot in, but more about for those of us that DO have 16:9 projects, how are we delivering them onto DVD's that are going to be watched on a wide variety of TV's, specifically the 4:3 or 16:9 question, and for me it was even more specific about how that opening menu looked or interacted on varying TV's. :)
 
I only deliver 16:9 all the way and a few years from now when everyone has as widescreen TV my customers will thank me. (although many do now)

I remember a few years ago when I yelled at anyone in my house who didn't buy widescreen DVD's and they cried back, "we hate widescreen... it's too small" (because we only had 4:3 TV's) and I said, "trust me, just buy the widescreen version". Now that we have a widescreen TV my kids can't stand their old 4:3 DVD's and dad gets to say, "I told you so" :)

So trust me... forget the past... move forward. Widescreen menus are extremely easy to read on a widescreen TV which everyone will eventually have. (just my 2 cents)

~jr
 
David Jimerson said:
I'm not recommending anything. :) I only state what I do, and what I do is widescreen presentation.
Click to expand...

Jim,

Please forgive me if that came off like a criticism. I meant it more as a question of curiosity because I am at the point of trying to decide which mode to shoot in.

It's pretty obvious that interlaced 4:3 is on the way out. Here in Colorado, you will need to purchase a digital converter for your analog television as of 2009 because all signals will be digital. At this point, I am thinking that I should consider shooting everything in 16:9 for that reason. I have issues with letterbox mode because many of the FX effects in post lay over the black bars as well as the image, which, of course, are one in the same in 4:3 aspect ratio. An anamorphic lens is not in my budget at this point, some I am limited to the options in the DVX100B.

So I guess I should rephrase my question to ask: Are you finding that the squeezed mode images look noticeably inferior on wide screen televisions, or is the difference negligible? The other question is whether it even makes sence to shoot 24p anymore, instead of just shooting everything in 24pa?
 
Last edited:
I'd say most of the folks on this board prefer to shoot progressive vs. interlaced. You've even got options to go into your camera and shoot at 30 frames a second, progressive, I believe ... so if you do need to go interlaced after the fact (really not sure why you'd need to), you could still do so & already be at nearly the same frame rate as the 29.97 .... but it's been so long since I've shot interlaced for any pro work with my DVX that I'm not fuzzy on all that recollection.

As far as having FX effect your black bars, etc. No need for that.

What you NEED to be doing, whether you shoot in 4:3 or squeeze, is to be working in a widescreen project. If you're importing 4:3 footage into the widescreen project, then simply go into pan/crop/zoom for each clip, and select MATCH PROJECT SETTINGS, then you can choose where you want to place the 16:9 frame (with regards to higher or lower in the 4:3 frame).

Anyway, do ALL of your FX in this project. Then, if you want to render out a 4:3 project, save that one, open up a new project with the 4:3 settings, and simply import that saved project as a nested file. Now you've got perfect black bars at top/bottom, with NO FX or CC effecting them from the previous project!

Make sense?
 
evanesce said:
Jim,

Please forgive me if that came off like a criticism. I meant it more as a question of curiosity because I am at the point of trying to decide which mode to shoot in.
Click to expand...

No problem. :) I didn't think it was criticism.

(I *am* curious, though, as to why so many people fly right past the "David" and go straight for the "Jim" in "Jimerson" -- you're about the 10,000th in a long history. I mean, Norm here doesn't get called "Sandy" or anything. No real answer expected; just something that's puzzled me for a while. :) )


It's pretty obvious that interlaced 4:3 is on the way out.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you mean. For acquisition, certainly. For transmission, not so much. Read on.

Here in Colorado, you will need to purchase a digital converter for your analog television as of 2009 because all signals will be digital.
Click to expand...
That will be nation-wide as of 2/17/09. I have issues with that, but it's neither here nor there . . .

In any case, you'll only need a converter if you're receiving signals off the air -- your cable or satellite box will suffice, and not very many people are air-only viewers.


At this point, I am thinking that I should consider shooting everything in 16:9 for that reason.
Click to expand...
Well, don't confuse "digital" broadcast with it all being HD, or even 16:9. Chances are, you won't notice much of a difference. Most cable and satellite delivery will remain as it is, because the vast majority of TVs which will be receiving the signal will still be 4:3.

So, there will still be lots and lots and lots of 4:3 or letterboxed 16:9 transmitted. The days of 4:3 interlaced will be with us for a while.

I have issues with letterbox mode because many of the FX effects in post lay over the black bars as well as the image, which, of course, are one in the same in 4:3 aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
That is correct, and one of the reasons why I never shoot that way.



So I guess I should rephrase my question to ask: Are you finding that the squeezed mode images look noticeably inferior on wide screen televisions, or is the difference negligible?
Click to expand...
The "difference" between what and what?

Is squeeze mode inferior to true 16:9 DV acquisition? Sure. But the resolution difference is only about 20% at most, and SD is pretty low-res anyway, coupled with DV's poor color. Shotting progressive and in THIN mode certainly helps, and if you're comparing progressive squeeze against interlaced 16:9, you might even make par.

Is squeeze mode inferior to HD? Definitely. But then, so is 4:3 SD, when comparing apples to apples in terms of acquisition equipment.


The other question is whether it even makes sence to shoot 24p anymore, instead of just shooting everything in 24pa?
Click to expand...
If you were editing on a 24p timeline, it NEVER made sense to shoot 24p standard. But if you're mixing footage on a 60i timeline, shoot 24p standard.
 
David Jimerson said:
(I *am* curious, though, as to why so many people fly right past the "David" and go straight for the "Jim" in "Jimerson" -- you're about the 10,000th in a long history.
Click to expand...

I just stared at your name, and the best answer that I can give you is that “Jim” stands out more than David. Maybe you should change your first name to Jim. LOL


David Jimerson said:
The "difference" between what and what?
Click to expand...

The difference in quality between shooting DVX 4:3 letterbox and 16:9 squeeze mode.

This brings me to another question. If I shoot 4:3 letterbox for a widescreen television, wont that letterboxed image just get stretched out on the 16:9 screen, or will it play with vertical lack bars on the sides of the image?

evanesce said:
The other question is whether it even makes sense to shoot 24p anymore, instead of just shooting everything in 24pa?
Click to expand...

David Jimerson said:
If you were editing on a 24p timeline, it NEVER made sense to shoot 24p standard. But if you're mixing footage on a 60i timeline, shoot 24p standard.
Click to expand...

The reason that I asked that was because I was under the impression that 24Pa would play with flicker on an interlaced television. Is that correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top