Another 16:9 question(s)

N

Nobody356

Well-known member
I have been going totally crazy messing around with the uprezzing techniques talked about in Disjectas massive post, and now have quite a few questions some relating to uprezzing and some that are different so I figured I'd make a seperate post.

I am going to start shooting my (exremely low budget) feature film in less than a month and there are a ton of things I am worrying about. One of these things is the issue of aspect ratio, I think that 16:9 is really not a wide enough look for my taste and want to try something wider. It seems like when I watch 16:9 footage on a tv, it doesnt look like a movie's aspect ratio, maybe its just me, but what ratio are most big budget movies shot at?

If I do go for something wider is it a bad idea to do it a custom size just by making the letterbox in post to no specific dimensions, or is there common aspect that is wider than 16:9 that would be better to use. Also, if my movie is completed succesfully would a different aspect ratio make it more difficult to put on dvds? Or ( not that this would realistically happen) if it was transferred to film.

And with the DVD's I've tried to burn a 16:9 dvd in dvd architect and it puts in bars on the right and left sides of my video....does anyone know what that is about? Or know of a better way to burn 16:9 dvds

This brings me to the issue of uprezzing and how I should shoot the project which is something I can only do once and I don't want to regret. Everyone talks about how squeeze mode isnt good, but what about it makes it no good? Why is squeeze mode worse than letterbox mode? And when I have messed around with uprezzing I can never get results as dramatically better with the uprezzed footage, like disjecta showed in his sample clip. I could be doing something wrong, but if I uprez correctly should it give me a much better, clearer picture? And if I do plan to shoot the movie in a diff aspect ratio would shooting in regular letterbox be a bad idea because I wasnt using enough of the ccd? I have also done some tests with uprezzing to hi-def, is there any real benefit to that?

In all of your oppinions what would be a safer bet, to shoot letterbox or sqeeze? Sorry for all the questions but I am really confused about this right now and I have alot of other things that need worrying about too for this movie to work out. Whatever questions of mine you could give me answers would help me greatly.

Thanks a ton in advance
 
Big budget movies are shot in various ratios... From 1.33 to 2.66:1 (ben hur)One way you can achieve 2.35:1 aspect is by cropping your anamorphic footage. You can do that either in camera or in nle. What you have is 16:9 with black bars which means you treat it just like 16:9 footage... (you can take the bars off by cropping to 720X372 for webout or dvd) Anyway make sure your preset in Architect matches your footage so check the properties and set the project with given data. Black bars on left and right can be caused by improper preset for given footage. If you have a 4:3 image (even with the letterboxes) and you display it on a widescreen tv i really think the bars would appear to the sides... If you wish to display on a widescreen TV please shoot squeezed as it does change the aspect ratio to 16:9 rather than adding black bars to your 4:3 image... sheesh i hope this helped a bit...
 
yeah 2.35 is one you see a lot. but the fact is, in my opinion, it's not worth the resolution loss. remember, no matter what a.r. you use, you have a maximum of 720x480 pixels to show your picture. you can stretch your pixels (anamorphic adapter,) or you can just throw them out (cropping,) but you aint gonna get any more. (unless you buy an hvx when they come out.)
 
Not to hijack, but, is there a way to shoot in 4:3, then do the cropping in post, and convert it to widescreen aspect - rather than using squeeze mode? This gives you full frame 4:3 to play with in post to move around under your widescreen matte. But, how do you get around the problem where you create the bars on the side on a 16x9 TV? That is, how do you do from shooting 4:3, create 4:3 project in NLE and import footage, letterbox with matte in post, then burn dvd as 16:9?
 
Nobody, if you are shooting a feature it'd be worth your time to learn what the differences in 2.35:1 etc. vs. 16:9 (1.78:1) or 1.85:1, etc. is.

In short, when you see a 2.35 (aka 2.38:1, 2.4:1) film you are looking at a lot of training and experience behind that camera, not only on the side of the DP, but the director. Framing issues become a lot more complex when trying to go that wide. Consider how much of a person's height, for example, can be seen without the subject getting pretty far from the lens, and thus, a lot smaller. Of course this goes for anything in your frame. A large part of films you see are shot in 1.85 and not 2.35/4:1 for a reason beyond the extra expense and technical hassles. If someone thinks they really need 2.35:1 so that their project looks more like a movie, something elsewhere is likely lacking.

Seen War of the Worlds or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory yet? Both are 1.85:1 (or about 16:9)

Above all, you are using an SD video camera without proper equipment for that kind of thing. And when you start editing that much footage, the last thing you want is to have to add a step like that.
 
CineCell said:
If someone thinks they really need 2.35:1 so that their project looks more like a movie, something elsewhere is likely lacking.
Click to expand...

That's an absurdly presumptuous remark.
 
I used to film in 4:3, import as 4:3, throw a 2.35:1 matte, then export the video file, and import it into after effects and stretch the image as much as I can w/o it looking horrible or losing alot of picture quality, and when I printed to DVD and viewed on a widescreen TV, it looked great

As of right now I film in squeeze mode, import as 16:9, throw a matte to make it 2:35:1, and then make the squeezed image fit the 16:9 ratio, and the picture wont looked stretched and will look like true 16:9, but I cringe every time I remmember im losing 25% of my picture quality using squeeze mode

-Matt-
 
disjecta said:
That's an absurdly presumptuous remark.
Click to expand...

What's absurd is that you posted that remark.

Funny how so many people cringe or cry out when someone illuminates a point that others know is true, but isn't dared spoke about. You should be so lucky to have someone like me that cracks the thin ice before you step onto it. If it makes you think, then it's a good thing.
 
CineCell said:
Nobody, if you are shooting a feature it'd be worth your time to learn what the differences in 2.35:1 etc. vs. 16:9 (1.78:1) or 1.85:1, etc. is.
Click to expand...

That is the point behind this post and my experimentation, and I have noticed that War of the Worlds was close to 16x9(I work at a theater) but personally I don't like that look. To me 16x9 is not quite as cinematically pleasing as a wider ratio. What I'm trying to figure out is where the balance between framing and resolution is. I personally don't think that my project is lacking because I don't want to soot 16x9, I just prefer the wider image. It's like arguing that if a story is good enough you shouldn't need a good camera, good lighting and good sound design for it to be good, which is true to some point but that stuff is all very important too. Thanks for all the responses though. How would I go about marking off an exact ratio on my lcd? That right now seems to be a small problem for me.

Thanks again, any more info would be appreciated
 
Sorry but I'm with Disjecta on this one. 2.35 and 1.85 exist for reasons, and 2.35 exists because some filmmakers believe that their movie needs that wider aspect ratio. Shooting with 2.35/film anamorphics is a pain in the butt compared to shooting spherical/1.85. But some films need that aesthetic. Dances with Wolves, for example. Some cinematographers feel that 2.35 is the only way to properly realize the vision of the film.

Now, if what CineCell was saying is more along the lines of "if you don't know what you're doing, and you somehow think that shooting 2.35 will magically make your video production look like a 'movie'..." well, there of course I'd agree. Of course it wouldn't.

But if the point was to dismiss 2.35, that is indeed absurd. 2.35 is a stylistic, artistic choice in a visual medium, and as such it's perfectly valid. Just like bleach bypass, or cross-processing, or black 'n' white.
 
Barry, Im going to have to agree with you fully

The way I marked my camera LCD and viewfinder for 2:35.1:1 ratio was buy adding the matte in post and then recording a frame or however long back on the DVX, then just freezeframe it, get something to mark the lines, I use a really really thin peace of tape to put at the end of the matte so I can still see the true frame, but know where the bars will cut off what part of the shot(also because I would like to see the camera info at the top and bottom of the screen)

-Matt-
 
You might want to consider the requirements of a distributor and the projection systems for what ever aspect ratio you decide on.

1:1.85 is fairly safe but 1:2.35 may be limiting the chance of a release.
 
Personally, I love 2.35:1. It offers so much in terms of composition.

Lately, I've been playing around with a 2:1 aspect ratio as a compromise between resolution and wideness. It's been growing on me quite a bit actually. It's too bad we don't see more stuff in this aspect ratio.
 
Slightly OT -- I always laugh when I think of the following:

Film started out at 4:3 ... then when TV's came out, they introduced 1.85:1 to give it a wider look & distinguish it from what people could see at home on their TV's.

Now that 16x9 TV's are becoming popular, I'm seeing more & more films made in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio ... again, I'm assuming, to stay ahead of what the average person is watching in their home theaters.

I've often joked about making a futuristic short, where the aspect ratio was about as tall as a pencil ... like 20.5:1 or something. For those who've followed how aspect ratios have evolved over the years, it could at least be good for a chuckle.

Interesting what dmitriandsnow pointed out about Ben Hur ... had NO idea it was shot in 2.66:1 ratio ... didn't know anyone ever shot that wide before.
 
Yeah, Ben Hur's pretty wide...

The wonderful thing about film is that you know how they get that 1.85:1 ratio? By LETTERBOXING! Yep, good ol' DVX-style letterboxing -- they just put black bars on the top and bottom, and use less of the frame.

But where it gets really silly is when they then transfer the film for TV viewing using pan 'n' scan... so they extract a 4:3 patch out of the 1.85:1 patch of the 4:3 frame... (hey, wait a minute, why does that make me think of the XL2?) :evil:
 
So Barry, are the other ratios just letterboxed/masked even further or do they actually use wider lenses for the 2.35:1, etc.?
 
Mike_Donis said:
The camera process used for Ben Hur actually gives a 2.76:1 ratio, not 2.66:1. It's even wider!
Click to expand...

Pardon me, it is 2.76:1... Approximately 1/3rd of your 4:3 TV screen. It is great to know they letterboxed Ben Hur just like i letterbox my 16:9 footage ! Well, i letterbox to a much less extent of course heh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top