;)can we please solve the 4:3 vs 16:9 issue

alpi69

alpi69

Veteran
;)can we please solve the 4:3 vs 16:9 issue

i searched the forums and never really found the answer. and to make matters worse my DVX-Book is somewhere over the atlantic for a week.... ;)
i am to make several DVDs soon which will be sent to customers and no one knows who has 4:3 and who has a 16:9 TV-set.

so: i want to shoot for 4:3 and 16:9 sets (but NOT film-out) do i use letterbox or squeeze or 4:3 and letterbox/crop in post?

my answer is squeeze: a 4:3 TV will letterbox it and a 16:9 is happy.
if i use letterbox then a 16:9 will have to stretch it.
same if i use 4:3 and crop/letterbox in post.

am i correct? and is there a way to unsqueeze the image with a LCD-set-top-lens on camera or do i need a monitor from framing?
 
Re:  ;)can we please solve the 4:3 vs 16:9 is

Re:  ;)can we please solve the 4:3 vs 16:9 is

For DVD always shoot 16:9. The DVD player has a setting for the type of display you have, so it will take care of the letterbox if the tv is 4:3. For the LCD screen on the camera I think Century makes a anamorphic de-squeezer so you can see the picture right.
 
Re:  ;)can we please solve the 4:3 vs 16:9 is

Re:  ;)can we please solve the 4:3 vs 16:9 is

Generally, we follow these rules for acquisition. The converging aspect ratios we're all working under mean that no matter how you acquire, you are compromised in one exhibition format or another - there is no single answer to the problem.

For 16:9 Display Projects:

Recording SQUEEZE or using an ANAMORPHIC ADAPTER will get you a 1.77:1 / 16:9 image without bars once you import the footage to a 16:9 NLE project.

SQUEEZE acquired footage does not record using the entire DVX imager - bars have effectively been applied to the top and bottom and the electronically-induced "anamorphic" image records into the space between them.

Images recorded using a physical ANAMORPHIC ADAPTER mounted to the front of your standard spherical DVX Leica lens will fill the entire 4:3 imager with a mechanically squeezed image. Maximum 1.77:1 / 16:9 resolution is achieved using an anamorphic adapter - end of story.

Should you need to display this same project on 1.33:1 / 4:3 monitors, you have a choice of:

1) adding black bars to the top and bottom of your project - leaving every bit of 1.77:1 / 16:9 information intact, albeit at lower overall resolution to fill the 1.33:1 / 4:3 raster;

2) filling the 1.33:1 / 4:3 raster completely with the edges of your project cheated off the raster or manually panned-and-scanned to keep your subject properly framed within the more narrow aspect ratio.

For 4:3 Display Projects:

Recording in NORMAL mode 24p, 24pa, 30p, 60i will get you a full-field 1.33:1 / 4:3 ratio image when edited in a 4:3 NLE project.

Aquiring in LETTERBOX nets you a 1.33:1 / 4:3 image with bars at the top and bottom - making it appear that you shot in 1.77:1 / 16:9. This is the lowest resolution image you can acquire with the DVX100(a), as you are literally recording black pixels into approximately 1/2 of the imaging area.

Should you need to display this same project on 1.77:1 / 16:9 equipment, you have the following options:

1) place the 1.33:1 / 4:3 image within two vertical cropping bars on the edges of the 1.77:1 / 16:9 image. Assuming you have an NTSC compatible display, there is no loss of resolution using the monitor's processor to achieve this;

2) allow the 1.77:1 / 16:9 device to matrix your image from its native 1.33:1 / 4:3 aspect ratio to fit the screen. While the technology used to do this has improved somewhat in recent years, with almost perfect squares at the center of the monitor and increasingly wider proportional rectangles as you move horizontally toward the edges of the screen, it is usually easy to spot when in use.

I'm sure that others will chime in here and correct any oversights, but those are the rules we're using at present.

Cheers,

e
 
Re:  ;)can we please solve the 4:3 vs 16:9 is

Re:  ;)can we please solve the 4:3 vs 16:9 is

ok, so SQUEEZE should be the way to go ( i do not want the Ana ada cos i won´t go film anyway). i read the letterbox mode is better resolutionwise, but is it noticeable on "normal" screens or projectors?
letterbox would not work on widescreen TVs, so it is nowadays not really useable and the Photozoom-path is quite a hassle for such projects.
 
Re:  ;)can we please solve the 4:3 vs 16:9 is

Re:  ;)can we please solve the 4:3 vs 16:9 is

I'm using Vegas for editing and have tried some examples of stretching a 4:3 image to 16:9. The results seem fairly good.

What makes the "digital stretching" in squeeze mode better than "digital stretching" in Vegas?

Would it be fair to assume that eventually (maybe already with PhotoZoom) that there will be better algorithms for stretching the video from 4:3 to 16:9 in software than using squeeze mode in camera?

I'm about to embark on a long project (12 months) and really can't decide what is the best way to shoot. I know that I want to produce a final 16:9 image and I know I will be shooting in 25P, but I'm reluctant to use squeeze mode when I could shoot in 4:3 and hope that software can out-do squeeze mode in the future.

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this? ???
 
I just did my own personal.. true... test.

My best friend has a 50inch HDTV wide screen.
I had some footage originally captures in Squeeze.
I output 2 different DVD formats.
16x9 letterbox from a 4x3 window.
And true 16x9 anamorphic.

My friend couldn't tell the difference between the 2... except for the black matte on the letterbox version. I could, but it was barely noticable, and plus I have seen the footage dozens of times. So I was able to tell pretty easily.

Depends what your final output is. I think from now on, I will only be shooting squeeze unless a project specifies otherwise. I am happy with the quality I shot with squeezed.

Plus, my co-worker is a conversions expert. He said, I may be losing 30% line quality from Squeeze mode... but if I shot letterboxed, then converted to 16:9 later down the road... I would be losing a hell of alot more than 30% in the end unless it was being converted on some $30,000-70,000.00 conversions deck.

Also, if you're going to be capturing/transferring firewire anyway... unless you are using some hard core Raid/Kona HD capture card setup, then you won't see much of a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top