Changing aspect ratio in post

Cieloent said:
http://www.circuitcity.com/applicat...y_slc.asp?Lprice=100&Hprice=199.99&CatId=3647

Take your pic, they have Millions of tvs for less than $200..... Heck you can find HDTVs less than $100...... So I seriously have no idea what you are talking about :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm using my bad habit of what I see for prices on HD set in my local stores as a guideline of what
they really cost. See I live in Alaska and things cost.....well lets just say significantly more.

But still, not everyone (including me) lives somewhere with easy access to a 'Circut City'.
I DO have a Walmart, care to guess what the cheapest HD TV set they have is??
And even that is beyond the point. See the thing is.....people I know have a TV set that
still works JUST FINE! So for them....even spending $200 on a TV set, is not a good idea.
Not when they have a house payment, two car payments, kids sports camps, groceries,
college tuition for their kids (or saving for it), trying to put a little away for retirement,
and things such as that. And they are being asked to take a pay cut at work so they can
keep their jobs in this economy. So, yeah, if you have money to throw around, $200 for
a HD TV set might seem like 'chickenfeed'. The people I know consider money spent on ANY
TV set to be frivolous, when the TV set they have had for several years, still works just fine!
See, money is so tight for many of us, that even if 'HD is SOOO AWESOME!' we aren't throwing
money that we could use for more important things at buying an HD set. If you are making
plenty of money, then I can see it. For the many families struggling, it is not even a consideration.
So in case you were wondering, THAT is what I am talking about!
 
Last edited:
It's a bit comical, that the 1st "editor" tried to convince me that "everyone" had an HD set these days, and to produce in SD was suicide. Glad he was looking out for me? I truly do value other folks opinions, but the bottom line is I was very specific about what I wanted as an end product.
OK, I'm done floggin the horse, thanks again for all the imput.
 
Your editor wasn't Cieloent by chance, was it?

nitrouspro said:
[T]he bottom line is I was very specific about what I wanted as an end product.
Click to expand...

Your editor was way out of bounds in trying to change the project to meet HIS expectations of it. That's a huge no-no and you should blackball him from all future projects.

And for certain members to come on here and basically tell you it's your fault because you didn't choose a particular format is also way out of bounds.

The upside is that it's helped you cross off someone from your "Professional" list.

Best of luck to you in getting your project fixed.
 
Cieloent said:
Nothing ignorant, maybe you just don't understand. The only thing ignorant is Old time directors and users hanging on to a dead technology. 4:3 was an aspect ratio created for standard televisions. How many people do you know that DO NOT have an HD television? Ok, secondly for broadcasting your work online you can never compare the quality of an SD signal to an HD one it's no where close.
Click to expand...
Not to further derail the thread but 4:3 started out as a film standard. Film moved to 16:9 and wider in an attempt to draw people back into theaters by offering something they couldn't get at home. I also wouldn't make the blanket statement that an HD sized image will always be of higher quality than an SD sized image. Codec, bit rate, quality of source material, etc., can play a bigger role in quality than the total number of pixels in the final delivery format.

W/regards to how many people own HDTVs, in the US HDTV penetration just at 50% according to Nielsen.


-Andrew
 
So... interesting discussion here. My question is: why would the image be so unacceptably degraded. i would expect some image degradation but would it be really bad? I, too, started my ongoing project shooting 4:3 because there is a lot of other footage shot by others in that format which I hope to use. Now rethinking that decision because i'm getting mixed reviews on the realities of converting to 16:9. Should i switch to squeeze mode? using the dvx100a and planning to purchase another one for this project. I have at least two months of shooting left. any advice here?

ayo
 
Jordan, I'll let you know as progress is made.
Avoi, I guess it depends on what you consider acceptable degradation. I am insisting on raw footage clarity for the finished product (or as close as possible). The original footage (4:3) we are trying to match was shot with a 3/4 or 1" beta cam 26 years ago, and have had it digitally re-mastered just recently, so the quality is really quite good.
 
nitrouspro said:
Jordan, I'll let you know as progress is made.
Avoi, I guess it depends on what you consider acceptable degradation. I am insisting on raw footage clarity for the finished product (or as close as possible). The original footage (4:3) we are trying to match was shot with a 3/4 or 1" beta cam 26 years ago, and have had it digitally re-mastered just recently, so the quality is really quite good.
Click to expand...

yeah, understood. but your original plan was to convert everything to 16:9, presumably for good reason. now you're going back to 4:3. how does that affect plans for broadcast, etc?
 
Ayoj, the original plan was never to use the 16:9 aspect ratio.

It would be like having 320kps MP3 files, deciding you want them smaller so you save them as 192kps MP3s, then needing to burn those to a CD and rip them again. The quality would suffer greatly.

That's why nitrous needs his original footage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top