WideScreen or FullScreen? that is my question........

sirbobls
Member

the project i am working on is videotaping dance studios in my area. We have been producing videos in full screen and puting them to dvd for the customers for a long time. I am interseted in recording in widescreen cause it collects more of the stage and more dancers better. is there anyone here who videotapes productions like dance studios and plays in widescreen and sorround sound also?

i am very interested in finding out what customers would prefer for watching, as with the DTV transition is going on, i think every one is also trying to get an hdtv and that would help. i just dont know how to tell.

please help?

Posted 2 years ago #
birdcat
Moderator

You don't say whether you're recording in HD or SD (both can do 16:9).

I record in HD 16:9 and if I need to output to SD 4:3 I do it in Vegas (just set my properties, crop to fit and Vegas does the rest).

My suggestion (if you have the extra hard drive space, powerful enough editing box and NLE that can handle it) would be to record in HD and just output what you need. The only thing you need to be mindful of if you know you're eventually going to 4:3 is staying inside those areas when recording (some cameras have lines on the screen you can use).

Bruce Paul
7Squared Productions
http://www.7squared.com

Posted 2 years ago #
sirbobls
Member

SD for now, until i get an new camera that does HD.

now if i record in 16:9 format, is there a way to let people watch it in widescreen or full screen on the same discs? Like some movies out there, they come in a selection for both, and i would like to give customers that feel.

thanks!

Posted 2 years ago #
robGRAUERT
Member

If you shoot and edit 16:9, you can author a DVD so that it will letterbox on a 4:3 TV but still fill a 16:9 TV. In my opinion though, if your camera doesn't natively shoot 16:9, then don't shoot 16:9.

Rob Grauert, Jr
http://www.robgrauert.com
http://command-r.tumblr.com

Posted 2 years ago #
composite1
Moderator

Sirbobls,

The least painful thing to do is shoot your project in 16x9, then provided your editing software allows it letterbox the finished edit when you export out to MPEG2 for DVD. Letterboxing will resize the image to scale so it won't look squashed on a 4x3 screen an not noticably stretched on a widescreen tv. You will have to shoot it the way Birdcat suggested by keeping your main subjects and titles within a 4x3 space. The only 'drawback' is you will have the black lines at the top and bottom of the screen. For some reason that bothers some people as they think they're being cheated out of some of the image when in fact they are getting to see the whole picture.

H.Wolfgang Porter, Composite Media Producer
Dreaded Enterprises Unlimited, Inc.
http://www.dreadedenterprises.com

Posted 2 years ago #
robGRAUERT
Member

"You will have to shoot it the way Birdcat suggested by keeping your main subjects and titles within a 4x3 space."

No you don't. Not if you author your DVD properly. 

Posted 2 years ago #
sirbobls
Member

thanks for the info! now down the road i will learn on how to produce DVDs that way. My camera does record in widescreen! thanks!

Posted 2 years ago #
birdcat
Moderator

> "You will have to shoot it the way Birdcat suggested by
keeping your main subjects and titles within a 4x3 space."

No you don't. Not if you author your DVD properly.

The only way (that I know of) to view a 16:9 source on an SD (4:3) device without letterboxing is to crop (i.e. - "This film has been modified to fit...") - Do you know of another way?

Posted 2 years ago #
robGRAUERT
Member

Yea. In DVD Studio Pro, if you want to author a sequence that is 16:9, there is a parameter in DVDSP labeled "Display Mode." If you select "16:9 Letterbox", it will automatically scale down your video to letterbox when the DVD sees a 4:3 TV, but it will also completely fill a 16:9 TV if it sees that. I've done this many times. It works. There is no need to bring your 16:9 sequence into a 4:3 sequence so that you can manually letterbox in your NLE.

Posted 2 years ago #
robGRAUERT
Member

oh wait...i understand what you're saying. You mean shooting 16:9 but have it fill a 4:3 completely? In DVDSP, you can set the display mode to 16:9 Pan & Scan, which will fill a 4:3 TV when sensed and fill a 16:9 when that is sense. But yea, like you all said, if pan and scanned, you'll have to shoot with the main action in that 4:3 area of the 16:9 footage. I think that's pointless and will make for bad composition if someone is watching it on a 16:9 TV.

In my opinion, the best way to go is to letterbox the 16:9

Posted 2 years ago #
XTR-91
Member

Anytime the aspect ratio of 4:3 (full) is converted to 16:9 (wide) or vice versa, resolution is almost always lost. You do not lose quality by stretching, but stretched videos look strange. Cropping removes part of the picture which does create a drawback. On standard TVs, a widescreen image is shrunk until it does not extend past the width of the screen. Quality is lost due to the fact that the TVs are always 320x240.

I do not have much experience with HDTVs, but I know that most are widescreen. Converted aspect ratios on HDTVs will probably not involve loss in resolution. Answering your question, it depends on the average audience. If most are using HDTVs, you probably don't have to worry about losing image quality.

Posted 2 years ago #
robGRAUERT
Member

"Quality is lost due to the fact that the TVs are always 320x240."

No. They are 720X480.

And yes, HDTVs are all widescreen because all HD is 16:9.

Posted 2 years ago #
composite1
Moderator



> "You will have to shoot it the way Birdcat suggested by
keeping your main subjects and titles within a 4x3 space."

No you don't. Not if you author your DVD properly.

"The only way (that I know of) to view a 16:9 source on an SD (4:3) device without letterboxing is to crop (i.e. - "This film has been modified to fit...") - Do you know of another way?"

Birdcat,

All cropping does is enlarge the image to block off the unwanted regions hence the resolution loss mentioned by XTR. All authoring does is put all of your content into a format suitable to be viewed and controlled via DVD. All these decisions have to be handled before the authoring process begins. Letterboxing is the way to go in this situation because it adjusts the widescreen image down to a standard format size without distortion. When the same letterboxed image is shown on a widescreen there is slight distortion but not as noticable because it was shot widescreen in the first place.

As for 'manually' letterboxing a project, I'd avoid that since any serious nle program since 2005 will have settings that will automatically do it for your (and better than you can.) Vegas Pro has those settings and I used them on our latest film to accomodate both formats so I know it works. Now we tested in on a 720p HDTV and it looked just fine in standard and widescreen modes. I haven't had access to a 1080p set so I can't comment on how the technique works at that size.

Posted 2 years ago #
birdcat
Moderator

All cropping does is enlarge the image to block off the unwanted
regions hence the resolution loss mentioned by XTR. All authoring does
is put all of your content into a format suitable to be viewed and
controlled via DVD. All these decisions have to be handled before
the authoring process begins. Letterboxing is the way to go in this
situation because it adjusts the widescreen image down to a standard
format size without distortion. When the same letterboxed image is
shown on a widescreen there is slight distortion but not as noticable
because it was shot widescreen in the first place.

I am aware of this - but some folks want a fullscreen rather than widescreen experience if they're still on SD (my parents for example who still canot figure out the DVD player). My wife as well prefers fullscreen to widescreen letterboxed if she's watching on an SDTV not an HDTV. Also, when taking older footage (including VHS) you could crop that to get a 16:9 ratio but why would you? SD is slowly being replaced by HD and will cotniue that march as prices get lower (on TV's as well as cameras) but 4:3 SD is here (my opinion) for at least another five years.

Posted 2 years ago #
composite1
Moderator

Birdcat,

I hear you. I used to think the same way about 'fullscreen' being the 'real image'. For some reason, folks like your wife and parents (mine too for that matter despite their son 'the directah') can't equate the letterboxed image is what you would see were you in the theater (yes, I know that 16x9 is not the actual motion picture aspect ratio.) I guess some people are more comfortable with what they're used to. I'll never forget when letterboxing first came out and they showed a copy of 'How the West Was Won' first in SD 4x3 and then letterboxed and explained how SD cut out 2/3 of the image I was sold. Now when I buy DVD's I specifically look for the 'widescreen' version (though they've decided to charge more for them).

My suggestion of letterboxing is 'the least painless option' in this situation. Even shooting it 16x9 while keeping the area of interest with 4x3 markers will still end up squeezing the image on a SD set. Sirbobls will have to make the choice to shoot it one way or the other. However, I'd be willing to bet his potential customers might groove off the 'cinematic' feel of seeing their local dancers on the screen with those same black lines just like the one's on the DVD's from Walmart.

Posted 2 years ago #
Coreece
Member

Personally I think it is time to just let 4x3 die just like the TV for which is was designed.

4x3 makes me wanna scream...I hate it and it is pointless. I always talk my less informed clients out of 4x3.

We should all just let 4x3 go and move on to debating new things like 16x9 against the new 21x9.....

Here's a cool video shot for Philips new 21x9 television:

http://www.cinema.philips.com/?ls=gb_en

Posted 2 years ago #
robGRAUERT
Member

"We should all just let 4x3 go and move on to debating new things like 16x9 against the new 21x9....."

21:9 is pointless until more cameras shoot 21:9. Stretch 4:3 to 16:9 looks like crap, and so does stretching 16:9 to 21:9.

Posted 2 years ago #
composite1
Moderator

Coreece,

Cute video. Who let those friggin' clowns in there anyway? Nice format size, but I'm not looking forward to how much the cameras and lenses capable of shooting it are going to run. Ugggh! The 35mm adapter setup for that's going to put some folk's kids through college just with one purchase. I do agree, I would like to see 4x3 take it's place in the tarpit next to the mastodon. However, it's alive and well on the net. Almost all the news shows on the net use it religiously. I always ask clients what they are going to show the final product on so I'll know which format to setup for. I don't shoot specifically for 4x3 anymore, but I'll shoot wide but keep the area of interest in the 4x3 target. It's the corporate gigs that generally want it though that's beginning to change.

I'd like to see 16x9 become the new 'SD' and 21x9 be used for cinematic stuff. No matter what size you shoot in, you have to justify the space with your compositions. Nothin' worse than seeing a widescreen scene with empty space that wasn't composed for. Echhh!

Posted 2 years ago #
Coreece
Member

"21:9 is pointless until more cameras shoot 21:9."

That's fine....as long as we're not talking about 4x3, I'm happy.

"Stretch 4:3 to 16:9 looks like crap, and so does stretching 16:9 to 21:9."

I agree....stretching sux, I never recommended it...

Posted 2 years ago #
Coreece
Member

Hey Composite....not sure if you checked, but if you click the one of the 3 blue "chapter markers" it will either fast forward the video or rewind the video to that specific point in the video then it pauses and the directors pop on screen and give a little commentary...I thought that feature was pretty cool....

Posted 2 years ago #
composite1
Moderator

Coreece,

If you 'grab' the screen with the cursor you can scrub through the video. Some serious compositing and layering went into that. I'd be willing to bet they used Nuke.

Posted 2 years ago #
XTR-91
Member

robgrauert said:

"Quality is lost due to the fact that the TVs are always 320x240."
No. They are 720X480.

The typical resolution of non-HD (Standard Analog) TV sets is 320x240, though there are some modern analog TVs that use 640x480 and 720x480 resolutions.

And yes, HDTVs are all widescreen because all HD is 16:9.

High-Definition is more common (and is broadcasted) in widescreen, but suppots both 4:3 and 16:9 formats.

Posted 2 years ago #