JJB Blog

Yo, John. I liked your article, but I will point out one other positive about shooting 4 x 3 and letterboxing later: the ability to shift the composition of your shot vertically in post. Doesn’t seem like a big deal, but it sure can be for run & gun shooting where a boom mic comes into frame. If you letterbox later, you can always move your picture up or down and frame it differently, since the letterbox masks the bottom and top.

Personally, I don’t think the extra resolution you get by shooting true anamorphic is worth the effort. The GL2 doesn’t have “true 16 x 9″ anyways…it is stretching. (To get oversized 16 x 9 chips, you have to upgrade to the newest Canon XL2.)

So, if I were you, I would shoot everything 4 x 3 with the guides or even tape off your viewfinder/monitor to ensure you’re leaving room for the letterbox. This way, you can adjust your composition later in post and provide a 4 x 3 version of your program if it ever got picked up for broadcast. (Some stations will not accept 16 x 9 formats for their SD feeds, though it’s becoming more common due to HD being native 16 x 9.)

That’s my $.02…

Kevin W.

Posted by Kevin on 19 June 2005 @ 7pm

hi
i have a pal project shot on 4X3 that need to be delivered as 16X9. what numbers should i put in the distort boxs?
by the way, doesnt streaching it in the distort window really “distorts” it and the viewers would notice it ? isnt there another option to do it ?

thanx

nir

Posted by nir evron on 15 November 2005 @ 1pm

Nir-

I’ve never worked with PAL, but i’m guessing that whatever it says for the Y coordinates, multiply that by 1.333333, and that is your new number. (240 * 1.3333333 = 320).

And no, the image will not appear distorted, it will appear just as it should. You distort it in your timeline, and set the widescreen flag when you are authoring your dvd. Then, the dvd player will squeeze the image back down to 16:9.

Let us know how it works out.

John

Posted by john on 15 November 2005 @ 1pm

hi john
i tried your method of multiplying by 1.3333. i then put the numbers in the boxs and the image cam out distorded. long shots made far away people look tiny. are you sure it wont come out distorted ? i read somewhere on the net that i should zoom in instead of streach, but i dont want to lose quality…

any suggestions?

nir

Posted by nir evron on 15 November 2005 @ 5pm

in final cut pro, it will look vertically stretched. after you either export to quicktime in a 16:9 resolution, or play on a dvd player, the image will look normal again (and widescreen).

Posted by john on 15 November 2005 @ 5pm

thanks john!
just wanted to make sure…
gonna export it using quicktime conversion as 16X9 and then burn it on dvd studio pro as 16X9.
i will be showing it on a 16X9 tv screen. will that look ok there ?
what will happen to it if it was played on a normal tv ?

thanx (again…)

nir

Posted by nir evron on 15 November 2005 @ 5pm

no no, if you are going to dvd, then leave it stretched in 4×3, and then set the widescreen tag on the dvd.

i see where the confusion could have been… in the “How do I deliver?” part of the article, those are two DIFFERENT cases. one for quicktime (like for the web, or a cd-rom or something), and the other for DVD.

Posted by john on 15 November 2005 @ 5pm

hi john,
thanks for your help but now i am really confused…
what does it mean “leave it stretched in 4X3 ?
should i stretch the 4X3 to fit the 16X9 ? ot should i zoom in to make it fit ?
i read on the apple discussion board not to distort the image.
any comments on that ?

thanx

nir

Posted by nir evron on 16 November 2005 @ 3am

For DVD, here is how it works:

On both a “regular” DVD and a “widescreen” DVD, the size/dimensions/resolution of the video files that are burned onto the disk are the same.

the only difference is that the “widescreen” DVD has a special piece of information, which i am casually referring to as the widescreen flag, that tells the DVD player to vertically squeeze the image so that it is 16:9.

So this means that before you burn the video onto the dvd, you have to vertically stretch the image.

Posted by john on 16 November 2005 @ 3am

john
if i get it right (im sorry for all those questions again and again…), after editing my 4X3 footage normally, i nest it on a 16X9 sequence, stretch it so that the small 4X3 image would fill the 16X9 frame.
then i encode as 16X9 mpeg 2, burn in dvd sp 3 as 16X9 project and im done.
is that true ? did i miss something?
why do people answering my question in the apple discussion board advised never to distort the footage ?

i appriciate your patience in answering my question…

thanx

nir

Posted by nir evron on 16 November 2005 @ 4am

as far as i know, denoting a sequence as 16×9 only takes care of rendering it nicely for you when editing, it doesn’t have much to do with the nature of the video.

so keep everything in 4×3. stretch it vertically as my article specifies. now it will look Wrong and Ugly. this is good! : )

then encode into mp2 as you usually do.

then author your dvd. when doing so, you have to turn on the “widescreen flag”. i haven’t done this in many months and can’t remember where the setting is. but you have to denote the video file as widescreen.

Posted by john on 16 November 2005 @ 4am

thanx!
will try it and let you know

thanx!!!

Posted by nir evron on 16 November 2005 @ 4am

hi john
i have exported a short test clip as you suggested i.e – 4X3 footage stretched to fill 16X9 frame (you are right, it does look ugly), exported as 4X3 (not 16X9).
in dvd sp, couldnt find that flag you mentioned…
tried changing the disply options of the video assests and they have 4:
4X3, 16X9 pan scan, 16X9 letterbox, 16X9 pan scan and letterbox.
is that one of them ? when i choose any of the 16X9 options and simulate, i get the same frame size viewer (exact size and proprtions that you would get if you would have to view a normal 4X3 footage in the simulator) but the images last 2 options create 2 black bars on top and bottom of the frame and the 16X9 pan scan simply crops the image.

help…. i am drowning….
nir

Posted by nir evron on 16 November 2005 @ 5am

nir- contact me on instant messenger and we’ll see if we can figure it out

http://johnjosephbachir.org/contact_information.html

Posted by john on 16 November 2005 @ 6am

John,

Your blog is quite helpful; however, I am still a little confused. I am hoping you can set me straight. I am fairly new to the flimmaking process–writing is my real trade. I am currently in pre-production for a short film of mine, and I plan on shooting with a GL2. If I am planning on entering it into various film festivals, what format do you suggest. Should I go with 4:3 or 4:3 with frames? My idea could actually be marketable to a TV or Internet audience, so I am thinking 4:3 would be best, but I’m not sure. Thanks in advance.

Posted by Chris on 16 January 2006 @ 4am

FIrst of all, in case this wasn’t clear, frames (progressive/30p) vs. interlaced(60i) has nothing to do with 4:3 vs. 16:9.

As var as progressive vs. interlaced… progressive definitely has much more of a “film look” and all other things being equal I say go with that. Shooting a feature on video is hard enough to get to look great, but progressive mode helps a lot.

That said, something to consider is that i have heard it is easier to transfer interlaced to film. So if there is a chance you might get a transfer to film in your future, go with 60i.

But I am guessing that the chances of this are slim to none, which is the case for 99.9% of video projects. So, go with progressive.

Also, as a side note, i think even if you are going to a tv or internet audience, 16:9 might be the way to go. if it’s a feature film and not a 46 minute tv drama, 16:9 is going to make it feel a lot more like a movie.

If possible, find a cinemetographer who has worked with shooting video to look more like film (or just to look good…) and have a couple conversations about some basic things you can do. for example i have heard of people working with the gl2 actually turning down the saturation in production, and then turning it up again when doing color correctio in post. they found that gave them more room to work with in the color space. HOWEVER this may have been very specific to their workflow.

keep us posted on what you come up with.

Posted by John on 16 January 2006 @ 6am

just noticed that you mentioned it’s a short film– in that case, definitely go with frame mode.

Posted by John on 16 January 2006 @ 6am

Thanks for the reply. In regards to 4:3 with frames, I may have confused you (or even myself). Since the GL2 doesn’t have a “true” 16:9 chip, I was wondering if I should shoot using 4:3 with frames (the actual white lines that show up on the viewer that I can use to guide me in editing to make it “look” like 16:9) or to shoot in 16:9 mode where the picture seems squashed. Did that make sense?

But if understand you correctly, I should shoot in frame mode (30p), right?

Again, thank you.

Posted by Chris on 16 January 2006 @ 1pm

I would recommend always going with anamorphic (squashed).

Posted by John on 18 January 2006 @ 9pm

Keep up this great resource http://www.chtodelat.org/uploadfiles/f/

Posted by cht on 12 August 2006 @ 6am

Hey I was wondering if anyone knows how to get the black bars across the screen before i compress the footage so it looks 16/9 on a 4/3 monitor. Should i go into after effects and import the project from finalcut and make a black background at 720/576? then layer the project on top of the black background then cut the top and bottom off? is that the only way to do it? how do u do it? thr must be another way that wont require exporting and importing into other programs. thanks.

Posted by Allan on 26 January 2007 @ 2am

Use final cut… widescreen filter is in the generators folder i believe…

Posted by Enanovi on 11 July 2007 @ 7am

Text is appearing very blurry on my 16:9 Plasma. 18px (Ariel Reg) text almost unreadable. I am burning my DVD in DVD Studio pro
AE 7 setting are:
COMP SIZE: 1024X576 (SQUARE PX)
RENDERING SETTING: QUICKTIME (ANIMATION) FULL RESOLUTION
Importing in DVD studio and encoding there.

DVD STUDIO ENCODING SETTING:
ASPECT RATIO: 16:9
FIELD ORDER: AUTO
MODE: TWO PASS VBR
BIT RATE: 5.5
MAX BIT RATE: 7.2
MOTION ESTIMATION: BEST

Please let me know where I am making mistake.

Posted by Kaay on 29 September 2007 @ 4am

I’m about to shoot a short using a GL2. I had planned on using a 16:9 Lens Adaptor plus using Instant HD upscaling software w/FCP 6. The final product would DVCAM DVD or HD DVD. However, would I be better off just shooting 4:3 but framing it for letterbox or what?

Now reading all this information, I’m not sure.

My plans was to enter the short in the film festival curcuit. So most of the time the DVD will be projected on a large screen.

Confused.

Thanx in Advance

Posted by BradL on 24 October 2007 @ 12pm

BradL-

Depending on your needs, I would probably recommend that you use anamorphic mode and do not use the lens adapter. You don’t get a whole lot of improvement in the picture quality with the lens adapter, and it makes your production and post production workflow a big pain. Also, depending on the adapter, you are probably limiting the range within which you can zoom before seeing vignetting.

You are DEFINITELY not better off shooting 4:3 and letterboxing. Anamorphic is superior in all ways.

Posted by John on 28 October 2007 @ 5pm

You can also just crop 4:3 vid using the crop tool. Crop to 13 off the top and 13 off the bottom

Posted by gerry on 5 February 2008 @ 2pm

Great site.

Working with anamorphic footage and regular 3:2 footage in dv ntsc 3:2 sequence. Burnng this to 3:2 DVD has been no problem. I have worked with scaling to make consistant widescreen effect. Now, I need to make a 16:9 DVD. Please help. This now needs to be on dvd at 16:9 going to Germany although pal was not specified in specs. the anamorphic footage is set at -33.33. Some of the dv footage was digitized as widescreen. When I export to compressor from 3:2 as a 16:9 mpeg in dvdsp the image still looks elongated. Please help. How do I work with anamorphic and 3:2 footage in one sequence and output as 16:9? I have removed the -33.33 and set it to zero, placed clips in anamorphic timeline and nothing seems to work. Thanks.

Posted by Robin on 23 April 2008 @ 2am

Robin-

I haven’t worked with this stuff for a while. Check out the Ken Stone discussions:

http://www.kenstone.net/cgi/discussions/general.cgi

Present your question there. The people there are very helpful, but make sure to ask a good question. Take some time putting your question together so that it’s easy for someone to understand your problem.

Good luck.

Posted by John on 23 April 2008 @ 9am

John,

Thanks. Ken Stone is the best. Indeed; cryptic posts by nature yield little! Apologies if my post was difficult to understand… Thanks again.

Robin

Posted by Robin on 23 April 2008 @ 10am

Well, I just haven’t worked with this stuff for a long time, so I couldn’t offer much help myself.

Posted by John on 23 April 2008 @ 10am

Thanks the the help– your article is awesome! Take care.

Posted by Anonymous on 23 April 2008 @ 10am

Say I shot my footage in 4:3 and wanted it to play back letterboxed on a 4:3 screen and fullscreen (cropped) on a 16×9 screen. Would I be better off working in 4×3 (distorted) and setting the compression to 16×9, or is there a way I can work in Final Cut Pro 16×9 and get a 4:3 monitor to letterbox?

Basically, I want to crop my 4:3 footage to 16×9 and I can’t tell if streching it so that the canvas is filled and the top and bottom are cut off is degrading the quality.

Sorry if that was confusing, I’m very confused myself.

Posted by David on 23 October 2008 @ 9pm

You can have it play back letterboxed on a 4:3 screen and fullscreen on a 16:9 screen if you deliver with a anamorphic DVD.

Or I suppose, if you deliver with a 16:9 video file, and whatever you are using to play back on the 4:3 screen (like, say, quicktime player) does its own fullscreening.

You won’t lose quality with any of the above if you do it right.

Posted by John on 23 October 2008 @ 11pm

This article worked fine for delivering to DVD but when I put the file in Compressor for going to the web, the image was cropped much more than how it was cropped in DVD Studio Pro. Why is that?

Posted by Omar on 4 December 2008 @ 5am