No blackbars; 16x9 and 4x3 just fullframe TV...

[Carl Ny]

Is it possible to do this;

Lets say I film in 16x9, and want to have full 16x9 on a widescreen TV,
but at the same time give the option to the 4x3 viewer to use the whole area of their 4x3 TV:
What I mean is that the 4x3 TV loose frame on each side but get fullscreen
on the 4x3 ( instead of getting blackbars up/down ),
and when you see it on a 16x9 you also have full screen on a 16x9 widescreen TV with
the additional full original wide frame. Automatically when you load the DVD in the DVD player.

In outher words; 4x3 fullframe just cut the fullframe original 16x9 picture on the both sides,
like TV-channels do with super 16 and 35mm some times to get fullframe 4x3:
Best of both 16x9 and 4x3 format Worlds.

Is this possible? It should work...
End product; SD-DVD.

Looking forward to hear from some smart solutions :)

Carl

[Joshua Provost]

Carl,

Not really. If you want, you can make a 16:9 and a 4:3 version, and put them on the same disc as separate programs. You would need a menu to allow the user to select which version they would like to see.

Other than that, it is something that is configured on the DVD player. For instance, a lot of the inexpensive APEX DVD players these days come configured to show 16:9 video as 4:3 full screen pan and scan. I have seen this a number of times bringing my 16:9 DVD's to friends and relatives houses, and they didn't even realize the player was only playing pan and scan, all the time. I had to go in and configure it just to get the letterbox.

Josh

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Carl Ny

Is it possible to do this;

Lets say I film in 16x9, and want to have full 16x9 on a widescreen TV,
but at the same time give the option to the 4x3 viewer to use the whole area of their 4x3 TV:
What I mean is that the 4x3 TV loose frame on each side but get fullscreen
on the 4x3 ( instead of getting blackbars up/down ),
and when you see it on a 16x9 you also have full screen on a 16x9 widescreen TV with
the additional full original wide frame. Automatically when you load the DVD in the DVD player.

In outher words; 4x3 fullframe just cut the fullframe original 16x9 picture on the both sides,
like TV-channels do with super 16 and 35mm some times to get fullframe 4x3:
Best of both 16x9 and 4x3 format Worlds.

Is this possible? It should work...
End product; SD-DVD.

Looking forward to hear from some smart solutions :)

Carl

I don't understand why having the black bars top and bottom when viewing a 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen is an issue for some people. The 16:9 image frame is arguably more esthetically pleasing than is the 4:3 and if you're shooting 16:9 you'll be composing over the entire frame. There's visually important stuff in the 1/3 of the frame that will be thrown away when you fit the image to the vertical dimension of the 4:3 aspect ratio and go to pan-and-scan. Unless you either compose the shots for 4:3 when shooting and ignore the edges of the image or adjust the framing shot by shot in post when converting the 16:9 to the 4:3 image, sometimes important action is going to be lost of the edges. In effect your viewers are only going to see 2/3 of your film. The physical edge of the screen disappears in the dark anyway so IMHO it really doen't matter if the edge of the image is defined by a black bar across the screen or the bezel surrounding the tube.

I have a 16:9 projection TV and I wouldn't dream of zooming a 2.35:1 theatrical film to get rid of the bars top and bottom by throwing away the sides of the frame.

[Joshua Provost]

Steve,

I totally agree with you. I have made films in nearly every aspect ratio (4:3, 16:9, 1.85:1, 2:1, 2.35:1), and each time it was an asthetic choice based on the story. I wouldn't want anyone to manipulate that. I'd like people to see it the way I intended.

So, maybe a better question to Carl, is "What are you shooting, and why doesn't the aspect ratio matter to you?"

Josh

[Carl Ny]

Originally Posted by Joshua Provost

Steve,

I totally agree with you. I have made films in nearly every aspect ratio (4:3, 16:9, 1.85:1, 2:1, 2.35:1), and each time it was an asthetic choice based on the story. I wouldn't want anyone to manipulate that. I'd like people to see it the way I intended.

So, maybe a better question to Carl, is "What are you shooting, and why doesn't the aspect ratio matter to you?"

Josh

Because the client asked me.

Thanks for your advices..

Carl

[Christopher Lefchik]

Originally Posted by Steve House

The 16:9 image frame is arguably more esthetically pleasing than is the 4:3

I respectfully disagree. I've seen plenty of 4:3 material that is just as pleasingly photographed as widescreen material - and plenty of widescreen material that isn't so great. All the classic movies from the golden age of Hollywood are 4:3; it was the original movie standard, which was why television sets were designed with the 4:3 aspect ratio.

If there's anything I've learned from watching all the media I've seen (film, TV, etc.), there are much more crucial things than aspect ratio. I'd rather shoot an excellent production in 4:3 than a bad one in 16:9.

[Boyd Ostroff]

I have to agree with that myself. Personally I like working in 16:9, but that's just me. There is nothing that makes it "better" in and of itself.

It's like saying that chocolate ice cream is more aesthetically pleasing than strawberry...

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Carl Ny

Because the client asked me.

Thanks for your advices..

Carl

That's an excellent reason to do it, of course. The customer is always right (well, almost always). But not before sharing some of your insights with the client so he may make an informed choice based on the pluses and minuses of the course of action he plans. I think you're going to have to provide two separate programs, one for 16:9 as shot and the other "pan-and-scan" for 4:3 to end up with what you get when you see a film "modified to fit your screen" on network TV

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

I have to agree with that myself. Personally I like working in 16:9, but that's just me. There is nothing that makes it "better" in and of itself.

It's like saying that chocolate ice cream is more aesthetically pleasing than strawberry...

Agreed - was just thinking about classic composition ideas and the Golden Section proportions as I was writing that. The 16:9 format is much closer to the 1.6:1 ratio than is the classic 4:3 format. For still photography I use whatever aspect ratio worked best for the image and never felt constrained to any particular set of standard options.

[Chris Barcellos]

I don't know if this fits in this thread, but I have a curious case in this same realm. About a 6 months ago I purchased a cheap Magnovox LCD tv/monitor at Best Buy to use for an RV TV. It was on close out table. It was clearly a 4:3 configuration. I noted it had HD emblazened on the edges, which I though my be fun to play with. When I got it home, I noted it has the blue green red imputs, and has regular PC imput. So I eventually start using it as a second PC monitor to edit with. Then I got my FX1, and I imput it through the Hi Def three colored cables. The 16:9 picture output by the FX1 has its sides lopped of on the screen. I think I am out of luck getting that monitor to show 16:9, as I've messed with menu setting.. Does any one have any other thoughts of how to do so ?

[Michael Wisniewski]

Carl to do what you want, you'll have to create a 2nd 4:3 version of your video using the pan/crop tool in your NLE.

Then it's a matter of fitting both videos onto DVD.

If the video is short enough you can put both copies onto the same DVD and let the customer choose in the menu. Otherwise, you'll have to burn the videos onto a double-sided DVD, or give the customer two single-sided DVDs.