View Full Version : Why 13:9, 14:9, 15:9 aspect markers?


Brent Ethington
December 12th, 2007, 05:52 PM
I can understand having 4:3 for SD framing, but why the others?

Also, why no other widescreen markers like 2.4:1?

David Heath
December 12th, 2007, 06:14 PM
I can understand having 4:3 for SD framing, but why the others?

Also, why no other widescreen markers like 2.4:1?
In some countries the most important marker is the 14:9 one. HD is relatively new in the UK, but most broadcasting here has been 16:9 SD for about a decade now. The standard technique is to shoot and digitally transmit 16:9, but "shoot and protect" 14:9 for the analogue transmission. For this the centre 14:9 section is letterboxed in the 4:3 analogue SD frame, the logic being that this technique loses much less of the image than a 4:3 center cut, whilst being a much less obvious letterbox than a full 16:9 version.

The technique has generally been accepted to work extremely well, and although the techniques been adopted in a lot of countries, AFAIK was originally a BBC initiative - http://www.informotion.co.uk/delivery_widescreen_book.pdf

Brent Ethington
December 12th, 2007, 06:24 PM
thanks for the info. I learned something.

How about the lack of 2.4:1? I'd think with support for 24p for film, that 2.4:1 would be nice for filmmakers to have

David Heath
December 13th, 2007, 05:17 AM
How about the lack of 2.4:1? I'd think with support for 24p for film, that 2.4:1 would be nice for filmmakers to have
Maybe - but (excuse my ignorance) wouldn't that be more likely to be done with anamorphic lenses, so you'd need to use different viewfinder scans, not simply use markers?

Michael Mann
December 13th, 2007, 05:25 AM
Absolutely right, Brent! I am missing CinemaScope markers (2.35 : 1) as well and I can't think of any plausible reason - except overlooking - why Sony left out that very aspect ratio. It probably is the most common wide screen ratio used today, and even the Canon A1 has it.
Another feature for a coming firmware update.