Okay, this is a fairly significant discovery I've made while creating my film
http://www.neilslade.com/Mirror.html

This concerns LETTERBOX created video with the DVX100:

I have been really surprised to see that no one else has gotten this, and it makes a HUGE difference

The problem is this-- you create letterbox video with the DVX100, only to lose a significant portion of the image on the right and left sides when you edit and render USING THE VEGAS RECOMMENDED whitepaper settings- which includes this fatal flaw:
Project properties .9091 pixel aspect ratio.

Not only does this distort the image in the preview window, but a good 15% of the edges are lost outside the safe areas (show safe area grids in preview windows.)

When you render for DVD, you get a so-so semi-widescreen letterbox image that is halfway between true "widescreen" letterbox, and plain old 4:3

You can correct the preview window distortion by right clicking the preview window, and selecting "simulate device aspect ratio" but that does nothing about losing all of the "widescreen" letterbox image on the sides.

By simple choosing Project Properties Pixel Aspect Ratio 1.0 Square, you accomplish several things at once:

1) You get a correct undistorted aspect ratio in Vegas preview window
(it is then not necessary to make corrections by right clicking the preview window and selecting simulate device option)

2) maintain FULL width of image captured on tape, and creating true "widescreen" letterbox proportions.

Please note, this has NO EFFECT on normal non-letterbox created video.

WHEN RENDERING to MPEG-2 leave the aspect ratio alone in the rendering options, for standard TV display, i.e. 4:3

Per below, the idea of shooting full frame normal, and then cropping later-- this defeats the entire idea of letterbox in the camera, which is a REALLY great concept. You want to see what your widescreen view is while shooting- not just guessing, or taping up your LCD.


You may thank me for this new and incredible discovery by getting a copy of my new movie created with the DVX100 and Vegas 6, and DVD architect :-)
http://www.neilslade.com/Mirror.html
Happy filming!

Other free info on good DIY projects here including a semi-fisheye DVX100 lens QUALITY for about $100, boom pole, etc---

http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/DVXlens.html

interesting you should mention this..

i have NEVER had a problem converting aspects of the dvx or working with variable aspects within vegas, in fact i do alot of demo work specificlaly showing how easy it is to do this.
as for correcting the differences,

firstly, shooting with the black bars on the DVX is not a very good idea IMO. the fact that your literally removing so much information at the shooting level doesnt give much room for frame corection in post.

Instead, shoot with a full screen, frame what you can as per normal, then apply a 16:9 mask in post. Reframe what needs to be reframed in past by using the pan crop tool.
Rendering in vegas is a little faster than realtime when using a PNG formatted mask, so the processing is very minimal.

From this finished project you can then reimport that into Vegas or any other transcoding tool .
If your using vegas, you can literally switch the project setttings to 16:9 and apply the aspect change to that newly rendered clip.
you wont need to adjsut the pan crop as vegas will chop the blak bars off for you.
when transcoding in vegas, turn off the "do not letterbox" button

remember one thing, when applying the simulate device aspect in vegas, you WILL notice vertical jaggies as your monitor is square pixel. Vegas applies this "stretching" to compensate that difference.....
These distortions will remain intact if you do not turn off the simulate device feature.

another thing about square aspect, is that it is designed for HDV mpg2, or web based presentations or outputting to film. Remember, you are changing the aspect of the pixel grid so in effect your changing the way the TRUE image is being presented. You will notice your subjects look a little rounder/fatter. Some people may not find this flattering..

Again, i have never had a probelm with the method of masking then cropping that mask in post for 16:9 if needed. It give leverage for correction and also allows for the chose to "upgrade" my client to 16:9 which in turn means more $$ (hey this is business.. )
From here, the easy solution to 16:9 delivery is creating a 16:9 project, importing 4:3 and changing its aspect to 16:9, export out as widescreen and turn off "do not letterbox"
the DVD playback device will do the rest

much simpler this way than tryin to manage a myriad of numbers and aspects.

Im in PAL land, but i dont see how it would be any differnt in NTSCville

Pictures are worth a thousand words

LOOK HERE: http://www.neilslade.com/widescreen.html


If you are shooting normal mode on your DVX-- everything I've written above is irrelevant. This is for people using the letterbox mode.

For some reason, and I spoke with Sony Vegas techs about this, and even they don't understand why at this point- selecting square pixel ratio in project properties when working a letterbox 24p video from the DVX-- it turns out perfectly proportioned both on the Vegas preview AND ON THE EXTERNAL MONITOR.

This is precisely my point-- everyone takes for granted that you are going to lose area outside the safe area-- in the case of Vegas/DVX its ridiculous. You get a half-assed version of widescreen letterbox on a regular TV, and lose 15% of your picture in the process.

I LOOVVVVVVVVE Vegas, just wanted this part of it to work perfectly.


I was first alerted to this problem after looking at several LETTERBOXED commercial DVDs-- I noticed that my Vegas letterbox was too high, and not wide enough, it was half way between widescreen and normal-- not a good widescreen on a regular TV-- just kinda.

Choosing square pixels in project properties perfectly reduces THE ENTIRE VIDEO IMAGE-- so it truly fits the horizontal width of the TV, and is not chopped off on the sides, just to make the image taller. It then matches the horizontal width of the screen, as IT SHOULD.

By simply changing the aspect ratio in the project, you gain back all of it.

Its a ONE CLICK DEAL. - Project properties, one click to square pixel.

None of all the junk masking and converting a 4:3 image, instead- One click, done.

It does NOT change or distort the images and change the shape of people's faces as you suggest. I would not tolerate a smidgen of distortion, much less loosing 15% of my image--- which everyone seems to think is part of the deal.


On the DVX, you lose nothing by using the letterbox mode-- except area you don't even want on the top and bottom. You gain absolutely nothing by remaining in normal mode if your final output is going to be letterboxed/wide.

Post cropping-- heck, I did a fine from letterbox when I needed to. It was minimal. To shoot normal just because you think you might need to crop later-- The whole point of in-camera letterbox preview is to see WHILE YOUR SHOOTING what your frame looks like.

Further, I ran an experiment to see if I could make a true widescreen image by cropping the DVX letterbox in Vegas-- bleeech. You would think it would work fine.

Nope. You lose image quality and sharpness. Don't know why-- but its a fact. Been there, tried it, rejected it in an effort to create a true widescreen output from the DVX footage.

Hey, I'm the last one to suggest that one size fits all-- but I think many people who will try this suggestion will have a very big grin going after seeing the result. I've passed the word on to Vegas support, and I would actually expect to see changes in their white paper reflecting my discovery some time soon.

to streamline, ive responded to your comments as they go along

"If you are shooting normal mode on your DVX-- everything I've written above is irrelevant. This is for people using the letterbox mode."

((Why would you need to when in NLE settigns are aaavailable to you.. this is my point, you are losing the flexibilty to reframe))

For some reason, and I spoke with Sony Vegas techs about this, and even they don't understand why at this point- selecting square pixel ratio in project properties when working a letterbox 24p video from the DVX-- it turns out perfectly proportioned both on the Vegas preview AND ON THE EXTERNAL MONITOR.

This is precisely my point-- everyone takes for granted that you are going to lose area outside the safe area-- in the case of Vegas/DVX its ridiculous. You get a half-assed version of widescreen letterbox on a regular TV, and lose 15% of your picture in the process.

((Thats the way The DVX manages its safe zone. Remember that the DVX has an oversized CCD (from what i have been told), so its "safe" area is slightly larger than what youd get from another camera of its range.))

I LOOVVVVVVVVE Vegas, just wanted this part of it to work perfectly.

((Im intrigued, as i am yet to find any of this a problem))

I was first alerted to this problem after looking at several LETTERBOXED commercial DVDs-- I noticed that my Vegas letterbox was too high, and not wide enough, it was half way between widescreen and normal-- not a good widescreen on a regular TV-- just kinda.

Choosing square pixels in project properties perfectly reduces THE ENTIRE VIDEO IMAGE-- so it truly fits the horizontal width of the TV, and is not chopped off on the sides, just to make the image taller. It then matches the horizontal width of the screen, as IT SHOULD.

((So youre saying that your adjusting your aspect to fit within the safe zone? Thats what this is sounding like to me.. ))

By simply changing the aspect ratio in the project, you gain back all of it.

((Ie you gain all of the frame?? ))

Its a ONE CLICK DEAL. - Project properties, one click to square pixel.

None of all the junk masking and converting a 4:3 image, instead- One click, done.

It does NOT change or distort the images and change the shape of people's faces as you suggest.

((If you change ANY aspect away from its native format, you WILL be distorting it, especially if your using square pixel to compact the frame to fit within the safe zone))

I would not tolerate a smidgen of distortion, much less loosing 15% of my image--- which everyone seems to think is part of the deal.
((Lose?? if you run an in cam mask, you will lose the visible area, however your actual resolution doesnt change. I think this is where people are gettin it wrong. This also applies to the Squeeze mode, whch basically crops where those black bars would be and applies a strecth to fill the frame. Your not actaully "losing" anythign, but you are shrinking your actual visible frame.. i think this is where people are getin it all mixed up.))

On the DVX, you lose nothing by using the letterbox mode-- except area you don't even want on the top and bottom. You gain absolutely nothing by remaining in normal mode if your final output is going to be letterboxed/wide.

((I disagree, but ive explained why in my initial response as well as the top part of this one. Each to their own :) ))

Post cropping-- heck, I did a fine from letterbox when I needed to. It was minimal. To shoot normal just because you think you might need to crop later-- The whole point of in-camera letterbox preview is to see WHILE YOUR SHOOTING what your frame looks like.

((If your shooting run and gun, you may not have that flexibilty. On top of that, sometimes reframing allows you to finetune continuity, but again, each ot their own, if you find no use for it, groovy, but i wouldnt write off reframing considering its a common practice. ))

Further, I ran an experiment to see if I could make a true widescreen image by cropping the DVX letterbox in Vegas-- bleeech. You would think it would work fine.

Nope. You lose image quality and sharpness. Don't know why-- but its a fact. Been there, tried it, rejected it in an effort to create a true widescreen output from the DVX footage.

((cropping your black bars wont give you widescreen. you need to adjsut the aspect to 16:9 of the clip itself while it is in a 16:9 project. dont use ANY cropping else youll get that distortion your mentioning. Youll get a pseudo digital zoom if you do that))

Hey, I'm the last one to suggest that one size fits all-- but I think many people who will try this suggestion will have a very big grin going after seeing the result. I've passed the word on to Vegas support, and I would actually expect to see changes in their white paper reflecting my discovery some time soon.

((umm.. i dont mean to burst your balloon, but adjusting an aspect isnt a major discovery, and considering the amount of work thats been pumped out with this cam and Vegas as its NLE, youre the first one ive heard mention this "problem"
Also considering Panasonic have been in the game for many years, this is the first time ive heard of an "aspect/frame problem" from any of their cameras.
Safe areas are common in all cameras, it might be an idea to check out afew other cams to see how they manage it.
Also i honestly dont see how an aspect ratio can be wrong when the company in question knows that the camera itself will be used for a variety of deliveries, so maintaining that industry standard would be paramount

Dont get me wrong, theres nothing "wrong" with what you say, but i just feel that there are other ways to do what your doing.
Theres no right or wrong, just a difference of opinion

Yes, agreed, different people find different solutions.

What I didn't care for was that the "safe" area is so large from the DVX-

and so, when you process per whitepaper recommendations, you really dont get a letterbox that equals commercial DVD letterbox proportions- you get this half way thing between widescreen and 4:3, and THIS bothered me. It was half baked widescreen, and I wanted REAL widescreen proportions from my camera and software.

Also, as long as your output from Vegas uses the .9091 pixel aspect ratio, you still end up with this.

My solution, one click, switch to square pixels in Vegas-- you get true widescreen, use all the area on the DVX image, etc.-- it solves many problems at once, without any distortion of the image. None, zero-
I MEASURED IT USING A TEST SQUARE...! I am VERY sensitive to any kind of distortion, whether it results in image distortion, color, sharpness anything-- and I have no tolerance for any.

YES YES YES try it! You gain ALL of the frame, exactly-- this is what is so fantastic, and amazing that nobody else has stumbled on this before.

As for converting to widescreen- please give exact detailed step by step instructions, because I haven't successfully done that yet- been too busy on my project. Thanks

As for this pixel adjustment for DVX letterbox, NOBODY at Sony Vegas had a clue about this, their own whitepaper says nothing about this, and a thorough search on the web turned up nothing, zilch. So, I am patting myself on the back. But it was sheer displeasure with the status quo that brought me to this anyway.

Neil

But why would anyone shoot anyway but 4:3 in the first place?

Save the headache and drama and learn how. Once you commit it's gone forever. I suggest learning and becoming comfortable shooting 4:3 for the many options you have later in post. You will be glad you did.

You say 'to see what you are framing?'

Consider using a sharpy or a product that slips over LCD that is transperent yet still shows you the aspect ratio you are after. The ability to crop and correct in post is a godsend; especially shooting in a verite style.

Neil, I've read through your original post, and I must confess I have no idea what you're talking about.

I've shot miles and miles of letterbox footage on the DVX100 and DVX100A. I've edited all of it in Vegas. And there's never been the slightest hint of a problem with aspect ratio at all. Using .9091 in a Vegas 24p project yields pixel-accurate editing, the frame is identical to what was shot, nothing gets cropped off.

I think the reason you've never encountered anyone discussing this before is... well... it doesn't happen. Letterbox mode works perfectly fine with Vegas.

Now... there was some talk that the very earliest DVX100's may have set the "16:9" flag in the video stream for letterbox footage. That would be incorrect, and could potentially lead to a situation like you describe. I got my first camera in February 2003, and it doesn't have any problem, so you would have had to have gotten your camera prior to that if there is any issue. I've never been able to verify whether that is true or not; I haven't encountered any DVX footage with the 16:9 flag set in letterbox mode, but if that were true, it could explain what you're encountering.

Here's how you can check: import a letterbox shot into a Vegas project, and get the file properties, and look at the default aspect ratio. If it says 1.2, then you have a problem. If it says .9091 NTSC DV, then you should have absolutely no problems, and I have to admit I don't understand what your post is about.

John:

Obviously, editing letterbox in Vegas using the suggested settings from the whitepaper work. We give Vegas techs full credit for this. Vegas is fabulous.

No problem, if you are willing to sacrifice everything outside the safe area, and you are willing to accept the standard letterbox proportions. Everybody does.

Of course, if you are used to accepting this, you won't see any problem.

Now--

Think OUTSIDE THE SAFE BOX and re-read my post again, and maybe you'll figure out what I am talking about, especially if you actually try it.

You've got 15% OUTSIDE the safe area boundry. Turn on your grid in the preview window--- gee whiz, THATS WHAT GETS LOST ON A TYPICAL TV, even a nice Sony. Yes-- IT GETS CROPPED WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT ON A MONITOR OR TV, EVEN A WIDESCREEN TV. Sure, you see it in your Vegas preview window-- so what- YOUR AUDIENCE DOESN'T.

Compare your Vegas/DVX letterbox to say, a Fellini commercial letterbox DVD. Gee--- why is the Fellini film so much proportionally wider than my Vegas/DVX footage>>>>>>> >????

This is what tipped me off in the first place-- my Fellini 81/2 letterboxed 4:3 was proportionally WIDER on my TV than the letterboxed stuff coming out of my DVX/Vegas project. I.e. the picture was not as tall on the screen-- although the images were non-distorted-- HOW COME MY LETTERBOX was taller, and I was losing the sides of the image?? HUH?


Yes, I know how to use my camera, and there's nothing wrong with it, and it imports all my clips as .9091.



Try my suggestion,
Then you'll go--- HOLY MOLY!!!

Gee, REAL WIDESCREEN from my letterbox project, where I was losing 15% from the sides.

As to shooting everything in 4:3--- if this is such a great idea, why did commercial film cameras abandon this aspect ration decades ago?

Really guys, I love Vegas, I love my DVX-- everything works perfect-- now think outside conventional conformity and use everything outside the "safe" zone.... its a frontal lobes thing. Your brain will go "POP!!!!"
Wow.

Honest people, I'm not trying to poison your mind, this is a discovery that I wanted to share. Otherwise, have a nice day.

People actually discover things outside the factory, and people discover things other people miss.

If and when you finally figure out that I'm on to something-- you can send me flowers. :-) Untill you do it, I'm not going to waste my time arguing, because you obviously haven't seen it with your own eyes.

I am also having a hard time understanding what you are saying Neil.


Are you suggesting that we shrink letter boxed footage so the edges of the image start where the safe-area starts? What happens when someone wants to watch your DVD on a 16:9 TV? Or on a computer where you can see right to the edge of the frame?

maybe you could create some screen grabs to help illustrate what you are talking about.

peace
jesse

No one is arguing Neil but I gether you have gotten some friction on this already?

I truley am trying to understand but I just DO NOT.

What is the bene of me shooting Letterbox In-Camera exactly? Are you saying I GAIN an additional 15% on the Sides?

What?

Okay, I built a web page that shows clearly what I am talking about.

http://www.neilslade.com/widescreen.html

This should settle the issue= whew!!
thanks for looking

Neil

Ok I tried it. What's the big deal? You are shrinking the size of your image so now not only do you have letterbox on the top and bottom, but on the sides as well. This might work for 4:3 TV viewing. As long as no one has a TV that does underscan. But you're losing resolution and recompressing your footage. What if I want to watch your DVD on my computer? Now I can see the annoying black bars on the side of the picture.

OK I sort of understand now :) But can you answer a couple of questions.

1) How were you showing this on your TV? Did you encode to say MPG and show, or is this straight out from NLE to Cam/deck to TV?

2) What happens on a projector where you can see the entire picture? You will get black bits at the sides no?

Aaron

Jesse's right. Your method is just scaling the image down, and adding black bars on the sides. It's losing resolution, resizing, and recompressing.

NO BLACK IS ADDED TO THE EDGE that is visible on a TV, and that is
the ENTIRE POINT

WHAT THE AUDIENCE SEES ON THEIR DVD and TV.

The IMAGE IS CRYSTAL SHARP. No loss of sharpness. Its sharp as a pin.

The image goes RIGHT TO THE EDGE, perfectly.

If you need to render for anything other than DVD, all you do is
simply uncheck square pixels in the project properties.

Please look at my web page, its quite clear.



http://www.neilslade.com/widescreen.html


Vegas simply came up with a recommendation that attempts to be ONE SIZE FITS ALL, but the REALITY is that when you use the recommended Pixel Aspect Ratio, and you make a DVD, or anything shown on a TV- you LOSE THE IMAGE EDGES!!

On top of this, and EVEN WORSE, if you use AN EXTERNAL MONITOR TO EDIT, YOU CAN"T SEE WHAT"S ON THE EDGES, and you are apt to make SERIOUS EDITING FLAWS that if your product ever does end up on the big screen, or in situations where THE ENTIRE PICTURE is shown--
EVERYTHING YOU MISSED ON THE EDGES WILL BE THERE.

This alone is reason to change to square, and if you don't, you will be screwed. Go ahead, miss what's on the edges on your monitor. I don't care.

If your movie ever makes it to the big screen, people will see all the crap you missed on the edges because you were determined to stick to conventional wisdom recommendations.



The reason I figured this all out is because I've just spent 2 and half SOLID MONTHS EDITING A DVX LETTERBOXED FEATURE FILM on Vegas, made dozens of test DVDs, and saw the problem over and over again.

I have already sold 200 copies- and about 99 percent of the people who will watch my movie, will do so on a TV. A few will watch on their computer, and it will look perfectly good to them. If I sell a million copies, I would prefer that people see an accurate widescreen version as well.

I do not care for people to miss 15% of my movie on the edges, and see a half ass letterboxed version, just because I am trying to one-size-fits all.

Either people will get it at this point, or they won't.
Enough. Have fun.

"Vegas simply came up with a recommendation that attempts to be ONE SIZE FITS ALL, but the REALITY is that when you use the recommended Pixel Aspect Ratio, and you make a DVD, or anything shown on a TV- you LOSE THE IMAGE EDGES!!"

Yes, this is true for all consumer televisions. This has nothing to do with Vegas Video.

"On top of this, and EVEN WORSE, if you use AN EXTERNAL MONITOR TO EDIT, YOU CAN"T SEE WHAT"S ON THE EDGES,"

This is not a new problem. This is why professionals use professional broadcast monitors that can do underscan. If you do your editing on the computer monitor then you can see the full frame.

"Yes, fine, the earth is flat."

Sure is. Flat as a Pancake.

Last time I checked, just about all consumers USED CONSUMER TVs.

Seems to make sense to look at a project on the same device people would be using.


If you do your editing on a computer monitor, you also don't see what the consumer sees, neither in color rendition, or image size. The monitor is a terrible substitute for a TV external monitor.

Why is everybody so defensive about something that DOESN"T WORK and that has big problems that end up giving the consumer a flawed end product?

Good god. The brain is a terrible thing to waste.

One click, fix the pixel aspect ratio. Solve multiple problems.

If you follow the Vegas instructions- yes this IS a VEGAS PROBLEM- because people edit video on Vegas to be shown on TV, and their recommendations fall short in regard to letterbox final product- you end up with a less than perfect letterboxed project for everybody watching on a TV.

You want to lose the edges. Fine, go ahead, be my guest.
I've got movies to make and get in the mail tonight.

I prefer perfection.

:-)

Thank god I don't shoot Letterbox In-Camera.

Yes, if you shoot full frame normal 4:3, changing the pixel ratio screws things up quite nicely.

CORRECTION!!!!- (Friday) no, actually I was wrong here, it merely shrinks the image on the TV set, just like it does to the letterbox image-- in Vegas preview window however, you need to select "simulate device aspect ratio" for the preview window or it squeezes the preview.

:-)

Later
keep smiling
Neil

Ok, so what happens in Fellini's DVD when you show it on computer or projector? I'd be VERY surprised to see that it had black edges then.

So, we know you're trying to get the whole image within the safe area. Fine, but can you explain why you won't see a squashing of the image? If you were scaling I'd agree, the image would keep the right aspect, but you are not, you are altering the aspect ratio.


Aaron

Aaron Sweetheart,

I am making a DVD that nearly EVERYONE will look at on their TV.

Most Vegas projects will ultimately end up on TV sets, so, my message is for that situation where people don't want to sacrifice the edges of the image.

Its ALSO FOR EDITING AND SEEING THE WHOLE PICTURE on an external monitor- EXTREMELY important if your project will end up where everybody ultimately sees the edges of the screen.

I found I was missing all kinds of edge things looking at my external monitor, only to have it show up in the preview window.

ARGGHGHGHGH!!!! Horrible.

And, for that 2 out of 500 people who look at it on their computer, it will STILL look fine.Nobody cares if there is a little black on the side of the picture on an LCD computer screen. If you want to buy a movie, I'll burn a special copy just for you where I've reset the PAR back to .9091 :-)
One click.

If you would actually take one minute to look at my page and read what I've said- what, about a dozen times now-- it does NOT NOT NOT NOT change the picture and alter the proper proportions of the image. LOOK-
its PERFECTO.

Let me say it again-- I have NO TOLERATION FOR DISTORTION.

If you do the same thing to a 4;3 normal image - yes, it will squeeze and distort the image. This DOESNT HAPPEN WITH LETTERBOX out of the DVX. That's 13 times now. :-)

Hope this sinks in already
:-)

Why are people SO RESISTANT to NEW IDEAS?

Does everybody think that the software writers of ANY SOFTWARE have all the answers and have gotten everything perfect?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Your welcome.
:-)

Don't patronise me Neal.

It's weird Neal, as you slam others for not listening but you're doing it your self. I asked "Fine, but can you explain why you won't see a squashing of the image?" but I have yet to hear an explanation of why, just that it happens.

You also didn't answer my question of, if Fellini's DVD is true 16:9 (Which I assume or else why would you compare the two) then do you really think that he's doing something that doesn't lose the edges over the TV? I doubt that. More likely he's using a different mask/ratio.

I don't resist new ideas Neal, I did look at your site (you've since updated it with a split screen example) and I could not really tell that there was no squishing going on.


Aaron

Neil,

The DVX letterbox mode is not quite true 16:9. I'm not familiar with the Fellini DVD that you speak of, but it is likely true 16:9 or even wider (2.35:1) This is perhaps one reason why your original letterboxed footage didn't look the same as a commercially produced widescreen DVD.

"Why is everybody so defensive about something that DOESN"T WORK"

No one is getting defensive. We were just trying to understand what you were talking about at the beginning. Now I get what you are saying. Shrink the image so you don't lose the picture in the TV safe zones. Simple enough. And I must admit this is an intriguing idea. (does this mean my frontal lobes have just popped?)

What I don't understand is why you are calling this a "fix" to an aspect ratio "problem." There is no problem. You may choose to resize and recompress your footage if you like, but this is not a solution to a technical problem that Sony (and the rest of the video world) has just happened to overlook for the last 50+ years. An aesthetic problem? Sure is! Does your solution work? I'd say so.

Incidently, black bars on the SIDES of the image are called "pillarbox"

Thanks Jesse for acknowledging my solution to these various dilemmas...



Aaron,

Since when is showing affection a negative expression? Its all in your brain. That's what the movie, in fact, is about-- life MIRROR's how you approach things-- specifically with your amygdala.

I don't know why the squishing doesn't occur, neither did Sony Vegas support have an explanation, and we talked for a long time on this. I don't even know if this would work for other cameras, and I so I am specific about this issue with this camera and software.

Oh by the way- the first thing I did----

I RAN A TEST IMAGE, A PERFECT TEST SQUARE, rendered it both .9091 and 1.0 pixel aspect ratio-- THEN MEASURED THE IMAGE WITH A PRECISE RULER MARKED IT SQUARE.

No squishing. The 1.0 was simply smaller, and the whole width fit on a TV screen, without any additional black on the sides.

Now do you believe me?
:-)



If you don't have a DVX, forget about it. Or try it on your own camera.
If you are waiting for proof in WORDS, well, you have further missed my point--- TRY IT YOURSELF. I don't have much time to argue with people who just want to argue points theoretically. The proof is simple, and would take somebody with Vegas and a DVX about 5 minutes to prove to themselves this works beautifully.



Apparently, you don't have this set up, or you are unwilling to get it a go (why this would be totally escapes me) so, why even argue the point.

Oh I know--

MEN LIKE TO ARGUE. Its a reptile brain thing. Amygdalae like to click backward in males. It's the thumping on the chest chimp thing, you know.




Although you may think I've been careless or missed something on this, I assure you, I am a total perfectionist when it comes to video and photography. I've spent 2 1/2 years on this project, and I don't let anything slip by.


Thanks all.

Why are people SO RESISTANT to NEW IDEAS?

I am not being resistant Neal! On the contrary! I am trying to understand. I have gone to your site and it is like a ride through Wonka Land. Not exactly the most focused bit of research going on there (I jest).

I am here to talk and figure this out because it intrigues me.

Now isn't the DVX100 in-camera letterbox simply a 4:3 image anyway? It just happen's to have a mask applied over it, right? So why is this any different that doing it with regular 4:3 'un-masked Full Frame' footage?

Also.............................................

Fellini's City of Women is 1.85:1 not 16:9 and 16:9 (The simulated DVX100 Letterbox) is 1.77:1, right? So isn't 16:9 going to appear TALLER than Fellini's DVD City of Women in it's 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio?

I don't know why I try and understand these things as it only makes my head hurt. LOL! :P

Wonka Land! Yeah! I love chocolate....

I didn't know the specific aspect mbers on City of Women, or 8 1/2, or Juliet of the Spirits- but I was watching those during my own editing, and thats when it hit me-- and they're all letterboxed in the editions I had--

These movies were more like actual 16:9, and if you look at the Vegas output from the DVX letterbox, it sure as heck doesn't turn up 16:9 on a TV, its just chopped off a little at the top and bottom-- a chopped 4:3.
Not much like widescreen-- and that's what I was expecting from letterbox.

You could, and can always mask off regular 4:3 and get the same result as in camera letterbox-- theoretically-- that's why this came as such a pleasant surprise that applying the 1.0 pixel ratio worked wonders and restores the entire frame edge to edge on the external monitor, as well as restoring the preview screen CORRECT aspect ratio-- and nobody even knew about it, not even Vegas support. I have no idea why.
It just works.

This was another tip off-- when editing the letterbox footage in Vegas, set to .9091-- it WAS SQUASHED unless you click on the "simulate aspect ratio" (right click in preview window).

I assumed this was an ERROR in the software, and quite rightly so. You don't have to do this with normal footage- just DVX letterbox.

Also, when you CAPTURE-- its squashed. I thought maybe I was missing a setting in the capture application (Vegas capture) but nope.
Setting it to 1.0 aspect, corrects a slew of things

1) corrects preview window distortion
2) shows whole image in external monitor
3) Renders whole image

I further noted the errors when using the cropping tool and my external monitor-- because I would crop something out using my monitor (a Sony 20" flat screen CRT) only to see what I thought I cropped out back on the preview window. Argh!

This meant, I had to go back and recrop scenes that I thought were done.

Finally in sheer frustration in this duplication, and non-conformity between external monitor and preview window, and distorted preview, I just started messing with settings until VOILA!!!!

Change to square aspect ratio in Project properties.

Success.

Beats me why it works, and Sony doesn't know either.

John,

You get the same effect when using 4:3 footage. You get pillarboxing on the side. Here's why: TVs are 4:3 right? That's 640x480 with square pixels. Neil, if you don't believe me go to your Vegas properties. The seventh option under the templates drop down list is "NTSC square pixel (640x480)" This is the SD standard. This is what our analog TVs display - 640x480.

Now DV comes along and adds a little more resolution to the picture with 720x480. Well 720 on a 640 display should looks squeezed right? Well that's why the pixels aren't square. They're "pre-stretched" so when the 720 image is squeezed back to 640 everything looks hunky dory. Makes sense?

What Neil is doing is creating an "illegal" format. Which Vegas can easily do because it is resolution independent. 720x480 with square pixels is like a 640X480 picture with 80 extra pixels on each side. So when you drop a DV file into this timeline Vegas automatically resizes the footage and centers it. If you go to the clip properties and uncheck "maintain aspect ratio" the picture gets stretched horizontally. Everytime you make a change like this VEGAS resamples and interpolates the footage. In fact it does a really good job of perseving the native aspect ratio of the footage.


Barry please feel free to correct me if I've got my facts wrong.

Thanks Jesse for explaining that; and it made sense the way you laid it out. Thank you!

Real quick for Neal

I didn't know the specific aspect numbers on City of Women, or 8 1/2, or Juliet of the Spirits

No. I was telling you; The aspect ratios for these are as follows:

8 1/2 - Shot 1.66 : 1 (DVD is 1.85 : 1)
City of Women - 1.85:1
Juliet of the Spirits - 1.85 : 1

This would explain your comments on your webpage:

"Besides this-- MY letterboxed image looked too tall compared to 4:3 commercial letterboxed movies, and I noticed this when watching Fellini's City of Women. --- His 4:3 letterbox looked a lot more like widescreen than what I was getting..."

Of course it looked taller. Your widescreen footage is 16:9 which is 1:77:1. (I think the DVX100 might actually be 1.72:1)

Is this part resolved or am I still not getting it ?

Also

ON the Page it shows your DVX with a Fish Eye? Is this what we are talking about? Shooting with a Fish Eye? Or..........?

Now what exactly is the benefit to you in this? You shoot Letterbox (Please consider shooting 4:3; now talk about an eye-opener. Really. Free your mind Neal) and then you 'Shrink' your footage and it adds bars on the sides so you can get 80 pixels? I am trying to follow you.

Where was the problem or issue? This is what I am not undertanding? You keep saying Sony/Vegas won't admit it or that they did not know. You're claiming it's an error in the software? Huh? Is it? Or are we just playing with the settings?

Are you shrinking the 720x480 down to 720x436? Can't you just apply a Deeper Letterbox mask over your footage to get the Aspect Ratio you desire? Aren't you distorting the image vertically when you use Square Pixels?

On a liner note:

What is so critical on the 15% area of the sides of the frame that you just gotta have? What are you framing? You don't want to audience looking at the extreme edges of the frame do you? Isn't your subject matter nearer the center and/or rules of thirds?

This is a great debate/conversation; thanks!

AHHHHH No no no!!

The lens is just a picture!! It has nothing to do with this discussion- its just a picture of a DVX- and reminding people there's more than one way to fish.

***

I want to see EVERYTHING I SHOT. TVs and .9091 were cutting off my shots! It does not show what you see in the DVX LCD and viewfinder.

You're being cheated out of 15% or so of your work!

I don't give a rats ass about aspect ratio--- I want to see what I've photographed! If I crop my picture, I'm cutting off even more of my image!!

Image painting a picture-- and when you put the frame on, it cuts off 15% of your work.... !! What do you think Van Gogh or Picasso would say if they framed their paintings this way?

How about writers--- hey, you're sentences are too big for our page!!

How about musicians--- Sorry, your song has to fit between two of our commercials!

This needed a solution. I found it, and everybody else IGNORES IT and accepts the fact that the technology is going to remove 15% off the sides of their work when shown on a TV--- "This movie has been re-engineered to fit your screen".

POO on that!

******
As for shrinking--

That's what you would think-- that you would get THE SAME EFFECT
with 4:3 footage--

and this is what is SO INTERESTING.

You do get a NARROWING, and lengthening of the image-- pillar box--when you apply the 1.0 aspect to regular 4:3 footage.

NOT SO WHEN YOU APPLY TO DVX100 LETTERBOX. A big surprise.
Don't believe me? Go to my web page, I've added square image captures from Vegas, bottom of the page
http://www.neilslade.com/widescreen.html

So, why am I getting so worked up about the edges?

I will repeat politely--

1) when editing, I was missing the corner of boom mike poles, or light kits that needed to be cropped out of a shot. They never showed up on the external monitor I was using, because the monitor chopped off the edges of the frame- like it usually does. That's a problem if you then render for theatrical showing, or show the movie on an LCD widescreen TV which will show closer if not to the very edge. But you can't edit on an LCD screen, because you don't get true colors, etc.

2) I actually had some nice things, right in the edges-- sides of people's faces, objects-- and I shot with WIDESCREEN in mind, not chopped off halfway letterbox that was not a lot different from 4:3. Widescreen IS a LOT wider, and I want to see all of it.

As for shooting 4:3--- the only thing you gain is space on the top and bottom, you don't gain anything on the sides at all. And most of the action, unless you're filming pogo stick contests and skyscrapers, is in the horizontal space anyway- people and objects move side to side for the most part, rather than popping in from the top and bottom.

No, I prefer to see in my camera's LCD and viewfinder what I expect to see on my screen and I expect to see on my TV what I see in my LCD.

I understand your thoughts on Aspect Ratio; I just wanted you to be sure what you were seeing when referencing "...Fellini's City of Women and your own 16:9 footage." That it is not an anomaly but 2 different aspect ratios but you are/were implying they are the same. Could you imagine comparing the Academy Ratio with Cinemascope? (I'm in jest again)

---

You are aware you are distorting the image veritically when you do this, aren't you?

I appreciate what you are saying regarding underscan and safe areas but when you output to SQ1 Pixels it distorts the image vertically.

I just sampled the same identical image (From the DVX100) with one at 0.9091 (NTSC DV) and the same image at 1.0000 Square and then magnified 1600% using Photoshop and there is obvious distortion Vertically in the pixels.

Let me Quote you if I may:

"-- I have NO TOLERATION FOR DISTORTION."

But there is distortion.

----

Personally I will still reccomend you give 4:3 a shot and then do all of your cropping in post. Makes for wonder's for adjusting compostion and headroom to say the least. It's a much bigger eye opener than you may realize and they sell overlays that still show you the intended aspect ratio. I have a filmmkaing buddy that showed me the wonders' of letting go of the in-camera letterbox and at first I fought it but then saw the light in post.

As far as Framing in-camera I just do not Frame where the edges reveal anything other than what I intend to be onscreen. I don't know....

I guess I just can't grasp it? I mean, I do. But I do not see the relevance?It's like putting Gel in your hair to keep the wind from messing it up in a convertible when you should just put the top up. Okay bad analogy.

John, you need to stop toking up so much hahah!!

Anyway, I am concerned primarily with what appears on the viewer's TV set. No loss of resolution is detectable on a TV-

You can't directly compare the sharpness of the two on a TV anyway- because since the square pixel image is slightly smaller, you will of course see a microscopic bit more detail in the .9091 image, since its zoomed in bigger. But from the viewer's point of view sitting a few feet away from the TV set, no difference in sharpness-- the biggest change will be in the shape of the letterbox image, and restoration of the lost image outside in the safe zone, a more significant perceptual improvement in my opinion.

As for distortion on a TV set or LCD set- none. Proportions remain perfect to the naked eye, both for 4:3 or letterboxed video set to square pixels.

I didn't need to magnify anything, I could see with my own eyes, this is so obvious. Its REALLY obvious on a TV set-- nothing's distorted. You can measure it with a ruler-- I have.


******
Sorry, not interested in shooting 4;3 INSTEAD of widescreen.

You should know, however, that 30 % of my DVD film IS in fact 4:3.

I've got nothing against it-- but I also don't like using a square format still camera and prefer 35mm format- which is kind of close to what people see from DVX/Vegas letterbox-- unfixed. :-)

I've been an artist my entire life, a photographer since Jr High, and I'm 51 now-- I really love shooting widescreen in camera, and I see no benefits to going backwards-- besides, it would solve nothing I am complaining about, like losing picture off the sides, and not seeing the correct image in the external monitor.

Later-- I've got about 50 DVDs to send out tomorrow...

"You do get a NARROWING, and lengthening of the image-- pillar box--when you apply the 1.0 aspect to regular 4:3 footage."

I disagree. Try this Neil. Put some full-screen 4:3 footage in your Vegas timeline. Turn on "simulate device aspect ratio." This simulates how your footage will appear on your TV. Now switch the project settings to square pixels. The only thing that changes is you get black bars on the edges of your screen. The picture aspect stays the same.

One thing to remember Neil when you export these frame grabs to photoshop. Computer monitors have sqaure pixels. DV footage does not. You need to make sure that you are compensating for this. Under "image" in photoshop there is an option to select different pixel aspect ratios. This helps to ensure that your .909 image is displaying correctly on your square pixeled computer monitor.

"I want to see EVERYTHING I SHOT. TVs and .9091 were cutting off my shots! It does not show what you see in the DVX LCD and viewfinder."

FYI even the DVX viewfinder does not show you the full picture. There's just a little bit of overscan in there.

"I found it, and everybody else IGNORES IT and accepts the fact that the technology is going to remove 15% off the sides of their work when"

Who is everybody? The two people that are replying to you on this thread actually think it's an "intriguing" idea. I can see how this might work for broadcast material. But I'd never do this on a DVD...

The problem I have is that when I watch your DVD on my widescreen LCD monitor not only have I lost the top and bottom 30% (approx) of the picture to letterbox, I have also lost 15% to pillar box. That's 45% less resolution.
Neil, what you really REALLY need is to buy a 16x9 Xl2. :)
take 'er easy brain man.


peace
jesse

Hey, you're right about the non-distortion to 4:3 when using square pixels-- yes, it does the same thing on the TV that the square pixels applied to letterbox image does, it merely shrinks it, and more of the edge shows-

However, selecting/deselecting "simulate device pixel aspect ratio" has absolutely no effect whatsoever in the preview window for the 4:3 image when square pixels are selected. It only affects the preview window appearance when .9091 is selected, AND you have the safe area grid shown. It changes nothing on the monitor of course.
I'm doing it now, and looking at it now as I type.

Again- I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH HOW MY FOOTAGE LOOKS ON MY MONITOR.

I am concerned with the FINAL OUTPUT PRODUCT- i.e. how my DVD looks on my audiences' customerss TV set.

I've actually looked at my letterboxed squared footage on EVERYTHING at this point including LCD TVs-- I prefer to see the whole picture, and it looks fine, and perfectly proportioned on portable DVD players, LCD TVs, widescreen TVS,etc.

Of course when you say you have lost 30% of the picture when you look at my letterboxed movie-- you haven't lost anything, because I never filmed that portion.

Are you saying that MORE is better? Is this why people buy SUVs, because they can cram more junk in it when they drive to the corner 7-11? Does this mean that a Mahler symphony is better because its twice as long as a Beethoven symphony? In this way, 4:3 footage is better because the picture is bigger up and down, right?

This is only true if you are looking at a 4:3 screen. If you are in a theater, or have a widescreen screen, you lose what is available to you.

Hahaha! Cheers.

Speechless.

Neil is there room in your convertable for John and I? I've got lots of Dapper Dan hair gel. :)


"However, selecting/deselecting "simulate device pixel aspect ratio" has absolutely no effect whatsoever in the preview window for the 4:3 image when square pixels are selected. It only affects the preview window appearance when .9091 is selected, AND"

That's because Vegas is already correcting for the pixel difference. Of course there is no difference when you select and deselect "simulate aspect". You're switching between sqaure pixels and square pixels. No difference.

"Of course when you say you have lost 30% of the picture when you look at my letterboxed movie-- you haven't lost anything, because I never filmed that portion."

No, not losing picture. Losing RESOLUTION.

peace
jesse

It's like being 7 years old and finding Fools Gold for the first time but not realizing it's fake and then your dad says 'Son...'

Losing 30% resolution????

Okay, now I know you have eaten way too many mushrooms.


Yes, there were WMD in Iraq too.


You lose ZERO, NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NADA resolution in the DVX100 letterbox mode.

Do your homework before spreading such rumours, pretty please- no offense taken however, I know how these things start.

As for the "rumour" that electronic anamorphic, as found in the GL2, reduced resolution, this was disproved long ago, and in fact vertical resolution IMPROVED after measuring, much to the delight of Canon and GL2 users.

You do, in fact, however, lose 30% of the viewable picture area switching to letterbox or widescreen when viewed on a 4:3 screen. This hasn't convinced EVERY major filmaker of the past 40 years to start shooting in 4:3 again. Oh wait, Coppola did One From The Heart in 4:3, and there's a few other exceptions.

Help me, Barry Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope. pzzzt. Help me, Barry Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.

"You lose ZERO, NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NADA resolution in the DVX100 letterbox mode....Do your homework before spreading such rumours"

I did my homework. See if you can wrap your Amygdalaes around this concept.

Start with DV resolution. 720x480. Crop the top and the bottom. Now you have 720x360. Neil, let me ask you....which is the higher number? 480 or 360? These... numbers (as they're called) correspond to resolution. So the higher the number the more resolution. Yes, I know I'm being sardonic. Forgive me.

I think that maybe you are confusing the actual image area with resolution. When you resize your footage using your method you don't lose any of the original PICTURE/image. But that picture now occupies fewer pixels on the screen. Instead of using 720X360 pixels to store your image, you are using somthing wack like 640X290.


peace
jesse

You know, much to my own dismay I just read through this entire thread, and I've come away with four conclusions:

1) Neil just now discovered overscan, and is going to get a lot of questions like "why are there black bars on the sides of the picture" when someone watches one of his DVDs on a TV which has a less-intensive overscan than others, to say nothing of watching it on, say, a laptop.

2) Neil thinks that the "problem" is in Vegas alone, whereas in reality, all NLEs give you the same result. Why . . . ? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

3) Neil would rather insult people than pay attention to what they have to say, if they don't validate him.

Neil, "8 1/2" is not 16:9. It's wider, so the picture is not as tall. Period. It, too, is affected by overscan, and no, you're not seeing the entire picture when you watch that DVD. It's not a matter for debate. It's the way it is.

There's nothing wrong with Vegas.

Hi David,

I counted only three conclusions. ;-)

With regard to "Neil would rather insult people than pay attention to what they have to say," that's only because I haven't edited this thread yet. When I put the shears away, you won't see anybody insulting anyone, because that's one of our rules. We try to at least give the impression that everybody likes each other on this site, by force if necessary, heh.

Now I'm just trying to figure out if this thread belongs here or in the Vegas forum.

Thanks for posting; by the way I gave you a custom title which should look familiar. Much appreciated,

Hi, Chris --

Touche'! Well, I *had* four, then combined two. :)

Your reputation as a class act precedes you, Chris. Glad to be aboard . . .

David

Chris,

I'd say you need to move this to Area 51 for two reasons:

1. I haven't read a thread more 'out there' on this forum.
2. The basic premise of the post is false and thus it must be rumor if it isn't true.
3. Any thread containing the word 'amygdala' needs to be safely tucked away.

Oh wait, that's three...ahhhh! Maybe if I crop one to 16:9...Barry Wan Kanobi...where are you?

I think David hit the nail on the head. Neil has heretofore been unaware of the concept of underscan, and is troubled by it. He's attempting to "fix" it. But in his attempt to "fix", he is unfairly slandering both the DVX and Vegas, when neither product is in any way "at fault". It's the nature of NTSC televisions. It's the way things have always been, it's the way things are.

So, here's the facts of the matter:

1) there is *nothing wrong* with Vegas. It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

2) there is *nothing wrong* with the DVX. It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

Neil doesn't like what it's doing, and that's fine -- so he's changing it by scaling his image down. It is *not* "fixing" anything -- it is scaling the image down so that it sits within a smaller window. Which is decreasing resolution, and which will also add bigger black bars on televisions that don't overscan quite as much.

Neil, I have tested what you're suggesting. I've done it with letterbox footage and with 4:3 footage. The results are always the same: it shrinks the frame from 720x480 down to 720x436. If you prefer that look, for whatever reason, feel free to use it. But it's not a "fix", any more than applying color correction to a clip is a "fix" -- it's a stylistic choice, not a bug fix.

Regarding Vegas and the "safe area" -- if you're referring to the dashed-line overlay, there's nothing hard-and-fast about that. You can configure it to "protect" as much as you want. In the "preferences" dialog box you can configure different percentages for "action safe" and "title safe". No matter what you set them to, they do not affect your video in *any way* -- they're just guidelines to let you know where some TVs may start to cut off the image.

If you want to shrink your image down so that none of your image gets cut off by overscan, feel free to. Just recognize what you're doing: you're shrinking your footage, which means you are digitally resampling and scaling down your footage. That's something YOU'RE doing, not something the editing program is doing.

The editor deals with the pixels it's given. It uses .9091 because that *is* the aspect ratio of the video, and is the proper size. If you change that to 1.0, you are *forcing* the program to scale and mildly distort your video. "simulate device aspect ratio" has nothing to do with the video itself, and doesn't modify the actual video in any way (although it does make the preview window less accurate/fuzzier than it would otherwise be).

There are two concepts you don't seem to fully understand -- that of "square pixels" vs. "NTSC pixels", and that of "underscan". Read up on those two topics and you'll see that what everyone has been saying makes perfect sense, because it really, really is the way that it should be.

For DVX users or Vegas users who may have been alarmed by this thread, rest assured that there's nothing wrong. "Move along, nothing to see here..."

Ahhhhh. At last I can breathe a sigh of relief. Thanks to Barry's concise summation, I'm feeling a sense of closure finally. In fact now that Barry has straightened everything out, I think I'll extend that sense of closure to this thread, primarily to avoid going back around in circles again. Thanks to all for the brief but interesting drama. And now, back to our regular programming...

(Much appreciated as always, Barry -- for this, you have finally earned your custom title!)