How to format 4:3 for widescreen
 

Most of my customers seem to own HD televisions. When I preview my work with them, which I still shoot in SD (VX2100, etc) it really bothers me that most of them watch it stretched out to fill their screen, thereby distorting the product. Often the bride will look heavy having been stretched, and as you all know it just looks terrible overall.

It hit me this morning there must be a way to render for the DVD that will eliminate this without stretching. Is there?

I could play with the settings and experiment, but thought it would be helpful to first ask here for ideas.

For example, if I render 4:3 footage with widescreen settings will it play in widescreen and simply have black bars on the side without having to be stretched?

Any thoughts?

I'm rendering out a project done in SD with widescreen settings as I write this, and it appears that the following is true.

1. It will play great on a widescreen but have black bars on the side, which on a 26" screen or larger should be fine.

2. It will not look right on an 4:3 tv.

3. So unless I'm wrong, the solution might be to simply give the customer a choice, depending on the type of TV the prouduct will be played on.

It also just occured to me that with the black bars some people would use the zoom feature of their TV to fill the screen anyway, distorting the image even more than it would've been to begin with.

What a pain this transitional period is.

I have used the Zoom feature on my widescreen TV on letterboxed material and there doesn't seem to be any distortion. I think it looks much better then stretching the image.

I suppose if the zoom keeps things proportional you only lose resolution. Thanks Herm

You should be shooting in the format most common to the way your customer will view it. I shoot with a Canon HV20 and I shoot almost everything in widescreen HD, even if I will downsample it to just widescreen SD for compatibility with most DVD players. The HV20 gives me the choice of shooting regular DV in either 4:3 or 16:9, so I can meet any customer requirements. If you are shooting in 4:3 format knowing you will need to convert it to 16:9 you are shortchanging your customer because you are either stretching the picture (lesser quality) or giving them a letterboxed view (not utlitizing the full benefit of their playback device). You need to tailor your output more to how the customer will see it, and that requires making certain choices BEFORE you start actual shooting. You say it bothers you to see your videos stretched out. I'm surprised it doesn't bother your customers more.

I understand that Rick. I run four cameras and cannot afford to replace them yet.

I'm not. :) 99.9% of the population could give a rat's patoot about image quality. Almost nobody I've ever met with a 16:9 TV actually watches 4:3 content (of which there's still quite a lot) properly pillarboxed, and none of them could care less.

That said, Rick is right about being able to shoot 16:9 at this point in history. It's pretty much becoming a necessity even in small markets. 4:3 is dying out and will be deader than Abraham Lincoln sooner than you think. I know it's expensive to upgrade four cameras, but that's the nature of this business. I hate having my gear forced into obsolescence just as much as anybody, but that's the way it goes.

How long can you afford to not give your customers what they deserve? The Ohio market is probably different from here in L.A., but if I couldn't offer my customers the full gamut of what's available in video I would lose jobs quickly to someone who can (they're thick as flies here). This is a much more tech-savvy market and it drives the need to stay in front of the technology. If you're doing this professionally (people are paying you) it would probably behoove you to move ahead sooner rather than later. I tmight just give you the edge to go after a segment of the market that is closed off to you right now. A segment that can justify higher prices to help subsidize your equipment upgrade needs. Just a thought.

That may be true for broadcast TV, but if I was paying someone to produce something for me on video I would be highly suspicious if they didn't at least ask what equipment I will be viewing it on and what format I wanted it done in. Maybe the Ohio market is less discerning, but if I delivered a 4:3 video to one of my L.A. customers, where HDTVs are ubiquitous, I'd probably be run out of the state. ;)

Rick, first of all, you're kind of exaggerating. :)

Second, my point was only that most people don't really seem to care one way or the other--that doesn't mean that no one cares, or that Jeff shouldn't care. In fact, I said that I do think that Jeff should look into upgrading as soon as he can.

By far the largest of the wedding videographers (good friend of mine) in this area shoots in all 4:3 and has up to 50 weddings per month in peak season. And while he doesn't charge $2000 per gig, he gets good rates ($1395 for two cam wedding). He actually has 16 bookings within three days of each next week. I know he's sucessful, but even I was surprised at those numbers when we talked earlier today.

Relatively few here shoot in widescreen, and they are all relatively tiny operators. The second largest operator does half and half, mostly SD, because his shooters all own their own cameras and he can't make them buy new cams yet.

Rick, is what you're saying true? Of course. I have one HD cam but run it in SD mode, and will add more as I can afford them. Until then I'm looking for creative ways to work around it in post.

You are correct Jarrod, many people do not care here. It is remarkable. I care much more about this than my customers.

Jeff if your clients are OK with 4:3, then have at it. It sounds like they're all watching your video on 16:9 TV's though, and if you want to deliver to that format using 4:3 footage, there are very real video-quality compromises to be made. Even if a lot of people in your area are still shooting 4:3, it really is time to start thinking about moving up to native 16:9 cameras as soon as you can swing it, because your video is going to look worse than necessary on 16:9 TV's until you do--and don't forget that if you get there before the other guys, it's likely to give you a competitive advantage.

Just advice, take it or leave it as necessary.

Exactly my point, Jarrod. You can't stay competitive if all you do is cater to your customer's own ignorance. By giving them more than what they expected or knew to expect you provide more value. That can often translate into better word-of-mouth and more business, not to mention the ability to charge higher rates. This is not an industry to be complacent in because you will eventually find yourself passed by those who have more vision and better product. With all broadcasters going digital in Feb. 2009 there will be an explosion of HDTV sales in the coming months. Now is the time to start getting the equipment and skills to capitalize on that, not sitting back trying to figure out ways to extend the life of a dying format. Sorry if I'm being blunt, but that's the reality. The people left watching video in 4:3 after 2008 are NOT going to be your customers. Don't get left behind.

Well, this horse has done been beat to death. Thanks to both of you. One last thing to throw out there as my friend says, HD cameras within my price range are useless for the much of wedding receptions, and in dark churces forget it. I think customers would prefer to see something in SD than not at all in HD.

I don't know about your area, but many of the old catholic churches here are very dark and can strain even my great low light Sony.

I don't shoot wedding videos, but I do shoot stills. Lighting is probably the biggest factor in getting good video OR stills, and each wedding has different requirements and constraints. I've had some where I could not use flash during the ceremony and could only shoot from in front of the altar, and others where I could set up a bank of strobes and go anywhere I wanted. That's why I rarely shoot wedding anymore. Too much headache. The cheaper HD cams (CMOS and single CCD) will struggle in low-light conditions, that's for sure. On the flip side, when the light is right there is no comparison betwen SD and HD. It is that stunning when displayed on the proper equipment. The future is HD and even if you're not yet ready to make the leap equipment-wise, start educating yourself on it now. It is quite a different animal from shooting SD. Good luck. :)

I know it is different and am moving extremely slowly. I have one HD cam and rendered out short HD clip and it was a terrble process. My friend who does the huge volume did one HD wedding and then turned around and sold his HD cams, I got one of them. He has THE latest 8 core macs and hated everything about the process. Actually he didn't sell all of his HD cams, but he is stilly buying the SD ones.

I want to shoot HD, I really do, but oh my god the rendering time alone is terrible. Next year I'm buying an 8 core machine, hopefully that will help.

Well, I am working on just a dual core machine fine, but you're right that render times can be exasperatingly long. Fortunately, it can be done while you sleep so if you tailor your workflow around it you can do it relatively painlessly. There's no denying that HD demands a lot more in terms of hardware and time, but once you get your workflow down it is worth it. I love it when my customers see my work and drool all over the checks they write me. ;)

Rick, for some reason you don't seem to understand that I agree with you. :)

I'm just saying that since no one in Jeff's market is shooting 16:9, he's not being left behind--by definition. The point being that he can probably squeak by for a bit longer until he can move up to HD, but that in the best of all possible worlds, it would be best to do so now. Since he can't afford it at the moment and HD isn't necessary in his market right now, he can probably afford to wait a bit if he absolutely must.

Jeff's right though, that's about enough of this. :)

I was just talking to my friend who does all the weddings, (he also does corporate stuff, but mostly weddings) and we agreed when you do any kind of volume epecially weddings, HD is not ready for prime time.

When you have 4-10 projects per week it simply isn't do-able right now.

We are not unaware of the how great the stuff is, but we are wedding videographers and HD sucks in low light.

We have a friend who flys all over the world doing corportate stuff with a high end cam, and yet on occasion he will shoot a wedding for my friend. His footage borders on unusable much of the time just due to the light.

So if you're doing single cam corportate stuff, HD is great, but not realistic for us yet. I'm looking forward to having a second HD cam soon so I can at least shoot widescreen in well lit conditions.

I do understand that. I'm just a believer in staying out front of the competition. He could be shooting in HD and outputting to 16:9 SD with excellent quality and little of the workflow hassles of HD. I know because I'm doing it. My customers require me to provide both since they are the ones distributing and need the widest compatibility possible. I might be hesitant to change anything if I were doing 4-10 projects a week and had to depend on freelance shooters, though. At that level any switch needs to be considered extensively. HD multi-cam shoots are still pretty labor intensive, both in shooting and putting the footage together.

BTW, for the record, I personally am lucky to have 2-3 projects in any given week, (was referring earlier to my friends) but I do get behind especially in the coming months. I can't even imagine the nightmare of my backlog of work with HD...wow. That truly would be scary.

I gotta say that rendering out SD in 16:9 it came out just great. It has black bars on the sides, but it looks just like all the show in SD should look on a widescreen set. I will use that as a temporary solution for customers that want it. I loved watching one of my videos without having to adjust the screen size or having it squished. It's not glamorous, but it is certainly a nice to have in the arsenal. I know if I shoot anything for myself, which I rarely do, I will use that method if I shoot in SD.

Just be aware that if your clients ever watch the DVD on a 4:3 television--say, at grandma's house this Thanksgiving--the image will be both letterboxed and pillarboxed; the image will be a small "postage stamp" surrounded by a black border on all four sides. This is not really a viable option. I strongly advise you to re-render at either 4:3 or cropped for 16:9, but you can do what you like, of course.

Also note, again, that you are throwing away a substantial amount of (already limited in SD) resolution this way.

I tried everything to get my dvd to fill up the screen with out being stretched, If I make a dvd as 16x9 or wide I have bars at the top and bottom and looks stretched, I rendered a mpeg2 from vegas 8 for DVDA as just NTSC video stream at 4:3 and put them into DVDA, when previewing in architect it has side bars, but when I play the dvd on my HD 37 inch tv the complete screen is filled, no stretching, perfect. I tried every other combo and this is the only one that works for me, my tv is set for 720 p.

Yes, but did you ever try watching it on a 4:3 monitor? You have to keep in mind that there are still a LOT of them out there.

The ONLY ways (only!) to acceptably format 4:3 material for DVD's are: 1) Render as 4:3 just as you always have, or 2) Crop your footage to 16:9 as I've explained, and then render as 16:9 anamorphic. Anything else will look very bad on at least one type of TV. Trust me!

Hugh, I apologize if I didn't quite understand what you were saying. Your post is a little difficult to decipher, to be honest with you. :)

No haven't tried on an older tv, but will, seems to me that if its 4:3 to begin with it should play fine, I guess my hd tv might be converting it. all I know that when I made a wide or 16x9 dvd thru architect it was stretched out, and had the black boxes top and bottom. now my mpeg2 is 1440x1080, I am going to try these dvd's on other tv's to see

Hugh, NTSC DVD supports ONLY 720x480, so there's no way you could burn a 1440x1080 MPEG-2 file to a DVD without recompressing. Something is odd about the scenario you're describing, but it's hard to say what it is, because I still can't understand exactly what it is that you've done.

Something shot in 4:3 will not necessarily play back correctly on a 16:9 TV simply because it started out as 4:3--if you render it as 16:9, it will play back as "squished" 16:9.

If you want 4:3 to retain the 4:3 shape on a 16:9 TV, you must render it as 4:3 and then set up the 16:9 TV to play the video with pillarbox (i.e., bars on the sides). If you want to cut off the top and bottom sections of your 4:3 video so that it will fill a 16:9 TV without "squishing," you must crop your 4:3 to 16:9 as I've described above (meaning that you have to manually cut the top and bottom off of your video) and then render to 16:9.

Again, these are the only two ways to deal with 4:3 footage. Any other process might look good on a 16:9 TV but not a 4:3 TV, or vice versa.