Comments

xberk wrote on 6/20/2008, 10:16 AM
I'd choose 16:9 unless you only have a small amount of wide screen that you are using, or if the final output is meant for viewing on 4:3 screens.

Paul B .. PCI Express Video Card: EVGA VCX 10G-P5-3885-KL GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 ULTRA ,,  Intel Core i9-11900K Desktop Processor ,,  MSI Z590-A PRO Desktop Motherboard LGA-1200 ,, 64GB (2X32GB) XPG GAMMIX D45 DDR4 3200MHz 288-Pin SDRAM PC4-25600 Memory .. Seasonic Power Supply SSR-1000FX Focus Plus 1000W ,, Arctic Liquid Freezer II – 360MM .. Fractal Design case ,, Samsung Solid State Drive MZ-V8P1T0B/AM 980 PRO 1TB PCI Express 4 NVMe M.2 ,, Wundiws 10 .. Vegas Pro 19 Edit

musicvid10 wrote on 6/20/2008, 10:18 AM
I think that's what I'd do (a 4:3 project), it's kind of what analog TV broadcasters have got us used to -- of course that will change when it goes all digital . . .

To me, a letterboxed 16:9 in a 4:3 project looks better than a pillarboxed 4:3 in a widescreen project, but that's just what I've gotten used to seeing.
Chienworks wrote on 6/20/2008, 10:29 AM
I'd try to find out what the majority of the target playback hardware is and create for that hardware's format.

If you pillarbox 4:3 in a 16:9 project and then watch it on a 4:3 screen you'll have a tiny image in the middle with acres of black all around it.

If you letterbox 16:9 in a 4:3 project and then watch it on a 16:9 screen you'll have a tiny image in the middle with acres of black all around it.
JohnnyRoy wrote on 6/20/2008, 10:36 AM
I would either crop the 4:3 to match 16:9 and do the whole project in 16:9 or I would pillarbox the 4:3 on a nice animated 16:9 background like the HD News casts do and do the whole project in 16:9. Either way I would deliver 16:9 to do justice to the 16:9 footage that you have.

~jr
UlfLaursen wrote on 6/20/2008, 8:44 PM
Thanks guys - I'll try and find what's best - have to see how much of each aspect first...

/Ulf
Terje wrote on 6/20/2008, 9:04 PM
I am going to slightly disagree with some folks here, I don't think you should chose one or the other based on how much footage you have, I think you should use 16:9. Why you ask?

Well, if some of your customers have a 16:9 TV, they will benefit from watching your footage in 16:9. If you letterbox it in a 4:3 project, you remove scan lines from the 16:9 footage and it will not benefit from a 16:9 TV.

On the other hand, someone with a 4:3 TV will lose nothing. He will see the same whether it is 16:9 or letter-boxed 4:3.

So, this is what you end up with:

4:3 project 4:3 TV best possible picture 16:9 TV loses scan lines
16:9 project 4:3 TV best possible picture 16:9 TV best possible picture

So, 16:9 is the obvious choice.

Let me elaborate just a little... assuming NTSC, adjust for PAL

4:3 footage in a16:9 project - lines = 480, on both TVs
16:9 footage in a 16:9 project - lines = 480 lines on 16:9 TV, 270 lines on 4:3 TV

4:3 footage in 4:3 project - 480 lines on both TVs
16:9 footage letterboxed in a 4:3 project - 270 lines on both TVs.

Even if the user zooms on the 16:9 TV to remove letterboxing, you have still delivered the footage with a maximum of 270 lines, which is sub-optimal. You should (IMHO) deliver the footage with as high quality as possible. If you know for sure there is nobody watching this on a 16:9 TV; then it doesn't matter.
UlfLaursen wrote on 6/20/2008, 9:30 PM
Thanks Terje.

/Ulf

OT: btw. Terje, do you have Norwegian roots? The name sounds like norwegian.
Terje wrote on 6/21/2008, 3:19 AM
Born and raised in Norway, spent the last ten years or so in California, currently in New York, and probably back to Norway within a year or so.
UlfLaursen wrote on 6/21/2008, 6:14 AM
Cool, Terje - I live in Denmark, and our company have an office in Kristiansand - have been there a lot :-)

/Ulf