OT: Anyone here still shooting SD 4:3 regularly??

Brad C. wrote on 1/22/2009, 3:34 AM
Is there still a need for SD 4:3 format or will it just eventually die off as HDTV and widescreens take over?

I know the camera market has shifted that way too so I was just curious.
An example I know of is that the skateboarding videography community is still grasping on to 4:3 because they don't like chopping heads off the skateboarders and there's really nothing in the background thats "interesting" in most shots so 16:9 isn't a huge requirement. It's been admitted by the top filmers that if there were some switching to 16:9 its only because its the trend right now. Most are diehard Sony VX users.

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 1/22/2009, 3:40 AM
I rarely shoot much video professionally since almost all my commercial work is recording audio, or finishing off video projects that others have shot. What video i do get involved in is usually just local theater or school work. So far only one person has brought me any wide screen material and that was SD 16:9. The rest is all standard 4:3.

I have to say i've got a lot of empathy for the skateboard shooters though. 16:9 is a difficult format for shooting vertical subjects. In fact, i've done more than a few special projects in the past using a frame size that is taller than it is wide. I think that's a much more interesting format.

For myself, so far i haven't had any reason to justify spending money on replacing my old SD 4:3 camcorder.
farss wrote on 1/22/2009, 3:58 AM
4:3 is dead. SD is still alive and well but it has to be 16:9. No one is buying content shot 4:3.

Don't quite inderstand the problem with skateboard videos and 16:9. Are these shooters short on creativity or have I missed something. This kind of subject should work very well in 16:9, they need to think about it not as a shorter frame but as a wider one, more room for the subject to move through.

Of course for stage shows 16:9 is a dream, I just wish we had a wider frame in common use.

Bob.
Brad C. wrote on 1/22/2009, 5:31 AM
Don't quite inderstand the problem with skateboard videos and 16:9. Are these shooters short on creativity or have I missed something. This kind of subject should work very well in 16:9, they need to think about it not as a shorter frame but as a wider one, more room for the subject to move through."

Bob, I hope you don't take offense to this because I respect your knowledge, but being a skateboarder for 15+ years...let me tell you that I don't think you understand fully what is involved with filming skateboarding. Most shots are done with fisheye lenses and are filmed very close to the skater. You don't just set the camera on a tripod far away and watch the skater go through the wide frame like you suggest.

Example:

jrazz wrote on 1/22/2009, 5:45 AM
I am regularly shooting for one thing in 4:3 Standard- and that is broadcast television. I told them I could film in 1080 HD 16:9 or just 16:9, but they said I would have to crop it down to 4:3. Everything else I have filmed in the past 3 years has been filmed in 16:9 HD.

j razz
RalphM wrote on 1/22/2009, 6:20 AM
I'd love to shoot my stuff in 16:9 HD, but I have a need for low light capabilities that are not present in a camera I can afford. If I hadn't taken my VX2000's with me to shoot a darkly lighted stage play, I'd have been dead. (no opportunity to see the lighting plan before hand)

My A1U did work marginally in 4:3 for zoomed in shots, but if the whole play had been done with a similar cam it would have been a disaster.

I guess it comes down to what level of work you are doing...
craftech wrote on 1/22/2009, 6:38 AM
I'd love to shoot my stuff in 16:9 HD, but I have a need for low light capabilities that are not present in a camera I can afford. If I hadn't taken my VX2000's with me to shoot a darkly lighted stage play, I'd have been dead. (no opportunity to see the lighting plan before hand)

My A1U did work marginally in 4:3 for zoomed in shots, but if the whole play had been done with a similar cam it would have been a disaster.

I guess it comes down to what level of work you are doing...
===============
I am still using my VX2000 for stage productions (my primary work) over my EX1 for the same reason.

The VX2000 is a tough act to follow. Despite a long time forum member insulting my "professionalism" last time I said this, no one is requesting Blu-Ray or High Def content for dance recitals or stage plays. They look fine on wide screen televisions even though they are 4:3. Some expand them to fill the screen and ignore the slight distortion. As I have said before, SD won the war after the monopolistic efforts blew up in the faces of those who failed to understand what consumers want. I love the VX2000. It is the best camera I have ever owned.

John
richard-courtney wrote on 1/22/2009, 6:42 AM
For anything broadcast 4:3 is still accepted but future submission specs are leaning
toward HD. Anything 16:9 they are saying 1/2" or larger only, no DV or DVCAM using
1/3" (such as the PD170).

The EX1 or EX3 looks like a good investment now.
farss wrote on 1/22/2009, 12:17 PM
No offence taken, bouncing ideas around is the whole idea of places like this.

You can film very close and with fisheye adaptors in 16:9. Admittedly the fisheye adaptors for HD camera are big hunks of glass that don't come cheap however keep in mind that 16:9 is mostly going to be seen in HD where the frame fills more of the viewers field of view,
For certain the genre is going to have a different aesthetic shooting 16:9 and more so in HD but is trying new things such a bad idea.

i'd even go further. Put an anamophic 16:9 adaptor on front of a 16:9 camera and you end up shooting Cinemascope and can get an interesting subtle optical distortion as well.

Doing what I'm suggesting is harder, can't deny that. Shooting very wide in 16:9 does mean you have to watch your horizon. Devices such as the Fig Rig would help keep control of dutching the camera. The cheap HD cameras do suck in low light. The HD cameras that perform well in low light might be too expensive to get that close to the line of fire.

Bob.
Skuzzy wrote on 1/22/2009, 1:08 PM
I have a whole stack of 4:3 SD content in front of me to get through. Not a bit of it is 16:9.

I am not the shooter, just the editor.

On occasion I ask the shooters about it, and they all claim thier customers are more concerned with compatibility than high tech wizardry.

Personally, I have been playing with 16:9 aspect ratios and higher resolutions, and have been buying equipment to handle it so I can continue with the current shooters when they are ready to make the switch.

I have yet to have a 16:9 HD project come in yet.

By the way, no one has asked, but it is a good time to explain something. I work two jobs full time right now. One is at a software company (day job), the other is the video editing work at night and weekends.

Making a long story short. I got burned in a relationship and am now having to double up to get back to a point where I might be able to retire before I die.

Gotta tell ya,..it is freaking exhausting. At least I like what I do.

Now you know.
Dan Sherman wrote on 1/22/2009, 1:36 PM
I had a discussion over coffee followning a 4:3 SD shoot with my DVX100a.
I'm capturing it from tape, the old fashioned way.
It occured to me that often the things we appreciate in good film/video have little to do with aspect ratio or HD.
Great sound and excellent lighting help make a film/video sing.
Add to that wonderfull, appropriate music and careful editing.
But more important is the content. Whether it's a drama or the promotional/instructional stuff that is our bread and butter content is king.
New technology can never compensate for lame content IMHO.
Brad C. wrote on 1/22/2009, 7:50 PM
Dan Sherman- "I had a discussion over coffee followning a 4:3 SD shoot with my DVX100a.

Best post yet. Well said.
rmack350 wrote on 1/24/2009, 11:30 AM
Very true that content is most important but it's not always apparent in the planning stage.

Here in the US 4:3 is still very usable. If what you do is corporate training or internal communications then you may find that the client has a 4:3 SD TV in every one of it's locations and that's what they'll use to deliver the training.

Perhaps one way to deal with this is to shoot HD 16:9 with an eye towards delivering in 4:3. You can always crop and scale down.

One thing we used to do with on-set monitors was to cut a piece of ND gel to tape over a monitor and then either draw out frame lines or cut a hole in the gel so that you emphasize the 4:3 frame but still see the 16:9 frame. It's been a decade since I've been on a set where we did something like this (usually to video tap output if memory serves and we were simulating 16:9 from a 4:3 film frame) but you can do something similar to suit your needs.

There's an advantage at this point to just shooting 16:9 HD and rendering a 4:3 program from it. Having the HD media helps to make your media useful farther into the future.

Rob Mack
richard-amirault wrote on 1/25/2009, 12:52 PM
Don't quite inderstand the problem with skateboard videos and 16:9. Are these shooters short on creativity or have I missed something. This kind of subject should work very well in 16:9, they need to think about it not as a shorter frame but as a wider one, more room for the subject to move through."

I watched that video (well, half of it) and don't understand your objection to Bob's statement. What has a "wider" frame got to do with "cutting off heads"?
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/25/2009, 2:29 PM
"Anything 16:9 they are saying 1/2" or larger only, no DV or DVCAM using
1/3" (such as the PD170)."

=======================

I have to say that I've never heard anyone in broadcast that I've talked to say this. Not sure where you are, but I know folks taking HD and SD content from 1/3" all the time.

(semi on topic) - I also see plenty of SD adverts in the HD broadcast that are 4:3 (matches the majority of customer TV's at this point still I think).

I'm not by any means saying that HD isn't the way to go, but the chip size statement seems to be completely unique to you, as Most of the people in broadcast that I deal with don't even know that much about it unless they're specifically shooters. Producers I know don't even care about camera sensor size, they just want a good final production. (maybe that's unique to the people I deal with?)

Dave
farss wrote on 1/25/2009, 2:44 PM
I understand where this is coming from. Very few of the SD cameras are true 16:9 cameras. The PD170 achieves 16:9 by simplying masking off part of the frame. It's probably OK in NTSC but gives a noticeably softer image if you're using the PAL variant.
There are a few SD palmcorders from around that are true 16:9 but they're kind of rare I think. The good SD 16:9 cameras do start at 1/2" e.g. the 570WS or 709 digibeta cameras.

Personally I feel if someone rolled out a half decent SD 16:9 camera they'd find a very ready market.

Bob.

Brad C. wrote on 1/25/2009, 7:15 PM
"I Don't quite inderstand the problem with skateboard videos and 16:9. Are these shooters short on creativity or have I missed something. This kind of subject should work very well in 16:9, they need to think about it not as a shorter frame but as a wider one, more room for the subject to move through."

Full body. From what I understand....the best shots are achieved from using an extreme fisheye and getting real close to the skateboarder. Most of the time, getting close isn't even an option because of tight confinements. It doesn't matter how extreme of a fisheye you have on a 16:9 HD cam, you cant achieve full body tight shots as close as you can with fisheye and 4:3. When you try to get that close with 16:9/fisheye you cut the head off. When you pull back to achieve full body, it appears further away and less engaging.

This isn't to say that top filmers aren't making the move to 16:9 HD anyway:
http://www.skateperception.com/spotlight/ty/ty-1.jpg

Ty Evans interview (professional skate videographer):
Probably one of the biggest ones that is still up for stipulation and internet bickering is that there's tons of VX1000 footage but we know filming goes back 4 years and you start incorporating alot of your B-angles and such on HVX's. Next time you start a project from scratch is it going to be entirely HVX footage and retire your VX's?

Yeah, I mean you have to look for this film we started it the normal way everybody else was filming skate videos with VX1000's and the Century lens. The standard way, we filmed like that for two years and all the way up to the day the video was done. At the same time we had all this new stuff and we should utilize it. I think it's really funny that people are under the impression that it would all be in high definition and 16:9, but what would the last the point of the last two years we were filming before be then? Like what we're only going to put out a high def video now? It'd be retarded to think like that. Like I said before it was a meshing of the two and moving forward. The next project we do will be filmed on HVX and all progressive HD.

Are you going to miss filming lines on the VX1000 with the 4:3 aspect without chopping heads off?

Yeah, I mean honestly to tell you the truth I never cared about heads getting cut off. I know some people have this preconcieved rule about filming. I've never had a rule like "you can't cut this guys head off, you can't do this" it's like f**k it, make your own rules. Sometimes I like seeing just the feet and the board in the shot. I don't understand why there has to be that rule in filming. Obviously there's an unspoken set of rules, but f**k I got mine, the dude next to me has his and you have yours. F**k it, do your own s**t and don't really stress about it, you know?

Can you see P2 being adopted as the standard by the video magazines and such as the standard way of submitting footage and completely cutting off standard definition?

I think the HVX is a really great camera and the P2 workflow is really cool. It does have it's flaw as far as using old technology as far as it's slots. The new Sony camera coming out uses newer express cards but then at the same time has a weaker MPEG codec using the GOP and 4:2:0. It has CMOS sensor where the HVX doesn't. Its like a trade-off so I wouldn't say the HVX would be the new VX1000 because I feel the stuff is changing so quick. I would say all these new technologies like filming HD and progressive with variable frame rates. I would say that's definitely something that would be the staple hopefully.
Coursedesign wrote on 1/25/2009, 9:49 PM
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry when I see Panny's claim to 4:2:2 in the HVX200.

The HVX200 is very fine camera that shoots outstanding footage, but 4:2:2 is really pushing the truth into Karl Rove territory.

It's 4:2:2 color sampling is based on the 960x540 resolution of its CCDs.

That means that its chroma resolution is 480x270, which is one third less than my broadcast Standard Definition 4:2:2 camera.

Scale the CCD signal to 1920x1080, and there is so little color information that greenscreen is tricky. Best to shoot that at 1280x720 and hope for the best.

Don't get me wrong: it shoots beautiful footage, but it gets beaten every day by a couple of Sony's 4:2:0 cameras, so it's important to always look behind the advertised numbers.

I give Sony great credit for never having done this kind of BS advertising, and I think they will gain from this in the long run, even if they can't market themselves out of a paper bag.


johnmeyer wrote on 1/25/2009, 10:04 PM
I arbitrarily decided to deliver this year's Nutcracker in 16:9. As craftech and others have said, the stage was meant to be photographed in 16:9. It will be interesting to hear if I get any comments, complaints or anything else.

However, while I shot in HD, delivery was all SD widescreen on DVD. I still have yet to have my first request for any sort of high-def delivery after shooting HDV for over three years here in Carmel, CA. Now that I have my fast computer, I am going to try to create a high def DVD of some sort (thanks to those that provide input to me) and then try to find some volunteer locally who can try to play it. It will be interesting to see if I get even one order, once I let it be known that this exists. I have 50+ orders for the SD version.

To me, this thread really is asking two separate questions which should really be treated independently: SD vs. HD, and 4:3 vs. 16:9 (or any other aspect ratio). The aspect ratio is really an artistic choice, and even before this tortured changeover to HD began, many people would mask or crop in order to achieve an effect. This formatting choice goes way back in time, and includes, for instance, all those multi-square box formats on a wide screen used in "Woodstock," "Grand Prix" and other films of that era.

While aspect ratio is an artistic decision, resolution is a matter mostly defined by cost of delivery: the more pixels, the more costly. That cost is measured in acquisition costs (HD camera $$ >> SD camera $$), Internet bandwidth, disc cost, computer time (and other post production costs), and display technology. If it cost the same for SD and HD in all these areas, we'd all shoot HD, but many of us would still shoot 4:3 sometimes and 16:9 at other times. 16:9 is definitely not "better" than 4:3 (or vice versa), whereas more resolution is pretty much always better than less (in terms of the viewing experience), although I guess some might occasionally prefer a fuzzy experience, much as once in awhile shooting still B&W on Tri-X gives a deliciously grainy effect.

RalphM wrote on 1/26/2009, 6:21 AM
"Personally I feel if someone rolled out a half decent SD 16:9 camera they'd find a very ready market.."

I agree Bob. I've not had one request for HD delivery, but I'd sure like to have a low light equivalent to the VX2000 in true 16:9.

Opinions anyone on your reaction to seeing 16:9 and 4:3 mixed between scenes in a long form video??? I've seen it done and was not overly criutical of the result...

Thanks,
Ralph
plasmavideo wrote on 1/26/2009, 7:39 AM
Couple of comments to throw into the discussion.

At my broadcast job, we are now set to playout hi-def commercials from our servers through the entire broadcast chain. Our news is in HD. Field acquired news stories are shot in 16:9 SD and uprezed to HD in the on-air switcher after post editing in SD 16:9. We are producing all local commercials in HD - downsizing to SD 4:3 if the client wants delivery elsewhere. We can also accept HD material either on tape or files. So far, we have received HD content from national buys, but none locally, although several agencies have enquired as to what format we can accept.

For my home studio, mostly family history projects and non-profit agency stuff, I'm shooting in HD and downconverting (crop) to SD. A lot of the family history stuff I've done for families is photomontage and restored VHS stuff, so it's SD to start with. I've had no inquiries yet for HD delivery.

For the stage productions at church, I'm shooting 16:9. In post, I edit in 16:9 with an eye towards SD crop. For the final DVD delivery, I will be producing both a 4:3 and a 16:9 version on the same DVD. Those with SD 4:3 can enjoy the production unletterboxed, and those with a 16:9 TV can play the widescreen version and fill the screen to their hearts content. What I have had to do several times is do a pan on the 16:9 in some scenes prior to the conversion to the SD version.

So far, no requests at all for Blu-Ray and no reason to buy a burner yet.

Tom
bsuratt wrote on 1/26/2009, 8:55 AM
<<It will be interesting to see if I get even one order, once I let it be known that this exists. I have 50+ orders for the SD version.>>

My experience has been that the general public doesn't realize that you need a Blu-ray player and Blu-ray discs to get HD playback. They buy a HDTV and assume that makes everything, (including SD DVD), high definition. I am a member of a club where I provided free copies of either SD or Blu-ray discs of an activity I produced.... and even the ones who I know have Blu-ray players picked up the SD version!!!

Gonna take some time for Blu-ray to sink in!

farss wrote on 1/26/2009, 11:56 PM
"Opinions anyone on your reaction to seeing 16:9 and 4:3 mixed between scenes in a long form video??? I've seen it done and was not overly criutical of the result..."

It used to be a common technique to use different cutouts and AR all mixed together but works best I think on the silver screen. I've certainly tried it and find it quite effective. I do feel there is a problem that's not being considered though. I can't see any reason why one shouldn't mix 4:3 and 16:9 however I'd be nervous about two things. Use different ARs for different places / space in the story just as you would differences in color. Keep the edges of the 4:3 clean. One trap is some not so good TVs have problems with linearity which really shows up with pillarboxed 4:3 as there's no overscan at the egde of the frame.

Down here at least I can't find or even recall seeing a 4:3 TV for sale. SD DVB broadcast is all 16:9 with any 4:3 pillarboxed. I accept JM's argument that screen AR is a creative decision. It's fine in a cinema which has movable screen masks and where lighting is very dim, you're not at all conscious of the screen not being filled. Watching 4:3 on a 16:9 TV is a very different experience. All news and current programming is 16:9 which makes 4:3 content look dated. On top of this good 16:9 SD can be upscaled to HD, 4:3 SD is not going to work upscaled to HD. I think these are the reasons there's little to no market for 4:3 content.
I still do some 4:3. A recent project one of the 3 cameras was a good 4:3 SD camera and the other 2 HDV. I had a lot of fun with this because I could reframe the HDV very nicely which was a good thing due to some very ho hum camera work.

Bob.