Anamorphic is 720 x 480 NTSC (or whatever PAL is) Widescreen. When looked at on normal 4 x 3, it will appear to be squished.

Dave T2

Thanks Robert

The shootingformat is mixed 16:9 / 4:3 DV. It's from a competition with schoolkids, and they shot with small hand held cameras, some 4:3 and some 16:9.

/Ulf

Ok, Dave - Thanks.

That means that delivering in DV Widescreen preset should be ok?

Thanks.

/Ulf

Here is a discussion that came to mind when I read your question. The posts near the end from Bob and Kelly give some especially useful information.
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=586170

I thought that "anamorphic" refers to a 2.35:1 SAR (such as Cinemascope), not 16:9 Widescreen. There is quite a difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic#2.35.2C_2.39.2C_or_2.40.3F

Ulf,
I just went through this process. I had some "bumpers" that were 4:3 and I shot all footage 16:9.

I used the NTSC DV WS format for the Vegas project and DVDA just recognized the format of the DVDA NTSC video stream when creating the DVD.

Watching on a WS TV, the 4:3 footage had black bars on either side while the 16:9 looked just perfect.

As long as the DVD player is told what kind of TV it is going to (4:3 or 16:9), you shouldn't have an issue.

BTW - this was all SD and not HD.

HTH,
Tom

Thanks Tom and Musicvid. Nice thread, Musicvid :-)

Thanks to Bob (farss) too - good explanation.

Anybody know how much will be chooped of top and buttom in a 16:9 project as Bob says in the thread, just to know where to put my titles etc.

Thanks.

/Ulf

Musicvid, not limited to a particular aspect ratio.

ana·mor·phic
\ˌa-nə-ˈmȯr-fik\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
New Latin anamorphosis distorted optical image
Date:
circa 1925

: producing, relating to, or marked by intentional distortion (as by unequal magnification along perpendicular axes) of an image <an anamorphic lens>

I was referring to the technical usage of the term in the context of 20th century cinematic practices, and not the generic definition, with which I am fully familiar. I assumed (apparently correctly) that the OP's requirement was most likely based on that etymology.

However, to be fair to your point I should have used the more specific term "anamorphic format."anamorphic format:

It is not uncommon at all to hear cinematographers refer to the format as "anamorphic," or even "Morph" or "Scope."

It's just like variations on the term "bandwidth" which has both technical and generic connotations and usage, some of which have originated in the vernacular of the last two decades, and which may or may not necessarily be in agreement. Obviously, an NTSC broadcast channel "bandwidth" of 6MHz and a DSL data "bandwidth" of 1.5Mbs are nowhere close to the same usage. Thanks for your input.

Thanks Tom and Musicvid. Nice thread, Musicvid :-)

Thanks to Bob (farss) too - good explanation.

Anybody know how much will be chooped of top and buttom in a 16:9 project as Bob says in the thread, just to know where to put my titles etc.

Thanks.

/Ulf

Looks like you'd lose about 58 pixels each, or 12% of black top and bottom. That's putting a 2.35:1 letterbox on a 16:9 canvas that has a 480 height. Hope that is what you are asking.

480 - [16 / (2.35 x 9) x 480] = 116.88 px total; --or--
480 - [ (16 / 9) / 2.35 x 480] = 116.88 px total

Somebody please check my math on this.

Ok - Thanks. Is it the same for PAL? - I have 576 to start out with.

/Ulf


Btw. I found a thread somewhere else, that is quite interesting:

http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=28517

If PAL Widescreen is indeed 16:9 (I have no experience), then the percentage (12%) would be the same, but the pixel loss would be different. Just substitute 576 both places for 480 in one of the calculations above for your answer.

That is an incredible discussion you found on 2.35:1 in Vegas. It also seems to confirm my math, where about 3/4 of the way down the thread, Barry says,**720x306 would work if the video were square pixels, but it isn't.
If your footage is anamorphic, and you're intending to display it on a 16x9 TV, then 720x360 is the right size.**Working it my way, it comes to 720 x 363 in NTSC, so I am at least thinking in the right box. Also note his use of the term "anamorphic" to specifically designate a 2.35:1 SAR.
Pardon my inexperience with translating screen ratios to NLE, I was considered somewhat of a movie aspect geek in high school 40+ years ago (that was when "Oklahoma!" came out in CinemaScope and 70mm, remember?), but I am just getting around to applying some of that fading knowledge to NLE; pixel aspect ratios obviously didn't exist then. :-P

The customer most likely means that they want the DVD delivered with the video in 16:9 squeezed. Just render to PAL Widescreen and you'll be fine, no need to count pixels.

Why did they say "anamorphic" specifically? Because they wanted to avoid getting a 4:3 frame with black bars at the top and bottom.

You'll have to do some Pan-and-Scan of your 4:3 footage to pick your 16:9 view, or you can show it with bars left and right (as a last resort).

Thanks all for your help and time! :-)

It's for danish national televison and they want it this way.

I think I'll just stay away from the edge and use musicvid's math and will probably be fine. I'll learn if it's ok, for next time - if there will be one ;-)

Edit: I actually jus made a photoshop overlay with the black 12% in top and buttom. I'll put this overlay on the top track while editing to keep clear of it and then remove it in the end.

/Ulf

My guess is that they will be extremely pissed off to receive 2.35:1, as it doesn't fit any broadcast standard (if it had been an artistic choice, they would have been specific about it, i.e. 2.35:1 vertically centered in a PAL widescreen frame, with [black/gray] bars at the top and bottom).

Let us know their reaction, and if they will ever use you again for video.

:O)

I sure will, and if I don't, it's because they have put a hitman after me :-)

No I'll probably live :-), my client who has the contact to TV has specified it to be anamorphic. He is not 100% familar with the excact specs. and I told him I was not quite sure how to put it this way. I have told him that I deliver in DV WS with room (no bars) in top and buttom just in case.

/Ulf

Good choice and good luck, Ulf. Keeping your options open is your best bet at getting repeat business.

I am not familiar with Danish language conventions, but it seems very odd to me that someone would use the term "anamorphic" to mean "Widescreen," since the terms have very specific (and different) connotations, at least to anyone who has been around for a while.

In other words, if they wanted 16:9 Widescreen, I think they would have said, "Widescreen." The other possibility is that your client has the two formats confused and thinks they are the same. I am curious enough now to ask you to post back when you find out for sure and let us know.

I know - it seems a bid strange to me too now. I'll meet the client at his office tomorrow - hopefully he has found out a bid more - at least I have some good questions to ask, thanks to you guys :-)

I'll keep posting...

/Ulf

Anamorphic refers to recording with a horizontal squeeze, and unsqueezing it at showtime.

The DVD Widescreen format does exactly this, but with a different PAR of 1.33:1 instead of 0.9091 (for NTSC) instead of a special lens.

I have heard this use from many oldtimers.