OT: Which is better widescreen - 4:3 cropped or "16:9 mode?"

Jessariah67 wrote on 1/23/2005, 7:26 AM

My assumption has been that 16:9 mode would be better than "cropped 4:3" because you're not "throwing anything away." (The one drawback I have found is the distorted picture in the camera. Tthough a 16:9 monitor shows a perfect picture, it doesn't help the camera operator...)

My camera having 16:9 guides in 4:3 mode - combined with the fact that Spot & his associates never sleep and have given us Ultimate S - makes me wonder which is the best way to go.

If you convert 4:3 to 16:9 and play it on a 16:9 TV, are you "zooming in?" Is there a noticeable loss of quality?

Just wondering what others think or may have experienced.

Kevin

Back to post

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 1/23/2005, 10:01 PM

Amen. Sometimes this forum provides great comedy relief.

It's funny how we have folks saying "do it this way" and "do it that way" and yet others asking for creative advice, but at the end of the day, there is apparently supposed to be only one way, set to one standard, and creativity be damned. If it were only so easy.....That's why the forum IS so great, is that there are multiple ways to achieve both artistic and practical objectives.

mrjhands wrote on 1/23/2005, 11:22 PM

Amen Spot.

My attempt at a bottom line here: The respective Directors MUST film their movies based on the anticipated delivery; the BIG screen (and leave it at that and sleep at night), if that is the intended destination.
Once it hits DVD, with all the differing options available, all bets are off! Forget about the "black bars" and "full screen" modes, etc...
My God, I don't know about you, but how many times have you visited friends and family, and while watching a movie or television NOTICED how bizarre they have their contrast, brightness, hue, sharpness, STRETCH MODE, whatever, all funked up...
I'm one of those guys who give viewing about 15, 20 minutes on such a television device, and kindly ask if I can see the remote for a second...and "fix" their screens...I know, Im just that way...
like watching Lord of the Rings with all the lush greenery and people have their tint way too red...and not to mention audio, with 7 band graphics built into systems, PAINSTAKINGLY tuning your mixdown room, buying the best studio mons your money can buy, only to have audio illiterate listeners MESS with your aural vision and pumping funky mids and whatnot...and some point you have to do your best when engineering audio, directing video......and let it go.

Steve Mann wrote on 1/23/2005, 11:41 PM

"I cant wait for the day that there no will be no more film and we can all settle on one aspect ratio."

That will never happen. At least not in our lifetimes. If recent history is any indicator, the number of format "standards" will only increase. What format does your videophone display? How about all the variations of PDA's?

BillyBoy wrote on 1/24/2005, 6:34 AM

You're right Spot. This forum has its resident a-hole, John Cline, everyone's favorite "professional" blowhard that never misses a chance to take a cheap shot.

BrianStanding wrote on 1/24/2005, 9:09 AM

Next movie I make, I'm going to crop into a 1:1.618033988749.... aspect ratio(the "Golden Mean" of classical Greek architecture).

Or better yet, crop everything into a perfectly circular frame (symbolizing the Buddhist/Hindu concept of unity).

FuTz wrote on 1/24/2005, 9:39 AM

3.1416 comes to mind...

Chienworks wrote on 1/24/2005, 10:15 AM

I think my widest so far is 13.6667:1 which i used as a video banner displayed at the top of a website. Let's see ... on a 16:9 TV the black bars would occupy approximately 87% of the screen.

SonicClang wrote on 1/24/2005, 2:46 PM

I'd never watch a movie like Troy, so that's not the kind of movie I'm talking about. And I'm not talking about comedies like Anchorman. I'm talking about movies where the director clearly had a vision in mind and wanted to capture some artistic shots.

And a standard? Like the one guy said, that won't happen. There are just too many places video can be displayed.

Catwell wrote on 1/24/2005, 3:14 PM

Why not adapt your system to what is provided on the media. That's what is done in every movie theatre, at least the good ones. Each format has it's own lenses, apature plates and masking settings. The actual screen size or shape is not as important as setting masking to cover those parts that are not used. A theatre might have a screen that is 2.35:1 ratio and perfect for cinemascope presentations. But when they show a "flat" 1.85:1 ratio the side masking will be moved in to match the the new aspect ratio. In the projector the cinemascope lens, with 2:1 anamorphic attachment, will be replaced with the 1:85 lens, greater magnification, and the apature plate that is cut for scope to about 1.175:1 will be replaced with one for 1.85:1. The cinemascope image on the film is squeezed by 2:1 and uses most of the available frame area .715 x .839 inches. The 1.85 apature plate is cut to .446 x .825 throwing away 35% of the available film area.

If you setup your home theatre with a projection system, you too can mask off the black bars that are used to give the image it's "correct" aspect ratio.

And for my rant, I cannot stand distorted images. Stretching or squeezing an image to fill the screen should be forbidden!.

Charlie