|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 23rd, 2006, 09:55 AM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 84
|
Window Boxing? How to shoot Widescreen
Okay here is what I do. I shoot my videos with my DVX100 under the normal mode. 4:3. Then I export them to premiere Standard 48K. Then I import my footages and manualy place a letterbox. I dont know how it looks like in a Widescreen TV but would it creat a Windowbox. black bars ALL SIDES? It seems like that If I start a project in Premiere using WideScreen. When I import all of my footages in the timeline, I have to scale them which loses quality. Can someone please tell me if Im doing the wrong thing here
thanks |
|
|
|
October 23rd, 2006, 02:53 PM
|
#2 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 126
|
I don't really understand what you're saying, but i'll give it a try:
If you have 4x3 footage, and you want widescreen. Start a 4x3 project, import your files. Interpret if neccesary as 4x3 and add your video to the timeline. Then, add black bars on top and bottom (use the crop effect). 12.5 % on top and 12.5 % on bottom. That's about it and when you render to DVD, also choose normal 4x3 because else it will vertically compress your image including the black bars on top and bottom. |
|
|
|
|
October 23rd, 2006, 05:27 PM
|
#3 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 84
|
I did that. It turns out okay if you view the DVD on a 4:3 television. But how about on a widescreen TV. Doesn't it create black bars onthe bottom and top as well as on the sides?
I have places a picture to see what I mean. Since I do not have a Widescreen TV, I am not sure how the outcome of the footage will look like. All I know that when I view my DVD on a 4:3, it only shows the black bars on top and bottom. But was wondering if the outcome of the DVD will be just like the image I have attached when viewed on a Widescreen TV? |
|
|
|
|
October 23rd, 2006, 05:58 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
You need to start a WIDESCREEN project, and bring in your 4x3 footage and scale it. I understand how you would think you are loosing quality, but that is not the case. You don't lose any more than you do by letterboxing it...but this way, it will display correctly on both 4x3 and 16x9 televisions, as long as you author a 16x9 DVD. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
October 23rd, 2006, 06:15 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 84
|
Quote:
I only shoot wedding and have made 4:3 DVD with letterbox. I dont think my clients have a Widescreen TV yet but if they decide to buy one, is there a way for them to get rid or at least minimize the vertical borders on the side? Im starting to worry now. |
|
|
|
|
|
October 24th, 2006, 01:34 AM
|
#6 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: chattanooga, tn
Posts: 721
|
Quote:
You're losing the same amount of resolution whether you crop to anamorphic or add hard letterbox mattes, as Jason says. You're throwing out the same number of pixels either way. The difference you're seeing, however, is based on the fact that 4:3 video with hard letterbox keeps the original pixels at the same size in the middle of the screen, whereas the anamorphic method has to "zoom" in on them to fill up the entire 720x480 DV raster. Think about it in terms of what you'd see on a 16:9 TV: the hardcoded letterbox method would give you the window box as you've described. The original pixels remain their original size. Anamorphic DV would give you the same exact framing and picture information, but would fill the screen. You're seeing the same pixels, but bigger. The result is lower perceived resolution with anamorphic, even though it's the same picture, really. So hard letterbox will keep you from having to resize your image (to fit it into a 720x480 raster), but it will not play back correctly on a 16:9 TV. Anamorphic will fill a 16:9 screen, but will lose apparent quality because of the scaling inherent in going to anamorphic from a 4:3 source. It's a lose-lose situation, really... as far as 16:9 TV's are concerned, at least--both ways of doing this will look the same on a 4:3 TV if you author the DVD correctly. The solution to the problem of proper display on a 16:9 TV? Either: 1) accept these limitations; 2) buy a 16:9 camera (or anamorphic lens adapter); or 3) learn to love the 4:3 that your camera is capable of recording correctly, and hope that your audience will have enough sense to pillarbox the video instead of watching it stretched out--simply because they want to fill the screen--with no regard given to your intentions or to simple common sense. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
October 24th, 2006, 03:31 AM
|
#7 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: France
Posts: 578
|
Hi there
Jarrod has explained very well the basic technique.... I would add though, that even large 16:9 TV sets play the anamorphic version fine... it looks lousy on a computer screen or monitor, but the poor resolution of you average tv set, even large 16:9 ones, sort of hides the effective hit on resolution when you blow up the picture.... I authored a DVD this year that mixed various clips..some shot on a TRV950 in 4:3 and anamorphically streched in PremPro and others shot on a Z1 in native 16:9... To the vast majority of viewers you'd be hard pushed to tell... the DVD plays just fine on both sorts of TV set. In Europe the widescreen tv's are pretty much the norm now... at least where I live... yet many programmes are still broadcast in 4:3.... I would say most people use their handset to fill the frame....using the "Smart 4:3" setting my TV has you can watch full frame with minimum distortion...it sort of stretches the edges and crops the top and bottom, but avoids the short fat person syndrome of watching a 4:3 show on a 16:9 setting... I guess when we are all on HD this problem will go away... Best Regards Gareth |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
