I have seen posts on various message boards where people are trying to achieve 16:9 ratio with masks, or saying how they can't stand it when folks still shoot in 4:3. But I really don't know why widescreen is supposedly better. I'd rather see an image larger than with black on top and bottom. Help me see the light - what's the deal?

Diane

I'd rather see an image larger than with black on top and bottom. Help me see the light - what's the deal?The deal is *wider* as in any HDTV (or a proper widescreen display in standard definition).

See the attached image (click it to see the full size version). See how much wider the 16:9 aspect ratio is compared to the standard 4:3 aspect ratio? An HDTV display or a proper widescreen SD display has a screen that wide, so there are no "black bars" (commonly referred to as letterbox) above and below the image.

I know what it is. But what makes it more desirable? I personally don't enjoy watching widescreen, but if most people prefer it, I'll start shooting in 16:9 even though it doesn't thrill me - but I'm curious why people like it. Thanks!

Because it's a good step in the direction toward how we actually see things in real life (the field of view for a pair of human eyes is more like an oval shape, not a rectangle, but the increased width of 16:9 is a decent compromise).

I think its something only us film orientated folks obsess about, of all the people i know not one of them (outside the film/video world) have ever said "damn its 16:9" or vice versa. In fact most people i know like the screen to be filled. By watching a 16:9 image you are seeing more information but still regular folk think they are beeing cheated out of the top and bottom of their screen, I guess its one of those occasions the film world does it for the people cause they know whats better for them.

Andy.

what is irritating is watching the wrong size, either 16:9 on a 4:3 tv, or watching 4:3 on a 16:9 tv

Andy and Chris make two points that are the most obvious. Wide screen comes closer to simulating our actual field of vision, and the ratio actually delivers more 'information' in terms of aspect ratio.

Unfortunately, in a glass half full/half empty world... when people see black bars on the screen they paid good money for, they feel 'cheated'. (Either letter boxed on 4:3 or pillar boxed on 16:9 screens) Doesn't matter if the presentation is 'cinematically correct', doesn't matter if its 'the way the director intended it'... they paid good money for that screen dammit, and they want it filled up! Such are the obstacles to change.

Andy and Chris make two points that are the most obvious. Wide screen comes closer to simulating our actual field of vision, and the ratio actually delivers more 'information' in terms of aspect ratio.

Unfortunately, in a glass half full/half empty world... when people see black bars on the screen they paid good money for, they feel 'cheated'. (Either letter boxed on 4:3 or pillar boxed on 16:9 screens) Doesn't matter if the presentation is 'cinematically correct', doesn't matter if its 'the way the director intended it'... they paid good money for that screen dammit, and they want it filled up! Such are the obstacles to change.I don't feel cheated when I see the black bars on top and bottom - I just feel frustrated that the image is smaller and makes me have to squint! I wouldn't mind black bars on the sides - at least the faces are bigger.

The deal is *wider* as in any HDTV (or a proper widescreen display in standard definition).

See the attached image (click it to see the full size version). See how much wider the 16:9 aspect ratio is compared to the standard 4:3 aspect ratio? An HDTV display or a proper widescreen SD display has a screen that wide, so there are no "black bars" (commonly referred to as letterbox) above and below the image.What do you look for when you buy a TV so that it will display properly?

Personally, I would rather see the feature as it was shot and intended to be seen than the "modified to fit your screen" version. I do not buy a feature in "full screen", and it has nothing to do with what display I'm watching it on.

The widescreen version isn't cutting anything off of the top and bottom, it's the full screen version that is cropping the left and right.

The fact that the widescreen version of anything contains more data, more story, more visuals, more of the action, cancels out the want to fill the screen.

4:3 displays are slowly going away, and while it may be a long process, I would rather shoot more and crop it if I need to than shoot too small and look awkward later.

Again, that's just me personally. Your aspect may vary.

What do you look for when you buy a TV so that it will display properly?

most TV's and projectors can change their aspect ratio to suit the film your watching so its not that big of a problem any more.

Andy

Can you even buy a 4:3 TV anymore?? Other than some 13" TV/VCR combo thingy?

Widescreen is here, 2009 is the mandated switch over for digital, and there's nothing that will alter that. But I did really like my old rotary dial phone...

The first time I saw how much is chopped out of a "wide screen" movie to make if "fit" a "full screen" presentation, I vowed not to rent or buy "full screen".

You don't see a movie at a theater in 4:3, and the director and the crew didn't produce it in 4:3...

The only ones who intended a 4:3 presentation were the guys who had to move the crop box around the scenes and decide what was most important in each frame (characters which were placed by "golden thirds" are typically centered for instance). Once you realize how much is chopped out, you won't mind "black bars". You lose a lot of the "feel" of a movie from my perception. That doesn't mean to say you can't have excellent content in a 4:3 format (or B&W for that matter!), but it's going to look and feel "retro".

and the converter box to use the old televisions are under 50 dollars. 2009 will have no affect on what type of tv people own. most people I know refuse to buy a new tv until the old one dies. most people I ask can only see the difference between HD and SD when they are side by side. yes new sales are 16:9 and becoming predominately HD, but what percentage of the people in the united states are buying a TV in the next 5 years?

most TV's and projectors can change their aspect ratio to suit the film your watching so its not that big of a problem any more.

Andy

But, as long as some producers use 4:3 and others use 16:9, there will still be black bars on any kind of tv.

What it really comes down to is personal preference. If I watch a theatrical movie at home, I want to watch it in widescreen.

Others seem to prefer the 4:3--go figure.

Also remember, older theatrical movies, mostly b&w era, were shot in 4:3. Citizen Kane for instance.

Also remember, older theatrical movies, mostly b&w era, were shot in 4:3. Citizen Kane for instance.

hey, if it's good enough for Orson Welles, then it's good enough for me.

But seriously, when I watch Citizen Kane, I want to watch it in 4:3 because that's how Mr. Welles framed it and intended it. And if I want to watch Saving Private Ryan, then I'll want to watch it in 1.85:1 which is the way Mr. Spielberg framed it. I would certainly miss something if I didn't.

But you're right Andy, it comes down to personal preference and necessity. I bought a new tv recently and 4:3 looks out of place on it, but 16:9 and alike looks great.

Look at Chris Hurd's illustration and know that 16:9 is not a sliver of 4:3, but 4:3 is a part of 16:9

Personally, I would rather see the feature as it was shot and intended to be seen than the "modified to fit your screen" version. I do not buy a feature in "full screen", and it has nothing to do with what display I'm watching it on.

The widescreen version isn't cutting anything off of the top and bottom, it's the full screen version that is cropping the left and right.
Agree 100%
I have actually made my parents return movies if they are the "full screen" version and I know there is a widescreen version available. Even though it is full screen (4:3, that is), it is not the full frame of the film.
I think people like shooting in 16:9 because it looks more like a movie, and because it actually does give you more field of view (true widescreen, that is. Not the black bars cropping off the image.) I have a DVC30 that has sudo-widescreen. It squeezes the image to be 16:9, but doesn't have a true 16:9 CCD. Resolution is lost, but it looks so much more like a movie than 4:3 mode.

what is irritating is watching the wrong size, either 16:9 on a 4:3 tv, or watching 4:3 on a 16:9 tv

What drives me nuts is seeing distorted images - either stretched with short fat figures or squashed with impossibly tall actors. In stores like Comet in the UK there can be dozens of screens showing the same images off air or on demo disc and sometimes few if any are correct. The staff seem to think that filling the screen is all that matters. To me its like playing music out of tune. I can't believe that so few people seem to notice the incorrect aspect ratios.

Okay, so I have a Sharp Aquos 20" TV and my DVD's that I shot 4:3 take up the whole screen. I popped in some professional DVD's I had at my fingertips. the first one, a documentary called Power Trip, took up the whole screen, to all corners. The next one I grabbed, was a concert video ("Cyndi Lauper Live... At Last") and the menu took up the full screen but the concert footage had black on top and bottom. I guess we don't have the right kind of TV. I know that usually TV broadcasting takes up my whole screen, but some movies have bars and the IFC channel always seems to have letterboxing! LOL

So, I'm a student and I have had opportunities to shoot HD but my school was having problems with capturing so the times I borrowed the HD cam, I just shot the higher res SD at 4:3 which was familiar to me. Mostly now I know I will only be borrowing SD cams to use (PD 150 or 170) in the near future, so should I shoot 16:9 from now on?

Your TV is doing it's job. It's adjusting the aspect ratio to fit on your TV. If it wasn't doing it's job, it would be displaying a "stretched" image of the 16:9 which would fill up the screen corner to corner, but it would look, well...like crap.

a 4:3 image on a 4:3 tv looks great, a 16:9 image stretched on a 4:3 tv looks bad. Trust me, you would prefer the black bars on top and bottom.

Funny, I thought it was a widescreen TV when we bought (albeit a smallish one). It's definitely wider than our old TV, proportionately.

Well it shouldn't be any wider unless it actually is widescreen. The 4:3 aspect is a standard of NTSC TV. Maybe speakers on the side make it appear to be wider? Either it's 16:9 or it's 4:3, I haven't seen any TVs with Stanley Kubrick ratios (2001: A Space Odyssey anyone?)

Funny, I thought it was a widescreen TV when we bought (albeit a smallish one). It's definitely wider than our old TV, proportionately.

Sharp makes an EDTV, SD and HDTV Aquos TV. If you got the HDTV one, then you're 16:9, if you got the EDTV(Enhanced Definition) or the SD, then you're still 4:3

The EDTV just means it's capable of progressive digital over-the-air programming.

Yeah, I just looked it up and it's EDTV. I didn't think it had to be HD to be widescreen. I guess it was the side speakers and the flatness that made me think it was wider than our old, gigantic regular TV. I promised my husband we'll get an HDTV next time.

So, in preparation for when I shoot again (I just use mini-DV), I guess I'll go 16:9 from now on... ?

Thanks everyone, this has been insightful.

EDTV's can be 16:9, I have one.

IMHO 4:3 is horrible. I only have one 4:3 TV left in my house and everytime it's on, I shudder. It feels like the picture is missing something, well it IS, the sides hah ahaahha...Our eyes are meant to see so much more periphery and I'm elated that 16:9 displays are finally starting to take over.

Widescreen is here, 2009 is the mandated switch over for digital, and there's nothing that will alter that. But I did really like my old rotary dial phone...
Digital b'casts will not be the end of 4x3 viewing. 4x3 is part of the ATSC spec and there is a ton (about 60-70yrs worth) of 4x3 TV programing that isn't just going to be trashed.


You don't see a movie at a theater in 4:3, and the director and the crew didn't produce it in 4:3...
You do if you watch a movie that's intended aspect ratio was 4x3 (which was most of them before filmmakers switched to widescreen because they felt threatened by TV penetration). Also, many (most?) movies are shot full frame and matted later to block off the top and bottom of the image.


-A

I don't feel cheated when I see the black bars on top and bottom - I just feel frustrated that the image is smaller and makes me have to squint! I wouldn't mind black bars on the sides - at least the faces are bigger.

It sounds like your general issue is that you have to watch a smaller image when using a 4:3 display. A true 16:9 display won't have the problem.

Presumably, you prefer the widescreen appearance at the cinema?

EDTV's can be 16:9, I have one.

I was just referring to the Sharp Aquos Line of 20" EDTVs. I don't know of a 20" 16:9 EDTV, but I might be wrong. But you're right, I should have been more specific.

It sounds like your general issue is that you have to watch a smaller image when using a 4:3 display. A true 16:9 display won't have the problem.

Presumably, you prefer the widescreen appearance at the cinema?In a movie theater, the screen is large enough where I don't notice what the ratio is. Of course, the bigger the better - that's why I love the Ziegfeld in NYC. But in a dark theater, all I see is the image on the screen, so I guess I don't think about it. But at home, I can see how the image is letterboxed. I have IFC on right now (they're showing 'Solaris' from 1972 - which I wouldn't think would be letterboxed this way), and the picture is like a narrow band from left to right with LOTS of black, on top and bottom (mostly on the bottom). If I added up the black space, it takes up almost as much room on the TV as the picture. In fact, I'll take a tape measure right now...

My flat screen is 16 7/8" wide and 11 3/4" high. The picture of this movie goes the width of the screen but is only 7" high. So you can imagine how small the images appear. It looks like they did mask top and bottom because subtitles are coming up over the black, below the picture. Generally, it's about 1 3/4 to 2" of black on top and bottom when letterboxed.

Some movies are 2.35:1 (almost 21:9) so when the bars are added so that you can see the full width, it looks very small on a 4:3 display.

I once meant to patent an idea: anamorphic glasses! They would stretch everything horizontally to make 4:3 displays appear 16:9. But 16:9 screens are finally (in the US - been available in Europe for years) becoming the standard. Plus, I've put my idea in the public domain now!

I guess we don't have the right kind of TV. I know that usually TV broadcasting takes up my whole screen, but some movies have bars and the IFC channel always seems to have letterboxing! LOL



I don't know the exact magic that makes the TV decide what format to display your source in. I do know that broadcasters (including cable TV providers) do not always implement the magic properly.

For example, our local PBS station will generally make my TV display properly. On some shows, I'll get double bars: I'll get the top and bottom (letterbox) PLUS the left and right. In such a case, I'll manually use the WIDE and PICTURE buttons on the TV remote to get something close to correct.

Also, 4:3 (aka 1.33) and 16:9 (aka 1.78) are not the only aspect ratios! Heck, 1.78 isn't a real (film) aspect ratio! Someone mentioned 2001, that was supposed to be shown in 2.20 which is.... not 16:9.

For example, our local PBS station will generally make my TV display properly. On some shows, I'll get double bars: I'll get the top and bottom (letterbox) PLUS the left and right. In such a case, I'll manually use the WIDE and PICTURE buttons on the TV remote to get something close to correct.

Also, 4:3 (aka 1.33) and 16:9 (aka 1.78) are not the only aspect ratios! Heck, 1.78 isn't a real (film) aspect ratio! Someone mentioned 2001, that was supposed to be shown in 2.20 which is.... not 16:9.

I hate the double bars. It usually happens during HD programs that have SD commercials, but the commercials are letterboxed. On a 4:3 TV it looks like a movie (16:9 with black bars), but on a 16:9 TV it looks like a video in a small picture frame.

I mentioned 2001 because Kubrick shot in all different aspect ratios. I believe he shot The Shining in 1.37:1, close to 4:3 of TV. The theatrical version is actually the one that loses frame size.

I think the biggest problem is that with so many different aspect ratios people will get used to very poor pictures always being scaled to fit the pixel ratio on their screen!!! I have a 24" I'Art JVC CRT and a new Panasonic 42" Plasma 1080p ( PZ77). HD looks great on the Panasonic but standard definition 4x3 looks worse than the 24"I'Art however its arranged ( 4x3,zoom,full, just) and on a Samsung LCD I tried it was even worse( exchanged it for the Panasonic). Maybe I am picky but for me local cable and SD is for the I'Art CRT and HD cable, Blu-Ray and my own video ( from FX1 and SR7) for the Panasonic. I love HD its a pity that such a lot of cable HD is not HD at all and is very obvious when compared to real HD either from the HD Preview channel or my own.
As to the 4x3, 16x9 debate I think that to watch 16x9 one must be close enough that the screen is substantial in the field of view( read big) so that it does start to emulate our normal field of vision. Small 16x9 screens don't do this and look strange compared to the 4x3 sets. To fill this field of view one must be close and therefor the image has to be perfect or it will look like crap!!! So the image needs to be HD to meet these needs of close and good. Scaling SD 4x3 on this big close 16x9 doesn't cut it. One needs two TV's folks. One to watch standard 4x3 SD and one for HD until everthing is HD. I was going to replace my I'Art with the new 16x9 TV but have now decided to do what I have said in the above sentence!!!! We are rapidly getting to the point that home video will be better image quality than the commercial TV!!!

Ron Evans

We are rapidly getting to the point that home video will be better image quality than the commercial TV!
Getting to the point? MiniDV, as a codec, has always been better than the compressed signals from cable, satellite, or DVD.


-A

In a movie theater, the screen is large enough where I don't notice what the ratio is. Of course, the bigger the better - that's why I love the Ziegfeld in NYC. But in a dark theater, all I see is the image on the screen, so I guess I don't think about it. But at home, I can see how the image is letterboxed. I have IFC on right now (they're showing 'Solaris' from 1972 - which I wouldn't think would be letterboxed this way), and the picture is like a narrow band from left to right with LOTS of black, on top and bottom (mostly on the bottom). If I added up the black space, it takes up almost as much room on the TV as the picture. In fact, I'll take a tape measure right now...

My flat screen is 16 7/8" wide and 11 3/4" high. The picture of this movie goes the width of the screen but is only 7" high. So you can imagine how small the images appear. It looks like they did mask top and bottom because subtitles are coming up over the black, below the picture. Generally, it's about 1 3/4 to 2" of black on top and bottom when letterboxed.

There are a number of different aspect ratios that are used for theatrical release these days. When you go to the movies, if you could see the entire theatre screen you would sometimes see black bars there as well. But theatres use movable curtains at the top and sides of the stage to mask off the screen into the aspect ratio of the film that is currently being shown so you don't see the portions where the image isn't present.

I agree with filling the screen. If the target audience or customer is on 4:3 and thats what it will be used for in a power point or something then 4:3 it is. If they want 16:9 I give it to them. I prefer 16:9 because of the extra space I am allowed to play with. A while back I enjoyed the following vidcasts that talked about 16:9 and pan and scan and letter boxing.

http://gruntmedia.com/videogrunt_005_view.html
http://gruntmedia.com/videogrunt_004_view.html

If you're shooting with cameras designed for 4:3 aspect it's best to record that way to maintain full image quality, since the widescreen mode on such cameras loses some vertical resolution - then decide whether to convert to widescreen in post. If you use HD or widescreen SD cameras shoot widescreen, because that can be cropped to 4:3 better than doing the opposite, so you'll get better results if you want both types of output.

As far as filling viewers' screens is concerned, do you want to produce for the old 13" TV in the dog's corner of the back bedroom or the big, expensive HDTV in the prime spot of many people's homes? Widescreen TVs are becoming standard and will be increasingly so over time, while 4:3 content looks increasingly dated. Once you have widescreen cameras it becomes painful to shoot archaic 4:3 content for the dog's tv.