16:9 & 4:3 Fcp at DVinfo.net

Jason Hakala · July 11th, 2006, 05:40 PM

i shot video in both formats with a canon xl2. is there a way to put 16:9 video into 4:3 ratio sequence. i have no problem getting the video into the same sequence, but the 16:9 is always being downsized to fit the 4:3 box, as i would like to have it stay at full 16:9 resolution so i have the option to reframe in the clip in the 4:3 box. does anyone know if this is possible? any ideas to do accomplish this would be great!!

thanks
jason

Boyd Ostroff · July 11th, 2006, 06:05 PM

Well a sequence needs to be either 4:3 or 16:9, it can't be both. So you have two choices:

1. fit the 4:3 into a 16:9 sequence
2. fit the 16:9 into a 4:3 sequence

Sounds like you want the 16:9 in the 4:3 sequence, but zoomed in so the black bars aren't there (which will chop off the left and right side). That's easy; double-click on your clip so it opens in the viewer. Choose the option to show image+wireframe. Now make the viewer window larger so you can see the border around the image (you may need to reduce the view scale). Grab one of the dots in the corner of the image and drag outward with the mouse until the image fills the full height of the frame.

You can also do this with the scale slider on the motion tab in the viewer, and you can even keyframe zooming and panning left to right with the controls there if you want to.

Jason Hakala · July 11th, 2006, 06:13 PM

do you know how far i can scale past 100 percent with the 16:9, where im not gonna lose resolution? is there any way to have the full size of the 16:9 show up in the 4:3 sequence?

thanks again for the reply boyd

jason

Boyd Ostroff · July 11th, 2006, 06:54 PM

Well you can't enlarge it at all without losing some resolution unfortunately. In actual practice you can get away with a bit - try some experiments and see what you think. If you're viewing on a regular TV instead of a good monitor you may be able to get away with a lot.

I'm not sure what you mean by "is there any way to have the full size of the 16:9 show up in the 4:3 sequence?" You would be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole (actually more like fitting a rectangular peg in a square hole I guess ;-) The only way to do that is to squash the 16:9 into the 4:3 frame, which will make everything tall and skinny. If it's just landscapes or inanimate objects then you can probably get away with that, but people are going to look a little odd (hmm, I wish I did look taller and skinnier ;-)

If that's what you want then sure, it's easy. Open the clip directly from the browser - not from an existing sequence. Go to its properties (or scroll the browser to the right until you see the anamorphic column). Uncheck the anamorphic property. That will make the clip fit into the 4:3 frame. Now drop it into a 4:3 sequence. But like I said, it may look strange to make everything too tall and skinny...

Jason Hakala · July 11th, 2006, 07:11 PM

i see what you mean with the square and rectangular pixels, i guess i just assumed the 16:9 was a higher resolution than the 4:3. one thing i noticed is when i bring it into after effects the 16:9 is in its true 16:9 state at 100 percent and the 4:3 is at 100 percent. so when i drag it into a ntsc dv 720x480 comp, the 4:3 fits perfect as the widescreen goes over the frame like it should be. just confused why fcp downsizes the 16:9 clips to fit the 4:3 box, and because its doing htat shoulding the 16:9 be at a lower percentage. sorry if it seems like i keep asking hte same question, im just confused on why it would work in after effects and not fcp. thanks in advance, do appreciate the support thus far. :)

jason

Boyd Ostroff · July 11th, 2006, 09:06 PM

16:9 and 4:3 DV have the same resolution: 720x480 pixels. The only difference is that 16:9 is stretched across a wider area, so (as you said) the pixels are wider. I don't use After Effects so I'm not sure what you saw there. Maybe it's resizing to 854x480 which is what you would have if the pixels were square?

For whatever reason, the FCP software designers assumed that when you drop a 16:9 clip into a 4:3 sequence that you intend for it to be letterboxed. But, as I said above, it's simple to either zoom in on it or squash it to fit. Those are really your only choices, and in either case you will be losing some resolution. They're different formats and you can't have it both ways....

Shane Ross · July 11th, 2006, 10:04 PM

watch this tutorial:

www.proapptips.com/captmench MULTI ASPECT RATIOS

July 11th, 2006, 05:40 PM	#1
Jason Hakala New Boot Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Honolulu, Hi Posts: 21	16:9 & 4:3 Fcp i shot video in both formats with a canon xl2. is there a way to put 16:9 video into 4:3 ratio sequence. i have no problem getting the video into the same sequence, but the 16:9 is always being downsized to fit the 4:3 box, as i would like to have it stay at full 16:9 resolution so i have the option to reframe in the clip in the 4:3 box. does anyone know if this is possible? any ideas to do accomplish this would be great!! thanks jason

July 11th, 2006, 06:05 PM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Well a sequence needs to be either 4:3 or 16:9, it can't be both. So you have two choices: 1. fit the 4:3 into a 16:9 sequence 2. fit the 16:9 into a 4:3 sequence Sounds like you want the 16:9 in the 4:3 sequence, but zoomed in so the black bars aren't there (which will chop off the left and right side). That's easy; double-click on your clip so it opens in the viewer. Choose the option to show image+wireframe. Now make the viewer window larger so you can see the border around the image (you may need to reduce the view scale). Grab one of the dots in the corner of the image and drag outward with the mouse until the image fills the full height of the frame. You can also do this with the scale slider on the motion tab in the viewer, and you can even keyframe zooming and panning left to right with the controls there if you want to.

July 11th, 2006, 06:13 PM	#3
Jason Hakala New Boot Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Honolulu, Hi Posts: 21	do you know how far i can scale past 100 percent with the 16:9, where im not gonna lose resolution? is there any way to have the full size of the 16:9 show up in the 4:3 sequence? thanks again for the reply boyd jason

July 11th, 2006, 06:54 PM	#4
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Well you can't enlarge it at all without losing some resolution unfortunately. In actual practice you can get away with a bit - try some experiments and see what you think. If you're viewing on a regular TV instead of a good monitor you may be able to get away with a lot. I'm not sure what you mean by "is there any way to have the full size of the 16:9 show up in the 4:3 sequence?" You would be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole (actually more like fitting a rectangular peg in a square hole I guess ;-) The only way to do that is to squash the 16:9 into the 4:3 frame, which will make everything tall and skinny. If it's just landscapes or inanimate objects then you can probably get away with that, but people are going to look a little odd (hmm, I wish I did look taller and skinnier ;-) If that's what you want then sure, it's easy. Open the clip directly from the browser - not from an existing sequence. Go to its properties (or scroll the browser to the right until you see the anamorphic column). Uncheck the anamorphic property. That will make the clip fit into the 4:3 frame. Now drop it into a 4:3 sequence. But like I said, it may look strange to make everything too tall and skinny...

July 11th, 2006, 07:11 PM	#5
Jason Hakala New Boot Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Honolulu, Hi Posts: 21	i see what you mean with the square and rectangular pixels, i guess i just assumed the 16:9 was a higher resolution than the 4:3. one thing i noticed is when i bring it into after effects the 16:9 is in its true 16:9 state at 100 percent and the 4:3 is at 100 percent. so when i drag it into a ntsc dv 720x480 comp, the 4:3 fits perfect as the widescreen goes over the frame like it should be. just confused why fcp downsizes the 16:9 clips to fit the 4:3 box, and because its doing htat shoulding the 16:9 be at a lower percentage. sorry if it seems like i keep asking hte same question, im just confused on why it would work in after effects and not fcp. thanks in advance, do appreciate the support thus far. :) jason

July 11th, 2006, 09:06 PM	#6
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	16:9 and 4:3 DV have the same resolution: 720x480 pixels. The only difference is that 16:9 is stretched across a wider area, so (as you said) the pixels are wider. I don't use After Effects so I'm not sure what you saw there. Maybe it's resizing to 854x480 which is what you would have if the pixels were square? For whatever reason, the FCP software designers assumed that when you drop a 16:9 clip into a 4:3 sequence that you intend for it to be letterboxed. But, as I said above, it's simple to either zoom in on it or squash it to fit. Those are really your only choices, and in either case you will be losing some resolution. They're different formats and you can't have it both ways....

July 11th, 2006, 10:04 PM	#7
Shane Ross Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 539	watch this tutorial: www.proapptips.com/captmench MULTI ASPECT RATIOS