Framing in 16:9

[Heiko Saele]

I never understood the problem with switching from 4:3 to 16:9. When I first shot in 16:9 I got used to it in less than a minute.
My framing is, just like in 4:3, a matter of what looks and feels right - that feeling adjusts quickly to anything I see in the VF.
The only problem I had on my first few 16:9 shots was that when I wanted to shoot a person from head to toe, there was suddenly so much space around him.

[Martin Mayer]

Originally Posted by Dale Guthormsen

If I look at the 16x9 from my xl2 with its native 16:9 ccd s the image different than the image I get off of xlh1 that shoots hdv. When you put them on a wide screen tv you will note that the HDV (which is 1.33, right?) is wide and narrower than the standard 16 x 9 off the dv xl2

Something very wrong with your setup, there, Dale. HDV and 16:9 SD are exactly the same picture aspect ratio: i.e. 16:9.

If you're seeing black bars (or a stretched image) anywhere when comparing HDV and 16:9 SD then something's not right.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Mark Ganglfinger

Does the same rule of thirds that we use for 4:3 apply to widescreen except that it is streched out, or are there a different set of rules that apply?

In principle, I'd say the answer was "yes", but there's one thing to be aware of.

Although HD is relatively new in the UK, we've had 16:9 SD broadcasting via digital for over 10 years, and pretty well all acquisition for broadcast has been 16:9 for quite a while. It's obviously raised the issue of how to deal with the existing (4:3) broadcast chain, on which the main channels are simulcast.

One answer would be to transmit letterbox, another would be to transmit the centre cut 4:3 portion of the 16:9 original. In practice, the chosen method has been to crop 1:9 side bars off the original (to give a 14:9 image) and transmit that as a slight letterbox within 4:3 on the analogue simulcast. (Tests found viewers found it less objectionable than a full 16:9 letterbox.)

What that means for composition, is that if the rule of thirds is adhered to strictly whilst shooting, centres of interest will be nearer the edge of frame than a third for the cropped version - hence it may be worth compromising the thirds rule a little whilst shooting. It's also important that the caption safe area is based on a 14:9 frame as well as allowing for overscan

[Ron Evans]

One addition I learned back in the 60's to the rule of thirds was to keep the subjects eye line on the top third line( 1/3 down from the top) or below this line however far or close the shot was and this stops the feeling of being crushed that I see so often on the TV. Of course this can be used in reverse if a feeling of foreboding or something bad is about to happen!!!

Ron Evans

[Charles Papert]

I would say that the rule of thirds is pretty much the same between a 4:3 and 16:9 frame--obviously the thirds are just further apart for 1:78. It's one of those basic sort of compositional guidelines that becomes instinctual.

For something like 10 years now we have been wrestling with dual framing for episodic television, we used to frame for 4:3 and protect 16:9 (making sure there wasn't any junk on the sides of the frame) and now it's generally frame for 16:9 but keep the important information in 4:3, which is even more confusing. Some shows ignore 4:3 entirely, which is a blessing. It's been a real pain. Attached is a frame grab from an old episode of "Scrubs" where you can see all the different markers that I had to keep track of at any time.