Vegas and DVX100 Letterbox CORRECTION!!

[Jesse Rosten]

"Vegas simply came up with a recommendation that attempts to be ONE SIZE FITS ALL, but the REALITY is that when you use the recommended Pixel Aspect Ratio, and you make a DVD, or anything shown on a TV- you LOSE THE IMAGE EDGES!!"

Yes, this is true for all consumer televisions. This has nothing to do with Vegas Video.

"On top of this, and EVEN WORSE, if you use AN EXTERNAL MONITOR TO EDIT, YOU CAN"T SEE WHAT"S ON THE EDGES,"

This is not a new problem. This is why professionals use professional broadcast monitors that can do underscan. If you do your editing on the computer monitor then you can see the full frame.

"Yes, fine, the earth is flat."

Sure is. Flat as a Pancake.

[Neil Slade]

Last time I checked, just about all consumers USED CONSUMER TVs.

Seems to make sense to look at a project on the same device people would be using.


If you do your editing on a computer monitor, you also don't see what the consumer sees, neither in color rendition, or image size. The monitor is a terrible substitute for a TV external monitor.

Why is everybody so defensive about something that DOESN"T WORK and that has big problems that end up giving the consumer a flawed end product?

Good god. The brain is a terrible thing to waste.

One click, fix the pixel aspect ratio. Solve multiple problems.

If you follow the Vegas instructions- yes this IS a VEGAS PROBLEM- because people edit video on Vegas to be shown on TV, and their recommendations fall short in regard to letterbox final product- you end up with a less than perfect letterboxed project for everybody watching on a TV.

You want to lose the edges. Fine, go ahead, be my guest.
I've got movies to make and get in the mail tonight.

I prefer perfection.

:-)

[John Hudson]

Thank god I don't shoot Letterbox In-Camera.

[Neil Slade]

Yes, if you shoot full frame normal 4:3, changing the pixel ratio screws things up quite nicely.

CORRECTION!!!!- (Friday) no, actually I was wrong here, it merely shrinks the image on the TV set, just like it does to the letterbox image-- in Vegas preview window however, you need to select "simulate device aspect ratio" for the preview window or it squeezes the preview.

:-)

Later
keep smiling
Neil

[Aaron Koolen]

Ok, so what happens in Fellini's DVD when you show it on computer or projector? I'd be VERY surprised to see that it had black edges then.

So, we know you're trying to get the whole image within the safe area. Fine, but can you explain why you won't see a squashing of the image? If you were scaling I'd agree, the image would keep the right aspect, but you are not, you are altering the aspect ratio.


Aaron

[Neil Slade]

Aaron Sweetheart,

I am making a DVD that nearly EVERYONE will look at on their TV.

Most Vegas projects will ultimately end up on TV sets, so, my message is for that situation where people don't want to sacrifice the edges of the image.

Its ALSO FOR EDITING AND SEEING THE WHOLE PICTURE on an external monitor- EXTREMELY important if your project will end up where everybody ultimately sees the edges of the screen.

I found I was missing all kinds of edge things looking at my external monitor, only to have it show up in the preview window.

ARGGHGHGHGH!!!! Horrible.

And, for that 2 out of 500 people who look at it on their computer, it will STILL look fine.Nobody cares if there is a little black on the side of the picture on an LCD computer screen. If you want to buy a movie, I'll burn a special copy just for you where I've reset the PAR back to .9091 :-)
One click.

If you would actually take one minute to look at my page and read what I've said- what, about a dozen times now-- it does NOT NOT NOT NOT change the picture and alter the proper proportions of the image. LOOK-
its PERFECTO.

Let me say it again-- I have NO TOLERATION FOR DISTORTION.

If you do the same thing to a 4;3 normal image - yes, it will squeeze and distort the image. This DOESNT HAPPEN WITH LETTERBOX out of the DVX. That's 13 times now. :-)

Hope this sinks in already
:-)

Why are people SO RESISTANT to NEW IDEAS?

Does everybody think that the software writers of ANY SOFTWARE have all the answers and have gotten everything perfect?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Your welcome.
:-)

[Aaron Koolen]

Don't patronise me Neal.

It's weird Neal, as you slam others for not listening but you're doing it your self. I asked "Fine, but can you explain why you won't see a squashing of the image?" but I have yet to hear an explanation of why, just that it happens.

You also didn't answer my question of, if Fellini's DVD is true 16:9 (Which I assume or else why would you compare the two) then do you really think that he's doing something that doesn't lose the edges over the TV? I doubt that. More likely he's using a different mask/ratio.

I don't resist new ideas Neal, I did look at your site (you've since updated it with a split screen example) and I could not really tell that there was no squishing going on.


Aaron

[Jesse Rosten]

Neil,

The DVX letterbox mode is not quite true 16:9. I'm not familiar with the Fellini DVD that you speak of, but it is likely true 16:9 or even wider (2.35:1) This is perhaps one reason why your original letterboxed footage didn't look the same as a commercially produced widescreen DVD.

"Why is everybody so defensive about something that DOESN"T WORK"

No one is getting defensive. We were just trying to understand what you were talking about at the beginning. Now I get what you are saying. Shrink the image so you don't lose the picture in the TV safe zones. Simple enough. And I must admit this is an intriguing idea. (does this mean my frontal lobes have just popped?)

What I don't understand is why you are calling this a "fix" to an aspect ratio "problem." There is no problem. You may choose to resize and recompress your footage if you like, but this is not a solution to a technical problem that Sony (and the rest of the video world) has just happened to overlook for the last 50+ years. An aesthetic problem? Sure is! Does your solution work? I'd say so.

Incidently, black bars on the SIDES of the image are called "pillarbox"

[Neil Slade]

Thanks Jesse for acknowledging my solution to these various dilemmas...



Aaron,

Since when is showing affection a negative expression? Its all in your brain. That's what the movie, in fact, is about-- life MIRROR's how you approach things-- specifically with your amygdala.

I don't know why the squishing doesn't occur, neither did Sony Vegas support have an explanation, and we talked for a long time on this. I don't even know if this would work for other cameras, and I so I am specific about this issue with this camera and software.

Oh by the way- the first thing I did----

I RAN A TEST IMAGE, A PERFECT TEST SQUARE, rendered it both .9091 and 1.0 pixel aspect ratio-- THEN MEASURED THE IMAGE WITH A PRECISE RULER MARKED IT SQUARE.

No squishing. The 1.0 was simply smaller, and the whole width fit on a TV screen, without any additional black on the sides.

Now do you believe me?
:-)



If you don't have a DVX, forget about it. Or try it on your own camera.
If you are waiting for proof in WORDS, well, you have further missed my point--- TRY IT YOURSELF. I don't have much time to argue with people who just want to argue points theoretically. The proof is simple, and would take somebody with Vegas and a DVX about 5 minutes to prove to themselves this works beautifully.



Apparently, you don't have this set up, or you are unwilling to get it a go (why this would be totally escapes me) so, why even argue the point.

Oh I know--

MEN LIKE TO ARGUE. Its a reptile brain thing. Amygdalae like to click backward in males. It's the thumping on the chest chimp thing, you know.




Although you may think I've been careless or missed something on this, I assure you, I am a total perfectionist when it comes to video and photography. I've spent 2 1/2 years on this project, and I don't let anything slip by.


Thanks all.

[John Hudson]

Why are people SO RESISTANT to NEW IDEAS?

I am not being resistant Neal! On the contrary! I am trying to understand. I have gone to your site and it is like a ride through Wonka Land. Not exactly the most focused bit of research going on there (I jest).

I am here to talk and figure this out because it intrigues me.

Now isn't the DVX100 in-camera letterbox simply a 4:3 image anyway? It just happen's to have a mask applied over it, right? So why is this any different that doing it with regular 4:3 'un-masked Full Frame' footage?

Also.............................................

Fellini's City of Women is 1.85:1 not 16:9 and 16:9 (The simulated DVX100 Letterbox) is 1.77:1, right? So isn't 16:9 going to appear TALLER than Fellini's DVD City of Women in it's 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio?

I don't know why I try and understand these things as it only makes my head hurt. LOL! :P

[Neil Slade]

Wonka Land! Yeah! I love chocolate....

I didn't know the specific aspect mbers on City of Women, or 8 1/2, or Juliet of the Spirits- but I was watching those during my own editing, and thats when it hit me-- and they're all letterboxed in the editions I had--

These movies were more like actual 16:9, and if you look at the Vegas output from the DVX letterbox, it sure as heck doesn't turn up 16:9 on a TV, its just chopped off a little at the top and bottom-- a chopped 4:3.
Not much like widescreen-- and that's what I was expecting from letterbox.

You could, and can always mask off regular 4:3 and get the same result as in camera letterbox-- theoretically-- that's why this came as such a pleasant surprise that applying the 1.0 pixel ratio worked wonders and restores the entire frame edge to edge on the external monitor, as well as restoring the preview screen CORRECT aspect ratio-- and nobody even knew about it, not even Vegas support. I have no idea why.
It just works.

This was another tip off-- when editing the letterbox footage in Vegas, set to .9091-- it WAS SQUASHED unless you click on the "simulate aspect ratio" (right click in preview window).

I assumed this was an ERROR in the software, and quite rightly so. You don't have to do this with normal footage- just DVX letterbox.

Also, when you CAPTURE-- its squashed. I thought maybe I was missing a setting in the capture application (Vegas capture) but nope.
Setting it to 1.0 aspect, corrects a slew of things

1) corrects preview window distortion
2) shows whole image in external monitor
3) Renders whole image

I further noted the errors when using the cropping tool and my external monitor-- because I would crop something out using my monitor (a Sony 20" flat screen CRT) only to see what I thought I cropped out back on the preview window. Argh!

This meant, I had to go back and recrop scenes that I thought were done.

Finally in sheer frustration in this duplication, and non-conformity between external monitor and preview window, and distorted preview, I just started messing with settings until VOILA!!!!

Change to square aspect ratio in Project properties.

Success.

Beats me why it works, and Sony doesn't know either.

[Jesse Rosten]

John,

You get the same effect when using 4:3 footage. You get pillarboxing on the side. Here's why: TVs are 4:3 right? That's 640x480 with square pixels. Neil, if you don't believe me go to your Vegas properties. The seventh option under the templates drop down list is "NTSC square pixel (640x480)" This is the SD standard. This is what our analog TVs display - 640x480.

Now DV comes along and adds a little more resolution to the picture with 720x480. Well 720 on a 640 display should looks squeezed right? Well that's why the pixels aren't square. They're "pre-stretched" so when the 720 image is squeezed back to 640 everything looks hunky dory. Makes sense?

What Neil is doing is creating an "illegal" format. Which Vegas can easily do because it is resolution independent. 720x480 with square pixels is like a 640X480 picture with 80 extra pixels on each side. So when you drop a DV file into this timeline Vegas automatically resizes the footage and centers it. If you go to the clip properties and uncheck "maintain aspect ratio" the picture gets stretched horizontally. Everytime you make a change like this VEGAS resamples and interpolates the footage. In fact it does a really good job of perseving the native aspect ratio of the footage.


Barry please feel free to correct me if I've got my facts wrong.

[John Hudson]

Thanks Jesse for explaining that; and it made sense the way you laid it out. Thank you!

Real quick for Neal

I didn't know the specific aspect numbers on City of Women, or 8 1/2, or Juliet of the Spirits

No. I was telling you; The aspect ratios for these are as follows:

8 1/2 - Shot 1.66 : 1 (DVD is 1.85 : 1)
City of Women - 1.85:1
Juliet of the Spirits - 1.85 : 1

This would explain your comments on your webpage:

"Besides this-- MY letterboxed image looked too tall compared to 4:3 commercial letterboxed movies, and I noticed this when watching Fellini's City of Women. --- His 4:3 letterbox looked a lot more like widescreen than what I was getting..."

Of course it looked taller. Your widescreen footage is 16:9 which is 1:77:1. (I think the DVX100 might actually be 1.72:1)

Is this part resolved or am I still not getting it ?

Also

ON the Page it shows your DVX with a Fish Eye? Is this what we are talking about? Shooting with a Fish Eye? Or..........?

Now what exactly is the benefit to you in this? You shoot Letterbox (Please consider shooting 4:3; now talk about an eye-opener. Really. Free your mind Neal) and then you 'Shrink' your footage and it adds bars on the sides so you can get 80 pixels? I am trying to follow you.

Where was the problem or issue? This is what I am not undertanding? You keep saying Sony/Vegas won't admit it or that they did not know. You're claiming it's an error in the software? Huh? Is it? Or are we just playing with the settings?

Are you shrinking the 720x480 down to 720x436? Can't you just apply a Deeper Letterbox mask over your footage to get the Aspect Ratio you desire? Aren't you distorting the image vertically when you use Square Pixels?

On a liner note:

What is so critical on the 15% area of the sides of the frame that you just gotta have? What are you framing? You don't want to audience looking at the extreme edges of the frame do you? Isn't your subject matter nearer the center and/or rules of thirds?

This is a great debate/conversation; thanks!

[Neil Slade]

AHHHHH No no no!!

The lens is just a picture!! It has nothing to do with this discussion- its just a picture of a DVX- and reminding people there's more than one way to fish.

***

I want to see EVERYTHING I SHOT. TVs and .9091 were cutting off my shots! It does not show what you see in the DVX LCD and viewfinder.

You're being cheated out of 15% or so of your work!

I don't give a rats ass about aspect ratio--- I want to see what I've photographed! If I crop my picture, I'm cutting off even more of my image!!

Image painting a picture-- and when you put the frame on, it cuts off 15% of your work.... !! What do you think Van Gogh or Picasso would say if they framed their paintings this way?

How about writers--- hey, you're sentences are too big for our page!!

How about musicians--- Sorry, your song has to fit between two of our commercials!

This needed a solution. I found it, and everybody else IGNORES IT and accepts the fact that the technology is going to remove 15% off the sides of their work when shown on a TV--- "This movie has been re-engineered to fit your screen".

POO on that!

******
As for shrinking--

That's what you would think-- that you would get THE SAME EFFECT
with 4:3 footage--

and this is what is SO INTERESTING.

You do get a NARROWING, and lengthening of the image-- pillar box--when you apply the 1.0 aspect to regular 4:3 footage.

NOT SO WHEN YOU APPLY TO DVX100 LETTERBOX. A big surprise.
Don't believe me? Go to my web page, I've added square image captures from Vegas, bottom of the page
http://www.neilslade.com/widescreen.html

So, why am I getting so worked up about the edges?

I will repeat politely--

1) when editing, I was missing the corner of boom mike poles, or light kits that needed to be cropped out of a shot. They never showed up on the external monitor I was using, because the monitor chopped off the edges of the frame- like it usually does. That's a problem if you then render for theatrical showing, or show the movie on an LCD widescreen TV which will show closer if not to the very edge. But you can't edit on an LCD screen, because you don't get true colors, etc.

2) I actually had some nice things, right in the edges-- sides of people's faces, objects-- and I shot with WIDESCREEN in mind, not chopped off halfway letterbox that was not a lot different from 4:3. Widescreen IS a LOT wider, and I want to see all of it.

As for shooting 4:3--- the only thing you gain is space on the top and bottom, you don't gain anything on the sides at all. And most of the action, unless you're filming pogo stick contests and skyscrapers, is in the horizontal space anyway- people and objects move side to side for the most part, rather than popping in from the top and bottom.

No, I prefer to see in my camera's LCD and viewfinder what I expect to see on my screen and I expect to see on my TV what I see in my LCD.

[John Hudson]

I understand your thoughts on Aspect Ratio; I just wanted you to be sure what you were seeing when referencing "...Fellini's City of Women and your own 16:9 footage." That it is not an anomaly but 2 different aspect ratios but you are/were implying they are the same. Could you imagine comparing the Academy Ratio with Cinemascope? (I'm in jest again)

---

You are aware you are distorting the image veritically when you do this, aren't you?

I appreciate what you are saying regarding underscan and safe areas but when you output to SQ1 Pixels it distorts the image vertically.

I just sampled the same identical image (From the DVX100) with one at 0.9091 (NTSC DV) and the same image at 1.0000 Square and then magnified 1600% using Photoshop and there is obvious distortion Vertically in the pixels.

Let me Quote you if I may:

"-- I have NO TOLERATION FOR DISTORTION."

But there is distortion.

----

Personally I will still reccomend you give 4:3 a shot and then do all of your cropping in post. Makes for wonder's for adjusting compostion and headroom to say the least. It's a much bigger eye opener than you may realize and they sell overlays that still show you the intended aspect ratio. I have a filmmkaing buddy that showed me the wonders' of letting go of the in-camera letterbox and at first I fought it but then saw the light in post.

As far as Framing in-camera I just do not Frame where the edges reveal anything other than what I intend to be onscreen. I don't know....

I guess I just can't grasp it? I mean, I do. But I do not see the relevance?It's like putting Gel in your hair to keep the wind from messing it up in a convertible when you should just put the top up. Okay bad analogy.