16:9 or 4:3?

[Jason Simpkins]

I have only done video in 4:3. This video will be on a 16:9 screen when finished. My question is do I shoot it in 4:3 and then set Vegas for 16:9 or shoot it in 16:9 and then set vegas for 16:9 also. This video will be shown at multiple events and there is a possibility it will not be shown on widescreens at some point. Would this cause a problem?

Thanks, Jason

[Randy Boose]

I have wondered the same thing. Seems to me that televisions now will be made in 16:9, is there really any reason to continue to shoot in 4:3?

[Jason Simpkins]

I don't see a reason to shoot in 4:3. It's all I have done though. I know I can shoot in 4:3 and have the widescreen stretch the video. BUT, what if I have a 16:9 video that needs to be played on a 4:3 what happens then? I wonder if it fits.

I have videos that get played in both formats.

[John Rofrano]

ALWAYS shoot in 16:9. If you shoot in 4:3 there is no way to get 16:9 without stretching which looks horrible because everyone is fat, or cropping which looses vertical resolution. It’s a lose / lose scenario. I always shoot in 16:9 and render in 16:9. I also shoot with my 4:3 framing markers on so I am aware of what my shot will look like in 4:3 even though I’m shooting 16:9 (not sure if your camera has these, my Sony HVR-Z1U does). If you need to make a 4:3 copy you just add a 4:3 crop and you’re done. It is much easier to remove information (i.e., crop 16:9 to 4:3) than to create information that doesn’t exist (i.e., make 4:3 into 16:9)

I never render 4:3 anymore. If someone has a 4:3 TV they get black bars on the top and bottom like every Hollywood DVD that you buy. This is a reminder for them to get a 16:9 TV to view my work as it was meant to be watched. ;-)

~jr

[Jarrod Whaley]

Originally Posted by John Rofrano

This is a reminder for them to get a 16:9 TV to view my work as it was meant to be watched. ;-)

Ahhh, half the people with 16:9 TV's are probably watching 16:9 stuff with their TV's in 4:3 mode, stretched-out with letterbox and everything. I can't get over how many people will sit there and just watch stretched-out video for hours and hours and never even care. Soon enough people will begin associating the "stretched look" with "quality" (because if it's on my $5000 display, it has to be good quality, right?) and will be disappointed when they see a properly displayed image. No one should be able to buy a new TV until they can demonstrate that they know their squares from their rectangles. While we're testing them for basic spatial recognition skills, we should probably also make sure they understand that when driving, the little "up-and-down" pedal under their right foot makes the car go.

[/rant]

[John Rofrano]

Originally Posted by Jarrod Whaley

I can't get over how many people will sit there and just watch stretched-out video for hours and hours and never even care.

Actually, this is not their fault. I’m convinced that is no way to properly watch 4:3 broadcast footage on a 16:9 TV. I just bought an HDTV last week and I had a rude awakening. I tried to set my TV up so that it displayed 4:3 in the middle of the screen at 16:9 full screen. Much to my surprise this doesn’t work. I thought the 16:9 footage that was letterboxed on my 4:3 TV would now display fullscreen. Unfortunately, it displays as letterboxed 16:9 footage in 4:3 mode!!! So it’s a tiny postage stamp in the middle of my big HDTV screen!!! Apparently the letterbox is burned into the 4:3 broadcast signal. (this is not true for DVD’s just broadcast). So I watch all of my 4:3 broadcast TV stretched so that the letterboxed 16:9 footage is at least bigger. People do look fatter but at least I’m using all the pixels I paid for. ;-)

BTW, this is not the case for HD channels. They correctly display 4:3 cropped and 16:9 full screen. It’s just the SD channels that are all messed up. So setting the TV to 16:9 mode and watching it stretched is the only option for SD broadcast. (Unless someone can tell me the magic incantation to make this stuff work properly)

~jr

[Jarrod Whaley]

I hear what you're saying John, but if it were me, I'd be flipping back and forth between the two depending on which one worked best for whatever I was watching. I can understand that seeming like a pain, but whenever I see that squished video stuff going on, I just want to gouge my eyes out with my thumbs. :)

[Seth Bloombaum]

Being the good nephew than I am, I found that proper display of 4:3 on my aunt's 16:9 set had to do with settings in her cable box, not her new TV.

Check out menus/settings in the cable box, if you have one.

[Steven Bills]

16:9. Always.

[John Rofrano]

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

Check out menus/settings in the cable box, if you have one.

I think you missed my point. I did change the setting on my cable box to make 4:3 display correctly. Then much to my surprise programs that were letterboxed on my 4:3 TV were STILL letterboxed on my HDTV within the 4:3 area so they were a little 16:9 postage stamp in the middle of my HDTV. I guess the letterboxing is burned in at the station. That is totally unacceptable so now I watch everything stretched so that the 16:9 letterboxed programming fills the screen better.

~jr

[Richard Zlamany]

That is one of the reasons I am not a fan of 16:9 sets regardless of what stores are selling. I don't want people's faces stretched just so I can use all of the screen. When I walk into s a store and see this me and my girlfriend laugh saying how our HD 4:3 set looks better.

Since our 4:3 is big it displays 16:9 great, so we feel we do have a 16:9 set except it doesn't have the stretching. We feel a big 4:3 set is the best of both worlds.

The only odd thing is our set is HD and 4:3 when usually HD sets are 16:9.

[Terry Esslinger]

Originally Posted by Richard Zlam

The only odd thing is our set is HD and 4:3 when usually HD sets are 16:9.

I'm a little confused. I thought the HD standard included the 16:9 format. An HD 4:3 set?

[Terry Esslinger]

Originally Posted by John Rofrano

ALWAYS shoot in 16:9.

John, I assume you mean that if your camera shoots true 16:9 (ie 16:9 chips) rather than the pseudo 16:9 that my camera (PD150) uses.

[Jarrod Whaley]

Originally Posted by Steven Bills

16:9. Always.

I wouldn't say always. If you're shooting for broadcast TV in the US, for example, 4:3 might be best as most broadcasts are still in 4:3. If you shoot anamorphic 16:9 in DV and then crop it, you're throwing out resolution.

In the end, the choice to shoot 16:9 or 4:3 depends on the intended distribution medium, and the choice should be made on a case-by-case basis. Also, as Terry points out, it's usually a bad idea to shoot 16:9 with a camera that doesn't handle it natively--and that would be the VAST majority of SD cameras, whether pro, consumer, or prosumer.

It wouldn't be unheard of for someone to want to shoot 4:3 for aesthetic reasons, either. :)

[Steven Bills]

Well, I have an HD camera, and it shoots native 16:9 anyways. BUT: I always preserve the 4:3 by framing it correctly.

SB