FORUMS: list search recent posts

shooting for both 4:3 and 16:9 in SD... solutions?

COW Forums : Broadcasting

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
jason levy
shooting for both 4:3 and 16:9 in SD... solutions?
on Oct 13, 2005 at 3:39:10 pm

Hi

We have a show that will be delivered to two different broadcasters. It will be shot in SD. One wants 16:9 anamorphic the other wants 4:3. I wonder if others have dealt with this situation and what workflow might be in use.

A few issues. Overall I am trying to resist doing the two different versions for obvious reasons; I'd rather just do the one 4:3 version.

But if i have to i wonder if it is feasible to shoot 4:3 and then crop for the 16:9 version.. it is supposed to be anamorphic so I'd have to stretch the image.. Not ideal .. but I wonder if anyone is doing that and what the results are like.

Or we originate in sd 16:9 anamorphic.. then blow it up for the 4:3 version.. that sounds terrible to me.


Any other scenarios? Any other tips or pointers?

We are onlining on a decklink extreme system and mastering to Digibeta via SDI.

Thanks,

jason


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: shooting for both 4:3 and 16:9 in SD... solutions?
on Oct 13, 2005 at 5:10:31 pm

Well, guess what? It all comes down to how deep your pockets are.

Remember, if you shoot 16x9, you'll want to use the entire frame... and for good reason: it's there, and it would look goofy if all the action on a 16x9 screen took place in the center. The result: you're going to have to pan & scan to get your action into an acceptable 4x3 version; I don't see any good way around it.

If it were my project, I'd do the following, in order of preference.

1) Shoot on High-Def (real hi-def, not that HDV stuff), edit on hi-def, deliver a 16x9 anamorphic Digibeta version, and pan & scan to do the 4x3 digibeta version.

2) Shoot on digibeta anamorphic 16x9, edit that way, then pan & scan to make the 4x3 version. Since your vertical resolution won't change, all you'd have to do is pan the picture left & right to accommodate the action.

3) Shoot on HDV, edit on HDV, deliver a 16x9 anamorphic digibeta version and pan & scan to do the 4x3 digibeta version. I'm not sold on HDV... especially if you have any effects work to do. You run the risk of having an okay-looking first-generation picture turn to garbage in a hurry.

4) 16x9 DV? Please, let's be realistic.

Well, those are my thoughts. Anyone else?


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: shooting for both 4:3 and 16:9 in SD... solutions?
on Oct 13, 2005 at 5:14:54 pm

Oh, I forgot to mention: you say you'll shoot SD. I presume that means 16x9 anamorphic SD. If I had to deliver both 16x9 AND 4x3 versions, I wouldn't do it any other way.


Return to posts index


jason levy
Re: shooting for both 4:3 and 16:9 in SD... solutions?
on Oct 13, 2005 at 5:35:25 pm

Thanks Dave,

Yes we will shoot SD, No budget for HD. Ok clearly it is better to shot in 16:9 anamorphic but to scan it down to 4:3 one is losing data because of the cropping.. therefor you end up with a 4:3 version that is of less definition than if one had originated in 4:3.. but is it of acceptable quality? how much worse can it be? Is this something that people are doing much?

Basically I'm not sure that the broadcaster who will get the 4:3 will accept a picture that is of lower definition. Guess I have to ask them.

Thanks for the input.

Jason


Return to posts index

Dave LaRonde
Re: shooting for both 4:3 and 16:9 in SD... solutions?
on Oct 13, 2005 at 6:15:36 pm

Well, think about this: you will lose NO vertical resolution, which is good. Now for the horizontal resolution.

The only difference between anamorphic 16x9 and 4x3 is the pixel aspect ratio. At 4x3, the pixels are a bit tall and skinny. At 16x9, the software makes them a little wider. Now, a 4x3 ratio and a 12x9 ratio are exactly the same thing, right? All I did was multiply by 3.... but now we can compare apples to apples. If you make a 16x9 ratio into a 12x9 ratio, you're losing 4 units of horizontal pixels... or 25% of them.

So... instead of a 720x486 field of tall & skinny pixels, your 4x3 pan & scan version will contain a field of 540x486 field of pixels that are a bit wider. Feel better now?

Besides, if you're intent on shooting in a standard-definition format like digibeta to get 16x9 -- and you MUST shoot 16x9 -- you don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter, do you?


Return to posts index

jason levy
Re: shooting for both 4:3 and 16:9 in SD... solutions?
on Oct 13, 2005 at 6:33:17 pm

No not much choice.. Thanks for that analysis of the resolution difference. Have you every done a show like that?

For us I guess we'd have to do the pan and scan in FCP or aftereffects. I guess that's two to three days work per half hour...

would love to wiggle out of it but we'll see.

Thanks for the help.

Jason


Return to posts index


Dave LaRonde
Re: shooting for both 4:3 and 16:9 in SD... solutions?
on Oct 13, 2005 at 7:32:37 pm

I don't make programs... I make promos. The closest I got was converting a 4x3 spot to a 16x9 spot.

The solution: reposition the 4x3 spot to the edge of the 16x9 raster, and add a graphics panel on one side. We tried blowing up the 4x3 to fit the 16x9 raster side-to-side just to show the boss that "Yeah, we can do it, but it won't look good"... butt ugly! All sorts of field issues, too.

A word of warning: make sure you clean off the drives before you do this. FCP will be renderin' like crazy on on the 4x3 pan & scan, and you don't want to run out of storage. Maybe you'll get lucky and you can keep the 16x9 centered for the most part, but I wouldn't count on it.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]