WIDESCREEN SOLUTION

IAC General Discussions
Post Reply
Ken Wilson

WIDESCREEN SOLUTION

Post by Ken Wilson »

Hi everyone. Just to let all those people know who corresponded re: the widescreen
format problem that it is now solved. You may recall that I shot one of my
new films in widescreen believing it to be recorded as a "letterbox" format,
but found that it was in an anamorphic (squeezed) format instead.
A solution was offered by Tom Hardwick using Premiere "camera view" filters.
This would have involved a 3 hour rendering, bad enough in itself, but would
also have resulted in some distortion down the sides. Tom was very helpful
and at least his tips helped me to find other corrections in Premiere filters.
The solution involved a contact at a video/ film telecine facility house
where I know someone. He put it through an aspect ratio converter, which
has now sorted it out perfectly. I will watch for this in future!
Thought you may like to know. Ken
Dave Watterson

Re: WIDESCREEN SOLUTION

Post by Dave Watterson »

I am pleased that Ken has found a solution (albeit through a professional
facilities house which would probably be very costly if you do not have friends
in the business.)

When will widescreen - or to be more accurate 16x9 - become the norm?

It seems several years back that we were being told that virtually all new
material for tv was being commissioned in 16x9. On satellite tv there is
some such material being screened but most of the time if you want that ratio
you have to use the various stretching devices included in most widescreen
tvs.

When - ideally before - it does should we not look to the main NLE editing
packages to provide built in converters?

I know some, like Albert, much prefer 12x9. Shame because his animation antics
would work very well on the wide screen ... think of some of Saul Bass's
striking title sequences.

Does anyone use any odd ratios? In the AV world the majority of slides are
landscape but now and then someone will do a presentation in portait format
which is the more striking just because it is different. Is there a video
equivalent?

Finally for now ... what is the longest amateur movie to hit the festivals
- or at least to get some sort of screening outside its maker's family?
I have seen several of 90 minutes and one approaching two hours if memory
serves. Any advance?

Dave (Long and Wide) Watterson
AN

Re: WIDESCREEN SOLUTION

Post by AN »

"Dave Watterson" <dave.movies@virgin.net> wrote:
I know some, like Albert, much prefer 12x9. Shame because his animation
antics
would work very well on the wide screen ... think of some of Saul Bass's
striking title sequences.
What is wrong with you guys? Have you no sense of proportion?
My animation never has and will never, EVER, EVER be seen on
wide screen, because it is an artistic abortion.
A passing aberation of the money men.

Saul Bass (and even I !) could design a film to suit 116x4 if we had to,
but that would be a one off.
Saul Bass. poor ol sod, has to follow where the money is in order
to earn a living. I do not.

So for ALL ROUND, universitility of design, 4:3 never has, and never will
be bettered.
Albert.....better off now.

PS
And please, if anyone wishes to argue the case against this then
don't show your ignorance and be rude to me, and accuse me of being
negative.
It has been my efforts these past 2 years that this group has kept
it's good humour and liveliness, so if you wish to be rude go elswhere.
Michael Slowe

Re: WIDESCREEN SOLUTION

Post by Michael Slowe »

"Dave Watterson" <dave.movies@virgin.net> wrote:
I am pleased that Ken has found a solution (albeit through a professional
facilities house which would probably be very costly if you do not have
friends
in the business.)

When will widescreen - or to be more accurate 16x9 - become the norm?

It seems several years back that we were being told that virtually all new
material for tv was being commissioned in 16x9. On satellite tv there is
some such material being screened but most of the time if you want that
ratio
you have to use the various stretching devices included in most widescreen
tvs.

When - ideally before - it does should we not look to the main NLE editing
packages to provide built in converters?

I know some, like Albert, much prefer 12x9. Shame because his animation
antics
would work very well on the wide screen ... think of some of Saul Bass's
striking title sequences.

Does anyone use any odd ratios? In the AV world the majority of slides
are
landscape but now and then someone will do a presentation in portait format
which is the more striking just because it is different. Is there a video
equivalent?

Finally for now ... what is the longest amateur movie to hit the festivals
- or at least to get some sort of screening outside its maker's family?
I have seen several of 90 minutes and one approaching two hours if memory
serves. Any advance?

Dave (Long and Wide) Watterson
I don't know much about the technical details but I do know that at home
I show my films mastered onto Mini DV, through a little Sony player, S Video
into the tuner and the picture on a 16:9 plasma screen looks stunning and
I can't see any image distortion and all the frame appears to be there! Yhere
must be a snag somewhere but it's not apparent.

By the way Albert, it is suggested that our vision adapts more naturally
to the 16:9 aspect rather than 4:3. That may have been put about by the
people selling the format though! Still, the cinema looks good in that aspect.

Michael Slowe.
AN

Re: WIDESCREEN SOLUTION

Post by AN »

"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:
By the way Albert, it is suggested that our vision adapts more naturally
to the 16:9 aspect rather than 4:3. That may have been put about by the
people selling the format though! Still, the cinema looks good in that
aspect.
Well Michael, when I look out at this world the view I see is nearer
to 4:3 than 16:9 (try it for yourself) ......so maybe those who prefer
16:9 suffer from vertical tunnel vision! :-)

Albert....leaving the tunnel.
Ken Wilson

Re: WIDESCREEN SOLUTION

Post by Ken Wilson »

By the way Albert, it is suggested that our vision adapts more naturally
to the 16:9 aspect rather than 4:3. That may have been put about by the
people selling the format though! Still, the cinema looks good in that
aspect.

Well Michael, when I look out at this world the view I see is nearer
to 4:3 than 16:9 (try it for yourself) ......so maybe those who prefer
16:9 suffer from vertical tunnel vision! :-)
If you have only ONE eye, would you need 2x1.5 or 8x4.5?
Cyclopic Ken.
AN

Re: WIDESCREEN SOLUTION

Post by AN »

"Ken Wilson" <@filmlabnorth.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
By the way Albert, it is suggested that our vision adapts more naturally
to the 16:9 aspect rather than 4:3. That may have been put about by the
people selling the format though! Still, the cinema looks good in that
aspect.

Well Michael, when I look out at this world the view I see is nearer
to 4:3 than 16:9 (try it for yourself) ......so maybe those who prefer

16:9 suffer from vertical tunnel vision! :-)

If you have only ONE eye, would you need 2x1.5 or 8x4.5?
Cyclopic Ken.
I remember when I was a student I had an interest in
oil painting.
Being short of cash I always went to the local timber
yard and bought very cheap hardwood offcuts to paint on.
These offcuts as you can imagine, were all shapes and sizes,
some had aspect ratios of 4:1 even!
But I chose my subject to be painted to suit these
varying ratios.

But the medium of film is fixed so a compromise has to be
reached, to suit all types of subjects/views/stories/shots.
Not too tall to the width, and not too short.

A bit like Goldilocks really, "This one is too tall,
this one too short. Ah, this one is just right." So it is quite
beyond my comprehension why anyone, with a good sense of pictorial
composition, should ever wish to go for 16:9.

Albert....going for Pathe pictorial.
Dave Watterson

Re: WIDESCREEN SOLUTION

Post by Dave Watterson »

Aaaaargh ... widescreen wars!

I don't give a damn what ratio a movie is ... what matters is that it is
composed for the ration in which it is shown. I would make everything else
subservient to the meaning of the film.

I accept that we are constrained by the commonly available formats for most
practical purposes.

Perhaps there is also some difference of approach as viewers? Some like to
be immersed in the movie, so widescreen means their peripheral vision is
always included in the scene. Others like to have a "proscenium arch" around
the movie and to view it more like a painting.

Dave (omnimax) Watterson
AN

Re: WIDESCREEN SOLUTION

Post by AN »

"Dave Watterson" <dave.movies@virgin.net> wrote:
Aaaaargh ... widescreen wars!
Where? Just because I feel strongly about good composition doesn't
mean I'm at war, does it?
I don't give a damn what ratio a movie is ... what matters is that it is
composed for the ration in which it is shown. I would make everything else
subservient to the meaning of the film.
I accept that we are constrained by the commonly available formats for most
practical purposes.
We should therefore be constrained by the most useful combined horizontal
and vertical format, shouldn't we? A good all rounder.
Perhaps there is also some difference of approach as viewers? Some like
to
be immersed in the movie, so widescreen means their peripheral vision is
always included in the scene.
I only get immersed in a movie with good script/acting/direction/editing.

See Dave, that wasn't too bad was it?
Certainly not a war was it? I'd call it a light discussion.

Albert......the light brigade.
Post Reply