WIDESCREEN FORMAT

[Ken Wilson]

To all our readers. For once a serious question. At the weekend I shot my
latest film. As it included several landscapes and the scenery was important
to the story, I thought it would be good to shoot it in a widescreen format.

I had done this for a couple of films in the past with my old camera, a Sony
Hi-8 ("Behind the Clouds" and "Spiders Web")and this camera put the usual
black bars (i.e. "letterbox" effect) top and bottom. However, the new Sony
Digital 8 camera doesn`t do this. Although the side-flip-out screen shows
picture with black bars top and bottom, the picture is not recorded like
that. It uses full frame anamorphic / squeeze. In other words, everyone is
tall and thin until it is stretched out again on our widescreen tv. All well
and good, but as many people who will recieve copies of the finished film
will not have a widescreen tv, they are stuck. Also, when projected, say
at a competition or club show, this one will be the wrong format.
I am now going to have to have the image converted to "letterbox" for all
but those with a Widescreen tv. Has anyone else tried this with DV cameras?
I acknowledge that squeezing the image uses all the pixels rather than just
putting bars top and bottom, but I would not have shot it this way had I
realised that the side screen was not accurately depicting what was going
on to the tape. Ken.

[AN]

"Ken Wilson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

To all our readers. For once a serious question. At the weekend I shot my
latest film. As it included several landscapes and the scenery was important
to the story, I thought it would be good to shoot it in a widescreen format.

I had done this for a couple of films in the past with my old camera, a
Sony
Hi-8 ("Behind the Clouds" and "Spiders Web")and this camera put the usual
black bars (i.e. "letterbox" effect) top and bottom. However, the new Sony
Digital 8 camera doesn`t do this. Although the side-flip-out screen shows
picture with black bars top and bottom, the picture is not recorded like
that. It uses full frame anamorphic / squeeze. In other words, everyone
is
tall and thin until it is stretched out again on our widescreen tv. All
well
and good, but as many people who will recieve copies of the finished film
will not have a widescreen tv, they are stuck. Also, when projected, say
at a competition or club show, this one will be the wrong format.
I am now going to have to have the image converted to "letterbox" for all
but those with a Widescreen tv. Has anyone else tried this with DV cameras?
I acknowledge that squeezing the image uses all the pixels rather than just
putting bars top and bottom, but I would not have shot it this way had I
realised that the side screen was not accurately depicting what was going
on to the tape. Ken.

The best man to answer this type of question is probably tom (Harding)
who is on IAC-private-nle-general.
I wouldn't touch wide screen with a bargepole.
Albert.....going down the alimentary canal.

[tom hardwick]

I acknowledge that squeezing the image uses all the pixels rather than just
putting bars top and bottom, but I would not have shot it this way had I
realised that the side screen was not accurately depicting what was going
on to the tape.

It's not as simple as that Ken. Your Sony is not using all the pixels of
the chip, it is in fact putting black bars top and bottom of the chip as
shown on your viewfinder and side screen. The image is being flagged so
that when shown on a TV it fills the TV's 575 horizontal picture lines and
fills the screen from left to right.

This of course makes it look undistorted on the 16:9 set, but the 4:3 set
isn't wide enough, and the picture is horizontally compressed as you've seen.
As the camera is only recording 430 horizontal lines of picture information,
both TV's are interpolating that to fill 576 lines, so you can see that you're
losing 25% of your vertical definition.

If you've bought a 4:3 chipped camcorder (as most of us have) then my advice
is to use it in this mode. The film can then be shown on any TV you care
to mention, and those with widescreen sets can use their TV's remote to stretch
and distort your image any way they like.

But back to your 16:9 footage. You can fix this in post with the Premiere
'camera view' filter. It'll need a lot of rendering, but I've had to do
this for people in the past who have met with the same problem you have.

tom.

[Michael Slowe]

"Ken Wilson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

To all our readers. For once a serious question. At the weekend I shot my
latest film. As it included several landscapes and the scenery was important
to the story, I thought it would be good to shoot it in a widescreen format.

I had done this for a couple of films in the past with my old camera, a
Sony
Hi-8 ("Behind the Clouds" and "Spiders Web")and this camera put the usual
black bars (i.e. "letterbox" effect) top and bottom. However, the new Sony
Digital 8 camera doesn`t do this. Although the side-flip-out screen shows
picture with black bars top and bottom, the picture is not recorded like
that. It uses full frame anamorphic / squeeze. In other words, everyone
is
tall and thin until it is stretched out again on our widescreen tv. All
well
and good, but as many people who will recieve copies of the finished film
will not have a widescreen tv, they are stuck. Also, when projected, say
at a competition or club show, this one will be the wrong format.
I am now going to have to have the image converted to "letterbox" for all
but those with a Widescreen tv. Has anyone else tried this with DV cameras?
I acknowledge that squeezing the image uses all the pixels rather than just
putting bars top and bottom, but I would not have shot it this way had I
realised that the side screen was not accurately depicting what was going
on to the tape. Ken.

Ken and Tom, I have read with interest what you have to say, I am puzzled
because the Media 100 editing system that I use gives us the option to cut
on 16:9 format. Presumably it does have to be shot 16:9 in the first place?

I shoot 4:3 as most do at present but I show at home on a plasma screen in
16:9 from a Sony Mini DV player and it looks stunning, fills the 16:9 screen
and although I look for distortion I can't see any! What does Tom say?
'
By the way Albert it is coming you know, can't stop the tide anymore than
King Canute could.

[AN]

"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:

I shoot 4:3 as most do at present but I show at home on a plasma screen
in
16:9 from a Sony Mini DV player and it looks stunning, fills the 16:9 screen
and although I look for distortion I can't see any! What does Tom say?

By the way Albert it is coming you know, can't stop the tide anymore than
King Canute could.

Michael, if 16:9 was an improvement over 4:3 I would welcome it
with open arms (as I do with all modern technology), even at my age!
But 16:9 is very much a retrograde step artistically speaking,
and I will not repeat my reasons here else Ned will go bananas
hearing the record played once again.
In many years time when artists have their say over the money men
(if that day ever comes???), then we will all be going back to 4:3
and welcoming it with open arms again.
Albert....arms dealer.

[tom hardwick]

I shoot 4:3 as most do at present but I show at home on a plasma screen
in
16:9 from a Sony Mini DV player and it looks stunning, fills the 16:9 screen
and although I look for distortion I can't see any! What does Tom say?

Tom says that there's not been a TV made, plasma, CRT, steam or LCD that
doesn't distort. But this is not what you mean, I know. OK, if you shoot
in 4:3 and show the footage on a 16:9 screen there are many ways of presenting
the image. First you can pillar box it and have a correct (but not screen
filling) 4:3 inage. Then you can simply blow it up to fill the screen, but
you lose the top and botton parts of the image. This image can often be
shifted up or down so you don't lose the sub-titles, say.

All other methods of filling the screen distort the image, and it's very
easy to verify. Simply shoot something like the Audi badge - a series of
circles, in 4:3. When projected and pushed, pulled, squeezed and stretched
to fit a 16:9 screen the elipses are very apparent.

tom.

[Cinema For Thurso Group]

Well "Black bars" eeeuuuuch! Can't abide sudo formats so lucky you have a
video camera with built in anamorphic. However sudo-format may save your
bacon. It shouldn't be a problem for those without widescreen tellies if
they have a TV of the Pre-widescreen generation.
When widescreen was starting to appear on video tapes prior to a TV correctly
formatted for it, the standard TVs of the day accomodated the format of 'wide'
tv by sudo-formatting. On the remote control there would be a key for the
picture format which would flatten and boarder any anamorphic image it recieves.
The following generation of widescreen TV also inherrits these functions.
In video projection it shouldn't make any difference because all you need
to do is apply a 16:9 anamorphic (cine 2x anamorphics and Cinemascope lenses
are wider format) to the lens of the projector and all is corrected. All
our video work is shot in anamorphic formats of either 1.75x or 2x stretch.
I would think competitions can accomodate wide anamorphic images givin that
it been on cine for years. If they do not then perhaps there is another issue
there!
The consideration for your production should not be dictated by technology
but by the story content. Your production demanded wide format for the scenery
and so wide format it should be and nothing less even if that means some
peoples TVs can't handle the image correctly. You'd be amazed at how visually
acceptable an unstretched anamorphic picture can be to the average punter.
Not everyone that watches a film is that decerning or knowledgable enough
to find any worth in comment on the shape of characters on screen. I've seen
audiences sit thru blurred screenings in mainstream cinema- our local cinema
does it all the time. The human eye can be very forgiving. Make your films
in the format that suites your story.

[Ken Wilson]

Just a quick up-date. Tom Hardwick has been very helpful with ideas as to
how to correct the problem in Premiere. After some experimentation and to
and fro-ing with e-mails, it can be sorted albeit with a flaw. The image
is manipulated to (almost) correct it, but the edges are not parallel. By
adjusting the image size and cutting off the edges, it would look normal
to most people, although to purists such as we on this site, there would
be some distortion. I have another avenue to explore and so will keep you
posted.
Thanks again to Tom. Ken.

[AN]

"Cinema For Thurso Group" <canuimagine@btopenworld.com> wrote:

The consideration for your production should not be dictated by technology
but by the story content. Your production demanded wide format for the scenery
and so wide format it should be and nothing less even if that means some
peoples TVs can't handle the image correctly.

So, if we wish to have a format to match our productions which one
would one choose for Fred Dibna's tall chimney demolitions?......
Certainly not 16:9. Probably 9:16 but then there isn't such a
format. This just illustrates once again that for all round
creativity the 4:3 format reigns supreme, whether it be for
filming letter boxes or chimneys.
Albert...chimney sweeping.

[Cinema For Thurso Group]

Well now, I'm not too young that I don't know about Fred (and his long suffering
wife who eventually divorced him)whom my family watched regularly on TV in
the 70s. So it is that I would actually have suggested 4:3 (standard widescreen
as it is known on the apeture plates of Kalee projectors)for his show but
it doesn't change the standing that story content dictates format (although
budget and practicality will have the final say). It would be interesting
to see someone demonstrate how 4:3 reigns supreme in Caithness where the
geography demands no less than 2x anamorphic unless you like lots of sky
and grass in the picture!!! Landscape of the choosen locations can also dominate
the choice of format. Why fill a screen with unnessecary vertical access
when you can go in closer and still retain the horizontal width.
Mind you there is a format for Fred's chimneys- Portrait format- where you
turn the camera on one side to use the horizontal as the vertical instead.
That would be interesting watching a falling chimney going from horizontal
to horizontal as the camera tracks the motion. Probly have the family falling
off the couch, lol. You've gotta laugh!

So, if we wish to have a format to match our productions which one
would one choose for Fred Dibna's tall chimney demolitions?......
Certainly not 16:9. Probably 9:16 but then there isn't such a
format. This just illustrates once again that for all round
creativity the 4:3 format reigns supreme, whether it be for
filming letter boxes or chimneys.
Albert...chimney sweeping.

[Cinema For Thurso Group]

Well I believe distortion begins at the Lens and ends at the TV screen or
projection lens and screen (although I know one cinema where it's simple
incompetance). They are the regretable inherant factors of all photography
whether we like it or not. The question for me is, "is it worth all the effort
to get rid of distortion?"
I think not really, something which is covered by a favourite term, 'plausable
viewing acceptabilty'(though not acceptable in a commercial cinema), i.e.
does the average punter notice or even care?' generally the answer is NO!
We must remember that as movie-makers we are perhaps more decerning about
image quality than anyone would actualy notice on the screen. That's fine
to the extent that our finished works would be of a high quality but what
about telling the story. Too much effort in one direction detracts from another,
the trick is to balance against what the viewers want to see, you want to
see and what the judges want to see if you are entering competition.
I have seen people too pre-occupied with seeking out the highest resolution
video camera for their next project instead of developing the storyline and
honing the characters. Many of the greatest movies ever made have technical
imperfection. Ben Hur comes to mind- ever seen any still of the wide-angle
shots, quiet a bit of soft edge on those periferals but it's still an epic.
There are ways of compensating for these problems rightly enough so do what
you have to do people but remember the audience may not care that much.