IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

I received a miniDV cassette with two short films which were both 4:3 format. They had been carefully checked as that by the sender.

I played the tape back on a Sony camcorder and found that one of the films appeared letterboxed and stretched (short. fat people).
I played the tape back on a JVC camcorder and they both appeared as 4:3.
I played the tape back on a second, different model Sony camcorder and the same letterbox/stretched image was shown.

Why? Any ideas?


Dave

Its the signal embedded in the tape that tells the playback device what settings to use that is not being interpreted correctly by the Sony's.

I think that it is just a manufacturer incompatibility issue.

We have had issues similar playing back tapes so I'd hazard a guess that it was originally recorded on a Panasonic or JVC camcorder or a HDV unit

That sounds right, Col. It is the first time I have come across the issue in a decade of working with miniDVs from all over the place and subtitling ...

If there is a God I hope she will decide that "standards are standards" and enforce them in future!

Dave

No chance, even my AVCHD files from the Panny 151 are different from the TM900 and different again from the Sony

Col

The aspect ratio problem came about because the introduction on DV tape in 1995 preceded widescreen TVs. DV was 720 x 576 here in PAL land and naturally this was 4:3 as were all the camcorders and TVs. NTSC was 720 x 480.

Then the first widescreen sets started to trickle in and 4 or so years later the first 16:9 DV camcorders started to arrive. Only problem was they used the same DV (or MiniDV) tape and the same 720 x 576 pixels - so each individual pixel was now a tiny horizontal rectangle to stretch the image from 1.33:1 to 1.77:1 (16:9). As Col says, manufacturers couldn't agree on basic 'flagging' standards to describe the aspect ratio of the video file.

High definition hasn't been a whole lot better, but at least now PAL and NTSC use the same pixel displays. Hi-def can be 1280 x 720, 1440 x 1080, 1920 x 1080 and so on.

tom.

Hi Everyone....

Valuable info, that I will now pass on to other affected filmaereos....

Now these vagaries of the Aspect situation is finally explained...Ta!

This 4:3 / 16:9 thingy has bothered me just a feeeew times however,
I "sorted it" by resetting the Aspect ratio both on the TV (monitor)
and projectors on play back - that worked!

As Confucious He say: "always keep your aspect up"!

Chheers....Lee.....

Lee,
I have a 4:3 Monitor and a 16:9 monitor.My 16:9 footage looks ok on the 4:3 but on the 16:9 monitor it seems to have been streatched again.

The same thing on the laptop and when viewed by a non film person, aged 8, I could not explain why his Father's cows were elongated.
Is there a simple explanation?

KR
John C.

John - check the menu on your 16x9 television. There will be settings for 16x9 and 4x3 plus various others with fancy names.

Beware of one called "automatic" - you would think that would set itself to suit whatever you were sending in ... but usually it means "I will distort your picture to fill the screen..."

Dave

Thanks Dave, the Monitor is not a TV and is called Flatron W2246s.
I eventually tracked down a Manual and it said that the best resolution for this screen was 1920 x 1080.
I have always had both screens at the same resolution. Now I have one at 1280x1024 and one at 1920x1080 but my pictures for editing are in the same proportions and not as distracting as before.
Thank you
KR
John C