What format is better to shoot in?
0 Kudo
4:3 or 16:9?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 paul51484 |
4:3 or 16:9? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 2290 (05/15/08 19:15:28) Action Hero |
|
||
|
micah9 |
|||
|
Posts: 915 (05/15/08 20:23:28) Screen Fighter |
the end result it more cinematic in the 16:9 ratio, but that isn't really the question.
the real issue to concern yourself with is letterboxed 16:9 vs squeezed 16:9 (if your camera has both options). I think the gist behind squeezed 16:9 is that it makes fuller use of available pixels, as opposed to simply cutting off pixels with a letterbox matte. Now, how much of a visual difference does it make? I don't know. But i'll tell you what I liked to do (real clever-like) when i was shooting primarily standard def. Instead of shooting in letterbox 16:9, I preffered to shoot 4:3 and do the letter-boxing in post. FCP has great letterbox matte controls and I'm still convinced most big editing programs must have this feature because it's so obvious and simple. The alternative is simply creating a sequence with the 4:3 video's width, but adusted height to be 16:9 aspect ratio. Then you can simply drop your 4:3 video on the sequence, and the top and bottom will be cropped off. Clip by clip, you can drag the video up or down within the final frame to masterfully choose your composition. Anyway, when I started out filmmaking I was notorious for capturing rogue extension cords and water bottles in my frame (accidentally). If I was shooting 16:9, I'd be stuck with them. But if they are near the bottom of a 4:3 frame, I can crop them out. Also, once your letterbox mattes are set, you can move the image up or down to choose the specific compostion of the frame. Too much floor, pull the image down. Too much headroom, pull the image up. You get to choose what get gets crops out more, bottom or top. Or. (muhehe). You want a smooth subtle pedestal-like motion in the clip. Start with the video offset low and end the clip with it offest high. The only thing tricky about this method is you have to be very vigilant when shooting, keeping in mind that you will be cropping the image, so you have to go slightly wider with your composition. Likewise, I want to shoot something in 1080, and edit it in a 16:9 standard definition sequence, so i can do big crazy 2-d artificial cameramovent in post. For instance zooming into a fight in post without losing resolution then following specific fists or moves with pinpoint accuracy. |
||
|
stuntpeople |
|||
|
Posts: 6754 (05/15/08 23:06:37) Administrator |
After doing Contour in 4:3 and then cropping, I'll never do it for a feature again.
The reason: I JUST found this out a week ago. Most cable/television companies won't touch the film. They can't crop a CROPPED 4:3 to fullscreen for cable TV. They'd end up blowing the image up to a pixelated mess that can't go on any station. Distributors won't like it if they can't sell your film to cable (as was the case for Contour apparently). If you plan on making money, I'd shoot 16:9 native. We shot ourselves in the foot and didn't know until last week. Blasted.
Eric Jacobus
The Stunt People |
||
 saberdjedi |
|||
|
Posts: 2517 (05/16/08 00:51:19) Action Superstar! |
I realize cropping/pan and scanning Contour would be iffy, but what about just showing it letterboxed as it should be seen. Is it just an unwritten rule that
cable tv does not accept letterboxed films.
Derek
The Breakfast Machine |
||
|
stuntpeople |
|||
|
Posts: 6756 (05/16/08 02:28:39) Administrator |
"what about just showing it letterboxed as it should be seen."
Even Sopranos on HBO is cropped. They'd never afford better treatment to something like Contour.
Eric Jacobus
The Stunt People |
||
|
Leo |
|||
|
Posts: 231 (05/16/08 04:11:54) Extra |
Since picking up a dvx for the first time I have not once shot in 4:3 anymore. The world is more beautiful in widescreen anyways.
|
||
|
Rising Tiger |
|||
|
Posts: 353 (05/16/08 09:12:50) Fall Guy |
I'm still shooting with my old Canon ZR70MC. Almost all of the short movies I did when first starting out (2004 - 2006) were all 4:3. I just (accidentally)
happened to find that my camera had the ability to shoot in 16:9 non-letterbox format. Once I take it into my video editor (Magix Movie Edit Pro) I just change
the aspect ratio from 4:3 to 16:9 (or vice versa...I can't remember) and I can finally add the letterbox matte. I tried cropping 4:3 videos before with the
letterbox matte, but for some reason it just didn't feel right to me. When I first used a DVX100, I remember being surprised to find out that the 16:9
format was simply letter boxing the picture. I was actually a bit disappointed by that and wanted to go back to my old camera.
|
||
|
slinky |
Hello | ||
|
Posts: 1499 (05/16/08 11:04:24) Sidekick |
Blu-ray be real nice 1920 x 1080. Looks nice on my tv. To bad so expensive right now.
 16:9 is much better for me since i use a hdtv 1080p.
Last Edited By: slinky
05/16/08 11:30:37.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
micah9 |
|||
|
Posts: 918 (05/16/08 18:18:17) Screen Fighter |
well, i gotta kaotao to Eric's observations then if you're planning to distribute. It is a good point. My mentioned experience was only on shorts and
filmfest stuff, no distributed works. Though I wonder if applying the mattes yourself and having the available non-matted version would work for some
distributors beats me.
Now that I'm selling license to natively 16:9 dogs, I have to either do a pan-and-scan into 4:3 myself or accept a non-pan-and-scan crop for the distributors. I'll hopefully have time to do the pan and scan myself.
Last Edited By: micah9
05/16/08 18:21:26.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
stuntpeople |
|||
|
Posts: 6759 (05/16/08 18:42:11) Administrator |
I don't even think our distributor knew about the matte limits. Had they known, they would've asked for it when I sent them all the materials. I
could've EASILY made a 4:3 version of Contour. Grr...
Eric Jacobus
The Stunt People |
||
|
Masterkiller67 |
|||
|
Posts: 1685 (05/16/08 22:04:22) Action Hero |
FUCK! That is SO depressing!!!!!! 0_0
You can't like...resubmit your work in the cleaner original 4:3?
Last Edited By: Masterkiller67
05/16/08 22:06:58.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Leo |
|||
|
Posts: 232 (05/16/08 23:08:52) Extra |
Or start our own TV broadcasting company for indie action, the Stunt People and Team Internet...
|
||
|
Leo |
|||
|
Posts: 233 (05/16/08 23:10:44) Extra |
oh, and get Chuck Norris to sponsor it.
|
||
|
stuntpeople |
|||
|
Posts: 6761 (05/17/08 00:15:05) Administrator |
If I want to resubmit the work, I'll have to rent the digibeta deck ($750 per day plus about 4 hours of work on my part) and the DVCAM deck ($250 per day,
plus another 4 hours of work) plus the cost of tapes (around $80). Using that equipment is nerve wrecking. I'll seriously consider it though.
Eric Jacobus
The Stunt People |
||
|
Masterkiller67 |
BAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! | ||
|
Posts: 1686 (05/17/08 01:37:37) Action Hero |
YESSS!!! INDEPENDENT SPIRIT FTW!!!!
|
||
|
sifusocky |
|||
|
Posts: 525 (05/17/08 03:06:47) Screen Fighter |
I think it would definitely be worth considering Eric... I mean at the moment with the DVDs, you're only reaching the sort of people who buy indie martial
arts DVDs, if you know what I mean. Getting your stuff on Cable will be an amazing way to reach people who never even realised they liked this sort of thing.
~Mike
Reckless Ninja Squad (my stunt team) - http://ninjasquad.wayofthesocky.co.uk Way of the Socky (kung fu movie reviews) - http://www.wayofthesocky.co.uk |
||
|
RobP |
|||
|
Posts: 229 (05/17/08 06:45:19) Extra |
That sucks about Contour, but back to Paul's question. Stick with 16:9.
I find 16:9 just gives a much better cinematic look and feel to films regardless of the quality of your camera. My films for example have all been shot on a Sony Handy-Cam in 16:9 mode. For some reason (my knowledge of cameras is still a bit short) the resolution at which the captured footage comes out as is 720x576 (and it doesn't take a maths degree to do the division and see that that's not 16:9). I guess it has some nice little stretching effect to it since I've never had a problem getting things to look right in 16:9. I really would like to get a higher resolution camera though. As far as cropping goes, it seems like a silly idea to me. As long as you take care not to get boom-mics, cables or whatever in frame I'd question why anybody would do this (then again I'm still fairly new to filming). With my 16:9 footage though, I use padding to create letterbox versions of my stuff for YouTube... and I really love the look of that. For the next thing I film I think I might actually film in 16:9 but then crop it to have small black bars... I just feel it gives the film a bit more of an authentic cinematic look... but then again if I had the money I'm sure lighting techs and crap like that would make the film look more cinematic too. ...anyway, GO 16:9! |
||
|
RobP |
|||
|
Posts: 231 (05/17/08 06:48:42) Extra |
Hmmmmmmmm, reading back over that I guess you may have only meant what's better to shoot in and not what's better to PRESENT it in...
...I'd still go 16:9 for shooting just to overcome the problems people have expressed here and because I think it'd be a pain in the ass to make sure all your heights are adjusted correctly so you don't crop anything important out. |
||
|
pete |
|||
|
Posts: 2292 (05/17/08 17:53:24) DONDE ESTA MI ELEPHANTE!?!?!?" |
depends on the type of lens you have and the native format with your camera. I don't think things look better just because they're longer or cropped
from top and bottom. major films were all square until TV became furniture, and I've seen a lot of youtube movies that were just unwatchable because the
camera had to be so much further from the actor with the home-made letterbox. whichever size is easier for you to shoot in and to compose should be your
biggest concern. it also depends on what type of action you're looking for. if the movement is traveling cross the frame, then a shorter, wider lens and
wide screen could be very cool, but if it's front and back, then a deeper lens with a square ratio is better...etc. etc.
professional cinematographers all still have wildly different opinions on the formats - anamorphic vs. super 35 vs. traditional widescreen, and such. my personal belief is that, if you don't get to choose your equipment, eg. you're using just one camera, then adapt to the native format of the camera, and show what you can do with it. |
||
|
Leo |
|||
|
Posts: 235 (05/17/08 18:20:48) Extra |
Yes.
Also, I tend to notice what aspect ratio professional movies are in lately and see why they work or not, if a wider cropping would have been better, etc... American Hollywood movies are usually all 2.35:1, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Pirates, Batman Begins, Bourne, etc... And I love the cinematic aspect, but I agree it's not the best way to present your footage if it's only going to be on youtube eventually. So, depends on the purpose of your videos and where they're going. For my next big project, I'm shooting at 16:9 and then cropping to 1.85:1 (though 16:9 and 1.85:1 are extremely close already, I just want to be perfect). This is because Pan's Labyrinth, Brotherhood of the Wolf, and City of Violence are all shot at 1.85:1. My project has the fairy tale quality of Pan's Labyrinth, the aesthetics sense of Brotherhood and the action style of City of Violence. Thus, because I'm so inspired by those movies and I love the way they do things, choosing 1.85:1 is perfect. All in all, I think watch professional movies and see what you're inspired by, why the cinematography works, etc... Then emulate that to develop your own style. Plus keep in mind where the work is going to end up. Then you're all set. Edit: Wow, Paul, I didn't realize you were the topic creator! hahah. Obviously the big project is Red.
Last Edited By: Leo
05/17/08 18:23:16.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
RobP |
|||
|
Posts: 233 (05/17/08 23:00:47) Extra |
Hmmmm, sorry to be slightly off topic but readiing your last post there, Leo, I think I might have to make the project I'm currently working on 1:85:1.
It's a script written by a friend of mine which is meant to come out looking highly stylized. We're looking to have the cinematography and action look
like City of Violence.
|
||
