4:3 SD video going to Bride with 50" HDTV....what to do?

[Superfly]

Added by WVDR:
4:3 SD video going to Bride with 50" HDTV....what to do?

Hey folks,

Should I leave it 4:3 or should I crop it to 16;9 so it fits?  I can take the shots that utilize the top section that would normally be cropped and move them down in post and cut off the bottom?

Only think about this is that it removes 1/3 of the resolution. 

This is why there will be no more 4:3 shoots for me and I'm dumping off those SD cams while I can still get a few bucks for them.

Cheers,

Todd.

[kwshaw1]

Todd: leave it as 4:3; cropping now will just make the image quality worse. Congrats for figuring out why 4:3 cameras are effectively obsolete, and planning to sell them while someone else still wants them. :-)

[Superfly]

Yes Hank,

I think you folks can live with your cameras that use the Squeeze method to do 16:9 but unfortunately I bought the 1st version of the DVX100 which used a crop method so it is a real pain to make them both work in the timeline in Premiere.

I'm glad to be moving on to HD so I can always offer a future upgrade ($500).

Now I guess I have to start editing in HDV or I'll have to re-edit when that time comes.  Also, next question I have to answer is when to go to 24f/p?  That can come later.

TR

[kwshaw1]

Also, next question I have to answer is when to go to 24f/p?  That can come later.

I'm skeptical of trying to shoot 24 fps for weddings when that creates a significant risk of motion artifacts in "run and gun" situations. Movie makers can control their camera and scene movements to minimize this issue when shooting on film; we don't have that luxury in live situations. And personally I think the whole emphasis on 24 fps shooting is silly, but apparently a lot of people feel it adds a desirable look to motion pictures.

[osbornes5]

I'm skeptical of trying to shoot 24 fps for weddings when that creates a significant risk of motion artifacts in "run and gun" situations.

Kevin has understated this I think (He must be off his game a bit because he is not known for understatements  ) He is totally correct. There is almost no way you wouldn't see some of this before the whole shoot has come to an end. In fact you could see it quite a bit. You might be able to get away with it during the ceremony while the bride and groom are relatively still but there are so many other places it would not be worth the risk. Places like the exits, dancing, garter/bouquet toss, etc. Even the bride and groom simply moving to light the unity candle is a possibility if the videographer doesn't do it right. I think a skilled videographer can lessen this with proper camera handling techniques but I just don't see how you can eliminate it entirely for the course of the whole shoot. Let me qualify that: I don't think I can anyway. Maybe someone like the Von Lankens of eventDV fame and from right here in Tulsa...but not me.

[HankCastello]

I'm skeptical of trying to shoot 24 fps for weddings when that creates a significant risk of motion artifacts in "run and gun" situations. Movie makers can control their camera and scene movements to minimize this issue when shooting on film;

Actually, movie makers don't have to worry about it.  On film, which is analog, motion goes to a blur which blends the movement frame to frame, quite naturally.  On video though, Kevin is right - instead of blur we get artifacts.   I don't know how much of an issue it would be with just about a 20% reduction in fps, but I think that the "p" issue (progressive vs interlaced) would tend to make the problem even more pronounced, since interlacing is actually one way of "blurring" (so to speak) the motion frame to frame.

[kwshaw1]

(He must be off his game a bit because he is not known for understatements  )

I'm trying to be more diplomatic lately, so thanks for noticing.   :-)

My real feeling about the emphasis on 24 fps is that it's nonsense, because (a) movement in real life doesn't happen in 1/24 second increments, and (b) I heard somewhere that content matters more than technical considerations. I appreciate the notion that 24 fps adds a certain artistic look which some people like, but to me it just looks jerky. Give me 60 fps any day, either interlaced or progressive.

[kwshaw1]

Actually, movie makers don't have to worry about it.  On film, which is analog, motion goes to a blur which blends the movement frame to frame, quite naturally. 

On the contrary, everything including shutter speed has to be carefully controlled to get a smooth motion look on film at 24 fps, and even then you can see issues in some scenes of the most expensive motion pictures. And you can blur motion in digital video with low shutter speeds much like you can do on film, but then that creates additional problems for 'run and gun' shooting.

[Sly Ry]

Added by WVDR:
4:3 SD video going to Bride with 50" HDTV....what to do?

Should I leave it 4:3 or should I crop it to 16;9 so it fits?  I can take the shots that utilize the top section that would normally be cropped and move them down in post and cut off the bottom?

Hey Todd,

I would leave it 4:3 but if you must give it the 16:9 look, try to find a widescreen generator that you can place on the top of the timeline instead of a filter to render a clip widescreen.  On FCP I use a plugin from Eureka #5 called "RT Widescreen" (http://www.kafwang.com/EUREKA/EurekaMain.html).  It shouldn't remove any resolution since you aren't actually converting the clip but placing a widescreen matte over it.  Then all you need to do is move the clip up or down to have your clip in the best position.  I'm sure theres something similar you can find for Premiere.

[kwshaw1]

It shouldn't remove any resolution since you aren't actually converting the clip but placing a widescreen matte over it. 

But If you're saying to crop the clip from 4:3 down to 16:9 that will remove useful resolution in the vertical direction, resulting in something which won't fill either a 4:3 or 16:9 screen without expanding it. At least with a 4:3 clip you can play that on an HDTV in "stretch" mode and many viewers are used to doing that, plus it's faithful to the original data recorded by the camera. Cropping is what not to do in this situation: it gains nothing and loses something.

[Sly Ry]

I'm not saying crop the clip. I'm saying place a Widescreen Generator (basically a clip of black bars) above the the clip in the timeline. The original clip is still 4:3 and nothing has changed. The generator gives the illusion of actual 16:9 and is stagnant.  The original clip which would be below it and the only adjustment you would need to make is to move the clip up and down to position the clip appropriately.

Here's what the generator would look like:

http://www.kafwang.com/eureka/Images/rtwidescreen.gif

It's not a filter that would change the original clip. The generator is an actual clip in itself and can be placed over any video to give the 16:9 look.  It's not true 16:9, I know that, but it is the 16:9 "look" I was implying in my previous post.

[kwshaw1]

I'm not saying crop the clip. I'm saying place a Widescreen Generator (basically a clip of black bars) above the the clip in the timeline. The original clip is still 4:3 and nothing has changed.

So the end result is a 4:3 clip with black bars on the top and bottom which would display with a border all the way around on an HDTV, right? If you're going to do that you might as well crop the clip to a proper widescreen image, but either way you're losing something when playing it back. There's just no good way to get decent widescreen output from 4:3 source footage, which is the best reason to upgrade to HD (widescreen) cameras regardless of any other considerations.

[Sly Ry]

So the end result is a 4:3 clip with black bars on the top and bottom which would display with a border all the way around on an HDTV, right? If you're going to do that you might as well crop the clip to a proper widescreen image, but either way you're losing something when playing it back.

I see what your saying and yes, whether or not you crop the clip or place a widescreen clip over the actual footage you will definitely lose something once you expand it.  There's just no way around that with a DV clip.  It won't take full advantage of what can be displayed on an HDTV.

However, I would disagree about cropping the clip instead because you would have no control.  If you have a 4:3 clip and the head of a person is visible, it won't be once you crop it to a proper widescreen image.  With a use of widescreen generator above the source clip you could adjust the position of the clip so the head is still visible.  You could also do this with a widescreen filter/matte but that would render much longer because you are actually configuring the source clip itself.

There's just no good way to get decent widescreen output from 4:3 source footage, which is the best reason to upgrade to HD (widescreen) cameras regardless of any other considerations.

I absolutely agree.

[Superfly]

I have done what Sly is talking about.  You don't lose any resolution, you just put black bars on the top and bottom of the clip.  Then when you use your "wide zoom" on your HDTV it fills the whole screen.  You are not really reducing the res but you are losing the top and bottom of the image that would make it "fat" anyway.

Trust me guys, brides don't like to look fat (wide).

Here is what I am going to do.  I am going to edit in 4:3 trying my best to keep everything within where these bars would go.  I believe I became conscious of this issue early on in the shoot.

This way, the bride can choose whether to zoom or watch 4:3 wide.

BY THE WAY.....I HAVE NEVER ONCE PRODUCED A PRODUCT USING 24P ON MY PANASONIC.  I bought the Panny because I preferred the image quality overall, not for the 24P.

I've always thought that if one produced an Indie film that garnered real interest that the film company could do a better job converting it from 60i than the camera could anyway and I have had this confirmed by many.

Have a great one and thanks for the thoughts!

Bring em on!

Todd

[kwshaw1]

However, I would disagree about cropping the clip instead because you would have no control.  If you have a 4:3 clip and the head of a person is visible, it won't be once you crop it to a proper widescreen image.  With a use of widescreen generator above the source clip you could adjust the position of the clip so the head is still visible.  You could also do this with a widescreen filter/matte but that would render much longer because you are actually configuring the source clip itself.

The purpose of cropping the clip instead of matting would be to make it into a proper widescreen image, which would fill an HDTV screen without the user having to do anything (provided they have their DVD player set right for widescreen movies).  Good point about needing to control the cropping to account for content considerations, but depending on your software that's no harder than framing a matte.  In Edius you can use the "Layout" tool to crop 4:3 footage to widescreen output with the ability to frame the shot vertically as needed, and there's no rendering required for DV projects since this is a real-time filter.

Just to be clear here, you do lose vertical detail when you matte a 4:3 clip to a widescreen image ratio, whether or not you render that to a widescreen clip when you're done.  A 4:3 clip has 480 lines of image information from top to bottom, while a matted clip only has 360 lines of detail (plus 120 lines of blank matting).  If you then play such a clip on an HDTV in "zoom" mode, those 360 lines of detail have to be expanded to fill all 720 or 1080 lines of the display.  But if you keep the clip in its original 4:3 form there are still 480 vertical lines of detail which will look a littel clearer when played on an HDTV, and the user can choose whether to play that in 4:3 or widescreen format.

If you really want widescreen output from a 4:3 camera, try switching the camera to the "widescreen" recording mode before the shoot. Most DV cameras lose some resolving power in this mode and your viewfinder image will look squished horizontally, but you'll end up with a proper widescreen image when you're done which won't need matting or cropping to make a widescreen DVD.  You'll probably have to tell your editing software to stretch the clips out horizontally to get them back to proper image ratio, but that shouldn't be any harder than matting or cropping.