Shot 4x3, Output 16x9?

I know that 4x3 footage can be matted to give it the appearance of 16x9 (or whatever), but is there actually a way to trim the footage so that it is actually 16x9?

The reason I ask is that letterboxed stuff that is played on the newer TVs (that are widescreen) show up inside a black margin all the way around because the TV treats it like it is 4x3 instead of 16x9.

So, I suppose that's a different solution... Is there some sort of coding that will letterbox on a 4x3 television, but be treated like widescreen on the newer TVs?

Thanks.

Mike

the only way i know to achieve this is to work in an anamorphic project and just scale your 4:3 footage to horizontally fill the 16:9 width. you'll likely see some degradation from scaling, but it will get you what youre looking for

I'm amazed this isn't a feature built into FCP since most people I know still like to capture at 4x3, even if they're doing a widescreen project.

Well, it SERIOUSLY degrades the image. I mean, you are blowwing up the image by 10-25%. That really makes your footage look bad, expecially if you are working with DV.

I have pushed in up to 10%...that being the maximum...using digibeta footage at full resolution, so that I could hide boom mics or light or flag. I'd NEVER go beyond that...and 10% on DV is worse.

It isn't an option because it look horrible. If you want 16:9 to show on a 16:9 monitor FULL screen...then shoot 16:9. Have no illusions that 4:3 blown up will look at alll good.

I see what you're getting at, but wouldn't that have more to do with the size of the screen than anything else?

Wouldn't the same footage shown at 4x3 look worse on a 35" monitor than 16x9 shown on a 20" monitor?

Or does the resize force the computer to interpolate pixels, which show up no matter what?

no. the size of the screen has really nothing to do with it. aside from the fact that crap at 20" is just going to be more evident crap at 50"

and yes, the rezise just tries to make something from nothing and nothing positive ever comes from that.

imagine if someone tried to make you 8 feet tall, simply by stretching you. you wouldnt fare too well. - i know thats a nutty example, but i think you take my point...

just FYI. two monitors, a 20" and a 50". each have the same number of pixels. the pixels are just bigger on the 50". if this werent the case, youd have to make a different sized movie for every size of tv.

lets just say your end result 16:9 anamorphic movie is effectively 853x480. if you have 4:3, 720x480 video, you will be stretching it at very least 133pixels in width (not to mention the height - if you plan on keeping the aspect proportionate) to fill the width of the frame.

i occasionally, will bring in 4:3 video (non-scaled) onto a 16:9 sequence for b-roll/cutaway images and just softly feather the short side and lay it over the main 16:9 footage.

Open a new 16:9 Anamorphic sequence

Put your 4:3 footage in the timeline

Open up the clip in the viewer and select Motion tab

Scale up 133%

Move the image up or down to get the best framing.





For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

The "bars on the side" issue has been coming up here a lot, and I honestly think forcing non-16:9 footage to 16:9 mode is doing the footage a disservice. I personally think the sacrifice of blowing up non-16:9 footage just to artificially implant the anamorphic mode is far, far worse than black bars on the side. Audiences tend to ignore the edges of the frame anyway. Final Cut can't magically create image information that isn't there, so to blame the application is like saying "Why can't an ordinary DV camera shoot 1440x960 so we can blow up the image to double size?" Because the format is what it is.

Personally I'd suggest: If you need to mix 16:9 and non-16:9 footage, then crunch the anamorphic 16:9 footage to letterbox format and then letterbox the non-16:9 footage to match, then export a normal non-16:9 movie file and put that to tape.

Interesting point Derek I haven't seen any programs that have done the sidebars in the UK as yet though...

I point to remember - if you shoot on a DV camera that does not have a true 16:9 CCD then the image will be cropped to 720x405 and stretched in the camera anyway.

I guess it will depend on which other footage you are mixing it with as far as perceived "loss" of quality is concerned.

Check what the specs are on your camera as far as 16:9 are concerned as it would always be better to shoot 4:3 and crop if your camera doesn't have a true 16:9 CCD - this way you can use the added height to scan up and down your image to change the shot dynamic or to frame it differently.

Alternatively you could buy a 16:9 Anamorphic lens for a 4:3 camera and then you would have a 16:9 FHA image at full D1 res...





For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

>>
Interesting point Derek I haven't seen any programs that have done the sidebars in the UK as yet though<<

All the incar shots in the WRC programs have 'curtains'. Big ugly blue ones. Can't wait till they get widescreen cameras in those cars.

Hey Jude... (cue Beatles)

Do you mean "WRC" - World Rally Championships?

I will have to look out for it.

Does it not feel odd having the bars on the side though?

I guess it's a personal preference but to me it feels like wearing horse blinkers (not that I've worn horse blinkers you understand - that would be just plain silly).


(...take a saaaaad song, and make it beh-et-uh-herrrrrrrr)


*Sorry couldn't resist it*





For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Yeah - Rally, and yeah - it looks awful because they try to make it a feature - but often in primary colours like bright red or blue.

The best implementation of 'curtains' I've seen was the same picture doubled up and stretched to fill the frame underneath, then a 'frosted glass' look added so that it looked like an intentional border.

But the plain black ones tend to sort of melt into the background after a while too, just like you don't notice the letterbox bars halfway through a movie, no matter how tight they seemed at the beginning of the movie.

Remember .. to let her under your skin .. oh. Dammit! Lucky I like that song, I tell ya.

I think Mike was talking about having black margains all around the shot, not just side curtains..

I see the problem with the "black all around" thing... I don't know how to make a seq that works.. I guess opening a widescreen seq with letter boxed 4:3 footage won't do it...

All this HD / widescreen crap is so over rated. The consumers aren't ready for it. By no means, well most of the people on this forum are, but not the rest of the planet.

People (approx 95% of all people I know and 99% of all retailers) who strech a 4:3 source to 16:9 should not be allowed to watch tv or film in their own house. They spend like 4.000$ on a tv and can't even use it. Why do Sony etc even have a "fat mode" for their tv's? That's what I wanna know!

>>People . . . who strech a 4:3 source to 16:9 should not be allowed to watch tv or film in their own house. They spend like 4.000$ on a tv and can't even use it. <<

Heh. Got us laughing here Pierre. That's so true. The worst thing is when you show your friends how to get the right aspect ratio, and they go back to the wierd ass stretched aspect because 'it makes the picture bigger'.

Hmm. Yes. Never mind that supermodels look like they were recently hit by an asteroid.

I was talking about having curtains all around, and since one is usually from the DVD and one from the TV, they don't look the same.

I'll add an intentional border like you guys were talking about, to make it look 16x9 on purpose. I think that's a great solution.

So, new project, animorphic. Bring in my 4x3 project, but don't stretch it. All a layer behind it that will act as the curtains. I'll have to remove my matting that give the project it's 4x3 look, and replace it with other (frosted) footage. Sounds like a start, and outside the box I was thinking in.

Good stuff!