720x405 or 853x480(Detailed explanation in the post)

Hello everyone,
A few questions.

1)The footage was shot as 4:3 letteboxed on MiniDV. The final Project has to go out as 16:9NTSC for Television. I tried the 720x405 and in the sequence options it labeled it as "Custom 16:9".
Will I get better results if I go with the 853x480? Also why does FCP not recognize this
as "Custom 16:9"?

2)When I export the project as a Quicktime/Quicktime Conversion it stretches out the rendered Quicktime horizontally. If I use Quicktime Conversion, should I put 720x480 as the Size, since all the 720x405 Tests with the different options in the "Preserve Aspect Ratio through" gave the same stretched results.

3) When I render our the Quicktime, the "None" compressor option gives me the best results compared to 8bit_Uncompressed/Apple Pro Res/Animation. It also creates the biggest files( space/time wise it's not a problem).
My question is I haven't seen "None" mentioned anywhere. Is it a bad option to use?

Thanks in advance.

If you shot it as 4:3 letterboxed, then it is smaller than 4:3. Basically, in a proper 16:9 timeline, your footage will display as a smaller rectangular box inside the big rectangular 16:9 box.

If you need to output this as full frame 16:9, you need to make the picture itself bigger in the frame. This means you will lose resolution and the picture will probably get soft. But to do this, make a new sequence that is 16:9 NTSC - don't do anything custom. Then drop your original sequence from the browser into the new 16:9 sequence. Then use the scaling tools to make the picture bigger until it fills the entire frame, then render, then output.

Otherwise, unless you are allowed to output this as a small picture inside the 16:9 frame, you're pretty much stuck. Although, you might want to look at some uprezzing software to see if any of that can do a better job for you.

SD is always 720x486/576. On 16:9, it is played back anamorphic, but it's still the same number of encoded pixels. Do not create your own custom frame size, rather, check the anamorphic checkbox in FCP.



www.strypesinpost.com

To address the letterbox issue, you need to enlarge your picture if you need to air it 16:9. I'll try to do an example...



www.strypesinpost.com

Quote
If you shot it as 4:3 letterboxed, then it is smaller than 4:3.

What do you mean by that, Jude?

What's 4:3 letterboxed? What are the pixel width and height of 4:3 letterboxed?

If this is not explained, how can you even talk about 720x480 or anamorphic?

No advice can be given unless you know what the pixel dimensions of the original footage are. In fact, there are a lot of errors on the Internet in advising people about the incorporation of 4:3 footage into 16:9 output.

I have, for example, taken a 35mm feature film that was telecined as DVCAM and cropped it to 16:9 and then converted it to 720x480 anamorphic. I've done it in a way that no one talks about here or elsewhere on other user groups. Why is that? Is it considered technically faulty to do that?

Thanks for taking up this issue, because it seems to me this is what this thread is about, and as Doginthefog hasn't said anything about his question being answered then something is remiss here.

DV NTSC is always 720x480. It has no other frame resolution. 4:3 letterboxed simply means the image is displayed in a 4:3 frame with letterboxing, black bars at top and bottom to simulate widescreen.

But, Tom, if you put black bars on top and bottom of a 4:3 image, you're going to end up with black bars at the sides as well. So the image is not going to be 720x480. It's going to be something smaller. Let's say there is such a camera that shoots an 80% smaller image (I've never heard of one, but please indulge me), so the resulting image is going to be 576x384 inside a 720x480 frame. (?)

A short demonstration. Images are all resized as square pixels, as would be seen on display.

1) Gorgeous Gwyneth Paltrow at 4:3



2) Gorgeous Gwyneth Paltrow at 4:3 with burnt-in letterbox



3) Gorgeous Gwyneth Paltrow at 16:9



4) Gorgeous Gwyneth Paltrow at 16:9, "padded"




Cameras are able to shoot examples 1, 2 and 3. If image is shot on DV/DV50, it will be 720x480 (encoded pixels), irregardless of the Display Aspect Ratio.

For Example 2, that is 4:3 with a burnt in letterbox, which is what the OP said he shot. The actual image is therefore smaller. If he needs to go out for 16:9 broadcast, he needs to enlarge by around 133.33% and insert his final edited sequence in an anamorphic sequence. If the quality of the enlargement is unacceptable, he can try to scale it in some other software (eg. After Effects). I do not know of any hardware based scalers that can scale to remove the letterbox.

The alternative way to do it without enlargement is to "pad" the image, as in example 4 (insert the image with burnt-in letterbox in an anamorphic sequence.



www.strypesinpost.com

Ok, strypes, but in example 4, why did you use the cropped image of the gorgeous lady, why not use the original 4:3 full sized image?

>but in example 4, why did you use the cropped image of the gorgeous lady, why not use the
>original 4:3 full sized image?

I could. You would get a pillarbox, which is the standard practice of broadcasting 4:3 SD acquired material in HD. In other words, enlarge it so it fits the screen, but not so large as in to fill up the entire screen, but have everyone watch huge displays of pixels.

I am assuming the OP shot 4:3 with a burnt-in letterboxed, as he mentioned. He would therefore have to pad the image if enlarging the image is unacceptable.


>Quote:
>If you shot it as 4:3 letterboxed, then it is smaller than 4:3.

>What do you mean by that, Jude?

She meant that the actual picture is smaller than 4:3 as in example 2.



www.strypesinpost.com

oh, I see ... there is a camera setting that will actually do that? How crazy! Unbelievable.

Yes, then the "letterboxed 4:3" is a kind of mickey mouse format.... make it look like it was 16:9 but in fact it's 4:3 wow, ok. I don't know how the Camera Operator did that (by putting a mask in front of the lens?) ... or there is a camera that shoots that way. This I had never heard about.

But you're right, then, that's how it would have to be done -- padded, so as not to reduce the quality of the image ... especially for broadcast.

Yes, it is a format, and some cameras shoot that. I never advice anyone to shoot with a letterbox, as you are effectively wasting active pixels by encoding nothing but black.

In most cases, a "padded" image is unacceptable for broadcast. It has to be enlarged so it fits the screen.



www.strypesinpost.com

You're right, strypes. I have seen more and more enlarged and pixelated images on news channels where the footage was shot with consumer cameras but was shown on account of interest.

Personally I prefer to leave the sides of a 4:3 image black and preserve the 4:3 image quality inside a 16:9 frame -- if the enlargement was going to make the image look really bad.

So if Doginthefog was going to send this project to a TV station, it would depend on what was acceptable by them. Also it would depend a lot on what the content and quality were before one could advise whether or not to pad the letterboxed image or enlarge it.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I appreciate it.
I am still rather confused about which numbers and settings to put in the sequence, especially after I've done a few tests with different atributes, for example.

1) In Sequence,640x405 Anamorphic, In the Motion Tab for the clip, Scale 100%, Distort/Aspect Ratio 12. I get an image that is out of bounds on top and bottom, fits on the sides. However looks stretched out in FCP.
Rendered through Quicktime Conv. gives the "Current"size of 758x405. On an Apple Monitor when enlarged has tiny tiny pillarboxes( stretches to full screen when the the "Zoom" button is pressed.) Does not look stretched out. On my Widescreen TV looks fine, when set to "Widescreen Mode".

2) In Sequence,608x480 Anamorphic, In the Motion Tab for the clip, Scale 100%, Distort/Aspect Ratio 18. I get an image that fits on all 4 sides and doesn't look stretched.
Rendered through Quicktime Conv. gives the "Current"size of 720x480. On an Apple Monitor looks squished horizontally(stretches to full screen when the the "Zoom" button is pressed.) Looks funky. On my Widescreen TV , when set to "Widescreen Mode". Looks extremely squished from the top and bottom.

For DVD output I used Idvd 16:9.

So my question is in the sequence tab, before I put any clips in. What is the 16:9 Option that I should choose?
960x720 is the smallest one I see, pixel wise and I am trying to get anamorphic 720x480?

>In Sequence,640x405 Anamorphic, In the Motion Tab for the clip, Scale 100%, Distort/Aspect
>Ratio 12.

Do not create your own custom settings. Go to Easy Setup, and select a DV anamorphic NTSC preset. Make sure that the frame rate is correct. When you insert a clip into the timeline, a conform sequence to clip pop up window will appear. Select "no". Then proceed to scale your clips up.

Alternatively, you can edit in a 4:3 DV NTSC sequence, then scale everything up by dragging your sequence into an anamorphic sequence when you're done with the cut.

>Rendered through Quicktime Conv

Use File>Export>Quicktime Movie and use that instead. Do not use Quicktime Conversion for this.


I would recommend that you pick up one of the books from the store, and spend some time with it, or you'll be fumbling through your projects.

[www.lafcpug.org]



www.strypesinpost.com

yes, yes, yes, use the existing preset settings!


the problem with up-scaling the ENTIRE timeline from 4/3 letterboxed to anamorphic 16/9,
is that you will also be scaling up any graphics and titles.

this can, and probably should be avoided.

the simplest approach to this would be to make sure all your titles & graphics are kept on separate video tracks,
away from the video clips.

when done,
make a new 16/9 timeline,
drag the 4/3 one into it,
and blow it up to fit.

go into the 4/3 timeline, COPY all the titles & graphics,
go back to the 16/9 sequnce and paste them.

you will see double titles,
but for now this is good as you will need to re-adjust them all to sit where you wanted them.

when done,
go back into the 4/3 timeline, and turn of visibility on the title & graphic tracks,
by clicking on the green buttons far left of the timeline.

in both sequences, make sure motion scaling is set to BEST in the sequence settings Video Processing tabs


nick

here is another approach, probably simpler.

drag all 4/3 lettterboxed clips into a 16/9 timeline.
(if you get asked if you want sequence settings to match clip settings, say no.)

double click the first clip in the timeline into the viewer
go to the motion tab
blow up the scale to 13.33%.

in the timeline, COPY that clip
select all clips
Option Apple V to paste ATTRIBUTES, Basic Motion.
now all clips will be blown up.

in the browser DELETE all the existing clips.
in the timeline COPY all clips
in the browser, make a new bin,
and PASTE all the blown up clips into it.
this will now be your source footage, pre-formated.

use this footage to edit with in 16/9 timelines.



nick

Nick meant to say 133.33%.

Here's another link that helps explains the difference between 4:3 letterbox- which sucks. And 16:9 anamorphic, which is what you want to use if you want anything other than 4:3 square frames.

[www.thedigitalbits.com]

Noah

Final Cut Studio Training, featuring the HVX200, EX1, EX3, DVX100, DVDSP and Color at [www.callboxlive.com]!
Author, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera available now at: [www.amazon.com].
Editors Store- Gifts and Gear for Editors: [www.editorsstore.com]

>Here's another link that helps explains the difference between 4:3 letterbox- which sucks.

Yea. I preferred explaining Gwyneth to explaining Robin..



www.strypesinpost.com

Seeing how bad the 'padded' image appears, when and why would anyone use this?
I also can't imaging scaling an image to 133% and finding the loss of image quality acceptable. To me anything scaled above 103% is too much.
Steve

steve-sharksdelight

> I also can't imaging scaling an image to 133% and finding the loss of image quality acceptable.
> To me anything scaled above 103% is too much.

Sometimes the client has very strict delivery specs. And if the project happened to be shot 4:3 and must be delivered as a 16:9 format, you do it. Content rules.


www.derekmok.com

>Seeing how bad the 'padded' image appears, when and why would anyone use this?

Usually that is seen as a mistake. That is the result of burnt-in letterboxing when you display it on a 16:9 screen. It usually happens when the acquisition and output frame dimensions do not match. You only burn in a letterbox when you're going out to 4:3 SD broadcast. In most other cases, I tell the camera guys not to letterbox it (if he's thinking of doing it), and that i'll letterbox it in post if needed, provided I get a meeting with the camera guy before he shoots.

The whole point is that pixels should never be wasted on storing black bars when they can be used for the image. It's like shooting HD and converting everything to SD before you edit- you limit your delivery options.

>To me anything scaled above 103% is too much.

A part of this also depends on the acquisition format. On DV, the image falls apart the moment you enlarge it, and 103% is quite noticeable. On a less compressed acquisition format like Digital Beta, you can afford to scale between to 105-107% before the loss is noticeable on a monitor, well, according to my eyes that is.



www.strypesinpost.com