Jump to content


Photo

16:9 or 4:3


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 siddharth diwan

siddharth diwan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 27 June 2005 - 12:53 PM

what factors in video makes a film maker decide if he'll shoot the film on 16:9 or 4:3. is it preference or some technicality behind it
  • 0

#2 David Cox

David Cox
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • london, UK

Posted 27 June 2005 - 02:56 PM

Shooting 16:9 provides a higher quality image if the final delivery is for either a widescreen TV or for printing back to film.

This is because if you shoot 4:3 and then "cut out" the widescreen bit in the middle (i.e. loose the top and bottom) you aren't using so many TV lines to make up your picture. Shooting 16:9 still effectively shoots a 4:3 shape image, but uses an anamorphic technique to squash the image width into the frame when you shoot. It then has its width expanded by a widescreen TV to create the widescreen image. Doing it this way, all of the vertical TV lines are used to make the image.

If your final delivery is for 4:3 TV, then arguably you don't need to worry about 16:9. However, first-world countries only transmit in widescreen :D
  • 0

#3 Joshua Provost

Joshua Provost
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 27 June 2005 - 03:31 PM

16:9 provides more options in terms of composing shots. To my taste, anyway.
  • 0

#4 Gordon Highland

Gordon Highland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Director
  • Kansas City

Posted 27 June 2005 - 03:42 PM

It could also be a purely aesthetic decision. I just like framing for 16:9 better, especially when you have two-shots. It can leave something to be desired when it comes to a lot of interview clips without interesting backgrounds, though. 16:9 is a closer simulation of our human vision, peripherally. Historically speaking, it implies a more dramatic look because of its association with feature films, whereas reality (news, etc.) is generally associated with 4:3.

If I'm not shooting anamorphic (the technique described by David) for widescreen delivery, I prefer to go ahead and still shoot 4:3 and mask off with a letterbox later. This gives you some flexibility in post, because you can re-frame your image vertically behind the 16:9 mask to taste.

I just finished a short that I shot entirely in anamorphic because I knew exactly how it was going to be screened using specific equipment. One great thing about DVD is that the same disc can automatically play anamorphic if there's a widecreen TV hooked up to it, or letterboxed if not.
  • 0

#5 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 28 June 2005 - 06:47 AM

[quote name='davidcox' date='Jun 27 2005, 08:56 PM']
Shooting 16:9 provides a higher quality image if the final delivery is for either a widescreen TV or for printing back to film.

This is because if you shoot 4:3 and then "cut out" the widescreen bit in the middle (i.e. loose the top and bottom) you aren't using so many TV lines to make up your picture. Shooting 16:9 still effectively shoots a 4:3 shape image, but uses an anamorphic technique to squash the image width into the frame when you shoot. It then has its width expanded by a widescreen TV to create the widescreen image. Doing it this way, all of the vertical TV lines are used to make the image.



David,

If shooting on film 16x9 wide screen is a cut out in any case! Only 235 Anamorphic would give you better quality at the film stage.
Transfering film to video in 16x9 anamorphic gives better quality over 4x3 letterbox as you stated.

Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman

www.stephenw.com
  • 0

#6 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2005 - 08:36 AM

I think widescreen might and should be the future. So, I've decided to shoot all my films widescreen. Plus I think it looks better.
  • 0

#7 Nathan Donnelly

Nathan Donnelly
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2005 - 09:33 AM

I agree with most of you here and say 16:9 for aesthetic reasons.

(then I cheat and letterbox to a 2.35:1, at least for my current "straight to dvd" project) :huh:
  • 0

#8 David Cox

David Cox
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • london, UK

Posted 28 June 2005 - 01:40 PM

David,
If shooting on film 16x9 wide screen is a cut out in any case! Only 235 Anamorphic would give you better quality at the film stage.
Transfering film to video in 16x9 anamorphic gives better quality over 4x3 letterbox as you stated.

Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman

www.stephenw.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


yes - quite right. I should have clarified that my answer was aimed at shooting video.
:)
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

CineTape

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

The Slider

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Willys Widgets

Glidecam