Confusions in filmland about 16x9

[Adam Frisch FSF]

It's time to dispel some irritating myths that have crept into the filmworld, highlighted

by a recent misunderstanding on a shoot I did. In this particular case it was s-16 we

shot.

 

Being a big fan of the 4x3 full frame format, I suggested we use this for the promo. The

director agreed. He is however very inexperienced and probably didn't fully understand

the implications. We passed this briefly by the producer (he says he has no recollection

of that) who also agreed, but remarked "but we'll telecine for 16x9". Here's where I

made my mistake: I though he meant telecine it an anamorphically (which makes no sense

for 4x3, but hey, what do I know, maybe that's how they do it here?).

 

I shot and protected for 4x3 in my s-16 frame. We telecine in 4x3 and everybody is

happy, client, director producer. Nobody says a thing, it's kisses and handshakes all

around. After they arrive at the editor, that's when hell breaks loose.

 

"Did you tell the telecine guy to lay it down as 4x3?"

"Yeah, that's what we agreed upon, no? Just like you saw it in telecine."

"No, first I heard of that. Man, you have to check these things with me first.

Now we have to redo it"

"Redo it? Why telecine a 4x3 image in 16x9. It makes no sense?"

"You always telecine in 16x9. Always!"

 

Creeping suspicion now coming to me at an alarming speed..

 

"But I didn't protect for s-16, only for 4x3", I say.

 

Long story short, I got my ass chewed off for not shooting in

"16x9" and they layed it down again.

 

First of all, on a personal but minor level, what pisses me off is that everyone

kind of assumes that you don't know what you're doing when you're shooting

s-16 in 4x3. It's like your breaking some cardinal sin. Remarks like "You're

throwing away half the neg!" and people going "You know that zooming on the

neg to get to 4x3 in telecine will degrade the image, don't you?" (this particular

remark is absolutely horribly untrue - there is zero difference in size between a

n-16 neg and using the 4x3 area of a s-16 neg). Aspect ratios are a creative choice

one makes. It's funny how the same guys don't think twice to crop a s-16 image

to 2.40:1 to get that "feature film"-feeling (as they like to call it), but go out of

their minds when one suggests to shoot in 4x3. But this is just a minor irritant on

my behalf, not the end of the world.

 

What however is the end of the world, is that somehow, somewhere, people in

the biz now thinks that s-16 is 16x9. It's not. It's 15x9. I just think it's time to be

really, really clear when one talks about 16x9. It's an aspect ratio, nothing else.

But due to all the widescreen DVD's out there, there's now a understanding that

16x9 means anamorphically squeezed. This is f***ing everyone up, including

myself as I should have caught the producers remark about telecine in 16x9.

 

It was a classic example of misunderstanding on every level. I'm now overruled

and deemed almost mad for even suggesting shooting 4x3 on a s-16 neg. The video

is now in "16x9" as they call it, when in reality it is in 15x9 (and I just can't muster

the strenght to have ABC in aspect ratios with a producer at this point). Not only

that, all my compositions are f***ed up since I never composed for that. Some shots

had to be zoomed into (at video resolution no less, to make things even worse) to

get rid of stands and track and gear and other various stuff on the sides. Madness,

all because they so vehemently hate 4x3. All this could have been avoided if people

just had a little bit of TASTE.

 

Lesson learned? Make it VERY clear what aspect ratio you're shooting for, especially

if it's the great satan himself, the big, bad, old 4x3. And do tell people that s-16 isn't

16x9, will you?

[David Mullen ASC]

This is when I'm glad I'm not shooting for TV these days...

 

Your only safe approach is to "protect" for the other aspect ratio -- i.e. if you compose for 16x9, protect for 4x3, and vice-versa. But you're right that these days, you REALLY have to be specific about the format being used in the telecine.

 

I've been in telecine bays drawing charts for the producer -- even the post supervisor who should know better -- explaining all the masters needed for home video distribution ("see, we make three 23.98P HD-D5 masters, one "full-frame" 16x9, one letterboxed to theatrical, and one side-matted to 4:3... then from the theatrical letterboxed HD master, you make D1's or Digi-Betas, NTSC and PAL, both 16x9 anamorphic and 4x3 letterboxed; from the 4x3 side-matted HD master, you make the 4x3 pan & scan master, etc...) Lots of boxes and arrows...

 

And with S-16, you have to consider that "full aperture" is something like 1.68 : 1, not 1.78 : 1, so if you do a 16x9 transfer, whether HD or "anamorphic" standard def, do you trim it to 1.78 or not? Do you letterbox it to 1.85?

 

I once had the hardest time explaining to an inexperienced colorist how to transfer a 35mm 2X anamorphic image to 16x9 "anamorphic" with a 2.35 letterbox.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

That's it, I'm moving to features. Anybody need a DP for a Z-grade horror

flick shot in Romania in winter for Full Moon Entertainment? ;)

[John Sprung]

I though he meant telecine it an anamorphically (which makes no sense for 4x3,

Actually, we used to do that for a few years, telecine a 4:3 extraction area from the film anamorphically to fill the 1080p/24 frame (short, fat people). The show would post as 4:3 all the way up to titling, just before which we'd do a "tilt-and-scan" pass to create a 16:9 version, then title each version.

 

That solves the problem of the excessively loose 16:9 frame you get with conventional shoot and protect. It's also a lot easer to do than pan-and-scan. The biggest downside is that if a show uses a lot of tight closeups, this makes them way too tight. For those cases, center cut works better.

 

But it was damn near impossible to get people to understand it. And it cost an extra grand an episode. As more shows started shooting HD video, I couldn't sell it any more, and we went to the same center cut the rest of the industry uses.

 

If a show wants to use our old common sides tilt and scan idea, we'll let them, but those are fairly rare now. We're starting to see a couple shows going letterbox on NTSC, which is the best news of all. We just make one 16:9 version, pay no attention to the little box in the middle of the viewfinder.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Neal Fredericks]

funny i just went through the same thing on the last feature I shot...on regular 35mm

 

producers told me, "we shoot 16X9 for all our movies because they go straight to video/DVD." that's cool with me...

 

so to totally cover my ass I shot two 16X9 frame charts on both the "A" and the "B" camera for my photography tests about a week before production...

 

than at the camera prep I made sure the rental house rented us the exact same camera bodies/lenses and re-shot two more 16X9 frame charts on both cameras...

 

overkill some might say...but the dailies were perfect and no one yelled at me...i am happy...

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Erm yes in the UK you will get looked at very strangely if you produce stuff for TV in 4:3. Certainly ads. About the only people who broadcast 4:3 here anymore are ITN and I think Sky News.

 

As for the "telecine in 16:9" comment that's essentially meaningless... what do they mean by that? Take the 16:9 area of the neg? What?

 

Phil

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Phil?

Every TV channel here brodcasts 4x3, but they might show the original

aspect ratios. But maybe that's what you meant? They're certainly not

16x9 widescreen.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Fortunately, more home audiences are accepting (and even preferring) a widescreen presentation, even if "letterboxed" on a 4:3 television. More and more 16:9 monitors are being sold, and that is the future.

[Nate Downes]

That's it, I'm moving to features. Anybody need a DP for a Z-grade horror

flick shot in Romania in winter for Full Moon Entertainment? ;)

Tempting, very tempting. 8)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Every TV channel here brodcasts 4x3

 

Are we talking at cross purposes here? Every major broadcaster I know of in the UK requires that you shoot 16:9 and protect for the 14:9 changeover format. Broadcast digitally it goes out 16:9 and on analogue terrestrial 4:3. Almost everything is framed and shot for widescreen (except for graphics, which have to hover ridiculously in the 14:9 area) with very few exceptions. Am I misunderstanding something?

 

Phil

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Ok, I was talking about the terrestrial analogue broadcasting. It might be

16x9 for digital. If so, how does digital look on a 4x3 (or12x9, if you lean

that way) TV? I don't get it. 99,99999999% world still has 4x3 TV's, why

broadcast a format that looks wrong on it? Or does the set-top box convert

it to 4x3?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

What happens is that everything is produced in 16:9, both because the conversion to 4:3 is better than going the other way, and because people want to give widescreen viewers more than 4:3 viewers. When you watch it digitally you have the choice of either using a widescreen display, or having the set top box reformat it to a 4:3 display. Normally you can choose either full letterbox or the 14:9 intermediate format with the sides cropped. When it's broadcast on analogue terrestrial it's reformatted to 14:9 before transmission.

 

So, yes everything is produced in widescreen with a few exceptions, and people will look at you as if you have two heads if you do anything else for UK broadcast. You should usually have a grounglass/EVF marking which shows you where the edge of the 14:9 area is, and consider that an action safe area since stuff beyond it will probably be missed by the majority of analogue terrestrial viewers.

 

Phil

[Adam Frisch FSF]

So, how do I do if I absolutely, positively want to shoot something to be shown in full frame (4X3)? With this system, that seems to be impossible.

[DanStewart]

If there is only a 4:3 image then that's all that can be broadcast - like the European footie recently. But you still can't stop people electronically zoming in to a 16:9 frame on their modern TV's - unless you deliberately and regularly put key action outside of that frame :ph34r:

[Tony Brown]

I remeber 4:3..... just :D

 

Seriously the only time I shoot 4:3 is in the US, and I hate it. We've shot 16:9 in the UK on commercials for probably 5 years now, there is never a consideration for 4:3 unless there is going to be seperate cut for US or France etc. Even then I usually try to get them to stick with 16:9 and letterbox it, I detest 4:3.

 

The only time I've had 14:9 cloud the issue is on the rare occasion I've been asked to shoot something for the BBC.

 

I can understand the productions reluctance to shoot 4:3 on a promo, I would have thought its unheard of now........was there a reason for that choice Adam?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Well yes, Tony.

 

I like 4x3 for it's purity - it's all image. And it lends itself very well to certain

types of promos with a lot of sky/ceiling or floor/ground. I love it. I didn't a couple

of years ago, but now I'm a complete convert.

 

What annoys me with letterboxing for TV is this: it makes perfect sense IF

your product is made for the big screen or for both. I certainly am no proponent

of airing widescreen movies in 4x3, in fact, pan 'n' scan should be outlawed. But if

the product is made for TV and ever only is going to be shown on a TV, why the

h*** have black bars interfering with your presentation?

 

But wait! I know the answer already, see, this was a one of those sneaky rhetorical

questions: people dig letterboxing for ONE reason only and that's because it subliminally

signals to them "this is FILM, this is made for the big screen, this cost a lot of money".

It's just one problem with that - every single kid who's ever done a Hi8 movie and edited

his film on a computer, the absolutely first thing they do is slap a scope letterbox on

it so it looks like "film". Ain't fooling me, though. In fact, it's so common these days that

it instantly signals, at least to me, "trying-to-fool-you-into-thinking-this-is-film-and-was-

expensive-to-shoot-when-in-fact-we-made-it-in-my-mum's-cellar-for-a-dollar-fifty".

 

4X3 is progressive, it's fresh (again), it's unique, it sticks out! Join the new trend!

[Adam Frisch FSF]

This is sooo much nicer...

 

4x3

 

....than this..

 

16x9

 

It's airy, open and doesn't look like it's trying to hard. Don't you agree?

[K Borowski]

I totally agree with you Adam. While 16x9 is sadly here to stay, it shouldn't have had to be that way. Going back to the origins of the whole "widescreen" fiasco, one finds that it is because of television's emergence that movies switched from 4x3 themselves into widescreen. That's right, widescreen is a sham just like stereo sound, digital everything, and supercharged V4s. It was meant to keep people from forsaking movies for TV (really stupid considering how low-res TV was and is compared to 35 or at that time even 70mm). It is a shame that someone won't take a stand and say "I'm doing this movie in 4x3". Maybe it isn't possible anymore now that all the projectors are either flat 2 perf or anamorphic. You are absolutely justified in detesting 16x9 on TV. A lot of the people who own HDTVs are so damned stupid that they stretch out regular 4x3 and then when they watch a movie in 16x9 it's stretched out TWICE AS MUCH. I think I'll just get a good old big screen 4x3 analog TV set, which looks a lot better than digital television, and hope that some of you guys up in the big leagues can keep 4x3 alive and well.

 

Regards.

~Karl

[Guest Pete Wright]

Hey guys,

 

IMHO I think that 16x9 is an improvement over 4:3 and Cinema Scope ratio is an improvement over 16:9. Why? Because it is easier to tell the story. It is more natural, because action usually happens on a wide horizontal plane. So even if the TV tube is small, the wide screen is more natural and a better tool.

 

There are many more shots and scenarios that the wide screen is more appropriate, than the other way around. If you need to show vertical action, just use a wider shot, or cut between shots.

 

Pete

[Mitch Gross]

Nonsense. A frame is a frame, and one shouldbe able to compose well for it no matter what. Sometimes particular content lends itself to one more than another, but I've seen lovely intimate stories told in 2.35 (The Apartment) and films of huge scope and vista told in 4:3 (Gone With the Wind).

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Yes, letterboxing is ugly, Adam. I think the idea is to encourage everyone to buy widescreen TVs.

 

Phil

[Guest Pete Wright]

Why would be Cinema Scope developed? Why filmmakers prefered to shoot wide screen at times when they could have shot 1.33 easier? Why did they not just build theaters with biger 4:3 screens? Because most of the action happens in one horizontal plane. Of course action can happen in 2 or 3 horizontal planes, or the composition can be achieved better with a square screen for some shots. There are times when square screen would be better, but it is a small minority of shots. For composition of most shots wide screen is more appropriate.

 

4:3 was chosen for TV because it was the film format and the original TV tubes had round screens, with more or less rectangular masks. 4:3 was the most they could hope for, without wasting most of the picture tube surface. When they already strated making more or less rectangular picture tubes, along came color and the picture tubes were again round, with more or less rectangular masks. They could not make rectangular color screens initially. On the first color TV sets they just letterboxed the top and bottom of the round tube and the sides stayed round.

 

Now, the way B/W TV broadcasted, it was optimised for 4:3 aspect ratio. They added color to it.

 

DTV and HDTV were the major broadcast changes and they allowed aspect ratio change. Even when that happened it was difficult to make wide screen picture tubes that would have good convergence. The wide screens were very expensive because of complicating manufacturing. With LSD and Plasma the aspect ratio does not matter.

 

Pete

[DanStewart]

This is getting surreal.

[David Mullen ASC]

Artistically, there are no good or bad aspect ratios -- some of my favorite films for composition are in the classic 1.37 : 1 Academy format after all.

 

But I'm glad TV is moving towards 16:9 since it is so close to the theatrical 1.85 : 1 format. I'll gladly watch old 1.37 or 1.33 movies with side mattes just like I watch widescreen movies on TV with letterboxing now. But the shape of the TV doesn't matter much to me as the content on the TV set. I see it as a box that holds a multitude of aspect ratios through the clever use of black borders. It's just that I think a 16:9 monitor is better for displaying the various aspect ratios from 1.33 to 2.35 since it is somewhere inbetween.

 

I do think that the typical scene in a movie with multiple actors walking and talking is more natural to shoot in a wider frame though, since people move on a horizontal plane. And obviously some subjects are more horizontal than others, although one can make an argument that it's best to go against tradition and use the opposite, i.e. a long frame for verticals and a tall frame for horizontals. Sort of like the Japanese tradition of putting round food on square plates...

 

And the rebel in me, if I were shooting for 4:3 TV, would be pushing for letterboxing to 1.78 just to stand out from the crowd. Just like how I like to shoot indie films in 2.35 since it's not the norm for low-budget to shoot for scope.

 

These days I rarely see great 4:3 composition on TV. Probably the most interesting that I caught recently were the offbeat compositions used on "Cold Case".

 

The nice thing about wider aspect ratios is that have a more obvious direction to counter against -- i.e. using negative space to offset the frame is more dramatic in wider frames. A squarer frame does not have as obvious direction to offset space within.

[Brad Grimmett]

It is a shame that someone won't take a stand and say "I'm doing this movie in 4x3".

Well, Gus Van Sant took that stand with "Elephant" last year. 4x3 shot in 35mm for release. Very good movie too.