What does 4:3 16mm look like on HD TV?

schnozzle · November 14, 2004

I apologize if this has been asked already, but I was having trouble with the search engine...

I guess this applies to any 4:3 image really. Neither I nor anyone I know owns one of those 16:9 HD television sets, but I know that they're become more and more popular.

I've been helping out on a number of 16mm film projects again after a long hiatus (mostly music videos, with the aim of showing them on tv) and they've all been shot with a standard 16 Bolex and telecined to fill all of our non-widescreen television sets. So what would that telecine'd image look like on an HD television? Would it be stretched horizontally? Or, for that matter, what happens to all of the old classic movies made before the advent of widescreen when viewed on an HD set?

Are people who shoot on 4:3 16mm faced with doing two telecines, a full-screen one and a widescreen one? Would you simply cut off the top and bottom of the frame for the latter? Things have gotten a lot more complicated since I was in school 12 years ago...

David Mullen ASC · November 14, 2004

4x3 movies can be transferred to HD (16x9) with side mattes to retain the original aspect ratio.

The new DVD of "Dr. Strangelove" is in a 1.66 : 1 aspect ratio and was transferred from film to HD with slight side mattes to fit 1.66 : 1 onto 1.78 : 1 (16x9).

Now, some HDTV movie channels will only show stuff full-frame 16x9 so you might also need to make a version where 4x3 is cropped to 16x9.

schnozzle · November 14, 2004

4x3 movies can be transferred to HD (16x9) with side mattes to retain the original aspect ratio.

The new DVD of "Dr. Strangelove" is in a 1.66 : 1 aspect ratio and was transferred from film to HD with slight side mattes to fit 1.66 : 1 onto 1.78 : 1 (16x9).

Now, some HDTV movie channels will only show stuff full-frame 16x9 so you might also need to make a version where 4x3 is cropped to 16x9.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see. This is one reason why so many people are moving to Super 16, yes?

(I forgot it was 4x3 & 16x9 rather than 4:3 and 16:9-sorry about that).

Edited November 14, 2004 by schnozzle

David Mullen ASC · November 14, 2004

You can write it as 4:3 or 4x3 -- it's the same thing, means the same thing. I do either and I've seen it both ways.

I just try and remember to use 4x3 or 16x9 for video to make it look different from film aspect ratios like 1 : 1.33, etc.

HDTV is a major reason why 16mm has shifted more rapidly to Super-16, but even before, blow-ups to 35mm 1.85 was another factor pushing Super-16. And since you can transfer the 4x3 area of a Super-16 negative to video if you want to, the only reason to shoot regular 16mm (other than the cost of buying the cameras and that some are only available in regular 16mm) is the ability to make direct prints for 16mm projection, which has been in decline.

What's your real name?

schnozzle · November 14, 2004

Sorry, my real name is Eli Chartkoff. "Schnozzle" is just a name I use on various forums. Probably not so appropriate here.

I'm in kind of a frustrating position--I make short animated films, some of them get into festivals or are screened on television now and then, which is great. None of the festivals I've been involved with are big enough to support 35mm prints, they all ask for either 16mm or DV tapes. Since all of my projects for the past few years originated in the computer, this hasn't been an issue. I would like to start shooting stop-motion on film again, though, and clearly the most practical thing for me would be to shoot on film and transfer to digital for editing and distribution.

But I actually enjoy editing mechanically, with a tape splicer and a Moviola and all that. Plus, if given a choice to watch one of my films through a 16mm projector or a video projector, I'd choose 16--I think it looks great, especially in a small theater or gallery. I was talking to a friend who swears he gets his short experimental films into more festivals because he's able to provide a 16mm print, which sets him apart from everybody else sending in DV tapes.

If everything continues to migrate towards Super 16, I'm out of luck. You can't screen Super 16 on a 16mm projector--even if you widened the projector's gate, there would be no soundtrack, and I assume that a standard 16mm flatbed wouldn't show the entire Super 16 frame, so mechanical editing is out. I feel like I'm going to have to use digital whether I want to or not.

Does anyone feel the same way, or do I just need to get over it and feel satisfied with digital editing and projection? Is there some other solution I haven't though of?

David Mullen ASC · November 14, 2004

I believe you can get 16mm editing equipment with widened out gates to show Super-16, maybe not every moviola and steenbeck ever made but someone out there has probably done that.

As for 16mm prints, you can get reduction prints where the Super-16 image is optically reduced and matted to fit onto a regular 16mm print. Colorlab in Rockville, MD used to offer this service although I don't know if they stopped. It's becoming pretty rare and I'm sure the print would cost a lot more than a usual 16mm contact print. At that point, you might as well just blow it up to a 35mm print. It will look better actually (and sound better!) and may not be that expensive for a short film. You can blow-up Super-16/16mm to a 35mm print directly at some labs if you cut your negative a certain way (zero cut with handles.) Again, Colorlab was offering that service.

schnozzle · November 15, 2004

Well...I see. What it sounds like you're saying is that while these kinds of options exist, all are kind of 'make-do' measures and none are terribly practical or cheap anymore. What would be your advice, then--to continue to animate at 16x9 on my computer and then output to DV or 35mm as needed, which, as you point out, isn't terribly expensive for short films?

As for shooting the small amount of live action that I'm involved with, would your advice then be to shoot on Super 16 and either blow it up to 35mm or telecine it for editing?

Thanks. I appreciate your advice.

John Pytlak RIP · November 15, 2004

You can even use DTS Digital Sound with Super-16 prints:

http://www.dtsonline.com/cinema/press-arti...3&yID=2002&cID=

When choosing a production format, remember "size does matter", and Super-16 has a much larger image area than Regular-16 for 16:9 images.

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

Edited November 15, 2004 by John_P_Pytlak

schnozzle · November 15, 2004

What is the realistic likelihood of Super 16mm projection with DTS sound being available at more than a handful of high-profile festivals? As far as I know events like CUFF and Antimatter only provide for standard 16 projection.

John Pytlak RIP · November 15, 2004

I was just noting that DTS does offer the technology.

schnozzle · November 16, 2004

Don't get me wrong--were Super 16 projection to become widespread I would absolutely use it. It would solve a lot of problems, and certainly I hope the smaller festivals are able to adopt it.

Has anyone here used this system for their own projects?