16:9 or 4:3

[siddharth diwan]

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

[David Cox]

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

[Joshua Provost]

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

[Gordon Highland]

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.

[Stephen Williams]

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

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

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.

[Guest Nathan Donnelly]

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:

[David Cox]

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.

:)