16:9

[Jon Rosenbloom]

On a short film, we decided to use this camera in part because of it's native 16:9 chips. On the shoot, the camera was set for 16:9 recording, I framed for 16:9, but post-production, after a couple of tries, can not produce a final project in which the image does not look squeezed. The frames are intact - no one's head is cut off, the compostions are balanced - but it looks like a 4:3 image that's been squeezed to fit into a 16:9 mask. Does this situation sound familiar?

[John Ealer]

Where are you seeing the problem, in your edit software itself (FCP?), in an NTSC monitor playing out of your edit software, or on a DVD created from your edited footage? Also, does your NTSC monitor have a 16:9 switch/mode or does it just do 4:3?

 

J

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

No, something's set up wrong. You say it looks like a 4:3 image squeezed into a 16:9 frame - does that mean everyone's short and fat? If so, then you actually didn't have the camera set for 16:9, or it's been converted by some well-meaning person in the meantime. If you actually did have it set for widescreen and you meant the opposite, everyone will be tall and thin, which just means that either your post gear or your monitoring is not set up right. It might be as simple as hitting the 16:9 button on the monitor, but check all your settings. This usually means going through whatever project setup options the NLE has, which the editor or his/her assistant should be competent to do.

 

I am often gobsmacked that this kind of problem is allowed to happen. I mean, basics, people!

 

Phil

[John Ealer]

P.S.

 

The only time I've seen the actual scenario you describe was when a 16x9 project was output from FCP as 4x3 with a letterbox. If you then play the letterboxed 4:3 back on a 16x9 monitor, what results is a vertically squished looking image with, of course, black bars on top and bottom.

 

J

[John Morrison]

I shot some 16 x9 stuff, for a project then later was told the project was to be 4 x3 , Ooops I marked the time codes where the 16 x 9 stuff was so the images could be letterboxed ,but the post guy just jammed it in the 3 x4 time line with out resizing the image and boy did it look bad.

This is another area where coming from the video world you get your horizons expanded with this camera.

Because man 16 x 9 is great to look at, at but it is an anamorphic image and to be viewed on a 3 x4 monitor needs to be letterboxed. So you set your edit system and monitor for 16 x 9 work in that environment but unless you're playing back to a 16 x 9 monitor you must lettebox the output or you have lots of tall skinny people on your TV.

[David Mullen ASC]

DVD players can convert a 16x9 recording into a 4x3 letterboxed image for display. But for tape viewing, you need to make a 4x3 letterboxed dupe master from your 16x9 master.

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Yes, short and fat is the effect, but it's subtle, and you really see it only in the closeups. But, everyone sees it. I did neglect to mention that I did once have the final-cut media at my disposal, brought it to a friend's house quite proud of my work. Long story, short: he found that an (the?) anamorphic setting had been selected for every shot. Unclick anamorphic, and the result was a 16x9 window on his computer's monitor, no short and fat effect.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm not quite understanding what you're saying. If you've shot 16:9 and watched it in the wrong aspect ratio, that will make everyone look tall and thin, not short and fat. The only way to make people look short and fat is if you shot it 4:3 and watched it in wide, unless you managed somehow to have FCP centre-extract it then watched it on a 16:9 monitor. Is that what happened?

 

Phil

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Hi,

 

I'll try to clarify: We shot in 16x9. Viewed on either my tv or video projected in a theatre, we see a letterboxed image, in which the faces look a little "vertically squeezed," or "horizontally stretched", or (pick an adjective, just not "tall and thin"). It's subtle on tv, but not so subtle on a movie screen (even a little NYC movie screen ;)). Basically, it's close to the scenario Atavist describes in his last post; the output is 4:3 letterboxed, except we've never viewed it on a 16x9 monitor. Is it possible I mistakenly let the camera slip into 4:3 for 4 days? I suppose it's possible, but I don't think that me and the director and my A/C are such hacks that we wouldn't have noticed. Besides, the framing works for 16x9.

 

As for what I saw when I had the hard drive: I saw this only on the Apple's CRT. The clips all openned up into a square window, and exhibited the distortion. When we deselected "anamorphic," the window changed to a rectangle, and the distortion was gone. This suggests to me that we had the camera in 16x9, and that something has gone amiss in the post-production phase. You may have guessed that this is becoming a point of contention between me and the post house.

[Michael Nash]

I'll try to clarify: We shot in 16x9. Viewed on either my tv or video projected in a theatre, we see a letterboxed image, in which the faces look a little "vertically squeezed," or "horizontally stretched", or (pick an adjective, just not "tall and thin").

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That sure sounds like you shot 4:3 accidentally, and it's being squeezed into 16:9. Mistakes can happen. :( Is there any picture missing from the sides of the frame? Does the letterbox on a 4:3 monitor appear to be 16:9 in shape, or closer to 2.35:1? If either of these are true, it's possible the footage got letterboxed into 4:3 at some point during post, and then re-squeezed into 16:9.

 

You can avoid this sort of thing in the future by shooting a framing chart at the head of each project. Use a 16:9 chart that's clearly labeled "16:9" in the middle, with little arrow tips inside the frame pointing to the frame lines. Sometimes a big, perfectly round circle in the middle (like in the THX DVD setup) can help. If any arrows or lines are clipped on the monitor, you'll know right away there's a problem. Similarly if the circle looks stretched in any way you'll see it.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

A square window? No video format uses a square window. It's either 4:3 or 16:9 in the conventional video world. 4:3 is squarer than 16:9, but it's nowhere near square.

 

> the output is 4:3 letterboxed

 

This is ambiguous. Are you:

 

- seeing a 4:3 frame inside a 16:9 frame with vertical black bars

 

- seeing a 16:9 frame inside a 4:3 frame with horizontal black bars - which could make everyone look short and fat, but only if you had shot it in 4:3.

 

Please be specific as to the exact post route it has been through and the settings used at each stage. What does it look like if you play back the original camera tapes on a 16:9 monitor? If people are short and fat then, you shot it in 4:3.

 

The reason I'm asking this is that the only way to make people look short and fat is to take a 4:3 image and put it into a 16:9 display, and all things being equal your production should never have had anything to do with a 4:3 image. Now, either someone's taken your shoot tapes and ARC'd them to 4:3 on a centre extraction, which is very unlikely without you having asked for it very specifically, or, vastly more likely, you shot it in 4:3. If you have shot it in 4:3, however, this would be representative of you having stuffed up in a spectacularly big way, so I really hope you haven't.

 

Phil

[Michael Nash]

this would be representative of you having stuffed up in a spectacularly big way, so I really hope you haven't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL! :D

 

This is one of those things that the English in general, and Phil in particular, are really good at. Using such clean, polite and proper terms to say something really harsh. Americans would just say, "Dude... you f*@#ed up." ;)

 

I'm going to remember that one... "representative of you having stuffed up in a spectacularly big way." :P

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Thanks Phil,

 

The image is a 16:9 frame inside a 4:3 frame, w/ the mask.

 

As I said, it's possible I fudged it up, but - if memory serves, the viewfinder displays plenty of info, including in which aspect ratio it's recording.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> The image is a 16:9 frame inside a 4:3 frame, w/ the mask.

 

Well, then you're seeing a 4:3 frame that's been squashed into the masked area. What you now have to do is figure out where the 4:3 frame came from. Some NLEs can try to be way too helpful in this regard - it's possible to get Premiere to restretch your footage about three times if you set the right project and clip options, so all may not be lost. I'd have thought you'd have noticed simply by the shape of the frame if you were shooting the wrong ratio, unless you had all your on-set monitors in 16:9 and simply didn't notice the distortion.

 

Phil

[John Ealer]

J-Ro -

 

1. Is there any chance you could do a frame grab off a camera original tape and off the finished master and post it here?

 

What's confusing me is your remark:

 

'When we deselected "anamorphic," the window changed to a rectangle'

 

Obviously, this is OPPOSITE what Final Cut Pro is supposed to do. When anamorphic is selected, you should see the footage in a 16x9 "rectangular" window. When anamorphic is deselected, you should see the footage in a 4x3 "square" window.

 

2. Based on what you describe, I think it is less likely that you shot it in the wrong aspect ratio and more likely that something went amiss in post.

 

Here's my advice to get the absolute bottom of this:

 

Take the tapes in question to a dub house, tell them your sob story, and ask them a favor to pop a tape in their deck and play it. If the image looks "squeezed" on their monitor (which will be invariably set up for 4:3) then you shot your footage 16:9. If it looks "normal," then you shot 4x3. It's not a subtle difference.

 

3. Did you use a wide angle lens or adaptor? Optical distortion from wide angle lenses can sometimes distort the image, ESPECIALLY if they're at the sides of the frame.

 

J

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Hey Atavist,

 

Well, at last I get a little love :)

 

In answer to your questions:

1. Frame grab: No, I don't have the masters or the hardware/ software to post them here. (I'm pretty backwards computer wise.)

 

I think I'm just going to get the masters, take them back to the rental house and play them through an sdx-900 or a Panasonic deck.

 

2."What's confusing me is your remark: 'When we deselected "anamorphic," the window changed to a rectangle' Obviously, this is OPPOSITE what Final Cut Pro is supposed to do."

 

Yup, that's confusing, by I stand by it. Saw it w/ my own eyes, twice, on different days, different Macs.

 

 

3. Wide angle lense used?: Yeah, we used the Fujinon standard and wide zoom lenses that you would take out on an EPK or news shoot. We certainly did some shots w/ the wide at it's widest, but the problem is evident also in shots that we plainly did at longer focal lengths. (MCU's w/ shallow depth of field.)

 

Well, thanks everyone for your interest in this PITA subject. I will update after I see the masters.

J-Ro.

[John Sprung]

It's subtle on tv, but not so subtle on a movie screen .....  Is it possible I mistakenly let the camera slip into 4:3 for 4 days?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the distortion is subtle, it's unlikely that you made the really big mistake and had the camera in the wrong aspect ratio. I've looked at a lot of stuff that way, and it's definitely not subtle. This sounds much more like a post issue, somebody doing an unsqueeze and not quite getting it right. Computer monitors can also introduce a subtle anamorphosis, one that you might not notice if you weren't concerned about the issue to start with.

 

 

-- J.S.

[cineshooter]

May I make a suggestion:

Try playing back the footage that you shot in the camera, view it through the eyepiece. if the image fills the eyepiece edge to edge on the sides then you have recorded your image in the 16:9 mode and something is wrong in the editing end of things, If the image does not go edge to edge on the sides of the eyepiece, then it was recorded 4;3 mode, and that's what is called an oops!

 

JD

Cineshooter, LLC

www.cineshooter.com

 

 

 

quote=J-Ro,Oct 16 2004, 12:17 PM]

Hi,

 

I'll try to clarify: We shot in 16x9. Viewed on either my tv or video projected in a theatre, we see a letterboxed image, in which the faces look a little "vertically squeezed," or "horizontally stretched", or (pick an adjective, just not "tall and thin"). It's subtle on tv, but not so subtle on a movie screen (even a little NYC movie screen ;)). Basically, it's close to the scenario Atavist describes in his last post; the output is 4:3 letterboxed, except we've never viewed it on a 16x9 monitor. Is it possible I mistakenly let the camera slip into 4:3 for 4 days? I suppose it's possible, but I don't think that me and the director and my A/C are such hacks that we wouldn't have noticed. Besides, the framing works for 16x9.

 

As for what I saw when I had the hard drive: I saw this only on the Apple's CRT. The clips all openned up into a square window, and exhibited the distortion. When we deselected "anamorphic," the window changed to a rectangle, and the distortion was gone. This suggests to me that we had the camera in 16x9, and that something has gone amiss in the post-production phase. You may have guessed that this is becoming a point of contention between me and the post house.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Well, I got to the bottom of the problem and found ... me! I played the masters back through the camera and they came up in beautifully composed 4x3. So, as Phil says, I stuffed it up quite royally. The director is still speaking to me, but I'm not so sure he's going to hire me again. I'd love to discuss this more in depth, but I've got two shoots in the next week that I have to screw up ... I mean, prepare for :huh:

[Guest fstop]

Next time, make sure it's done BEFORE you leave the hiring house and you get the CEL number of tech support before you hit the road too! I learned from a similar experience recently, turned out I actually had the camera in 16:9, I just hadn't set the monitor to that ratio! :rolleyes:

 

EMBRACE this era of faff! :wacko:

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Whoops. Clang.

 

Phil

[cineshooter]

Hey don't feel too bad, we all make mistakes and to be perfectly honest; as the responsibilities of each crew member increases proportionally to the decreases in the number of crew members MORE not fewer mistakes will be made. The shrinking budgets and sacrificing of crew members is removing the system of checks and balances. At one time (I)crew members worked their way up the ladder, starting as camera assist, cam ops and then DP's. Now DP's get 'hired' because they will take the job not because of their qualifications or relationships that have been built with time and committment. There are gigs (many these days) where I am DP/AC/cam op/loader/and gaffer, and in the video world all the above and more. So hang in there and don't be too hard on yourself.

 

Best of luck on your next project.

 

JD

Cineshooter, LLC

www.cineshooter.com

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Thanks for the support. I'm pretty ok w/ the whole thing now, but the "it's all my fault" eMail to the director was a tough one to send. As for being overwhelmed on set, this was, actually, the first - and so far only - job I had on which I had an A/C, a gaffer, AND a grip. We also had a production designer, set dresser, hair, make-up, ad's, etc. And, they all thought I did a great job ... until ... Whoops, clang.

 

What I don't get is this: I checked the camera out w/ the tech at the rental house. I know we went through the menu's, and I know that I saw the two different aspects in the viewfinder, so what happenned? It's a total mystery to me.

 

fstop,

"turned out I actually had the camera in 16:9, I just hadn't set the monitor to that ratio! "

 

Isn't the viewfinder monitor autorange to the aspect ratio in which you're shooting? (or do you mean an outboard monitor?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The viewfinder will usually autoswitch, but any external monitor will usually need telling.

 

Phil

[Michael Nash]

Even viewfinders aren't completely foolproof, unfortunately. I've been shooting a little bit with a DVW-709 WS in 4:3 mode, and the image in the VF isn't quite 4:3 OR 16:9. The image doesn't fill the sides of the 16:9 VF as you would expect, but then it doesn't quite reach the bottom either -- giving you a stretched looking 4:3, but not as much as 16:9. <_< The monitors of course confirm the proper aspect ratio.