HD 4:3 Master

[Daryl K davis]

I should also mention that there is nothing that makes a DP madder than to show them this specific deliverable line in the contract, especially if the project is 2:35, they just roll their eyes.

————————-
DK Davis / Editor/ Post Super
————————-

[Mark Raudonis]

Some of you guys are too quick to dismiss this workflow!

Yes, we’ve used this exact method for a documentary that originated in 4 x 3 SD. We bumped it up to HD for color correction and delivery, but maintained the “pillar box” aspect ratio. When we needed to do a SD delivery we only needed to do a “center punch” downconvert to achieve 4 x 3. No worries about “pan and scan”. On the other hand, when we needed to create an HD master, we went in and repositioned every frame to create a 16 x 9 master.

I deal with more “aspect ratio” issues on a day to day basis than just about any other technical issue. Don’t even ask me about 16 x 9 FHA deliverys for international use!

Mark

[Peter Lee-jones]

FH 4:3 HD master!

Yes, I have had to do this a number of times. Some companies in the States insist on it. Especially if is going to played on aeroplane entertainment systems.

The way to do it is to claculate a new 4:3 HD timeline then copy and paste your 16:9 timeline into it. You then Pan & Scan troublesome shots to preserve meaning. You can then play this out onto HD but set your monitor to 4:3 otherwise it will stretch it.

You can also downconvert this to make SD 4:3 deliverables.

rendering can take time …. include in your invoice!

[Liam Stephens]

Hey Mark i don’t think we really are dismissing more like Huh?! I actually work for work for an international distro house could u elaborate more on 16:9 FHA i’m sure someone is going to ask about that anyday now might as well cut that off at the pass 😉

[Rennie Klymyk]

4:3 is also the ratio for 70mm Imax. If/when they ever go to digital projection they will probably create a whole new 4:3 HD spec.

[Mark Raudonis]

16 X 9 FHA stands for “FULL HEIGHT ANAMORPHIC”. It’s essentially a “Squeezed” image to fit in a 4 x 3 frame. Untreated, a circle will look like an oval, and everything looks tall and thin. But…. if you shot this way originally (like we do) , then in the hands of an international standards converter you can get a much better up convert/ cross convert than if you started with just plain old 4 x 3. The problems arise when dealing with GRFX. The aspect ratio can be globally changed with a single click… the grfx not quite so easily. So, if you have a GRFX heavy show, like we do, it’s a major pain in the butt having to check and reposition hundreds of lower thirds, etc.

I’m afraid that until SD goes away, and that won’t be anytime soon, we’ll be dealing with these aspect ratio issues.

mark