shooting in 4×3 editing in 16×9

[Thomas Kollerup]

We often do some projects in 16:9, where we are forced to use some old 4:3 archive footage.
If we are in a hurry, we just capture the footage in FCP as 16:9, and then stretching the picture by 25-30% (only vertically)
It looks OK, but of cause not as good as real 16:9 footage.

The other way is to capture all the footage trough our Teranex Mini UDCSN
This will upscale the 4:3 to 16:9 with nice looking results – in two different modes:

Common Sides
Ensures that the left and right edges of the input image match the left and right edge of the output
aspect ratio. For example, if the input aspect ratio is 4:3 and the output aspect ratio is 16:9, the left
and right edges of the input image are stretched to match the left and right edges of the output. In
order to maintain correct geometry of the image, the input image is then stretched vertically as well.
This has the same result as zooming in on the image. While this method maintains correct geometry
and fills the entire output display, it also results in an overall loss of approximately 33.33% of the input information in the vertical domain. This loss of information is split evenly between the top and bottom of the image.

Flexview
This mode, available in 480i59.94 to 720p 59.94 & 1080i59.94 and 576i50 to 720p50 & 1080i50 up-
conversions, is a non- linear anamorphic aspect ratio designed for use when converting 4:3 material to
16:9 without the traditional distortion of a normal anamorphic stretch. Flexview leaves the center
portion of the image untouched but provides increasing amounts of stretch towards the edges of the
image, filling the 16:9 image without distorting the center action area.

https://www.teranex.com/products/mini

[Herb Sevush]

Michael –

Use a 4×3 project with a 16×9 crop. No stretching or scaling this way and you can adjust which part of the frame to use with the motion tab.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Dave –

Does this mean simple letterboxing of the 720×480 frame?

Yes

Does it mean working in a 16×9, 720×360 frame (preserving the footage’s 0.9 pixel aspect ratio)?

I have no idea what this means.

Does it mean something else?

No.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Paul Lumsden]

Dave –

Does this mean simple letterboxing of the 720×480 frame?

Herb – Yes

just so i understand this – do you mean you’ve arced 16:9fha to 14:9lb in a 4:3 sequence? then to ‘fit’ in the 4:3 footage you’re adding a mask to create a 4:3 letterbox that matches the letterboxing of the (now arced) 14:9lb footage?

i’m only asking as i’m about to direct a live shoot where i’ll be using 3 x DVX100’s, 3 x super-8’s and 1 x VHS-C camera’s.
the VHS-C is 4:3 native, the super-8s are very close to 4:3 and i’d like the DVX100’s to shoot in 16:9fha. i plan on cutting in a 16:9fha sequence, using pan and scan arcing to insert the non-anamorphic footage. to make life a little easier, the VX’s will be shooting on SD.

i’m fine with the loss of quality, as the mixed formats/resolution is what the client wants. i’ve run a few tests and the only drawback i can find is telling my camera ops to bear in mind the picture loss of about 33.3% on the vertical.

can anyone else see where i may end up having a problem, and in a few weeks time i’ll be wishing i’d done the whole thing in 4:3?

[Herb Sevush]

Paul –

do you mean you’ve arced 16:9fha to 14:9lb in a 4:3 sequence?

I don’t know what you mean by “arced”, 16:9″fha”, or 14:9″lb”. I especially don’t know where you got the 14:9 aspect ration from.

The original post was simple “i am shooting in sd dv 4×3 but want the final to be in 16×9. should it be edited in a 16×9 project or in a 4×3 project with a 16×9 crop.”

The answer is also simple – in most cases, the sequence settings should match your delivery settings. Edit in a 4×3 project with a 16×9 crop if you are outputting to SD TV. If you are going for an HD blowup, then edit in a 16×9 HD sequence and scale up the clip 200%. If you’re only going to be distributing in DVD then you could edit in a SD 16×9 sequence and scale up 133.33.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Paul Lumsden]

Herb –

I don’t know what you mean by “arced”, 16:9″fha”, or 14:9″lb”. I especially don’t know where you got the 14:9 aspect ration from.

‘arc’ is a shorter term than the full phrase – ‘aspect ratio conversion’. an arc is ofen a rack mount unit, such as – https://www.snellwilcox.com/products/data/conversion_restoration/tbs190addata.pdf
however, one can do a basic (and often inaccurate) arc in the motion tab of fcp.

’14:9lb’ is the aspect ratio one gets as a result of arcing 16:9fha for tx. this arc is generally for regions that cannot tx in 16:9fha.

16:9fha is this – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
14:9 lb is this – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=1643227

the delivery is on digibeta, for terrestial and satellite tx. aspect ratio needs to be in 16:9fha. hence my problem of using film and old video footage in the cut. so far i’ve found ediitng in a 16:9fha sequence and doing a ruditmentry blow up on the 4:3 footage to be the best, but not an ideal solution. which seems to be one of your ways of approaching this problem.

i’m just wondering how other people have done this…

just incase you’re not familiar with the term, tx is short for ‘transmission’.

sorry if the lingo is a bit obscure/odd to you. i work in television in the uk and i know not all standards and phrases are the same elsewhere in the world.

[Herb Sevush]

Paul –

Our back and forth is an example of the old George Bernard Shaw quote about the English and the Americans: “two peoples separated by a common language.”

arc = aspect rate conversion.
fha= full height anamorphic.
lb = letter boxed.
14:9 = another complication in the already absurd world of modern tv standards to bedevil editors.

Thanks for the education.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions