[Randy Mack]

I appreciate the detailed response. That confirms my suspicion. I’m still mystified as to why 720×480 is referred to as 4×3 in violation of math, but it’s good to know that it has no bearing on why the image is being cut off at the sides.

Thanks again,
_R

[Randy Mack]

thanx for your help

[Randy Mack]

3:2 is the same as 4:3 and just a different way of looking at the numbers, 3:2 is what 4:3 is if converted to square pixels

Ok, my head just exploded a little bit. The shape of pixels shouldn’t make any difference to the pixel count, since the dimensions refer to pixels themselves. A picture of 720 rectangular pixels will appear longer or wider than a picture of 720 square pixels but both are images of 720 pixels. (Right?!)

My film is 720 pixels wide and I would like to see all of those on the 640-wide TV. I know it will require reducing the image slightly, hence the need for letterboxing. Yet none of the letterboxing options I’ve tried succeed in creating the simple 11% reduction required.* Instead, it cuts off 11% of the image (or so, like 5.5% on each edge).

*Math note: 720-640= 80, which is 1/9 (ie. ~11%) of 720)

Here is footage from the film– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjpqUQ_VoEk

you always lose 10% on each edge.

What! 10% off each edge is 20%, or 1/5 of the whole image. My previous film was shot in 1080p HD and when I authored the DVD the loss on the edges was minimal. And one of the reasons we made this current film in SD was that it would WYSIWYG all the way to the TV. I calculate that a loss of 10% on each edge would put the film at 576×480, which just isn’t acceptable. Fortunately, the loss of image I’ve observed in my experiments isn’t that big, closer to the 5.5% mentioned above. And that’s why I’m here, to learn how to save the omitted part of the image.

I appreciate the help so far,
_R

[Randy Mack]

The material is not anamorphic.

Here is footage from it– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjpqUQ_VoEk

NTSC is *always* 720×480

Huh. I thought NTSC was 640×480. If this is true, and my TV and dvd player are NTSC, why would it cut off the edges of my 720×480 image as if it was 640×480? And for that matter, why would the aspect ratio choice be 4×3 (vs 16×9) if NTSC is 3×2?

I haven’t responded to Michael yet, but he says that somehow 4×3 = 3×2 which just defies mathematical law to me. I must be confused about something very fundamental about all this, such as what a pixel is.

_R

_Randy

BURNING ANNIE
***************
*
* * WINNER * BEST FEATURE * 2004 MassBay Int’l Film Festival * *
* * WINNER * BEST FEATURE * 2004 West Virginia Filmmakers Festival * *
*
* * http://www.BurningAnnie.com * *

[Randy Mack]

I don’t understand the question– the original footage is 720×480, which is 3:2… so, how can it be 16×9 or 4×3? It was shot on a Canon XL-2 if that’s helpful info.

So far I’ve authored DVDs in both 16×9 and 4×3 letterbox modes, and both trim the image on the sides. I haven’t tested it in anamorphic because we didn’t shoot in anamorphic (but maybe ‘anamorphic’ means something different than it does with lenses?)…

_R