You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Making 16:9 into 4:3

Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 5:33am

Post 1 of 28

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Don't think I've seen this question around here, and I'm gonna need it for next project, so here goes.

I'm going to shoot it in 16:9 by selecting that option on my Gl-2...

I'll open in my NLE (Ulead Media Studio Pro 7) as a 16:9 filesize...

Now if I was to save that a DV and export back to tape and watch on my television... it would squash the whole thing to fit.

Now, how would I go about adding black bars to my 16:9 file to make it a 4:3 aspect ratio?

I was thinking on the lines of VirtualDub, but I don't really know too much about that prog.

thanks
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 7:18am

Post 2 of 28

rmw

Force: 2532 | Joined: 2nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 609

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The best way would be to add black bars. But I suggest you film in 4:3 and then add black bars to that. (To make it 16:9)
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 7:28am

Post 3 of 28

Hajiku_Flip

Force: 3786 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1669

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Export your entire 16:9 video as a widescreen video file, then import it into your NLE. Choose 'maintain aspect ratio' and it will shrink your video to fit 4:3 standards, and add the black bars. Tadah! biggrin
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 9:00am

Post 4 of 28

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I also suggest filming with 4:3 ratio, then adding letterbox bars. The reason? Shooting in 16:9 doesn't capture as much of an image as 4:3 does. At least, that's my experience with it. Anyway, it's an option.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 9:27am

Post 5 of 28

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

A 16:9 ratio could capture more if you are filming with a widescreen camera.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 9:27am

Post 6 of 28

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Anamorphic doesn't capture as much image on the XM2/GL2, but it does capture pretty much the same resolution. Either way, if you film 16:9 you'll have more information than if you film 4:3 then stick black bars over the top.

Why are you filming Anamorphic ?

If you only want to show the film on 4:3 then you would be saving a lot of problems by just filming 4:3 and adding the black bars.

If you are filming Anamorphic so you can make a true widescreen TV version and a letterbox version for 4:3 then things become a lot more complicated. If you are working progressive rather than interlaced its quite easy, just squish the image vertically in your NLE and your done. If you are working with an interlaced image it really depends what tools you have, you could deinterlace the footage then squish it but this won't give perfect TV playback. To create a correct interlaced image you would need to split the fields, then squish the image then reinterlace the fields but I don't know what tools would allow you to do this.

Any ideas anyone?
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 1:56pm

Post 7 of 28

adamlightandmagic

Force: 580 | Joined: 3rd Nov 2001 | Posts: 611

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I've been using an ancient Sony camera for the last 4 years with 16:9. I like using it more than the normal mode. I remember testing the difference between the modes, but I couldn't see any disadvantages in shooting 16:9.

If you like the anamorphic road, take it. You do lose a smidgen of top and bottom. But trust me, it's not really noticeable. And you get plenty more picture on the sides anyway!

If you are working with an interlaced image it really depends what tools you have, you could deinterlace the footage then squish it but this won't give perfect TV playback. To create a correct interlaced image you would need to split the fields, then squish the image then reinterlace the fields but I don't know what tools would allow you to do this.
I always use interlaced footage in Vegas4. For fullscreen from 16:9 pictures, I use the trackmotion tool. I set it to 16:9 and I simply pull the trackmotion to the sides and let it fill the entire previewscreen. It's that easy for me. Never had a problem with any of the above problems.

Adam.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 2:36pm

Post 8 of 28

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Firstly, you don't gain any more picture on the left and right with anamorphic on DV cameras you just lose it from the top and the bottom. All it does is stretch the image vertically to fill the frame therefore making an image which when displayed on a widescreen TV has none square anamorphic pixels pixels.

Secondly, it is true that your won't get interlacing issues with your anamorphic footage if you just stretch it width ways till it doesn't appear squished on 4:3 as the interlaced lines will still be in the same place, BUT there are several big problems with this method.

1. In stretching the width of your footage you are cutting the edges which means it won't look wide screen and could mean you have to move shots about so that you can still see everything you want to see.

2. In stretching the image you are interpolating every pixel on the screen meaning you are losing sharpness.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:19pm

Post 9 of 28

adamlightandmagic

Force: 580 | Joined: 3rd Nov 2001 | Posts: 611

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Schwar, firstly, I don't have a dv camera. Secondly, I'm not stretching my footage. The trackmotion is zooming into the 16:9 footage. Thirdly, the name of the topic is Making 16:9 into 4:3. I think I've answered that. I'm not bothered about anything else, because I know it works for me. Losing sharpness is natural in this case, if you think about it. But, it can be dealt with by using proper processing.

If something works for one person and there are no obvious problems showing up in what they do, why criticise it?

Adam.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:27pm

Post 10 of 28

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Erm, I think schwar was trying to provide some additional information, not criticise anything.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:28pm

Post 11 of 28

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Indeed the name of the topic is "Making 16:9 into 4:3" but you're not doing that. You seem to be talking about black bar widescreen which is 4:3, not 16:9 anamorphic.

16:9 anamorphic footage is full frame just like 4:3 footage but stretch vertically. Zooming 16:9 footage isn't the answer and it won't even work for black bar widescreen unless you deinterlace it first which means it won't work correctly on standard TVs.

I'm not getting at you adamlightandmagic but as I have stated there are obvious problems with your method when it comes to 16:9 anamorphic footage and black bar footage. I'm just trying to get to the right answer for the question.

In reality its not an easy conversion from anamorphic footage to 4:3 (black bars or not) and this is why there are many expensive tools on the market to help you do this.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:31pm

Post 12 of 28

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

Rating: -1

I'm assuming the fact that my post was deleted was due to a technical error?

If It wasn't then I don't see why it was,
Here's a link to the image that I origionally posted...

The Easy way in MSP to create custom black bars, is to...

1) Create two black, blank clips.
2) Use the moving path option to position them correctly, as shown in the image...

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/254625/show.JPG
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:32pm

Post 13 of 28

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

He doesn't need to add black bars, thats simple. He needs to be able to convert anamorphic widescreen footage to 4:3 footage with black bars.

tard
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:32pm

Post 14 of 28

adamlightandmagic

Force: 580 | Joined: 3rd Nov 2001 | Posts: 611

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Actually I was talking about my source footage being 16:9 anamorphic. Otherwise, I wouldn't post in this topic. I know the difference between that and black bars on top of 4:3 footage.

Zooming 16:9 footage isn't the answer and it won't even work for black bar widescreen unless you deinterlace it first which means it won't work correctly on standard TVs.
Then why does it work on my tv?

PEACE,
Adam.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:36pm

Post 15 of 28

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

The topic may be called making 16:9 into 4:3 but what they actually meant was making anamorphic widescreen into 4:3 letterboxed widescreen. TAP2 seems to be confused and talking about something else.

I have to add what I always say which is that filming in anamorphic is better because it saves more information when it compresses to DV which is the bottleneck. During edititng and recompression you only lose quality so its best to start with as much as you can.

At the last minute you can then simply squish it down to the right ratio. (Remember you only have to add bars when going to DV which has a fixed res. For other codecs it is better to have no bars and simply a widescreen res because encoding bars makes your quality worse or your size unneccesarily bigger) The resizing loses much less quality than a simple recompression as long as you use a good algorithm. Editing packages will have resize for quality rather than speed but virtualdub gives an option of several methods.

Interlacing is not a problem because editing programs understand fields. If you do it in virtualdub you just select interlaced in the resize filter options. This means that it will split the fields, resize and then combine fields automatically. You do not need to deinterlace.

Last edited Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:39pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:37pm

Post 16 of 28

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Kid - most video editing programs simply deinterlace the footage and only apply interlacing to the motion, not using the field of the footage, but this can make it appear flickery on a TV, like progressive footage and is a hacky way of doing it.

It is because of this that there are so many 3rd party plugins to sort this kinda thing as its not as simple as squishing the image in your NLE because they are not built to do this.

Last edited Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:48pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:44pm

Post 17 of 28

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Ah, right. Yup I agree that the motion method is daft. smile
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:47pm

Post 18 of 28

adamlightandmagic

Force: 580 | Joined: 3rd Nov 2001 | Posts: 611

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You program probably deinterlaces footage with motion applied automatically, but this makes it appear flickery on a TV, like progressive footage and is a hacky way of doing it. Why are you zooming the footage at all? He still wants it wide screen, he just wants it formatted 4:3 with black bars rather than full frame anamorphic.
Schwar, you're assuming a lot. I DON'T DEINTERLACE. I tried it and it looked flickery and crap. I set my footage correctly by setting the correct field to process first and then it retains its interlaced-ness.

The reason I mentioned zooming the footage is because of this topic. If my previous instructions are used with Vegas, the result will be what he wants. Just remember to add the pan/envelope (16:9 setting) over the existing 16:9 footage. That way it will be 4:3 with bars to make it look like 16:9 framed.

Adam.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:49pm

Post 19 of 28

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Well you shouldn't do it that way. It's totally crazy. All you need to do is a simple resize.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:49pm

Post 20 of 28

adamlightandmagic

Force: 580 | Joined: 3rd Nov 2001 | Posts: 611

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

What simple resize?
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:51pm

Post 21 of 28

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

If your NLE has a specific setting for converting from anamorphic 16:9 widescreen to letterbox then I would think its doing all the field splitting for you, but I know that many people have problems with using the standard tools inside their NLE like dot crawl and shimmer depending on what interpolation method the NLE used on resizing the fields.

Last edited Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 4:00pm; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:53pm

Post 22 of 28

Hajiku_Flip

Force: 3786 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1669

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Hajiku_Flip wrote:

Export your entire 16:9 video as a widescreen video file, then import it into your NLE. Choose 'maintain aspect ratio' and it will shrink your video to fit 4:3 standards, and add the black bars. Tadah! biggrin
What's wrong with my process? I've done it in the past, and it gives near-perfect results, if any loss at all. confused
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 3:57pm

Post 23 of 28

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

You mean import it into a 4:3 project.

That is effectively doing the same thing as a plain resize isn't it?
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 4:19pm

Post 24 of 28

adamlightandmagic

Force: 580 | Joined: 3rd Nov 2001 | Posts: 611

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ah....

After having re-read what the post was asking for, I misunderstood.

If it's just to take the original ana16:9 and then make it look ok on a 4:3 screen, then my original answer wasn't too far off.
Use a setting to unsquish the footage and then simply export.
The way I do this in Vegas is to use the Trackmotion option (16:9 Widescreen TV aspect ratio) on my anamorphic footage and it will correct the aspect ratio. Then render with what codec you want.

The result is a correctly viewed picture in 4:3.

Virtualdub is also another piece of software that will do the same. I capture at 768x576 and can correct the aspect ratio by telling it to squash this image by 144 pixels to 768x432. That's a very manual way of doing things and I haven't done that for a long time.

Adam.
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 5:37pm

Post 25 of 28

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

With all the answer that have been given here I just want to know if he has had any luck yet? biggrin
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 6:27pm

Post 26 of 28

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Sorry for not answering yet: Time zone differences, heh smile I'm going to do a quick test to see what works best. Thanks for all your replies.

Edit: I tried Flip's method and it worked like a charm. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for helping everyone smile
Posted: Sun, 28th Dec 2003, 9:48pm

Post 27 of 28

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

My method would work fine... if you were 'zooming' in a portion of the 16:9 footage for real 4:3 footage. But, as I've just realised you actually want to do... so I REALLY appologise for trying to be helpful.

Why couldn't you just shrink the footage, or unstretch it? So that it fits into 4:3?
Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2003, 1:55am

Post 28 of 28

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

You CAN just, resize after you have edited. That is what I have been saying all along.

If you need to convert fron 16:9 widescreen to 4:3 fullscreen then you will prolly need to use a combination of zooming and traditional pan&scan as some people seem to be going on about but that's not what we are talking about.