8mm Forum: Letterbox, Pillar, or Anamorphic??

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » Letterbox, Pillar, or Anamorphic??

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: Letterbox, Pillar, or Anamorphic??

Nathan Blair
Junior
Posts: 2
From: Brooklyn, New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2008

posted January 24, 2013 10:42 PM

Hey all,

I need some advice... A friend and I are wanting to do an HD transfer of our Super 8mm film. Of course, it's natively 4:3, and HD video is 16:9... so as I understand our three options for converting the aspect ratio would be to letterbox, pillar, or use a funky anamorphic squeeze which would later be corrected. I am in need of some advice on which is the best method.

When asking a few different transfer facilities, the general consensus was that there would be no difference, whether they transferred it to a 16:9 resolution, or we blew up the 4:3 frame to 16:9 in Final Cut Pro.

However, this severely confuses me. I am no expert at transferring film, but I thought that the transfer process was an optical process... so therefor if the film were optically blown up to 1920 pixels horizontally, it would lose less quality than if a smaller 4:3 video were blown up digitally. The latter meaning that pixels would be stretched... right? How could both processes be equal if one is achieved optically and one is achieved digitally? Very confused. Please advise.

Thanks!

--------------------
Nathan Blair
Director Of Photography
http://www.nathanblair-film.com

| IP: Logged

Janice Glesser
Film Goddess

Posts: 3468
From: Sunnyvale, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2011

posted January 25, 2013 01:00 AM

I think there is some confusion in terms here. There is aspect ratio then there is resolution. Standard Resolution (SD) can be either 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio. While High Definition (HD) is 16:9. How the transfer house accomplishes this depends on the equipment they are using. When I transfer in HD I center the image in the 16:9 frame of the camcorder. Then when I edit it I add the pillar box in my editing program to crop and clean up the edges. I recommend pillar boxing to get the entire image in the frame without distortion or cropping. This is why you were probably told there will be no degradation in the image...because it will be shot at HD resolution...not SD.

If you want to fill the entire 16:9 frame they will have to zoom in, which will lose some of the top and bottom of the image. I can't see any reason for letter boxing a 4:3 image...and anamorphic will give you the entire image...but stretched across the frame.

--------------------
Janice

"I'm having a very good day!"
Richard Dreyfuss - Let It Ride (1989).

| IP: Logged

Ricky Daniels
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 587
From: London & Kent UK
Registered: Jul 2003

posted January 25, 2013 02:54 AM

Hi Nathan,

As a Broascast Engineer and ex Senior Telecine Colourist I can tell you that 4:3 does not exist in the HD world and neither does 'Anamorphic'. It's because HD is 1080 x 1920 pixels (16:9 geometry HD pixels) and designed for display on 16:9 displays and 4:3 is always displayed as 4:3 pillarbox (1080 x 1440 HD pixels) within this frame... anything else is incorrect.

Best,
Rick

| IP: Logged

Nathan Blair
Junior
Posts: 2
From: Brooklyn, New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2008

posted January 27, 2013 06:42 PM

Ok, thanks for the replies. Ricky, I do understand that Super 8mm is natively 4:3 aspect ratio, and HD is natively 16:9 aspect ratio. This is the reason for my question: What is the best method of scaling for the sharpest image?

quote:
If you want to fill the entire 16:9 frame they will have to zoom in, which will lose some of the top and bottom of the image.

-- Janice, this is exactly what I want. I want to effectively have a wide screen, super8mm film in the end. When we shot our film, we were sure to compose our frames to allow for cropping the top and bottom of the image. However, my question in regards to this is-- if they "zoom in" to fill the 16:9 frame, will it result in better quality than if I were to "zoom in" in my editing software?

Any more insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again!

--------------------
Nathan Blair
Director Of Photography
http://www.nathanblair-film.com

| IP: Logged

Janice Glesser
Film Goddess

Posts: 3468
From: Sunnyvale, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2011

posted January 27, 2013 11:22 PM

Zooming in with your camera on the original capture will give you the best quality opposed to enlarging frame in post.

--------------------
Janice

"I'm having a very good day!"
Richard Dreyfuss - Let It Ride (1989).

| IP: Logged

Ricky Daniels
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 587
From: London & Kent UK
Registered: Jul 2003

posted January 28, 2013 08:03 PM

Okay, Now I understand.

Like Janice says you effectively scan the 16:9 slice you are taking from your 4:3ish Super 8 frame and loose the top and bottom of the frame. In telecine this is done if you are presented with the original 'open frame' 35mm Neg' shot in say 'Super 35mm', either cropping out 1.85:1 (theatrical) 1.77:1 =16:9 (TV shoots), or even 2.40:1 (This area is printed Anamorphic for Theatrical)... the originating Negs are shot 'shoot and protect' and you scan only the intended ratio contained within the bigger frame.

In the Pro' Telecine transfer of Super 8mm you'd scan just the 1.77:1 'cut out' area by electronically zooming into the film frame to scan the area you require thus preserving the films resolution. Use this method rather than transferring in 4:3 and electronically zooming into the frame or zooming into the frame using your PC Editing software because if you do you are throwing away a lot of the available vertical image resolution and it's all about preserving it for the best image quality.

Best,
Rick

[ January 29, 2013, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: Ricky Daniels ]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2