What is the best way to shoot and edit 1.66:1?

[Xoanon]

Im shooting a film soon, and would be keen to use the 1.66:1 ratio. However, my DV camera only shoots 1.33:1 (4:3) or 1.78:1 (16:9).

I'd be most interested to hear anyones thoughts on what is the best way to get a 1.66:1 frame in editing. Do I shoot and protect in 4:3 and bring the footage into a 16:9 workspace, zooming the video in slightly to get the 1.66:1 frame (cropping the top and bottom a bit). Or, do I shoot 16:9 and bring that into a 16:9 workspace and crop the left and right edges to get a 1.66:1 frame?

Another method would be to shoot 4:3 and matte the top and bottom off slightly but this would give me a non-anamorphic widescreen frame for DVD authoring and I don't really want that.

Thanks to anyone who can understand my plight

[jagabo]

Shoot 16:9 and mask later. Especially if your shooting interlaced.

[Xoanon]

Im shooting interlaced, yeah. So you think I should shoot and protect at 16:9 (keeping the sides free) and matte the left and right sides to 1.66:1, am I understanding you right?

[jagabo]

Yes.

[Xoanon]

OK, thanks for that. Anyone else got any ideas?

[manono]

Why do you need any more ideas? jagabo got it right the first time, in my opinion. There are only 2 good choices, and his is the better of the 2, again, in my opinion (and his). Just be sure you don't have any important stuff out at the very edges that's going to be covered up.

[Xoanon]

I just being nice and fair and offering people a chance to put forward any alternative arguments.

[jagabo]

It doesn't hurt to have more than on opinion.

[Xoanon]

Yes, exactly. I think your method is great, and is most likely the one I will use. But it wouldnt hurt to hear some other views to balance the scales.

[manono]

I just being nice and fair and offering people a chance to put forward any alternative arguments.

Except that there aren't any. You know it yourself and you said it yourself. Cropping the top and botton of the 4:3 source and encoding for 4:3 is inferior. Cropping the top and bottom of the 4:3 source, zooming and encoding for 16:9 is inferior. Why? Because of the necessary zooming. You don't have the resolution of a true 16:9 source. That leaves the 16:9 source cropped from the sides to 1.66:1, with black added back, and encoded for 16:9.

By the way, this assumes the camera shoots in true 16:9, and not 4:3 with the top and bottom lopped of.

[guns1inger]

Out of curiosity, which such an outdated aspect ratio ? Is it a Kubrick homage ?

[edDV]

I agree with jagabo but would suggest you keep your action inside 1.66:1 marks on your monitor but keep acceptable video in the outside edges.

Somebody somewhere is going to project or print this to 16:9 so you don't want anything embarrassing out there. Use of black side stripes will generate complaints or worse cause the projectionist to crop top and bottom.

[Xoanon]

Out of curiosity, which such an outdated aspect ratio ? Is it a Kubrick homage ?

Its for asthetic reasons, I want a widescreen image but I want to create a feeling of claustrophobia.

[guns1inger]

Shoot 16:9 but shoot through a doorway. . . . . .

Seriously, I have done something similar before, and found that the results I liked the most were achieved using the full 16:9 frame, but artificially closing in the viewers focus using objects within the frame. Doorways, through chair legs etc. It also gave me more freedom about how to compose the frame, as the focal point could be shifted around within the wider image.

Just something to think about.

[Xoanon]

You're right, and I will be doing things like that too. But it also helps to start with a narrow aspect ratio to increase the sense of claustrophobia.