Forum Forum (
-   Author, Make Menus, Slideshows, Burn (
-   -   4:3 or 16:9 DVD (VHS) delivery? (

BarryTheCrab 11-25-2017 08:54 AM

4:3 or 16:9 DVD (VHS) delivery?
How do the members here prefer to "deliver" or burn their DVDs, as far as aspect ratio is concerned?
I can burn the 4:3 video as it is, or I can mask the ugly edges and center the video within a 16:9 widescreen window.
Not every player and TV act the same and I find this a little frustrating to hand over a DVD that plays nicely without the viewer hunting for proper settings.
Thank you

sanlyn 11-25-2017 09:45 AM


Originally Posted by BarryTheCrab (Post 51586)
Not every player and TV act the same

Yes they do, with authored DVD. You have to set a player to recognize the shape of your TV or monitor. If you have a 4:3 TV, tell your player your TV is 4:3. If you have a 16:9 TV, tell your player you have a 16:9 TV. The player will play and format the video properly -- it will play a 4:3 video on a 16:9 TV with side pillars, will play a 16:9 DVD full screen. These are industry-wide standards, it's not arbitrary.

If you want to blur your image by removing letterbox bars on a 4:3 authored DVD and resizing the image that's your business, but most people don't. They play letterboxed 16:9 DVD's as-is and, if it really kills them to see a letterboxed image, they zoom or enlarge the image on their TV if necessary, but I don't -- it blurs the picture. If you enjoy watching blurry video, that's up to you. Your statement that TV's do this differently in correct only in that most players and TV's differ when it comes to resizing quality. If you want a TV that renders well, get a good one (which usually costs more than a cheapo. SONY and Samsung resize quite well if you need it).

BarryTheCrab 11-25-2017 11:27 AM

To be clear I meant by taking my 4:3 capture, in a 4:3 editing interface, masking any rough edges, and rendering a version in 4:3 for streaming, then going into 16:9 and resizing the actual video to fit within the widescreen and burn it like that. Sometimes with a full screen blurred backdrop from the video or color-board, mostly not.
I am sure I do things you would frown upon but leaving image or video off the screen outside the borders is unthinkable, even to me!

sanlyn 11-25-2017 12:38 PM

What you're doing doesn't make much sense. Blurred backdrop? You like watching blurred stuff? But you're right, many viewers will watch anything, and if it moves and makes sounds then all the better. Some prefer less clutter and fewer gimmicks, and pretty much accept technology's limits as they exist. Some people just can't accept any part of a wide screen that isn't populated. Watching standard definition cable broadcasts and portrait-sized iphone videos must be extremely disheartening for them, but sad to say they're going to be getting upset for a very long time to come. To each his own.

lordsmurf 11-25-2017 01:12 PM

sanlyn is a bit harsh here, but I do agree. The idea that the screen must be filled with images is OCD nonsense. If you're that insane, learn to use the zoom button on the TV. But for the actual original disc contents, respect the original aspect ratio. And don't add stuff to the sides.

At some point in the future, people will look back on the stupid/odd practice of adding colors and blurry images to 4x3 viewed at 16x9, and find it a cringe-worthy as seeing their parents/grandparents in psychedelic-colored bell-bottoms.

It will date the footage, and not in a good way.

News channels are often guilty of adding ghostly blurred crap on the edges, and it looks worse than just leaving it black matte. The only time it seems to be palpable is when GSN runs classic game shows, with those green/yellow color bars, because the 70s/80s shows were already pretty garish color-wise.

"To each is own" only works when you're doing something that only affects you. When you make a non-personal-use-only video, you're subjecting others to your bad habits.

BarryTheCrab 11-25-2017 01:18 PM

The blurred image or video (preferably image) fills the screen and makes the actual video sort of float above it. It can look really nice or be dreadfully distracting, but a simple 4:3 has plenty going for it. But I wanted to know what the norm is and 4:3 no shenanigans is certainly easier and faster.
This is mostly an aside, I just didn’t know if most folks were leaving it as is because I get different viewing results on my TVs and DVD and BR players and just want the most universal result.

lordsmurf 11-25-2017 01:27 PM

The norm depends on use.

If it's part of a 16x9-dominated broadcast, the current ill-conceived norm is to add colors, blurred stuff, and other distractions. I really only see this happening on news channels.

If it's a 4x3 broadcast, it's usually left alone and matted.

The theory behind all this is due to plasma TVs, which were terrible, and easily subject to screen burn. But by the time anybody started to make content that appeased plasma owners, the tech was already gone. So we have this needless habit of adding stuff instead of leaving it pure black in this era of LCDs. That's why it happened, and why it should end.

The "I must fill my screen" OCD crowd is far less of a reason.

FYI: One of my extended family members is a "must fill screen" moron, who watches Fatman not Batman (all stretched and wide). And while zooming would keep the aspect ratio, that's a no-no because "it cuts off part of the picture". Argh!

BarryTheCrab 11-25-2017 02:59 PM

4:3 it is. Asked, answered.

lordsmurf 11-25-2017 03:16 PM

As is the case with GSN, one of the only exceptions I find acceptable, it also depends on the content. Agauin, GSN does it during classic 70s/80s game shows that were already pretty colorful. It's not distracting, and at times even blends into the image seamlessly.

It's very subjective and heavily depends on the purpose and mood of the video. In general, it's always safe to leave it at 4x3. When you start taking artistic license, and adding stuff, you may end up both detracting and distracting for the video.

An actual important thing to pay attention to is the masking/cropping of overscan noise. When I see tape head noise and CC dots on a 16x9 image that had other editing done (adding 16x9 colors/blue, crops, etc), I want to smack the person upside the head. Bad editor, bad! :laugh:

dpalomaki 12-05-2017 06:19 PM

^+1, Definitely mask the overscan garbage.

Might be worth finding out what the paying client, if there is one, expects, wants.

Many systems behave rather differently if connected via analog cables rather then HDMI. HDMI connections seem to offer less end user control over display of the image. Also, some TVs can stretch of the sides of a 4x3 image to fill the screen. (The fat ladies are singing on the sides.)

lordsmurf 12-06-2017 01:54 AM

Yes, most players are dumb, limited options for aspect controls. But the HDTV has the aspect controls. :wink2:

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 PM

Site design, images and content © 2002-2022 The Digital FAQ,
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2022 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.