who is ready for widescreen?

[syzygy]

What would your reaction be to a club having a 16:9 projector/screen installation?

We're working on a long term installation at the moment. 16:9 will suit the venue best, but we're worried that it may cause problems for visiting VJs / AV acts...

[Amukidi]

Bring it on I say - lovely rectangle to work within!

[oxygen]

I love the looks of widescreen, or anyhting different then 4:3..
But if you ask me it could cause some problems, when you are inviting other VJ's. Squeezed images is not very flattering.
Maybe using double-projection on is an option.

[charlielangridge]

16:9 would be great but for us there is the problem that our entire backcatalog of clips is in 4:3, so we'd either have to re-edit a shedload of clips or re-shoot. I guess it entirely depended on the event, cos for themed events I could justify reworking or shooting a load of footage, but for a general clubnight it would be a bit of a bastard

[visualove]

16x9 is the future.

Most projectors are the VESA (computer spec) equivalent of 4x3 native SGA,VGA,... and show 16x9 letterboxed. So you have black bars top and bottom on a 4x3 screen in a darkened club. Not the worst thing.

If you get a WVGA, WXGA (1280x800) VESA native projector, it should have a non stretched mode, or you could find a programable rescaler for VJ's with 4x3 material as composite, s-video or VGA.

The consumer wide screen projectors will use the HDTV sizes natively: 1280x720 and 1920x1080 which are 16x9. They will become more common if HD catches on.

(what exactly is your screen layout?)

[Freespirit]

I can work on al sizes and not only square rectangle wide etc. But also on logo's heart shapes etc. I build my own custom screens and then adapt my video for it. So 16:9 or 4:3 is in my opinion very boring :D

I didn't have an oportunity for a custom screen lately. But with Modul8's resolution independent output and the options in Final Cut Pro for custom sizes it should be a dream.

[murk]

I am currently doing all shows at 8:3 (2 screens), I think the wider the better, it gives you a much bigger sandbox to play in. The only issues is that some of your content needs to be customized (ie. more work) to the aspect ratio to fully take advantage of it.

[many2]

I've been playing a lot with different formats :

3 : 4 --> turning your projector on the side will let you discover a brand new dimension : verticality.

3 : 8 --> even more vertical !

4 : 9 --> three 4 : 3 on top of each other

8 : 3 --> just like Murk :)

16 : 3 --> My new favorite format

24 : 3 panoramic --> this is fun but it's harder to produce the content.

but my all time favorite is 4 : 3 with tilable content : if all your content is tiling with itself on each layer you can have a lot of fun arranging many screens together in all sorts of configurations.

[oxygen]

3 : 4 --> turning your projector on the side will let you discover a brand new dimension : verticality.

3 : 8 --> even more vertical !


vertical (http://www.vjforums.com/attachment.php?postid=83951)

vertical rocks!

[Anyone]

Originally posted by many2
but my all time favorite is 4 : 3 with tilable content

that's mine too!
working on The suspension of Displeasure,
a three screen setup projecting the same image,
almost only paterns!

Ne1

[syzygy]

We've done some stuff at 9:16 - vertical screens definitely work really well. We used them as pillars to the sides of the stage.

The reason we want to go for 16:9 is that the space above the stage where we want to fit one screen is approximately 16:9, so a widescreen screen will fill it nicely. Also, the areas where we want to hang two more screens are fairly low, so 16:9 will let us get more screen real estate without creating a hazard.


Thanks for your responses everyone. It loosk like we can go for 16:9 but that we need to take into account that some VJs will need to use 4:3 content.

Cheers,

Dan.

[Rovastar]

16:9 will be no problem for me. I imagine many/most clip based VJ's it will look messed up a bit though as they will need 4:3.

[dubassy]

i find i'm at a bit of a crossroads at the moment. i am creating 16:9 for the clips to sell with getty images , and then rearranging the compositions to re-render the clips i also wish to use in my vjing into 4:3 format.

probably best to start building up a collection of 16:9, to lay in wait until needed in the future?

[charlielangridge]

Dan mate, if im thinking of the venue in question then 16:9 would look great, but tbh, i think the response u got back is only a very small amount and not at all representative of the general vj comunity. Understandably CG can be easily redone, but i can see you finding that most people will be wanting to use 4:3, especiailly with filmed footage.

[many2]

Charlie has a point here.

I do not know a lot of VJs who are producing all their content to fit special aspect ratios. Since I only work on big projects I can afford to create new content in a special format for every show I am doing, but I can imagine most VJs don't have time to do that.

I think that if you go for widescreen you should choose 8:3, this way the user can simply double his image horizontally to fill the screen.

Also, about 16:9, remember that most projectors are 4:3 native and will only put black bands up and down the image to create the illusion of 16:9 --> this means less brightness (you aren't using all the pixels) and digital scaling of your input (which is usually very very bad on cheap projectors). Or you could use an anamorphic lens.

[Stuart]

I did an hour show at 4:1 (three synced 4:3 channels). I loved producing the content for this ultra wide format. What fun!

[murk]

Yeah, specialized content in customized aspect ratios is the way to go. I am almost thinking that multiple, chained scan konvertors would be flexible. Then you could just do larger output res (1280x960+) on a single surface.

[sleepytom]

err hang on a moment guys....

dan is doing a projector install not a projector and scaller and splitter and endless other bits install.

for what its worth dan i'd go with 16:9 screens - position the projectors so that the zoom lens is at or near its widest for the 16:9 image - this should enable to same projector to be set to 4:3 and zoomed in a bit giving a 4:3 letterbox in your 16:9 screen

then everyone will be happy

[syzygy]

Originally posted by sleepytom

for what its worth dan i'd go with 16:9 screens - position the projectors so that the zoom lens is at or near its widest for the 16:9 image - this should enable to same projector to be set to 4:3 and zoomed in a bit giving a 4:3 letterbox in your 16:9 screen


Yep, that's what we're planning. If we can find some projector models that fit the 16:9 screens and also zoom down to fit 4:3 in the center of the screens then that will be for the best.

Praise be to the projectorcentral projection calculator ;)

Dan.

[InsideUsAll]

we've played with 16:9 format for a few years now at various different gigs. We've used squashed 4:3 content and in my humble opinion it looks fine.

OK i have a niggling at the back of my mind which says that contents a bit squashed. But this subtlety goes way over the punters heads, along with most of the rest of what we do! ;)

[julez]

it really depends on what style you use in your performance. People and more "realistic/urban" scenes will tend to look worse when stretched to 16:9 while more abstract and effected visuals will still look good.

[Amukidi]

I think its fairly safe to assume that no footage intended for 4:3 will be ideal when stretched, and this will (hopefully) spur folks into making a lot more new material, which can't be a bad thing! Gonna mean spending too - to shoot true 16:9 will require a fairly expensive camera, but they are such a joy to use, I think I can overcome the sharp sting to the wallet:)

[syzygy]

We used a 16:9 adapter for a 4:3 DV camera recently and the results look good.

The adapters aren't exactly cheap themselves though...

Dan.

[Amukidi]

True, but you are eating into my rationalle for buying a PD170 or an FX1!! Don't tell my missus!

[sleepytom]

PD170 is 4:3
FX1 is 16:9 / 4:3 switchable
both only do interlaced video.

[Esotic]

At the moment I'm shooting all my footage 16x9 as I project 16x9 (due to similar area restrictions). I render it out anamorphic at 640x480, but I tell the projector to adjust. I'm contemplating compiling a 720x480 version of OpenTZT so I can work in the native resolution of the footage I'm shooting.

As a side note I find the Vegas Interpolation Deinterlacing quite effective at getting interlaced MiniDV footage into a progressive format.

There's also a TV in the room that shows the image in 4x3. Nobody is going to mind being streched thinner and taller, but wait and see how many girls complain about being squished vertically if you go from 4x3 to 16x9.

I wish I was joking about that.

-Esotic

[Amukidi]

Tom - do you have any experiences of the Sony PDX10p? Jim (myogenic) has recently bought one of these, and I had a tinker with it a week or so back. It looks a good bet (especially at the price), but I've read one particular review (Alan Roberts on DV Doctor - a BBC video tech researcher of many years) that wasn't quite so complimentary.

[sleepytom]

yeah i'm just fiddleing about with one now.

i agree with much of what alan wrote - its a step backwards from the excelent TRV900 / PD100.

the major issues with it for me are the lack of ND filter and the use of the medium size batterys.

also the fact that its a bit too small (if you have non japanese fingers) and the lack of any decent progressive scan mode puts me off.

the panasonic AG-DVC30 is a much better cam imho (if you can do without DVCAM which allmost everyone can) it's cheaper than the PDx10 and has proper progressive mode and a much better zoom - it's 4:3 though so you'd need to budget an extra ?300 or so for an anamorphic lens if you want to shoot 16:9. but for the cost of an FX1 you could have the DVC30, an extra battery, anamorphic lens, and a proper tripod (vinten pro5 or whatever).

this will give you better results than a handheld FX1 and provide a much faster production workflow to high quality progressive VJ clips. - the only advantage the FX1 has is the HDV which actually makes its workflow rather messy as to get the best quality SD clips you must shoot and capture in HDV and then software convert to SD before editing and compressing for VJ use.

its a toss up which gives the best end results (you can make some very nice SD 50fps progressive footage from HDV but its a long process) i'm guessing that the ease of workflow / production speed is more important to most people than absolute quality - this being the case then the panasonic progressive scan DV cameras look like a better bet than the sony HDV beasts.

[Amukidi]

"but for the cost of an FX1 you could have the DVC30, an extra battery, anamorphic lens, and a proper tripod (vinten pro5 or whatever)."

I've been thinking this, coupled with a natural tendency to avoid first-generation technology upgrades!! That Panasonic looks worth further investigation, not having a lot of luck findinng info on the anamorphic adaptor - any links?

[eddi]

i would say about 80 to 90 % of my gigs i project in 16:9.
there are several reasons for this:
1) personally i find 16:9 a much more attractive format than 4:3.
2) since i am a vj/filmmaker and try to shoot material that i can use as well for vjing as for editing into films that will be projected in 16:9, i almost always shoot in 16:9.
in the many places that i have been vjing this is in general no problem, it does sometimes take a lot of attention and preparation to get the projection adapted.
if this is not possible i sometimes use footage that i have encoded in 16:9 and play it from a dvd player in pan and scan mode (unfortunately losing a bit on the sides, but i find that more acceptible than the distortion you would otherwise get). sometimes i even edit 2 versions of footage: a 16:9 version and a 4:3 version.
on the other hand i find footage shot in 4:3 in general less disturbing when projected in 16:9.
and in places that natively show 16:9 (like club 11 in amsterdam) the footage really looks very good.

eddi

[sleepytom]

Originally posted by Amukidi
That Panasonic looks worth further investigation, not having a lot of luck findinng info on the anamorphic adaptor - any links? http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/6.htm