Template Creation

[Kim W]

When making a template with a default screen ratio of 16:9, how can it be made so that it is compatable with every screen ratio? (i.e. 4:3, 5:4, 15:9 etc.)

[fh1805]

It can't! At least, it can't without either showing black bands somewhere (top/bottom or both sides) or having the images cropped arbitrarily. This is the challenge that you, as an AV worker, now face. Your computer monitor is 16:9, as is your TV, your camera shoots 3:2 and your digital projector shows 4:3. Which aspect ratio do you choose? You cannot satisfy them all. In fact, you can only fully satisfy one of them without some change happening that you would probably rather not happen.

For what it might be worth: I shoot 3:2 with the camera. I build 16:9 in PTE because that fits the computer monitor and the TV. I project 4:3 and accept that there will be black bands at top and bottom.

Peter

[davegee]

Like peter said,

If you make it 16:9 and 1920x1080 with "Fixed size of slide" ticked it will fit to the width of any monitor up to and including 1920 wide.

For monitor sizes above 1920 wide it will remain at 1920x1080.

DG

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Kim

You could buy a Panasonic FZ150 & set the AR to what you like. My monitor is 16-9, as is my TV lap top & projector, so my FZ150 is set to 16-9 also. Unfortunately the majority of DSLR's are fixed at 3-2 AR which nowadays is a bit out of date.

Yachtsman1

[Tony Falla]

Hi Kim

One of the problems that has always existed in photography even before digital AV, is that the ratio of the camera image was usually different from the ratio of the output. Although the 3:2 ratio of the camera image is now almost a universal norm, cameras do exist with 4:3, 1:1 and various other ratios. Even in the days when your only option was to print your images, you had to decide whether you were going to crop your image or print with uneven borders as a most papers were a 5:4 ratio. As has already been said there are currently two popular ratios for outputting AV's 16:9 and 4:3. What you have to do is decide where you are usually going to show your AV's. If you are intending to use a 4:3 projector then obviously this is the size to go for, if however you will normally be showing on a TV, computer monitor or 16:9 projector then obviously that is the size to go for.

However don't get too hung up on all these ratios and the equipment you are using. Look at the images you want to include in your sequence and decide from them what size will best suit the sequence you want to create. If it means that the ratio being chosen is different to the equipment, in my opinion, that doesn't matter, the sequence you are creating is the main consideration. Although there will be a black border it isn't noticeable when the sequence is being played. This gives you plenty of scope to express yourself so even if you use a ratio that isn't 4:3 or 16:9 as long as that ratio fits the sequence it will still play no matter what equipment you use for showing.

Tony Falla

[BEB]

Tony

What you have to do is decide where you are usually going to show your AV's. If you are intending to use a 4:3 projector then obviously this is the size to go for, if however you will normally be showing on a TV, computer monitor or 16:9 projector then obviously that is the size to go for.

I have to take issue with what you have said here because I don't believe it is correct. It doesn't matter that a 4:3 projector is being used. A 16:9, a 16:10 or a 4:3 slide show will display perfectly OK on a 4:3 projector, I do it all the time and have been for the last 3+ years.

Given that TV's are 16:9, that you can't buy a screen or laptop that is not 16:9 now, then 16:9 is a good format to make a slide show. You don't have to make a 4:3 slide show for a 4:3 projector

A 16:9/16:10 show

Will play perfectly on the computer

Will make a great DVD if that is your need

Will display perfectly on a 4:3 projector

[Tony Falla]

BEB

The whole point of my comment is that you should consider where you are going to output your AV sequences and that has an influence on the ratio of your show. If you are going to show your sequences on TV's, computer monitors then I agree you should aim for 16:9. If however, as I do, the majority of your shows will be shown on a 4:3 projector then make them this way. I do not see the point of making 16:9 sequences if you are mainly going to show them at 4:3 and vice versa. I know as pointed out in my second paragraph that it doesn't matter what ratio you use your sequence will still be displayed. Funnily enough the PC I use for creating my sequences has a 16:10 ratio and if I use my iMac to create a sequence then that has a 16:9 ratio so I do have experience of running sequences of different ratios.

I would also add that I personally do not particularly like 16:9 ratio, I find that the images I have taken in my 3:2 ratio camera do not crop very well to 16:9 they crop much better to 4:3 but as I say that is a personal thing. It does not mean that I haven't used 16:9, I have as well as other ratios.

The main point of my comments to Kim was not to get hung up on ratios, consider where you are going to output your sequence, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what ratio you use it will still play no matter which piece of equipment it is shown on.

Tony Falla

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Tony

You are probably aware I've written chapter & verse on this subject. Until last year I was a 5-4 man, then when I thought my laptop was failing jumped into the 16-9 camp with both feet. I converted most of the shows I had the original raw images for. Bought a 16-9 projector laptop & PC monitor, latterly a camera I can take 16-9 images with. The only problem I find mixing ratios on the projector is the size of the image on the screen & the distance the projector is from the screen. If I set the distance to suit the 16-9, the 5-4 or 4-3 images dont fill the screen width, & the zoom control isn't sufficient to compensate. If I set the distance for 5-4 the same problem but with the image overlapping the screen. However, the latter problem is becomming less frequent as the use of none 16-9 shows diminishes. I still prefer 4-3 or 5-4 but needs must when the devil drives

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1.

[fh1805]

...I find that the images I have taken in my 3:2 ratio camera do not crop very well to 16:9...

Tony,

I also felt like that when I first moved to making 16:9 sequences. I have found that, for me, the secret is to "shoot wider". By that I mean, don't crop tight in the camera, compose generously and leave the cropping until in the computer. Following that line of reasoning, I now believe that the ideal sensor for a digital camera would be a 1:1 (square) of, say, 100MP or more. We could then place our subject more or less centrally on every shot and do the composing with the crop tool in the computer.

Peter

[davegee]

Some background information:

With regard to projectors - two examples - (I'll ignore the 1400x1050 option).

4:3 (1024x768) - if outputting a 4:3 show you are using 786432 pixels to show your images with zero pixels "wasted".

4:3 (1024x768) - if outputting a 16:9 show you are using 589824 pixels to show your images with 196608 pixels "wasted".

16:9 (1920x1080) - if outputting a 16:9 show you are using 2073600 pixels to show your images with zero pixels "wasted".

16:9 (1920x1080) - if outputting a 4:3 show you are using 1555200 pixels to show your images with 518400 pixels "wasted".

In the case of the 4:3 projector I can see little merit in projecting a "bigger / wider" image using just 75% of the available resolution.

In the case of the 16:9 projector I can see little merit in projecting a "squarerr" image using (again) just 75% of the available resolution.

Making the images fit the screen in either case does not alter the fact that, in the examples I have given, NOT filling the available resolution because of AR mismatches results in less than optimum useage of the resources.

Just IMHO etc etc etc.

DG

[BEB]

In the case of the 4:3 projector I can see little merit in projecting a "bigger / wider" image using just 75% of the available resolution.

Why not?

It makes no sense whatsoever to make a slide show at 16:9 for a monitor and DVD and a 4:3 show for a projector. Just make one show at 16:9 that works on all systems with no disadvantages.

IMHO its daft to advise anyone to make a 4:3 slide show these days.

[Tony Falla]

Prehaps I am just getting to be an old Fuddy Duddy but I get quite annoyed at people telling me what ratio I should or should not be creating my sequences. As I have been trying to say, the equipment is only a consideration, I tend to use 4:3 as that is the projector I use. I do however feel that we are too hung up on it must be 16:9 because modern equipment is produced at this size. As I said most cameras produce a 3:2 so why not make a sequence in this size? I have created sequences that are 4:3, 16:9 and 1:1, it is not the equipment that determines these sizes, but what I want to achieve with my AV and the content that determines the ratio I use.

I prefer to let my own creativity determine what ratio I use rather than the equipment, that is what I was originally trying to say but obviously failed miserably

Tony Falla

[David Porter]

I prefer to let my own creativity determine what ratio I use rather than the equipment, that is what I was originally trying to say but obviously failed miserably

Tony Falla

I totally agree, mainly because when I take my camera out I am trying to create good photographs and the format will depend on the subject. When creating an A/V I again choose a format which suits the subject and also the majority of the photos going into the show - sometimes 16/9 for landscapes or 3/2 or even 5/4 for urban and architecture. I don't have a projector but my TV has a black surround so black strips at the side of the photos don't obtrude and anyway most people will look at the pictures and not the black strips.

[davegee]

In the case of the 4:3 projector I can see little merit in projecting a "bigger / wider" image using just 75% of the available resolution.

Why not?

It makes no sense whatsoever to make a slide show at 16:9 for a monitor and DVD and a 4:3 show for a projector. Just make one show at 16:9 that works on all systems with no disadvantages.

IMHO its daft to advise anyone to make a 4:3 slide show these days.

BOB,

Why not - for the reasons stated above.

BUT, which part of my post made you think that I was giving advice?

I merely presented some figures which would, I hoped, give the reader the necessary information to make an informed decision.

I tried very hard to not make it look like advice and present a case for both sides.

I even went to the trouble of stating that it was an OPINION.

You mentioned DVDs.

Again this is just my OPINION and not advice. I see no merit in presenting a TV etc with a 720x405 pixel image (PAL) from a DVD when I could be giving it the same AR at 1920x1080 pixels from an MPEG4 file via a USB key. A TV without USB is not a problem these days because there are other ways of getting from USB to TV via HDMI. We have moved on.

DG

[davegee]

Tony and Mick,

You did not make it clear if you were refering to my post but if you were, please read my reply to Bob.

DG

[David Porter]

Tony and Mick,

You did not make it clear if you were refering to my post but if you were, please read my reply to Bob.

DG

No Dave, it was a general comment not directed at anyone in particular.

[fh1805]

...most people will look at the pictures and not the black strips.

I think Mick has just "nailed it" with that statement! If your AV uses good quality images, suitable music or other sounds, an engaging narrative (if using voice-over) and gets the viewer "hooked" in the first 10-15 seconds, it doesn't matter what aspect ratio it is built to.

Peter

[davegee]

There ARE days when, if you stick your head above above the parapet, it is going to get shot at regardless of what hat you wear.

Maybe it is time to move on.

DG

[Ken Cox]

WHEN I WAS LEARNING DARKROOM, my gurus said let the guy in the darkroom correct your mistakes -- "what do you mean" -- well they said when doing groups do not get greedy and and shoot close to the outer people because when enlarging to 8x 10" in order to get vertical edge to edge you lose +- 1 1/2" each end -- oh oh there goes auntie

then when i was shooting at work, a professional photographer told me when shooting slides to be projected via a kodak carousel or to be put on vhs tape, shoot horizontal - and he was the company's main photographer for slide duplication and general nearly all photography

along came digital and pte - i tried to remember all i had learned with 35mm and medium format but i would still get black bars when i went 16/9 - i tried to gleen all i could from the forum which has a very large contingent of UK members to no avail

so back to my guru at the camera shop -- the manager a very close friend, said the camera comes set up normal to record pictures that will print to standard 4x6 5x7 8x10 etc format without losing image -- i said i have printed enough over the years -- no more -- then he said then change your setting to wide screen -- voila no more black bars

-- now for some strange reason there are a few sequences that come from from the UK that are full screen - lovely i say to myself

there is a prominent member on the forum that he and i communicate off list quite often and aspect ratio came up -- i sent him pictures and system's set up's so he could see where i was coming from - i think he understands my thoughts

AND THAT IS WHY I SAY FULL SCREEN EDGE TO EDGE when i critigue a show

also -

i mostly use large pict's 2-3 mb when making a show - until you have printed a 35mm neg of a scene vs a med format neg of the same scene you wont appreciate the difference -- don't worry pte can handle it - but maybe you system cant

ken

[Tony Falla]

DG

I only read your posting as factual information, which again should be borne in mind when creating sequences.

Apologies if you thought I was directing my comments at you.

Tony Falla