I just need a tip when I record video with my camera: should I use the aspect ratio of 4:3 or 16:9?
That depends. What do you want? What's your camera? What's your destination? What's the look you're hoping to achieve?
Is there any real difference in terms of quality, file size and compatability?
Probably not, but again, it depends on your camera. Some cameras have native 16:9 imagers and create a nice 16:9 image; others have 4:3 imagers and perform some black-art-mojo and create a not-so-nice 16:9 image. If your camera is DV, then file size is the same, because DV is DV is DV, and Premiere has no problem working with either standard or widescreen DV footage.
In other words, let's say I take a 10 minute footage, first in 4:3 and second in 16:9:
- Will I get better quality shooting in 16:9?
- Will the file size become smaller after capturing into Premiere Pro CS4, if I shot using 16:9?
- Will the edited finished DVD be compatible to more TV sets (old CRT and new plasma/LCD) if I shot using 16:9?
- See above.
- See above.
- This is the wrong question. It has little to nothing to do with the television, and everything to do with the DVD player. Most DVD players produced in this century will have a setting to specify the aspect ratio of your television. They need this information so they know how to display widescreen DVDs. If the setting is wrong for your TV, it'll look wrong, but that's not the TV's fault. Bottom line: a widescreen DVD can display properly on a standard TV or a widescreen TV.
Agree with Collin' good advice.
If your cam shoots true 16:9; Id go with that.
I put a stick in the sand last year and declared shooting all 16:9 going fwd. Its more fwd compatible because all new tvs will be widescreen. Folks stuck with old 4:3 sets are used to the black bars.
Thanks Colin & Curt for replying.
I have 2 consumer video cameras: one is Samsung DV and the other Sony HDD camera.
I just wanted to know if shooting in 16:9 has advantages over shooting in 4:3. The black bars at the top and below the video is what most have become used to anyway from watching hollywood movies.
I was just comparing - I suppose - the resolution in shooting photos: the more squares (pixels) your photo has, the better the quality it is. So I was thinking maybe it works the same with the aspect ratio in a video: the more squares (16 squares by 9 squares) you have the better the quality the video will be. I know that I have to set the quality on my video camera to the highest quality to begin with but I thought maybe further quality is possible.
File size: ok maybe not smaller after all if the quality was higher.
I agree with the fact that it's the DVD machine's job and not the TV's to display the correct aspect ratio.
Thanks guys once again - just a little curiousity on my part.
So I suppose shooting in 16:9 is not that different than shooting in 4:3 - it's just a matter of preference.
the more squares (16 squares by 9 squares) you have the better the quality the video will be.
In this case, the extra "squares" only make the image wider. They don't add to the quality. It's like the difference between a mini and a foot long. They both taste the same, you just get more of it with the footlong.