anamorphic adaptor or G35/mirco35?

[Shimobe]

It seems like the more i read i should get a 35mm adaptor and shoot in squeeze. What does everybody think?

[khmuse]

They are different devices with different characteristics. The anamorphic adapter will get you more resolution while a mini/micro/gorilla adapter will allow you to achieve shallower depth of field. Frankly, both have their place and neither can do what the other is best at. I myself own the anamorphic adapter and rent a mini 35 and primes when needed.

[Shimobe]

so if you could only afford one...anamorphic?

[khmuse]

For me the answer is yes, the anamorphic adapter comes first. The use of shallow depth of field seems to be the new found toy for a lot of DV shooters and I see a lot of shots use it when it isn't really necessary and does little to help the scene. That is not to say that there are not times when really shallow depth of field is just what your scene might need. For me, when I really need it, I rent a mini 35 or I just compose my shots to further separate the forground and background.

Personally I really like the resolution advantage that the anamorphic adapter achieves. As of late, I have been doing a lot more at 2.35 aspect ratio projects and frankly a matted 1.33 to 2.35 is just too soft for my taste.

[JHouser]

It seems like the more I read I should get a 35mm adaptor and shoot in squeeze. What does everybody think?

I think I might chime in here. Although I have a bit of a vested interest, I'm going to say that some sort of 35mm adapter would do you better than an anamorphic adapter. There are very inexpensive solutions out there (letus35) for instance.

You might want to answer some questions first.

1. What is the majority of shooting you do?
2. Do I need an adapter at all?
3. If I do choose a 35mm adapter, am I ready to deal with the issues that come up with shooting with fully manual 35mm lenses?

All of these 35mm adapters take getting used to. ALL of them loose light when you have a lens attached. So those are definitely things to consider. It is true, there has been a lot of "shallow" Dof stuff posted lately, however, just because you have a 35mm adapter does not mean you need to shot a 50mm 1.4 with your subject 3 feet away. With any tool, they get over used at first, and then they find their place in your tool chest. I would think long and hard about what type of project you intend on shooting and then make a decision based upon that.

[yellowdog]

what type of projects are you doing? Do you really need either one? Squeeze looks pretty damn good on dvd, I have no intention of blowing up to film for my line of work, so either device is useless to me.

[taubkin]

Actually Yellowdog, The 35mm adapters don't work quite so good on the big screen. I'd say that if you are shooting for video, 35mm adapters are a great device, and if you are going to film, than the anamorphic is much more useful.

[xilixfilms]

where can you purchase the anamorphic adapters?

[Barry_Green]

The anamorphic adapter is available from pretty much any authorized DVX reseller, so you can find it at EVS or B&H, to name two.

[liquidsn]

quick question. All the footage i see seems wider than 16:9. how do you achive this? do you just crop it out post? or is it using the anamorphic and squeese mode or something?

Tony C.

[khmuse]

I use anamorphic and in camera letterbox (16:9) to achieve a 2.35 frame, but you can do it in post as well. I just find that the in camera compression is less taxed when you do an in camera matte. You can't mix squeeze and anamorphic as this would yield a non compliant pixel aspect ratio.

[davey]

how much more resolution does the anamorphic adapter give you?

from 720/480 to.......?

thanks.

[khmuse]

What the anamorphic adapter does is give you the same resolution (720 x 480) with a 16:9 aspect ratio as you would get if you were shooting 4:3. If you use either the in camera squeeze mode or you crop in camera or in post, you are reducing the number of pixels by 30% (720 x 405). The most you will get from a miniDV is 720 x 480 (NTSC) or 720 x 576 (PAL), but in the case of the DVX this is true only if you shoot 4:3 aspect ratio. If you want the most resolution and a 16:9 aspect ratio, then the anamorphic adapter is the only way to achieve it.

[davey]

What the anamorphic adapter does is give you the same resolution (720 x 480) with a 16:9 aspect ratio as you would get if you were shooting 4:3. If you use either the in camera squeeze mode or you crop in camera or in post, you are reducing the number of pixels by 30% (720 x 405). The most you will get from a miniDV is 720 x 480 (NTSC) or 720 x 576 (PAL), but in the case of the DVX this is true only if you shoot 4:3 aspect ratio. If you want the most resolution and a 16:9 aspect ratio, then the anamorphic adapter is the only way to achieve it.



khmuse, sorry but i just don't quite get it yet.

720/480 is a 4:3 ratio right?

wouldn't i have to add to the 720, or subtract from the 480 to get a 16:9 ratio?

i just don't understand how 720/480 can be both a 4:3 ratio and a 16:9 ratio without getting squashed or stretched........

i'm new to this, can you tell?
thanks.

[thisiswells]

"i just don't understand how 720/480 can be both a 4:3 ratio and a 16:9 ratio without getting squashed or stretched........"

using square pixels 720/480 is neither 4:3 or 16:9. it's 3:2. depending on the shape of the pixels determines the shape of the picture (i.e. aspect ratio) dv, of course, does not use square pixels, so there is some flexibility here...

[MovieSwede]

It does get streched the pixel ratio for PAL goes something like 1,4...

But its the same for Anamorfic DVDs. It also is 720*480 / 720*576 then the TV stretch the picture to fit the widescreen tvs.

But if you watch on the computer, it will stretch the picture to 848*480 / 1024*576

[khmuse]

khmuse, sorry but i just don't quite get it yet.

720/480 is a 4:3 ratio right?

wouldn't i have to add to the 720, or subtract from the 480 to get a 16:9 ratio?

i just don't understand how 720/480 can be both a 4:3 ratio and a 16:9 ratio without getting squashed or stretched........

i'm new to this, can you tell?
thanks.

720 x 480 is the absolute size of the frame (NTSC). You can do 16:9 in one of two different ways. You can either letter box it (simply scale it to fit and add black bars) or you can do it anamorphically.

Anamorphically doesn't give up any pixels to fit the format (720 x 480). With two different PAR (pixel aspect ratios) the same frame size (720 x 480) can have two different shaped frames (either 4:3 or 16:9). Both shapes are comprised of the same number of pixels, it is just that the pixels themselves have different shape (either .9 to 1 or 1.2 to 1).

Using the anamorphic adapter is the only way to utilize all the pixels of the camera's CCDs and still have a 16:9 "shape". If you use in camera squeeze, then only 70% of the camera's pixels (720 x 406) are used, but the camera fills the entire frame (720 x 480) with these reduced number of pixels. If you shoot anamorphically, all the pixels are used, just the same as when you shoot 4:3; the adapter "fits" the 16:9 scene in the 4:3 space by compressing only in one axis.

[davey]

thanks.

do you guys have any a/b stills of with and without the anamorphic adapter?