DVX100a Squeeze Grabs

[donbarzini]

I wanted to try the anamorphic squeeze mode on my DVX100a. I captured 24pa anamorphic into FCP and resized the stills to 720x405 in Photoshop, I think that is correct. No color correction or effects.

http://img64.exs.cx/img64/6540/analeaves1.png
http://img64.exs.cx/img64/1007/anatree2.png
http://img64.exs.cx/img64/5659/anafence1.png

[Policar]

The aspect ratio you're looking for is 720X372 (I believe) or 853X480. Those are squishy and 2:1 while they should be 16:9. The first one is excellent, and the second looks pretty nice, too.

The third one is way overexposed in the sky. It's an issue everyone runs into and it's sometimes unavoidable but I'd underexpose it a stop or two more then boost the darks in photoshop using curves, or the in final cut pro using the 3way color corrector.

[donbarzini]

Policar,

Thanks for the response. yes, the third one is overexposed in the sky, my point was to show the detail in the lower portion of the frame without applying any correction in post. When i export the raw image from FCP, Photoshop reads it as 720x480, I always thought 16x9 is 720x360 but you are right, these images look a little off.

[J.R. Hudson]

Whats all this talk of OVEREXPOSURE? Im starting to realize that one persons style is their style and not mine. Me? I want everything exposed if possible (including skies) but if a sky is OVER? So what.

[HorseFilms]

I agree, John. I try to have every portion of my frame exposed for maximum detail. However, there are times when that's not possible for one guy shooting with just a camera and tripod, so I make sure that the part of the frame that I want people to pay attention to is properly exposed.

[J.R. Hudson]

It's something I have been guilty of in the past (saying "thats overexposed...")

Look at Mystic River. That whole movie is blown out.

[Rich Lee]

i love overexposure

[Policar]

I feel a little differently about overexposing film than I do about over-exposing dv just because film has a sort of softness and detail to the highlights that video does not, especially when there is chromatic abberation present. I think the last frame is fine, I just like the other two more.

[Jestorius]

The right size is 1024 x 480 (576)
Try to risize it again.

[CaptainMench]

I just don't get this resizing thing... I mean... if 720 is your width...

720*9/16 should give you your height... 405?? *I don't get it.

Here are some anamorphic grabs I did myself they all are 720x405...

http://homepage.mac.com/captmench/PhotoAlbum33.html

or these:

http://homepage.mac.com/captmench/PhotoAlbum29.html which weren't done 720x405 but something else... don't remember now.

BTW - a few of those first grabs I had the GAIN on H!!!! *I HATE THOSE LITTLE BUTTONS I FORGET TO CHECK EVERY TIME!!!!

ugh.

CaptM

[donbarzini]

CaptainMench,

I resized the images to 720x405 which mathematically is 16:9.

[J.R. Hudson]

I was bored

http://www.zoomforce.com/dvxuser/photos/images/263201128.jpg

[CaptainMench]

There we go. Unless someone says that's the wrong way to go.

CaptM

[donbarzini]

Oh my God John, my backyard looks like OZ! And the sizing is wrong.

[J.R. Hudson]

My wife said it looks like Munchkin Land

[donbarzini]

My wife is going to crack up when she sees that tomorrow, she'll think I'm a freak for posting pictures of our backyard, and now this!

[J.R. Hudson]

No comment on the lush Green vegetation? :-/ :D

[CaptainMench]

That is MORE than awsome... it looks like a mini set! What? How?? Photoshop?

Dude, you got to come work for me.

CaptM

[J.R. Hudson]

:D

[Barry_Green]

That looks straight out of "Ella Enchanted"!

[J.R. Hudson]

Tell your wife not to go into the backyard

http://www.zoomforce.com/dvxuser/photos/images/263232657.jpg

[Phil]

LMAO!!!

[donbarzini]

WTF? It's 5:00 AM here and I don't even want to go out there :D

[Shadow]

It look like Sméagol had found his fishing background. :D

[J.R. Hudson]

He's going to get the Wedding Ring!

[Zach Lien]

lmao. john you have too much time on your hands. ;)

[alpi69]

now i know why john tries to hide behind a walken avatar.
this selfprotrait "exposed" him.....

[Neil Rowe]

..the correct square pixel output for 16:9 from an anamorphic (this includes "squeeze mode" images which are essentially crop and stretch electronic anamorphic images) DV frame is either 864x480 or 864x486- either one is correct for all practical purposes. the second is the mathamatically correct numbers which comes from a full D1 res frame which is 720x486. the DV spec drops these 6 extra pixels for compression reasons to make it 720x480. when you take the horizontal pixel count, and multiply it * 1.2 to account for the pixel aspect ratio being 1.2 you get 864 the vertical pixel count is unaffected. so you get 864x486 and 864x480.

* *864x480 is not mathematically correct, but what its doing is dropping the last 6 pixel lines in vertical resolution for compression reasons. .. some programs call for a 853x480 frame size to represent 16:9 in a square pixel aspect but IMHO its sort of incorrect, because * the DV frame size should be based off of all the same calculations as a full D1 frame which is 720x486 and processed the same.. only dropping the 6 pixel lines in the vert resolution.. * also 853 is not correct for multiplying 720 * the 1.2 pixel aspect ... you can only get 864.

youll notice that the 720x480 frame size is also not mathematically correct 4:3 (remember the horizontal pixels are at a .9 pixel aspect so you need to mutliply 720 * .9)..

but 720x486 IS correct 4:3 ..

so the DV spec is not mathematically correct. it just uses full D1 resolution specs for it calculations , and drops the 6 pixel lines from the vertical for compression..

anyway ..so if you want correct 16:9 DV spec in terms of sqaure pixels.. it is 864x480

and if you want correct 4:3 DV spec in terms of sqaure pixels.. it is 648x480

the square pixel sizes of 864x486 and 648x486 are mathematically correct but will stretch the DV image by 6 pixels vertically which is incorrect.. *but you dont notice, and its fine to use for all practicasl reasons.. once you use the image in a video project in your NLE you will have to crop or squeeze back to 720 x 480... ..of course squeezing would be the best since you dont lose your image info and keep the 6 pixel stretched image. if you shot in full D1 of course you would use these figuers with no distortion since that is the actual frame size.
anyway :P

[donbarzini]

iamloser,

Thank you for the information, very informative and useful.

[CaptainMench]

Still don't get it... why would you squeeze out the width? Isn't THAT constant? Wouldn't you want to drop the heigth?

CaptM

[Neil Rowe]

well, without being too technical

..its widescreen.. the height dosent change. the width *does.. its wider. *you dont get a shorter image at the same width.. you get a wider image at the same height.

the pixels are 1.2 ratio meaing they are 1.2 times as wide as a square pixel ,, when regular dv is *only .9 which is less wide than a square pixel. the pixel aspect ration does not change the height.. only width of the pixels.


when you put on an anamorphic lense it sees a wider horizontal field of view..but same height. and squeezes the image onto the less wide ccd. then you display those pixels at 1.2 width ratio to widen the squeezed image back out to its native wideness 16:9
again.. squeeze mode is fake anamorphic.. so you do the same thing.

if you shoot real naitive 16:9 DV then its full 16:9 height, and full 16:9 width to begin with from the CCD. and is squeezed into a 4:3 image to match DV spec of 720 x 480 and usually flagged as 1.2 pixel aspect so that the NLE will widen it out again.

hope this helps :-/ :)