Motherboard
Well-known member
100b rocks
Short Film 24pa squeeze mode or 4x3
- Thread starter skrott
- Start date
scannon said:Jack you just confused the whole issue with the double talk
1st what double talk?
So ... you said in your earlier post that 2.35:1 gives whatever the display color is on where the bars would be.
some parts of the screen on some monitors ... so ...
No, 16X9 cropped to 2.35:1 on a 4:3 ...
A bar that's wahetver the display is
the top black bar
the image
the bottom black bar
whatever the dispaly is
2.35:1 one a 16X9
the top black bar
the image
the bottom black bar
no display color involved
so to avoid DOUBLE TALK .... let me addressa all the configurations I can think of.
letterbox 4:3 on a 4:3 display
= bars that are whatver you set them to
letterbox 4:3 on a 16X9 display
= bars that are whatever you set them to
+ columns that are whatever the display is
non letterboxed 4:3 on a 16X9 display
=columns that are whateve the displa is
16X9, Squeeze, widescreen, Ananmorphic one a 16X9 widescreen display
= no bars, no columns
16X9, Squeeze, widescreen, Ananmorphic one a 4:3 display
= bars on the top and bottomn whatever the display color is
16X9, Squeeze, widescreen, Ananmorphic LETTERBOXED to 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 on a 16X9 widescreen display
= black bars or whatever color you choose NOT THE COLOR OF THE DISPLAY
16X9, Squeeze, widescreen, Ananmorphic LETTERBOXED to 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 on a 4:3 display
= bars whatever the color you st them too.
still the same issue -- no native 16X9 only squeezeUnix said:
which still makes little sense to use for the reasons Envision and I and others have detailed.
the big advanatage with the 100b vs. 100a or 100 is that you can monitor the squeeze in the right aspect ratio and you can use the anamorphic adaptor and frame in your LCD though you still cannot focus by eye using the anamorphic.
Last edited:
scannon
Well-known member
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
No I was refering to the fact that letterboxing 4:3 will not cover ther screen in 16:9 or 2.35 to 1 on a 16:9 monitor with out scaling or uprezzing the video. I think we are saying the same thing but I w-h-o-i-s was not qaulifying is questions as to whether he was doing this with 4:3 video or scaled or uprezed 16:9 video.
S Cannon
2:35.1 wil cover the screen in 16X9 but it will do it with letterbox. So it will be the color of the letterbox that you choose.scannon said:
Video that'sactually shaped 2:35.1 won't play correctly on any monitor.
Norm Sanders
Script Wrangler
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
I prefer mint green, or 80's teal.
Yep I used to like the 80's teal letterbox as well but it's SOOOOO overdone now.
davidpula
Well-known member
speaking for all letterbox laymen out there, i still don't understand why squeeze loses resolution? (though i love the advantage of shooting 4:3 since you can slide up and down, but i digress...) to me, logically, shooting in letterbox loses a quarter (or however much exactly i forgot) resolution since the cam is simply covering that much of the frame, bottom and top. i always thought squeeze was doing basically what it implies...using the entire ccd and squeezing it? where is the rez loss????
Nope.
Squeeze takes the same portion of the image that would be used for letterbox and stretches (squeeze is a misnomer) until it pushes the portions where the letterbox would be off the top and the bottom of the screen.
So take your image ... letterbox it (pretend to) ... it now has approx 330 lines of resolution ... now stretch that image by pulling on the letterbox until you pull the letterbox off the top and bottom of the screen. Now you lose another 30 lines of resolution (I'll explain why) and the image looks stretched or "squeezed".
If it actually used all the CCD's then the camera would have native 16X9, there would be no reason to use the many challenged Anamorphic Adaptor, no one would ever be able to say the Xl2 was better than the DVX, and people wouldn't be considering upgrading to the HVX even though they're systems can't process HD and they can't afford P2 cards just so they can have a native 16X9 DVX.
The reason Squeeze is at the BOTTOM BOTTOM LOWEST POSSIBLE resolution you could ever get out of the DVX is because of the false digital magnification and stretching of the image. This is the same reason Optical Zoom and Optical Image Stabilization are thought to be supperior to Digital Zoom and Digital image stabilization on consumer cams and not even included on the DVX. So since Squeeze is only using 330 lines or so of the 500 lines on the CCD and then stretching the image within the camera you get closer to 300 lines.
IF you blow up in your NLE, Barry Green reasons that you get a higher resolution than using squeeze because your NLE has a cleaner starting point and more processing power to blow it up cleanly. So if you do it that way you are getting closer to the 330 lines for true non letterboxed 16X9 shaped video, which is more resolution than a TV can safely display without line twitter anyway.
So given that Squeeze is lower res than letterboxing or blowing up to anamorphic in your NLE, and that it limits your choices creatively ... why use it.
Only reason ... you have very limited post time (like for a 24 hour contest and every second counts, or you have very limited processing power - probably not low enough to warrant using it if can edit video at all ... lastly you are on some sort of multi shoot where you are expected to hand in 16X9 shaped raw video off to someone else to be edited with a bunch of other 16X9 shaped video.
Squeeze takes the same portion of the image that would be used for letterbox and stretches (squeeze is a misnomer) until it pushes the portions where the letterbox would be off the top and the bottom of the screen.
So take your image ... letterbox it (pretend to) ... it now has approx 330 lines of resolution ... now stretch that image by pulling on the letterbox until you pull the letterbox off the top and bottom of the screen. Now you lose another 30 lines of resolution (I'll explain why) and the image looks stretched or "squeezed".
If it actually used all the CCD's then the camera would have native 16X9, there would be no reason to use the many challenged Anamorphic Adaptor, no one would ever be able to say the Xl2 was better than the DVX, and people wouldn't be considering upgrading to the HVX even though they're systems can't process HD and they can't afford P2 cards just so they can have a native 16X9 DVX.
The reason Squeeze is at the BOTTOM BOTTOM LOWEST POSSIBLE resolution you could ever get out of the DVX is because of the false digital magnification and stretching of the image. This is the same reason Optical Zoom and Optical Image Stabilization are thought to be supperior to Digital Zoom and Digital image stabilization on consumer cams and not even included on the DVX. So since Squeeze is only using 330 lines or so of the 500 lines on the CCD and then stretching the image within the camera you get closer to 300 lines.
IF you blow up in your NLE, Barry Green reasons that you get a higher resolution than using squeeze because your NLE has a cleaner starting point and more processing power to blow it up cleanly. So if you do it that way you are getting closer to the 330 lines for true non letterboxed 16X9 shaped video, which is more resolution than a TV can safely display without line twitter anyway.
So given that Squeeze is lower res than letterboxing or blowing up to anamorphic in your NLE, and that it limits your choices creatively ... why use it.
Only reason ... you have very limited post time (like for a 24 hour contest and every second counts, or you have very limited processing power - probably not low enough to warrant using it if can edit video at all ... lastly you are on some sort of multi shoot where you are expected to hand in 16X9 shaped raw video off to someone else to be edited with a bunch of other 16X9 shaped video.
You're quite welcome
all this is all in Barry Green's easy to read and very informative guide ...
I wonder if
A) some people don't have this book/DVD (but it should ship with your DVX nowadays)
B) people have it but don't bother to read it through once or even look to it for specific questions
C) people have it but don't read this section because all this analysis of getting wide screen in different ways is under the "Guide to the Anamoprhic Adaptor" section and they think -- well I don't have an anamorphic adaptor so....
BUT this is all also on the DVD whith comparissons of each mode visually and even a comparisson of the DVX blown up to HD.
Could be that Barry sort of snuck in the fact that Squeeze causes a resolution hit in Anamorphic section rather than belting it out in the squeeze section which Panny might not like.
At anyrate if anyone doesn't have BArry's book - click the link in my signature and order one TODAY.
It's one thing to not use all of your computers potential as a lot of us do, but to not get absolutely all you can out of your camera is crazy.
I got my DVX used on Ebay ... as soon as I won that auction I went and bought the book immediately too. And it more than doubled the speed of my learning curve.
all this is all in Barry Green's easy to read and very informative guide ...
I wonder if
A) some people don't have this book/DVD (but it should ship with your DVX nowadays)
B) people have it but don't bother to read it through once or even look to it for specific questions
C) people have it but don't read this section because all this analysis of getting wide screen in different ways is under the "Guide to the Anamoprhic Adaptor" section and they think -- well I don't have an anamorphic adaptor so....
BUT this is all also on the DVD whith comparissons of each mode visually and even a comparisson of the DVX blown up to HD.
Could be that Barry sort of snuck in the fact that Squeeze causes a resolution hit in Anamorphic section rather than belting it out in the squeeze section which Panny might not like.
At anyrate if anyone doesn't have BArry's book - click the link in my signature and order one TODAY.
It's one thing to not use all of your computers potential as a lot of us do, but to not get absolutely all you can out of your camera is crazy.
I got my DVX used on Ebay ... as soon as I won that auction I went and bought the book immediately too. And it more than doubled the speed of my learning curve.
Dmitry Kichenko
Well-known member
In any case, if you add the bars on the camera, you are stuck with them on your footage. Now, if you do any sort of colour correction messing with blacks, every time you'll want to lift your blacks the bars will be lifted as well. If the amount of blacks will vary throughout the film which isn't a good thing.
that's why I don't even use the filters for letterbox in post -- it doesn't effect CC as you've pouinted out, but it does effect flash transistions and blur transistion which I use a lot of -- the bars flash out or blur along with the clip ... so I build the bars on a slug line above the actual clip. Takes a little longer to render (just a little) but worth it to me.
no he doesn't say that ... he says for ANAMORPHIC video out of the DVX it's the best choice ... the only choice other than the ANAMORPHIC in fact.
Lettebox is not anamorphic.
seems like the only way to get through will be to quote barry's Book directly .... sigh ...
(page numbers are from the 100/100A book)
pg 121. "letterbox mode is not the same as shooting 16X9 footage ... letterbox mode is approriate for displaying a widescreen LOOKING image on a regular 4:3 television"
Squeeze is the ONLY way to shoot 16X9 with the DVX other than the anamorphic at the time of shooting and what Barry Says is that you can get great looking prefectly acceptable footage with it.
now ...
pg.121"... lettebox would be perferrable to squeeze mode for film blow up or HD uprezz - see footnote 1"
pg. 122 "Squeeze mode is not approriate ... for making a film blow up or HD uprez (see footnote 1)
pg. 148 (Footnote 1) "...letterbox mode provides a cleaner "starting point" whereas squeeze mode has already introduced artifacts and blending into the footage ..."
now to be fare and accurate here he says for film blow up or HD uprezz and he's talking about the fact that squeeze has already stretched the image some and then stretching it more will not yield as good of results as stretching in one shot.
But Barry has said in the forums here that he "suspects" that blowing up to 16X9 in post may yield slightly better results than squeeze even though he says the following in the book:
pg.122 "depending on the quality of the resizing algroithm in your editing program, teh results can be quite comparible to squeeze mode." Why ... because they are doing the samd damn thing. One is stretching the image in your camera on the fly and the other is stretching in post, taking as long as it needs to process. PLUS there are 4 ways to stretch in post
1) stretch in your NLE (comparible or slightly better than Squeeze - only Premiere 6.0 was tested and found less satisfatcory than squeeze)
2)uprezzeing using photozoom pro (better than squeeze period - and free I think)
3) using Magic Bullets Instant HD ($99)
4) using GRaeme Nattresses Magic Uprezz (when it becomes available)
but the facts should not be confusing at all
consider the facts and forget whan I , or Barry, or anyone else has to say.
ANAMORPHIC ADAPTOR ---- 540 lines of resolution
LETTERBOX ---- 380 lines of resolution
4:3 or LETTERBOX 4:3 uprezzed in post to 16X9 ---- 340 or better (in most cases)
SQUEEZE ---- 340 lines of resolution
Limitations while shooting
ANAMORPHIC ADPATOR
no autofocus, can't focus by eye, no lense accesories, no image stabiliztaion, hard to frame unless you have a "100b" or external accessories
SQUEEZE
hard to frame without accessories or unless you have a "100b"
4:3 OR LETTERBOX
none
Limitations in post
ANAMORPHIC
none
SQUEEZE
if you eveer need to blow up to larger size, you've lessened your quality, you cannot reframe
4:3 LETTERBOX
you can't reframe
4:3 then letterboxed and stretched in post
NONE + YOU CAN REFRAME AND BLOW UP TO FILM BETTER THAN SQUEEZE AND WILL GET EQUAL OR SLIGHTLY BETTER RESOLUTION IN 16X9 than SQUEEZE!!!!!!!
Now ofcourse the ANAMORPHIC is the choice for BEST image in 16X9 or film blow up.
As I said take those facts and make up your own mind ...
But givin the choice between Sqeeuze and Stretching in POST .... why would you want to give up the ability of reframing, potentially getting higher resolution, and definately getting higher resolution if you blow up beyond 16X9???????????????????????????
Lettebox is not anamorphic.
seems like the only way to get through will be to quote barry's Book directly .... sigh ...
(page numbers are from the 100/100A book)
pg 121. "letterbox mode is not the same as shooting 16X9 footage ... letterbox mode is approriate for displaying a widescreen LOOKING image on a regular 4:3 television"
Squeeze is the ONLY way to shoot 16X9 with the DVX other than the anamorphic at the time of shooting and what Barry Says is that you can get great looking prefectly acceptable footage with it.
now ...
pg.121"... lettebox would be perferrable to squeeze mode for film blow up or HD uprezz - see footnote 1"
pg. 122 "Squeeze mode is not approriate ... for making a film blow up or HD uprez (see footnote 1)
pg. 148 (Footnote 1) "...letterbox mode provides a cleaner "starting point" whereas squeeze mode has already introduced artifacts and blending into the footage ..."
now to be fare and accurate here he says for film blow up or HD uprezz and he's talking about the fact that squeeze has already stretched the image some and then stretching it more will not yield as good of results as stretching in one shot.
But Barry has said in the forums here that he "suspects" that blowing up to 16X9 in post may yield slightly better results than squeeze even though he says the following in the book:
pg.122 "depending on the quality of the resizing algroithm in your editing program, teh results can be quite comparible to squeeze mode." Why ... because they are doing the samd damn thing. One is stretching the image in your camera on the fly and the other is stretching in post, taking as long as it needs to process. PLUS there are 4 ways to stretch in post
1) stretch in your NLE (comparible or slightly better than Squeeze - only Premiere 6.0 was tested and found less satisfatcory than squeeze)
2)uprezzeing using photozoom pro (better than squeeze period - and free I think)
3) using Magic Bullets Instant HD ($99)
4) using GRaeme Nattresses Magic Uprezz (when it becomes available)
but the facts should not be confusing at all
consider the facts and forget whan I , or Barry, or anyone else has to say.
ANAMORPHIC ADAPTOR ---- 540 lines of resolution
LETTERBOX ---- 380 lines of resolution
4:3 or LETTERBOX 4:3 uprezzed in post to 16X9 ---- 340 or better (in most cases)
SQUEEZE ---- 340 lines of resolution
Limitations while shooting
ANAMORPHIC ADPATOR
no autofocus, can't focus by eye, no lense accesories, no image stabiliztaion, hard to frame unless you have a "100b" or external accessories
SQUEEZE
hard to frame without accessories or unless you have a "100b"
4:3 OR LETTERBOX
none
Limitations in post
ANAMORPHIC
none
SQUEEZE
if you eveer need to blow up to larger size, you've lessened your quality, you cannot reframe
4:3 LETTERBOX
you can't reframe
4:3 then letterboxed and stretched in post
NONE + YOU CAN REFRAME AND BLOW UP TO FILM BETTER THAN SQUEEZE AND WILL GET EQUAL OR SLIGHTLY BETTER RESOLUTION IN 16X9 than SQUEEZE!!!!!!!
Now ofcourse the ANAMORPHIC is the choice for BEST image in 16X9 or film blow up.
As I said take those facts and make up your own mind ...
But givin the choice between Sqeeuze and Stretching in POST .... why would you want to give up the ability of reframing, potentially getting higher resolution, and definately getting higher resolution if you blow up beyond 16X9???????????????????????????
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=29286&page=2
you'll notice in the thread above that he says squeeze is a "reasonable" way to get 16X9 in comparison to stretching in post, and he's just talking about image quality, not trade off such as reframing etc.
you'll notice in the thread above that he says squeeze is a "reasonable" way to get 16X9 in comparison to stretching in post, and he's just talking about image quality, not trade off such as reframing etc.
Okay guys. I should have followed my first decision to use the anarmophic, but we weren't confident about the focusing issues and did not want to lose selective focus. As it is I switched to squeeze mode and now have some 25 hours of interview footage for a doc that IS intended for film out. should I stay in sqeeze for consistency, or switch back to anamorphic? What are the implications when it comes to editing?i have probably another 40 hours of interviews to shoot, but the piec will also have reenactment and archival footage and stills.
Anamorphic is a BAD idea for a doc. It's just not run and gun at all.
Squeeze and anamorphic won't edit togethert that well unless you are only using squueze for closeups and anamorphic for wideshots or something.
Did you read barry's book or my gizzilion page long post?
Since squeeze is the worst thing you could do for a filmout - not sure what to tell you. YOu shouldn't have used the ananomrphic either. Should have shot stock and blown up just like MurderBall or Supersize me, or even NOvember which won the cinematography award at sundance.
And unless your doc is all interviews you wouldn't want to use the anamorphic -- that would just be crazy to try and follow someone around -- crazy.
You might go ahead and switch to teh EASIEST to work with THE MOST FLEXIBLE IN POST and THE CLEANES STARTING POINT FOR FILM BLOW UP (other than anamorphic which is not feasible for a doc and won't edit well with your squeeze) so what mode am I talking about ? what's:
Squeeze and anamorphic won't edit togethert that well unless you are only using squueze for closeups and anamorphic for wideshots or something.
Did you read barry's book or my gizzilion page long post?
Since squeeze is the worst thing you could do for a filmout - not sure what to tell you. YOu shouldn't have used the ananomrphic either. Should have shot stock and blown up just like MurderBall or Supersize me, or even NOvember which won the cinematography award at sundance.
And unless your doc is all interviews you wouldn't want to use the anamorphic -- that would just be crazy to try and follow someone around -- crazy.
You might go ahead and switch to teh EASIEST to work with THE MOST FLEXIBLE IN POST and THE CLEANES STARTING POINT FOR FILM BLOW UP (other than anamorphic which is not feasible for a doc and won't edit well with your squeeze) so what mode am I talking about ? what's:
- the easiest to shoot with ....
- the most flexible in post ....
- the cleanest starting point for blow up other than the anamorphic ...
vidled
DVXuser Sponsor
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Hey JDS, good comments all around; especially the near impossibility of using an anamorphic adapter for a doc.
I'm not sure though that I am quite so convinced that 4:3 would be the ABSOLUTELY preferred way to shoot. The one downside would be framing: unless you're shooting with that specific knowledge in mind; you might get footage that doesn't lend itself to being cropped very well at all in post. I've seen footage shot in 4:3 that would have not lent itself well to cropping, i.e. when the whole vertical view is used up with something that needed to be shown....hmm, not well explained, but I hope you know what I mean.
And IF you shoot with that framing in mind (e.g. used tape on the LCD or a optical converter thingy on the LCD), you might as well of used the Sqeeze mode.
kudos to Panasonic to have included the sqeeze mode; it's not IDEAl, but it does have its place.
Last edited:
couldn't agree lessvidled said:
if you (and I'm using general 2nd person meaning "one") want 4:3 then of course you'll shoot 4:3 and that will be that
if you have no idea what you're final aspect ratio will be and are shooting 4:3 then you might wind up with something that won't frame well for wider aspects true -- but if you have no idea what you're final aspect ratio will be then that's probably just the beginning of your troubles.
but -- and here's where I think you are dead wrong and again giving up felixability -- shooting with tape or an aspect laminate on the LCD let's you frame for whatever wider aspect ratio you are going for ... BUT
- ALSO LET's YOU REFRAME,
- IS AT LEAST COMPARIBLE TO IF NOT BETTER RESOLUTION THAN SQUEEZE
- IS THE ONLY CHOICE IF YOU ARE GOING FOR FILM BLOW UP OTHER THAN THE ANAMORPHIC.
I would never recommend shooting 4:3 to stretch in post without somehow marking the screenm, and again with less freedom in post to either reframe or blow up to film, and the fact that its harder to frame while shooting -- why o why o why would you want to shoot squeeze.
Now I didn't say 4:3 is best for everything. There is something to be gained by shooting Ananmorphic -- click the link to my website in my sig and see shed and you will see anamorphic footage and you will see that it looks crisper even online ... also google "th dead kidz" and look at some of their stuff -- amazingly sharp. Now when I used the anamorphic I further cropped to 2.35:1 which allowed me the ability to reframe still, and I had tape on the LCD for framing in 2.35:1.
look at Odd Squad on my website and you will see a film shot in 4:3, stretched to 16X9 in post, and then letterboxed to 2.35:1 (there are a couple of shots that I used the anamorphic for -- I use it inplace of a wide angle for establishing shots so that I can get as much detail into the camera as possible) but there are shots in that film where I stabilized the image by moving it up or down frame by frame which I couldn't have done to such a degree if I shot squeeze with no letterbox.
-- there are trade offs for the Ananmorphic and 4:3 depending on your shooting environment, prioreties, and final media one will be right for some and not for others. If I was doing a feature film on the DVX I would shoot 4:3 just so I could use my 35mm adaptor and then, as I mentioned before, used the anamorphic for wide establishing shots -- anything that I WANT infinite depth of field for. Another reason not to use the anamorphic for film out would be your shooting schedule, and another would be the inability to use filters. THat's why Schreiber shot 4:3 on the 100 (not A) and didn't use the anamorphic for November ... but if I didn't have a 35mm adaptor I would use my anamorphic for a feature filmout. You jusy have to way time and the ability to use accessories against the resolution gain of the anamorphic.
Now I'm not someone that thinks you are ruining your video ifyou shoot squeeze. I wint to a video for film look workshop and the guy said "don't use squeeze on a DVX its very very bad" now this was "for film look" not "film out" and that guy is wrong. Perfectly fine looking video is shot all the time on squeeze and I've seen great stuff and never known that it was shot on squeeze until the shooter told me so. All I am saying is that if you are truly informed, unless you have some paricular reason like 24 hour film contest where people literally run down the street with open laptops that are still rendering to get their film in on time, that there's just not a lot of poingt to it even though it's not the Devil or anything.
I have a friend that's a talented shooter that uses squeeze -- just likes noyt having to deal with it in post and that's fine, to each his own, but what I don't want is people cutting off options due to misconceptions.
So for DVD or WEB - given that its easy to put tape on the LCD for framing - I dare ya
to throw out any advantage to using squeeze over stretching in post other than it saves a few mouse clicks ... come on ... I double dog dare ya :cheesy:
Last edited: