A question about Image Quality Loss when converting to 16:9

B

Budgieboots

Well-known member
Hello,

If I recorded something in 4:3 Letterboxed, than converted it to 16:9 in Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 by changing the pixel ratio to 1.2 and stretching it vertically so the value reads 128 and it fills the frame, am I degrading the original resolution at all or making it more noisy?

I'm not very knowledgable on how the pixel ratios alter the image so some information regarding this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
 
More noise no, but less resolution yes. Anytime you scale up your resolution is going to be degraded. For future projects, shoot squeeze mode and just drop it in the 16:9 timeline - much easier, seems like the quality difference has been debated many a times.
 
Has the quality difference debate ever been resolved though?

Like what is the standard practise of most people here since I always do the whole unsharp masking thing too...
 
The talk about shooting squeeze losing more resolution compared to 4:3 then cropping is one of the biggest misconception ever.

It is more accurate to say that when you are shooting sqeeze you are losing information but no more resolution than shooting 4:3 then cropping only because the latter method gives you more leeway to adjust your headroom.

However, shooting squeeze looks noticeably cleaner and sharper than shooting 4:3 and then cropping for some reason. I guess something to do with the less compression the DVX has to handle when shooting squeeze.
 
To me, I will always shoot squeeze for widescreen projects. It saves me time from cropping and then rescaling it later in a 16:9 timeline.

Some people prefer the leeway to adjust headroom but I always get it right on the spot so it's a non issue for me.
 
Not a lot of people going the photozoom pro route anymore? I prefer the lattitude in cropping when shooting 4:3 and converting to 16:9 in post. Just another opinion :thumbup:
 
Rubix³ said:
Not a lot of people going the photozoom pro route anymore? I prefer the lattitude in cropping when shooting 4:3 and converting to 16:9 in post. Just another opinion :thumbup:
Click to expand...
The uprezz software? Always wondered how good it actually is? Noticeable difference?

I think I read here that the difference is more dramatic doing it on 4:3 footages than 16:9 footages.
 
Vincent Wong Yoon Wei said:
The uprezz software? Always wondered how good it actually is? Noticeable difference?

I think I read here that the difference is more dramatic doing it on 4:3 footages than 16:9 footages.
Click to expand...
The results are very good with uprezzing. I don't have a dead on comparison handy or I'd show you. The only one I have is on a shelved drive I have that "clicked" 6 times the last time I had it hooked up...:(

The main reason I prefer this is because I can correct framing mistakes I made during the shoot. If I'm just shooting something for fun - or something I need in a hurry, I use squeeze. Love it too. It's a great option.

ps: Take a look at the doc "Road to Guantanamo." It was "professionally" uprezzed and it looks INCREDIBLE.
 
Last edited:
According to my knowledge, using 4:3 letterboxed or normal, and cropping and resizing it in post will bring better quality.

Because, in post, when resizing and cropping you make 1 quality affecting change.

When you use sequeeze mode in camera, it makes 1 quality affecting change and automatically crops and resizes the video before post. So, when you work in post, you'll start the project with a previously "edited ( by camera )" footage, which will make it's quality worse than 4:3 shot footage.

Please correct me if i'm wrong.
 
Nightwalker said:
According to my knowledge, using 4:3 letterboxed or normal, and cropping and resizing it in post will bring better quality.

Because, in post, when resizing and cropping you make 1 quality affecting change.

When you use sequeeze mode in camera, it makes 1 quality affecting change and automatically crops and resizes the video before post. So, when you work in post, you'll start the project with a previously "edited ( by camera )" footage, which will make it's quality worse than 4:3 shot footage.

Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Click to expand...
You are way way wrong there dude. Shooting squeeze actually yields a noticeably sharper and cleaner image than 4:3 because of the lesser compression the DVX has to handle with the squeeze footages (less information to be process).

Shooting 4:3 then resizing by theory will degrade the footages even more because

1) Your 4:3 originated footages are more compressed (more information to be process) to begin with

2) By resizing into a 16:9 timeline, you are taking a drop in quality. Footages actually become softer.

I have done both and for anamorphic project I will only shoot squeeze. You can see the difference clearly in the darker area of the scene, in squeeze they are less noisy and cleaner. In 4:3, the darker areas tend to be noisier and has some noticeable compression artifacts sometimes.

Only good reason I can see shooting 4:3 then resizing is the leeway to adjust headroom. On the other hand, get your framing and headroom right and save yourself the time and trouble.
 
Vincent Wong Yoon Wei said:
You are way way wrong there dude. Shooting squeeze actually yields a noticeably sharper and cleaner image than 4:3 because of the lesser compression the DVX has to handle with the squeeze footages (less information to be process).

Shooting 4:3 then resizing by theory will degrade the footages even more because

1) Your 4:3 originated footages are more compressed (more information to be process) to begin with

2) By resizing into a 16:9 timeline, you are taking a drop in quality. Footages actually become softer.

I have done both and for anamorphic project I will only shoot squeeze. You can see the difference clearly in the darker area of the scene, in squeeze they are less noisy and cleaner. In 4:3, the darker areas tend to be noisier and has some noticeable compression artifacts sometimes.

Only good reason I can see shooting 4:3 then resizing is the leeway to adjust headroom. On the other hand, get your framing and headroom right and save yourself the time and trouble.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for your notice, i'll give it more chance now, i'm ready for every new knowledge (: I was not aware of the different compression algorithm when sequeeze is used.
 
ive done tests when i had the dvx100b

my results showed that shooting in 4x3 and then uprezzing to 16x9 provides a higher quality picture then squeeze mode and then sharpening.
 
PaPa said:
ive done tests when i had the dvx100b

my results showed that shooting in 4x3 and then uprezzing to 16x9 provides a higher quality picture then squeeze mode and then sharpening.
Click to expand...

I didn't do any tests related to this. Because in barry's book ( the dvx book ) it was explained very well and it was very meaningful. So i never used sequeeze mode, since i'll do many post works, i want more quality. This thread confuses me a little bit. Let's see where we'll reach.
 
PaPa said:
ive done tests when i had the dvx100b

my results showed that shooting in 4x3 and then uprezzing to 16x9 provides a higher quality picture then squeeze mode and then sharpening.
Click to expand...
But is that a fair test because from your post, I am getting the impression that you only uprezz the 4:3 stuff but the 16:9 stuff did not benefit from the uprezz process (I guess since it is already 16:9 to begin with)

A better test would be to uprezz the squeeze stuff to 720p and also uprezzing the 4:3 stuff to 720p.

My guess is the squeeze stuff should look better since the original image is sharper and cleaner to beging with.

Nightwalker, I do not have the DVX book but if I am sure Barry mentioned around here before that squeeze mode do produce a cleaner and sharper image.

If you are not doing any uprezzing, I highly encourage squeeze because it does look sharper and cleaner. I realized the huge difference after I shot a short 4:3 and then cropped in February and then did another short the next month using squeeze.

The squeeze stuff looks so much more cleaner and sharper than the stuff I shot 4:3 and then cropped.
 
Vincent Wong Yoon Wei said:
But is that a fair test because from your post, I am getting the impression that you only uprezz the 4:3 stuff but the 16:9 stuff did not benefit from the uprezz process (I guess since it is already 16:9 to begin with)

A better test would be to uprezz the squeeze stuff to 720p and also uprezzing the 4:3 stuff to 720p.

My guess is the squeeze stuff should look better since the original image is sharper and cleaner to beging with.

Nightwalker, I do not have the DVX book but if I am sure Barry mentioned around here before that squeeze mode do produce a cleaner and sharper image.

If you are not doing any uprezzing, I highly encourage squeeze because it does look sharper and cleaner. I realized the huge difference after I shot a short 4:3 and then cropped in February and then did another short the next month using squeeze.

The squeeze stuff looks so much more cleaner and sharper than the stuff I shot 4:3 and then cropped.
Click to expand...

You are so nice, sharing your experience. I'll give sequeeze mode a try.:thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top