DVX100B 4:3 to true 16:9

Joshua Provost said:
Hey, that's the fabled 2.351:1 anamorphic setup! Not very practical, did anyone every try it?
Click to expand...

no not personally but I saw a film at EVS and it was shot that way, not only wide but with THICK black bars on it, Randy said it was "Scope" sorry for the vague response.
can someone elborate on it.
 
Joshua Provost said:
Hey, that's the fabled 2.351:1 anamorphic setup! Not very practical, did anyone every try it?
Click to expand...

I use the anamorphic adapter LA7200G + Letterbox mode to get the 2.35:1 look. Works very good. For framing i use the Century widescreen LCD magnifier and widescreen magnifying eyepiece. No problems with it and the results look very good. Framing/focusing with the combination LA7200G + Sqeuuze mode might be more difficult and I see no need to do it, as the results I get with my method look great even on big plasmas or on my beamer/screen at home...
 
The problem with the squeeze+anamorphic adapter is that it's doubly-squeezed footage and there's no standard way of unsqueezing it -- you have to do it manually, and figure out the pixel aspect ratio, if your NLE even allows that level of customization. It'll typically be clip-by-clip as well.

It's more work than it's worth -- it gains you nothing over the anamorphic adapter -- no better resolution, more work in post -- and there's no TV which will unsqueeze it properly if you were to play it from the tape.

Doing the same thing with letterbox is exactly the same as shooting letterbox in 4:3 mode -- you still have to crop off the black bars if you don't want them to be color-corrected, etc., along with the rest of the footage. Just like shooting letterbox without the anamorphic adapter, it's usually simply just to shoot full-frame and crop in post, 'coz you're probably going to do it anyway, and you'll have more freedom to reframe if you want to.

So, using the anamorphic adapter is fine, but if you want 2.35:1, it's usually the least hassle just to shoot full-frame and crop -- or matte -- in post.
 
David Jimerson said:
...you still have to crop off the black bars if you don't want them to be color-corrected, etc., along with the rest of the footage. Just like shooting letterbox without the anamorphic adapter, it's usually simply just to shoot full-frame and crop in post, ....
Click to expand...

David,
that's right, but not an issue to me. I use to do all CC and influence to the image in camera or with filters in my mattebox, because I don't like to lose any quality when CC digitally...
But if you do that in postpro, it would be better to shoot full frame with the anamorphic adapter and then crop in pp.
 
David Jimerson said:
The problem with the squeeze+anamorphic adapter is that it's doubly-squeezed footage and there's no standard way of unsqueezing it -- you have to do it manually, and figure out the pixel aspect ratio, if your NLE even allows that level of customization. It'll typically be clip-by-clip as well.
Click to expand...

I can think of only one possible beneficial use: Anamorphic and squeeze and you could resize that right into 720p letterboxed 2.35:1. Might give you a little bit more data to work with.
 
Joshua Provost said:
I can think of only one possible beneficial use: Anamorphic and squeeze and you could resize that right into 720p letterboxed 2.35:1. Might give you a little bit more data to work with.
Click to expand...

Can you explain that further? I might not be getting exactly what you mean.

I'm not sure how there could be "more data" -- squeeze works by taking the image which would be in between the letterbox bars and stretching it vertically -- it's the same resolution (720x360) as the image in letterbox, and 25% less vertical resolution -- data -- as full screen.
 
maniero said:
David,
that's right, but not an issue to me. I use to do all CC and influence to the image in camera or with filters in my mattebox, because I don't like to lose any quality when CC digitally...
But if you do that in postpro, it would be better to shoot full frame with the anamorphic adapter and then crop in pp.
Click to expand...

Well, if you don't plan to do ANY image manipulation in post-production -- or use any transitions other than dissolves, fades, and cuts -- it'll work out to the same, yes.
 
David Jimerson said:
I'm not sure how there could be "more data" -- squeeze works by taking the image which would be in between the letterbox bars and stretching it vertically -- it's the same resolution (720x360) as the image in letterbox, and 25% less vertical resolution -- data -- as full screen.
Click to expand...

It's just not the case. Have you ever used it? Even if what you say is true, SQUEEZE is still better than uprezzing in post because it is uprezzed before the destruction of color subsampling to 4:1:1 and 5:1 DV compression. It gives you a better end result than fullscreen or letterbox uprezzed in post. Try it out.

I'm getting a headache, I've been over this too many times, always with people that have never used it, and never compared it head to head.
 
Joshua, I've done everything the DVX is capable of doing.

Maybe you should take something for your headache and reread my posts, because nowhere did I compare squeeze with or against uprezzing in post.

And in the interest of being clear myself, there's a persistent idea which shows its head with some regularity that "squeeze" is the same as "anamorphic" -- i.e., that the camera works internally to give you the same result you'd get with an anamorphic adapter, which of course it does not.

Now, you know what you're talking about, so I didn't *think* you were saying that, but given the context of the post of mine to which you were responding, it's possible that you were. So, I asked for clarification, because I figured you hadn't quite said what you were trying to say.

For my part, I suppose I was also a bit unclear; I was describing the process pre-compression. The image data which is uprezzed in camera is taken from the same area of the chip(s) as where the image between the black bars in letterbox mode is read. So it's the same data from the chips.

If you're saying that since squeeze gives you better picture than uprezzed letterbox, which I agree with, you'll get a better uprez to 720, fine. But that isn't really how you came across, and it's why I asked for clarification in the first place.
 
David Jimerson said:
Joshua, I've done everything the DVX is capable of doing.

Maybe you should take something for your headache and reread my posts, because nowhere did I compare squeeze with or against uprezzing in post.

And in the interest of being clear myself, there's a persistent idea which shows its head with some regularity that "squeeze" is the same as "anamorphic" -- i.e., that the camera works internally to give you the same result you'd get with an anamorphic adapter, which of course it does not.

Now, you know what you're talking about, so I didn't *think* you were saying that, but given the context of the post of mine to which you were responding, it's possible that you were. So, I asked for clarification, because I figured you hadn't quite said what you were trying to say.

For my part, I suppose I was also a bit unclear; I was describing the process pre-compression. The image data which is uprezzed in camera is taken from the same area of the chip(s) as where the image between the black bars in letterbox mode is read. So it's the same data from the chips.

If you're saying that since squeeze gives you better picture than uprezzed letterbox, which I agree with, you'll get a better uprez to 720, fine. But that isn't really how you came across, and it's why I asked for clarification in the first place.
Click to expand...

You got it, we're saying the same thing, but I'm not sure how there can be a discussion of squeeze vs. letterbox without discussing uprezzing in post. If you're shooting squeeze it's to get a 16:9 DVD output, so you have to assume you're going to uprez the letterbox to 16:9 in post. That was my assumption, anyway. :)

I've always wanted someone to try out the squeeze plus anamorphic adaptor, see what it looked like. Not very practical, but a curiousity.
 
Yes. You wouldn't uprez letterbox footage for widescreen DVD in this case because that's what the adapter is for. The letterbox would give you scope matting.
 
this is a very infromative thread.

I have been shooting 4x3 and now i regret, since tech is moving so quickly everone seems to have a new widescreen/hd/kitchensink tv, so shooting 4x3 is pointles cuz it'll just stretch the image=ugly. Guess my next projects will be suqeez or get hvx etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top