Squeeze Vs. Letterbox - A Test

reaktor

reaktor

Well-known member
I decided to shoot some of the exact same thing in squeeze and in letterbox mode. I hope this sheds some light onto the squeeze vs. letterbox issue. Personally, I think that if you have perfect focus, letterbox will yield that extra amount of detail that really makes the footage pop. Other than that, squeeze is totally sufficient.

Also does anyone know why squeeze is a wider aspect than letterbox?

http://www.reaktor-films.com/video/squeezevsletterbox.mov
25mb

Check it out now.
 
reaktor said:
Also does anyone know why squeeze is a wider aspect than letterbox?
Click to expand...

Because letterbox isn't 16:9


If you want letterbox - (or any "non-squueze" footage), then shoot clean 4:3, it's easy to add in letterbox bars, or crop to 16:9, in post where you have more control. - In fact, if you do any color correction, adjustments, etc, to the footage, you'll have to do this anyway.

- Mikko
 
I think this misses the point of what the SQUEEZE controversy is about. You have downscaled SQUEEZE to match LETTERBOX, and the results are very close, as would be expected (although the SQUEEZE seems to have a subtle advanatge).

What people are always debating is what SQUEEZE (pure 16:9 footage) vs. shooting LETTERBOX or NORMAL and upscaling in post to 16:9. Since many people are interested in creating native 16:9 projects/deliverables, like for 16:9 DVD's. It's the upscaling that makes the difference and where all the variables that can effect quality come into play.
 
I think the squeeze looks better.

I also have that same JVC consumer cam, or at least one very very similar.
 
Damn firewire port hasn't worked on my JVC for a while now. Do you know anyway to fix that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top