shooting 16:9 or 4:3?

0

007liron

Active member
Hey guys,

I'm going to shoot a short pretty soon, using the DVX100 at 24p.
I know that I want to have as cinematic look to it as possible, so I def. want a wide screen look (the film is intended to be projected).
However, since I never actually shot a 16:9 on camera, I was wondering which is better:
shooting at 16:9 on camera, or shooting as 4:3 and putting the 16:9 letter box in post?

Obviously, I prefer shooting as 16:9, but am concerned for possible artifacts, such as a squeezed image?
Does the DVX100 provide a 'true' 16:9?

I appreciate your help.
Thanks!
 
Hurray my first 16x9 question.
To start the dvx cannot produce true 16x9 images without the anamorphic lens adapter. Its is a 4x3 native chip. I am assuming your using a 100b since you mentioned squeeze, if that is the case, I reccomend shooting letterbox and up scaling in post my making the image 33 percent larger in order to fit the 16x9 frame. Either that or shoot squeeze. The only benefit to shooting 4x3 and letterboxing in post is that you will have the ability to reframe the image. So if you are not to worried about reframing the image in post, or you don't feel like rescaling the image in post, shoot squeeze, the difference between the 3 methods will be next to impossible for the average audience member to pick up. When it comes to noise, keep detail level at -3 or lower, up the coring a bit and lower your master ped a few notches. This is what I have found gives me the best results.

So when it comes to max quality shoot letterbox, ease of use shoot squeeze and most forgiving ,IE reframing in post, shoot 4x3.

hope this helps.
 
thanx!

just to make sure though- by 'anamorphic lens adapter' you mean a 35mm adapter (like the red-rock and such)?
If I don't have one, then I shouldn't shoot as either letter boxed or squeezed???
 
Last edited:
Erm, no, the DVX can shoot true 16X9 without the anamorphic adapter. Its not native 16X9, but it is true. Otherwise thats right. I belive that letterbox adds the boxes to the video and not just the VF/LCD display, so you can't really reframe in post. If you wanted to do that, you could tape some... tape over the LCD at a 16X9 (or 2.35:1) aspect ratio and then crop in post.
No, the anamorphic adapter and a 35mm adapter are two very different things. The anamorphic adapter is to give you native a 16X9 picture, a 35mm adapter is to allow you to use 35mm lenses on a video camera.

Good luck!
 
Exactly

Exactly

It's not native 16x9 and that is what I meant by true. As in you cannot get losless 16x9 out of the dvx without an anamorphic adapter and by that I dont mean a 35mm adapter, anamorphic adapter kinda looks like a wide angle lens is optically squeezes the image to fit onto the 4x3 sensor, however I hear there are lots of little issues when using the adapter so I would steer clear.

And yes letterbox is still 4x3 but adds the bars so you wont be able to re frame in post. However if you shoot just stock 4x3 then you will. Squeeze will fit automatically into the 16x9 time line. Don't quote me on this, but im pretty sure you can still use letterbox and squeeze with a 35mm adapter. I dont see why not.
 
Correct, you can crop and squeeze with a 35mm as it is essentially the same thing as any other lens adapter, altho it does alot more...
 
The DVX may not have a 16:9 CCD, but the SQUEEZE mode footage is true 16:9 footage when you capture and edit it, just like an XL2 16:9 footage. There is no difference there.

SQUEEZE was a horrible name. There is no such thing as SQUEEZE artifacts, but it did look squeezed on the DVX100A LCD. The DVX100B can correct the aspect ratio on the LCD, it does not look squeezed, nor is the footage squeezed on capture and editing.

If you plan on making a pure 16:9 24p DVD as a final product, then SQUEEZE is the way to go. You won't have to do upscaling or other conversions in post, just pure 16:9 shooting, capturing, editing, encoding, and burning.

If you can't afford the anamorphic adaptor, give SQUEEZE a try. You'll never shoot 4:3 again.
 
2 more questions, if I may:

- what excatly is the 'sueeze' mode, and how is it different than the 16X9 mode?

- Why would I need to 'rescale' the image if I shoot at 16X9?
Is it very time consuming / hard to do? Is it done frame by frame, clip by clip, entire timeline..?

Thanks!
 
007liron said:
- what excatly is the 'sueeze' mode, and how is it different than the 16X9 mode?
Click to expand...

You only have three options on the camera:

NORMAL - 4:3 footage
LETTERBOX - 4:3 footage w/ 16:9 letterbox burned in the image
SQUEEZE - 16:9 footage

- Why would I need to 'rescale' the image if I shoot at 16X9?
Click to expand...

You do not need to rescale SQUEEZE footage when making 16:9 DVD's.

If you shoot NORMAL or LETTERBOX, and want to make a 16:9 DVD, you'll need to rescale/manipulate the image to blow it up to the 16:9 frame.
 
Shooting 4:3 allows you to re-frame, but requires more post-processing and thequality result will depend to some extent on your NLE/post software. If you want to do this, make sure to shoot 24pA, not 24p, 'cause the interlace frames do NOT do as well in the conversion from 4:3 to 16:9.

Basically, to do this, you need to scale each frame so that it's 853 pixels wide. This will result in a "square" frame that is larger (vertically) than the 16:9 frame. In FCP at least, in a 16:9 timeline, you'll only see what fits in the 16:9 frame, and can slide the jumbo 4:3 frame up and down to vertically re-frame.

If you want a true 16:9 anamorphioc DVD, you'll have to go through this same process with letterbox footage.... so it is likely a better deal to shoot 4:3 and be able to re-frame.

If you shoot SQUEEZE, the camera is basically doing the scaling and cropping for you, and as a result, there's a small quality gain because compression happens AFTER this resizing. Further, certain problems that might come up with interlacing are avoided. Of course, as it's already scaled and cropped, you can't re-frame in post. But for easiest workflow and a small edge in quality, shoot squeeze. (Of course, if you have a DVX100P, the original, there is no squeeze mode).

The "Anamorphic adapter" is a physical lens which basically does the same scaling and cropping... that is, it optically compresses the image horizontally. This allows the full 4:3 sensor to be used to capture 16:9 images. It provides better quality than the other modes, but it's priucey, it's heavy, and has to be aligned precisely which can be an issue. After shooting with the adapter, your footage is essentially handled exactly as you would SQUEEZE mode footage.

In my experience, the re-framing trumps the small quality differences, and I tend to shoot 4:3 and convert to 16:9 in post.
 
Anyone done some comparison tests to see if squeeze or letterbox look any different when it all said and done? Lets say you shot and editited in squeeze, then burned a 16:9 dvd, versus shoot and edit in letterbox, then burn a 4:3 disc. Would there be any difference? Theoretically, it's using the same portion of the chip, so why should it look any different, right?

I suppose one benefit to shooting in squeeze is that when doing color correction in post, only the picture area is affected, not the "black bars". Sometimes I have to put a widescreen matte over my final edit to hide that, (I shoot in letterbox, don't know why, just do... I guess it's because I don't have a 16:9 tv, so watching back footage is in the correct aspect ratio.)
 
Shooting in letterbox isn't shooting in 16x9. Thats why I don't do it. It is exactly what it says. It is a letterbox of 4x3 footage. If you would shoot in 16x9 and make a 16x9 DVD your DVD player would letterbox for you and you would have a 16x9 copy to give to people that may have a widescreen TV.

Does this make sense?
 
The quality on letterbox is better if your showing on a 4x3 tv. If you are going to be showing on 16x9 tv's just shoot squeeze and up the coring. Saves you a ton of time. The difference will be almost non existant to the average viewer
 
ullanta said:
Shooting 4:3 allows you to re-frame, but requires more post-processing and thequality result will depend to some extent on your NLE/post software. If you want to do this, make sure to shoot 24pA, not 24p, 'cause the interlace frames do NOT do as well in the conversion from 4:3 to 16:9.

Basically, to do this, you need to scale each frame so that it's 853 pixels wide. This will result in a "square" frame that is larger (vertically) than the 16:9 frame. In FCP at least, in a 16:9 timeline, you'll only see what fits in the 16:9 frame, and can slide the jumbo 4:3 frame up and down to vertically re-frame.
Click to expand...

When rescaling the 4:3 image, do I need to rescale each and every FRAME?
(or is it clip by clip?)
How exactly is the rescaling done, in terms of the FCP layout? (never done this before...)

Thanks!
 
007liron said:
When rescaling the 4:3 image, do I need to rescale each and every FRAME?
(or is it clip by clip?)
How exactly is the rescaling done, in terms of the FCP layout? (never done this before...)

Thanks!
Click to expand...


Basically, you do it in the motion tab for each clip. You can either use the "distort" settings to specify new corners, or a combination of the aspect ratio and scale settings. I don't have FCP in front of me right now to give exact details... but will if this doesn't get you through!

But basically, IIRC, make sure your empty timeline is 16:9. Then, when you drop 4:3 clips into it, FCP will scale then to fit the frame... so they'll be "pillarboxed". Use the "Scale" in the motion tab to make the 4:3 image exactly fit the WIDTH of the 16:9 frame. The height will now be larger than the 16:9 frame, so you can use the "Center" control in the Basic Motion area of the motion tab to vertically re-frame to your liking.
 
Last edited:
Joshua Provost said:
You could also just complete the project in 4:3 and then just upscale your entire final output in one step.
Click to expand...


Ok. Say I decide to shoot at 4:3 and crop in post to 16:9.
What time line should I use to work with- 16:9? (since I will crop the image to a 16:9, right...?)
 
007liron said:
Ok. Say I decide to shoot at 4:3 and crop in post to 16:9.
What time line should I use to work with- 16:9? (since I will crop the image to a 16:9, right...?)
Click to expand...

Two ways to do it.

1. Work in a 16:9 timeline from the start, scaling up each clip as you go...

2. Work in a 4:3 timeline the whole way through, output your final 4:3 film, then blow that up to 16:9 as a final step, maybe in a separate project.
 
007liron said:
Ok. Say I decide to shoot at 4:3 and crop in post to 16:9.
What time line should I use to work with- 16:9? (since I will crop the image to a 16:9, right...?)
Click to expand...



If you plan to do any vertical re-framing, definitely use a 16:9 timeline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top