How bad is 16:9 on the 100b?

re: the squeeze mode again

re: the squeeze mode again

I shot in squeeze mode for the first time and it looks almost "pixelated."
Do you export to compressor? What settings do you use?
I am trying to find out what I am doing wrong.
 
You're shooting in squeeze mode, but what other camera settings are you using? Trace this thread back to the start... there's alot of good info on setting your camera up to make squeeze work well.
 
Here's a still from an interview I just shot in SQUEEZE.

1223400375.jpg
 
So, just to clarify things, shooting 24p in Squeeze will give you the best results if you are going for a widescreen 16X9 look? What is the actual aspect ratio if you shoot in squeeze? 4X3 or 16X9?

I've had a DVX for a year and never used Squeeze, but after reading this thread, sounds like you guys all got me convinced. Well done team.
 
mischiefman05 said:
So, just to clarify things, shooting 24p in Squeeze will give you the best results if you are going for a widescreen 16X9 look? What is the actual aspect ratio if you shoot in squeeze? 4X3 or 16X9?
Click to expand...

It's called anamorphic 16:9. That means that it is recorded as a 4:3 image but is compressed (squeezed) horizontally, making everything look elongated. When dropped into a 16:9 sequence, the image is stretched out and everything returns to normal proportions.

Anamorphic wide screen is not new to DV. It has been used for decades in film to maximize the use of frame exposure in super 16mm. That's done with a lens that creates the anamorphic squeeze.

There is an anamorphic lens made for the DVX, and anyone really concerned about the slight (arguably negligible) loss in resolution when shooting squeeze can get one. By using the anmorphic lens, the squeeze utilizes the entire exposure of the CCDs.
 
So when you shoot in Squeeze mode, does that change the settings that you would edit/capture in as opposed to shooting in regular mode?
 
mischiefman05 said:
So when you shoot in Squeeze mode, does that change the settings that you would edit/capture in as opposed to shooting in regular mode?
Click to expand...

Well, you'll want to set your sequence and project to 16:9. Other than that, everything should be status quo.
 
Hello,

Okay so I'm shooting in squeeze and I've read the entire thread three times, but I'm still not 100% clear on other camera settings. I'm putting the scene file on F5, or F6? Not sure the difference. And I'm using a PC with Adobe Premiere CS2 for editing. Can someone suggest the best settings for the best picture? I've ordered the DVX Book and that should be here soon.

Thanks.
 
Best is subjective my friend.
What's best to me doesn't mean best to you. I have all my scene files setup radically different from one another and you know what they are all the best for certain situations, none of which better then each other. It all depends on what your idea of best is...

Cleanest? Sharpest? Most film like? Most dynamic range? Best color saturation?
 
is it too much to ask what each of those settings are? I'm probably most interested in sharpest and film like, but I'm also trying to figure out how to get the best quality (res) when uploading to the computer.

thanks
 
Here are the settings I use. I have found these to give me a look very similar to shooting on 16mm film:

DETAIL LEVEL -4
DETAIL CORING 0
CHROMA LEVEL -3
CHROMA PHASE 0
CHROMA TEMP 0
MASTER PED -6
A. IRIS LEVEL -3
GAMMA CINELIKE
KNEE AUTO
MATRIX CINELIKE
SKIN TONE DTL OFF
V. DETAIL FREQ THIN
PROGRESSIVE 24pA or 24p

Last spring I shot my first little short using these settings (Except I had the VERTICAL DETAIL FREQ set to THICK. This caused the result to be a bit soft. I have since switched to THIN.) You can check it out to see if my settings appeal to you.

http://www.vimeo.com/1868373
 
Last edited:
Less vertical info, same horizontally

Less vertical info, same horizontally

C2V said:
It's called anamorphic 16:9. That means that it is recorded as a 4:3 image but is compressed (squeezed) horizontally, making everything look elongated. When dropped into a 16:9 sequence, the image is stretched out and everything returns to normal proportions. . . . .
Click to expand...


Actually C2V , that's not correct : There is no horizontal compression. The width of the captured frame and the picture detail across that width remains unaltered by the squeeze process.

It's the vertical resolution of the full frame capture which is partially discarded (a strip off the frame top and bottom), then processed ("stretched") to full DV height for recording : 432 (?) captured lines are stretched over 576 recorded lines , in PAL land. (less for NTSC)

This is why it's only any good for Progressive. - Iinterlaced goes all odd at horizontalish object edges, as you might expect.

( I could do a couple of frame grabs if anyone's interested - but later; I'm off to bed now !! )

Ruff
 
Ruff_Futtidge said:
Actually C2V , that's not correct : There is no horizontal compression. The width of the captured frame and the picture detail across that width remains unaltered by the squeeze process.

It's the vertical resolution of the full frame capture which is partially discarded (a strip off the frame top and bottom), then processed ("stretched") to full DV height for recording : 432 (?) captured lines are stretched over 576 recorded lines , in PAL land. (less for NTSC)

This is why it's only any good for Progressive. - Iinterlaced goes all odd at horizontalish object edges, as you might expect.

( I could do a couple of frame grabs if anyone's interested - but later; I'm off to bed now !! )

Ruff
Click to expand...

You're talking about two different things. You are mostly correct, that is how the DVX is filling the frame. However, C2V is correct when it comes to how anamorphic 16:9 is encoded to DV. The PAR relates to the width of each pixel. Either .9 for 4:3 or 1.2 for 16:9 (in NTSC-land, same in PAL-land except the ratios are a bit different).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top