16:9 and ltrbox wonders

L

LoveDVX

Active member
I know I will get hammered for bringing this up, I assume again, but can someone tell me why the DVX does not have a letterboxed image when shooting wide (or squeezed)? (Jan?) I'm really curious when seemingly every other and lesser camera does it.

How do I explain to this woman that doing her doc. piece with the DVX is a better choice for a 60i 16:9 DVD when all she can talk about is the fact that the screen isn't showing her what her pd150 does... a letterboxed image when shooting wide. It's looking like I will have to end up to using the 150 instead of her assoc. prod.'s DVX. I'd rather not do this since I like the DVX's controls, lens, etc. better but what can i say to that?


Thoughts?!
 
My DVX100 does not have Squeeze mode, so I've never used it. If you have a letterbox option on the DVX100A just go with that. From what I've read, squeezing doesn't improve image quality much, if at all. The only way to get true 16x9 (and improve quality) is with an anamorphic adaptor, which she definitey wouldn't like because, again, she wouldn't be able to see the "letterbox look" on the monitor.

Personally, I prefer recording EVERYTHING 4x3, full frame, with no black bars (letterboxing) and then add the letterbox in post. It allows me to manipulate the image more in post. Sometimes the framing isn't right (too little headroom, too much headroom, etc.) and I can adjust the vertical coordinates in my NLE to frame the shot better. If you shoot letterbox you're pretty much stuck with what you got.

Looks like you're suffering from a common problem. The client is always wrong, but we must smile and say they're right.

Good luck!
pk
 
Owen's got an idea there -- a $100 LCD 16:9 monitor would show proper framing, plus it'd give her a monitor to use instead of hovering over the camera's LCD...
 
Thanks guys. What about the power supply needed for the LCD though? The unsqueeze eyepiece is fine for the operator but not really practical for showing framing to others around you.

PK, if you are doing a 16:9 DVD, which means it will show properly on a 16:9 TV, and ltrbxd on a 4:3 set, you can't use a 4:3 source. I know there's a way to do it with the stretching software, but this is insane when you have endless hours of footage to go through and the problems if someone else is editing part of it, etc. (nothing but headaches!)

Can anyone recc. a 16:9 LCD to mount to the DVX? Any way to power one practically?

Thanks!


(Wishing I had the HVX simply for the 16:9 CCDs! ...and still wondering why Pana didn't do what everyone else did with the DVX??)
 
I usually run picture out to a 4:3 field monitor with a 16:9 mode on it -- powered by the heavy lead acid brick batts. There are probably 16:9 LDCs that can feed off the hot shoe, I just don't have any recommendations. I'm sure someone around here does.
 
DVX doesn't have a hot shoe, so no monitor can draw off of it...

EVS sells a monitor that's able to be fit with a Panasonic camera battery. Might be the way to go, but it's a whole lot more than the cheap $100 LCDs hawked on ebay...
 
Maybe after reading all of these posts I'm still missing something here but why can't you just letter box it in post and "marker" your lcd to give you your frame limits while filming?
 
Barry_Green said:
EVS sells a monitor that's able to be fit with a Panasonic camera battery. Might be the way to go, but it's a whole lot more than the cheap $100 LCDs hawked on ebay...
Click to expand...

Sounds like a job for... JARRED LAND. Bet he'd sell me a couple more J5600 batteries along with that battery adapter for a LCD widescreen monitor and israeli arm mount. Seriously, dude. Do these monitors necessarily NEED to cost over a grand just because they run off a Pana-battery? I think not. Me thinks you need to DVXuser size 'em 7" eBay monitors for us. It'd be worth a good two hundred from thisiswells. :thumbsup:
 
I usually just throw in a tape which has a letterboxed image into my camera and carefully tape off markers on the LCD and the viewfinder, this way I have my framing and In post I add the letterbox, plus like PK said, it alows you room in post to manipulate your framing, and when it comes to a field monitor that you want other ppl to view, either tell them tough ****, you'll see my amazing framing abilities in post, or mark off the monitor also,

-Matt-
 
LCD converter

LCD converter

CineCell said:
Thanks guys. What about the power supply needed for the LCD though? The unsqueeze eyepiece is fine for the operator but not really practical for showing framing to others around you.
Click to expand...

You know in addition to the eyepiece, Century now makes an LCD hood that magnifies the LCD image AND converts it to 16:9 aspect ratio!

I have this and went this way rather than the camera mounted 16:9 additional LCD.

It just seemed so much simpler (no batteries, etc.), and I thought I could't afford a higher resolution LCD than the one attached to the camera.

The LCD adaptor costs $249 I think.
 
Barry_Green said:
DVX doesn't have a hot shoe, so no monitor can draw off of it...
Click to expand...

Doh -- this is starting to sound like a job for DV Rack... unless there's a bunch of run-and-gun involved.
 
The plot thickens

The plot thickens

Ohhhh, ok guys, I just found out her PD150 is actually a TRV900 (or a PD100)? Same thing pretty much from doing a web search. Hearing that the images are pretty nice though. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that a 1/4" unit?? Any real exp. with this stuff anyone? Pixal count isn't that different on specs from the DVX. Though I know that is little concern. What ammo do I have now, if any?

Coffee and Matt, you might have missed my part of the post because I'm talking about a truly widescreen project. Matting something in post doesn't do a thing for an image that will be professionally marketed on a true 16:9 DVD. The very quickly (exponentially?) growing 16:9 TV market will soon demand that all DVD's are made this way. And this is no doubt when HD-DVD's hit the market at the end of the year.(?)

The unsqueeze hood seemed really bulky to me. I can see me leaving that thing behind soon after using it. Not to mention I'd have to hear grief over it from her!

Is this issue worth starting another thread about somewhere else? I went to a Best Buy the other day (which I loath) and noticed that 16:9's are pretty much taking over the sales floor. From looking at that, I'd bet that as soon as next year will see the end of 4:3 sets. Heck, VHS is now over basically... why not 4:3 too. :D (hopefully SOON so we can all stop this 16:9 vs. 4:3 HEADACHE)
 
PK Gillock said:
From what I've read, squeezing doesn't improve image quality much, if at all. The only way to get true 16x9 (and improve quality) is with an anamorphic adaptor,
Click to expand...

Sorry PK, but I disagree. From everything I've heard on this forum, squeeze mode is NOTICABLY better on a big screen 16x9 TV than if you were to shoot 4:3, then crop in post & out put to a 16x9 video. However, the anamorphic lens will also be better still, especially if you're going to be blowing up for LARGE screen vieiwing.

Also, when you bring your footage that's shot in squeeze mode into post, it's true 16x9.

I think the BIG difference between a talented DP, and a talented post editor, is the DP wants to get it RIGHT the first time (framing, etc.), and the editor is like "Eh, we'll just fix it in post". I've also preferred to shoot in 4:3, because I'm not the best camera man, and love to be able to have the flexibility of framing in post, BUT I'm trying to shoot more now with squeeze mode & get the framing right the first time.
 
Envision said:
From everything I've heard on this forum, squeeze mode is NOTICABLY better on a big screen 16x9 TV than if you were to shoot 4:3, then crop in post & out put to a 16x9 video.
Click to expand...

Envision-

How can this be? Squeeze mode does not use the entire CCD chip?

Rick
 
Read the book Read the book Read the book

Read the book Read the book Read the book

Envision said:
Sorry PK, but I disagree. From everything I've heard on this forum, squeeze mode is NOTICABLY better on a big screen 16x9 TV than if you were to shoot 4:3, then crop in post & out put to a 16x9 video.
Click to expand...

I've never read anything like that and not so according to Barry - see thread:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?p=248645#post248645

Read Barry's book:
squeeze 350 lines of rez
letterbox 380 lines of rez
anamorphic 540 lines of rez

letterboxed or 4:3 footage blows up in post to make a better image than squeeze, because they both use the same percentage of the CCD's when capturing, but the in camera blow up is not as clean as what your computer can do.

If you want the best resolution without using the anamorphic, shoot 4:3 or letterbox and blow up to a true anamorphic frame with photo zoom pro. There's a sticky on this in the technical section.

Also, search for posts by dsjecta, who is a master of this method, and outputs to cinescope ratio!
 
CineCell said:
The unsqueeze hood seemed really bulky to me. I can see me leaving that thing behind soon after using it. Not to mention I'd have to hear grief over it from her!
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem bulky to me. In fact it's the same size as Century's regular hood for the DVX, just with a piece of glass in it.

Although I couldn't tell a difference in the weight by the way the camera feels, the LCD did droop downward if positioned past a certain point, and I thought at first I wasn't going to like the hood. I attached a small bungee to it, however, and it gives it just the perfect amount of resistance to stay in place in any position.

If you go this way I would be happy to mail you a couple of bungees that are just the right size, or you can probably pic them up at Wal-Mart, where I got mine.

Here are some pics (couldn't figure out how to post them in thread).
http://live-theater.org/16x9lcdhoodpics.htm

To me its a totally light weight un-cumbersome method.

You can get monitors with mount kits and power at B&H for just a $75 - $150 more than this option (again $250) but I chose this instead an am very satisfied.
 
Thanks for the offer. Though maybe I'll just have to wait till the HVX before I can go pro 16:9, just for SD, without hassles. (shame on Panny for not including something SO *&%$ simple)
 
K, jdanstan, now I'm frusterated. No, you personally haven't frustered me ... just all these options are screwing with my head. I SWEAR I read a post in here somewhere MONTHS ago from Jarred where he & some others were testing out the anamorphic, squeeze, etc. and that squeeze looked noticably better on a larger screen than a cropped/letter boxed 4:3 ... but that, of course, the anamorphic looked the best.

Why in the heck would Panasonic even offer the squeeze mode if it didn't look as good as the others ... period? I could really care less how much time it saved me in post, because the amount of time it takes to crop my 4:3 to 16x9 or cinemascope is really nothing at all (at least in Vegas).

If cropped 4:3 TRULY will have a better res than squeeze, then I'll never shoot squeeze again. Ever.

Anyway to ring up the mods to get them on here & give a little more clarity? Not that you've not tried, jdanstan (and thanks for the thread link), but I know what I read in another thread months ago, and also just don't understand the reasoning for squeeze if it's worthless other than not having to crop in post.
 
Another consideration to throw out there...

Cropping a 4:3 image and blowing up for a 16:9 screen also means you have to factor in longer render times and disc space which may be an issue for some people... especially if you use lots of layers in your projects or require a quick turn-around time. Squeeze mode would eliminate that one quite efficently.

my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top