16:9 and ltrbox wonders

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

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

Hi Envision,

Unless there's some weird algorithmic thing that causes squeeze to look better on a 16X9, I can't imagine why it would.

here is a link that shows the resolution added by using the photo zoom pro process. http://www.pinelakefilms.com/photozoom.html
the letterboxed footage is the uprezzed, because he's uprezzed to 16X9 and then cropped to cinescope. Its harder to tell on your computer but is supposedly stunning on a big screen.

He had some still grabs posted somewhere, where the results are even more apparent, but I can't find them.

here's the link to his sticky explaining the process
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=6844&highlight=uprezz

Perhaps:
A) Those posts about blown up and cropped footage not looking better than squeeze were posted before photozoom pro was discovered / widely being used. As I understand it your NLE (at least FCP) doesn't do as good a job as photozoom pro.
B) You are confusing something that was posted about the Anamorphic Adaptor, and remembering it as being posted about squeeze. Barry and others are always saying that the Anamorphic Adaptor yields results that are noticeably better on a widescreen television or for film blow up.
C) I am on crack.
D) Photozoom pro was in use at the time of the post you are remembering, but the test was just for clips blown up in FCP (or NLE's in general?) vs. photozoom pro.

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 efficiently.

Using photozoom pro is quite intensive. You have to export your sequence as tiff files, batch import them into photozoom pro, and then let the computer re-render every frame, and then import the image sequence back into FCP.

I think just blowing up and cropping in your NLE probably doesn't look as good as squeeze, but blowing up and cropping with photozoom pro looks better.

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).

Because squeeze probably does look better than just blowing up in your NLE and blowing up in photozoom pro is an imperfect solution that is hardware and time intensive.

Also, it's so you can shoot and hook your unprocessed footage up to a 16:9 monitor and boom there it is. You wouldn't want to play letterboxed footage on your 16X9 monitor, and you might not have a clue about how to uprez or crop if you are using imovie or something like that.

I'm using squeeze mode for 72 hour film contest this weekend because of the time issue. I like it and I'm happy with the image on my SD monitor. But, when I am shooting a short or a feature for festival release, I will shoot 4:3, and use photozoom pro in post because I am too much of a wussy for the anamorphic adaptor.

Your headache and frustration stem (at least in part) from the fact that all of these methods suck.
-4:3 cropped in post in your NLE = maybe the worst possible image ???
-Squeeze = not as high resolution as 4:3 cropped and blown up in photozoom pro
-43: cropped and blown up in photozoom pro = time intensive and tedious
- All of the above = less than 75% the resolution of the Anamorphic adaptor
- The anamoprhic adaptor - time intensive to shoot with and hard to use for all but the most adept shooters.
- HVX200 = not available yet and costs 6500.

 

[Barry_Green]

and also just don't understand the reasoning for squeeze if it's worthless other than not having to crop in post.

Squeeze makes 16:9 footage.

Letterbox doesn't. Letterbox makes 4:3 footage.

Squeeze looks "right" when displayed on a widescreen TV. Letterbox doesn't.

Letterbox looks "right" when displayed on a 4:3 TV. Squeeze doesn't.

They're different methods for a different result. Squeeze is for making 16:9 footage; Letterbox is for making 4:3 footage with the look of 16:9.

Squeeze, in progressive-scan/THIN mode, does a tremendous job -- it delivers 16:9 footage that's for all practical purposes just as high-resolution as the native 16:9 footage from a native-16:9 Sony FX1 in DV mode. Squeeze 16:9 footage is as high-resolution as any native 16:9 interlaced camera can deliver.

If you're staying on DVD, there's nothing in the world wrong with Squeeze, it works fine, and it's infinitely easier to work with than the anamorphic adapter.

If you're blowing up to film, or up-rezzing to HD, the anamorphic provides a significant sharpness advantage that many people find well worth the hassle.

If you're not using the anamorphic adapter, and looking to blow up, then I think letterbox is a slightly better choice. Squeeze takes the letterbox footage and stretches it to be full-frame. But with a film blowup, or an HD blowup, you'll be stretching the footage again to the full HD or Film frame size; you'll get better results starting from the unmodified original footage (letterboxed) than you would get from having the camera stretch letterbox up to the squeeze frame, and then you (in post) stretching that pre-stretched footage again.

Then again, Disjecta posted a thread that showed that if using PhotoZoom, you may get a better post-stretch than squeeze is capable of doing, if you're willing to go through the post work to get it.

When it's all said and done, the differences are pretty minor. I think for most purposes Squeeze is plenty adequate. The one place where Squeeze is completely unacceptable is if you're shooting interlaced/60i. It just doesn't work that well in interlaced mode; I believe you'd get much better results from the anamorphic adapter if you need 16:9 in interlaced.

 

[Norm Sanders]

jdanstan, thanks for your post(s) and explaination. You've put a lot into it, which I appreciate & helped to answer enough questions so that I had more.

Barry, you ever consider teaching to kids? Because you do SUCH a great job of spoon feeding the info in such simple ways that I think a 5 year old could understand it ... which I appreciate. Thanks for jumping on here, and clarifying for me.

From what I'm getting from all this, is that if I'm only going to be showing on DVD and not blowing up, squeeze mode CAN deliver better results than 4:3 that's been cropped in post (leaving the additional step/cost of Photozoom out of the equation).

However, if the results aren't THAT much better, or even noticeably better to the average audience's eye, then it'll be a heck of a lot easier for me to simply shoot 4:3.

Now, last Q, and slightly OT ... Barry, you mentioned 60i, and I've seen this a lot. Far as I know, when I'm shooting in interlaced, it's 29.97 ... how do I get it to shoot 60i, and WHY would I want that ... or is there a difference? I understand all the differences of 24P, 24PA and 30P ... just confused on the 60i.

Thanks guys ... this has also helped me as I plan on shooting our zombie short for the fest!

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Barry, you make the user group a wonderful resource. Thanks for sharing your know-how with us.

I think we need some yes or no answers.

While squeeze may be a "resonable" mode that is "for" display on a 16X9 screen, the question here really has to do with -- after the anamorphic what process gives the highest resolution for display on a 16X9 monitor.

Unless I have been missing something, I think it goes in order from highest resolution to lowest as follows:
1) anamorphic adaptor
and neck in neck for second place with much less difference between themselves than themselves and the adaptor are, again from high to low
2) uprezzing with photozoom pro and cropping to true 16X9
3) letterbox with no uprezz
4) Squeeze
5) blown up letterbox or 4:3 to 16:9 using your NLE

Q: Is the above correct? If not would you please re-order it correctly for the benefit Envision and myself?

I'm not saying Squeeze yeilds bad results. I'm just saying that it's my understanding that if a little extra resolution and sharpness in 16X9 is what you are after and you are not going to use the anamorphic adaptor, you can get it in photozooom pro which will yield results superior (if only matginally) to squeeze even on a 16:9 monitor becuase of the cleaner starting point.

Q: is this true for a 16:9?
Q: is thios true for film blow up?

Thanks in advance Barry

 

[Denwa]

I was reading through his post and almost didn't bother replying. I was going to just shake my head, roll my eyes and go on, then I had 3 hours of footage given to me that was shot 4:3 letterbox (16:9 image) on a dvx100...and 1 hour 16:9 squeezed form an XL1, and spent 4 hours silently cursing the director.

In this case he actually thought the dvx100 was like the 100A and squeezed 16:9. Since many cameras will display (sonys) 16:9 sqeezed at 4:3 letterbox in the VIEWFINDER, he assumed all was good (he's not that familier with the dvx100). I won't even bother arguing the issue with someone who been convinced by some ingnorant fool, that 4:3 letterbox is higher quality. I will simply refuse the project and say thanks, but no thanks.

16:9 that is recorded to tape as 4:3 with letterbox is a pain in the butt to do many things with. Like color correction, effects, etc, etc, etc.

Read Adam Wilt's article: http://adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

Pay particular attention to the following

"Or are you? Since the "wrong way" digitally stretches the image prior to DV compression, the DV codec doesn't have to compress the "wasted" material at the top and bottom of the 4:3 image. As a result, those central 360 (or 432) lines are spread out over the entire height of the picture, and all the DCT blocks are employed in compressing useful bits of the image. As a result, slightly more vertical resolution is preserved through the compression process when shooting the "wrong way" vs. "shoot and protect". Ben Syverson has pix that show the difference."​

Keep in mind that many cameras do 16:9 the "wrong way" as compared to using a real 16:9 ccd. Most now use the whole width of the 4:3 CCD and crop, then squeeze the info from the pixels. There is NO loss form squeezing the info electronicaly. I even have a D8 that had an oversized CCD and Gave me true 16:9 off of it. (megapixel ccd, and used 640K for 4:3 in oder to give IS that didn't resize the image)

Ironicly, I either have to resize the 4:3 letterbox to get rid of the bars or I have to add letterbox bars again AFTER color corection etc since when I raise black levels for example the bars black levels change. Various effects like fluidmorph etc also look weird. Same with many other effects/transitions.

I'd rather be given 4:3 footage that was protected (framed for) 16:9, or 16:9 squeeze footage, than 4:3 letterboxed footage any day. Also, with any QUALITY editing system there is no need for photozoom to "up res". You are not upressing anything. You are resizing vertically. If your NLE can't do this properly, then time for a better NLE.

I use Avid xpress pro regularly and FCP on occasion. Never had any quality problems with either. (though with FCP double check your settings).

PS. Anamporphic 16:9 onto 4:3 is obviously the best choice of all, though lens quaility and issues with the lens adapters' distance from the focal plane, comes into play.

Now, enough procastinating..back to editing.

 

[Barry_Green]

From what I'm getting from all this, is that if I'm only going to be showing on DVD and not blowing up, squeeze mode CAN deliver better results than 4:3 that's been cropped in post (leaving the additional step/cost of Photozoom out of the equation).

Well, yes, it can. Or it can be worse. It depends on how you stretch the footage. Some programs are a whole lot better at it than others!

Squeeze mode is a digital computer algorithm that stretches 720x360 to 720x480. I don't believe it does as well as PhotoShop or PhotoZoom, but it definitely does it way incredibly better than Premiere 6.0, for example.

So if you want to employ a very high-quality post-stretching solution, yes you can probably do better than Squeeze mode. Squeeze has to do what it does in real-time, whereas the other programs can take just as long as they need.

However, if the results aren't THAT much better, or even noticeably better to the average audience's eye, then it'll be a heck of a lot easier for me to simply shoot 4:3.

I don't think the results are going to be dramatically different either way. So the main question is: what is your targeted display device? If it's a 16:9 screen, shoot squeeze. If it's a 4:3 TV, shoot 4:3 letterbox.

Now, last Q, and slightly OT ... Barry, you mentioned 60i, and I've seen this a lot. Far as I know, when I'm shooting in interlaced, it's 29.97 ... how do I get it to shoot 60i, and WHY would I want that ... or is there a difference? I understand all the differences of 24P, 24PA and 30P ... just confused on the 60i.

60i and 29.97 are the same thing. However, 29.97 is fraudulent terminology. It's prevalent, yes, but it's completely inaccurate. Interlaced video is not shot at 29.97 "frames" per second, it's shot at 59.94 fields per second. The term "frame", as applied to interlaced video, really means a pair of fields. But it's not the same. It's like saying "a dollar is four quarters". No, it isn't: a "dollar" is either a piece of green paper or a big hunk of silver metal; four quarters is four quarters. Four quarters may add up to the same purchasing power as a dollar, but it is not "a dollar".

So it is with 60i and 29.97. It seems all major manufacturers of cameras have pretty much exterminated the concept of "29.97", they all refer to "60i" or "59.94i" in their literature now. Which is a good thing. 29.97 is a misleading misnomer, which leads to confusion.

 

[Barry_Green]

Unless I have been missing something, I think it goes in order from highest resolution to lowest as follows:
1) anamorphic adaptor
and neck in neck for second place with much less difference between themselves than themselves and the adaptor are, again from high to low
2) uprezzing with photozoom pro and cropping to true 16X9
3) letterbox with no uprezz
4) Squeeze
5) blown up letterbox or 4:3 to 16:9 using your NLE

Q: Is the above correct? If not would you please re-order it correctly for the benefit Envision and myself?

No, it's not correct, because (and pardon me for "shouting", I don't mean to shout, but this point has to be driven home):

3) letterbox with no uprezz NO NO NO. LETTERBOX WILL NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY ON A 16:9 MONITOR!

Okay, I've calmed down now. Here's the thing: letterbox footage is 4:3! It is *not* 16:9, and it will look WRONG on a 16:9 monitor. If you play letterbox footage on a 16:9 monitor, you'll end up with stretched-out-wide footage with black bars on the top and bottom.

That's the difference. Squeeze is for use with a 16:9 monitor. Letterbox IS NOT. Letterbox is for use on a 4:3 monitor.

Squeeze looks right on a 16:9 monitor. Squeeze looks WRONG on a 4:3 monitor.

Letterbox looks right on a 4:3 monitor. Letterbox looks WRONG on a 16:9 monitor.

That's why the two modes exist. They are not an either-or choice that you decide based on your preferences; they exist specifically because they are not the same. One is suitable for making 16:9 footage. One is for making 4:3 footage, that looks like it's 16:9 (because it has letterbox bars on it).

So, to revisit the list, I'd probably order it something like this:

1) anamorphic adaptor
2) uprezzing letterbox with photozoom pro and cropping to true 16X9
3) Squeeze
4) blown up letterbox or 4:3 to 16:9 using your NLE, depending on your NLE.

The other savings you get is that when blowing up letterbox you will be encountering a second round of DV compression. Squeeze mode does the stretch and compress all at once, so if you're not ever recompressing the footage again, you'll get the best results that way. With the post-stretch of letterbox, it gets compressed in the camera, then uncompressed/stretched/recompressed in the NLE. You're guaranteeing that you'll take a second compression hit, whereas with squeeze you're guaranteeing only one hit.

Of course, if you're planning on doing extensive color correction etc., you'll be taking that second hit anyway, so it becomes of less relevance.

I'm not saying Squeeze yeilds bad results. I'm just saying that it's my understanding that if a little extra resolution and sharpness in 16X9 is what you are after and you are not going to use the anamorphic adaptor, you can get it in photozooom pro which will yield results superior (if only matginally) to squeeze even on a 16:9 monitor becuase of the cleaner starting point.

And there is probably truth to that (see my prior post).

Q: is this true for a 16:9?

Maybe. Depends on how you stretch it.

Q: is thios true for film blow up?

Probably. But the results will still pale in comparison to what you could have gotten with the anamorphic.

 

[Barry_Green]

Ironicly, I either have to resize the 4:3 letterbox to get rid of the bars or I have to add letterbox bars again AFTER color corection etc since when I raise black levels for example the bars black levels change. Various effects like fluidmorph etc also look weird. Same with many other effects/transitions.

This is a very valid concern. Letterbox footage can look odd when color corrected, and the bars may need to be replaced.

I'd rather be given 4:3 footage that was protected (framed for) 16:9, or 16:9 squeeze footage, than 4:3 letterboxed footage any day.

The idea behind letterbox, for this purpose, is to a) make framing easier in-camera, and b) get better compression efficiency. If you're going to be letterboxing it in post anyway, what do you lose by having the footage letterboxed in the first place?

Also, with any QUALITY editing system there is no need for photozoom to "up res". You are not upressing anything. You are resizing vertically.

Yes, but resizing vertically is up-rezzing. You're up-rezzing 360 pixels to 480. PhotoZoom does a better job of it than any NLE does.

I use Avid xpress pro regularly and FCP on occasion. Never had any quality problems with either. (though with FCP double check your settings).

Avid is supposed to have superb up-rez capabilities, as far as I know. Not always the case with other NLE's. Vegas is very good, Premiere 6.0 was awful awful awful. I've heard bad things about earlier versions of FCP, don't know how FCP5 does in scaling.

 

[Norm Sanders]

The idea behind letterbox, for this purpose, is to a) make framing easier in-camera, and b) get better compression efficiency. If you're going to be letterboxing it in post anyway, what do you lose by having the footage letterboxed in the first place?

AGH! The thread that won't end, huh? For me, and this is IMOHO, if I shoot letterboxed, then I'm STUCK with the framing as is, even though I intended to post out to 16x9 ... so, what I would have to lose, by not being at good behind the lens as I am at editing, is that I may not get the shot right & be unable to fix it in post.

Also, Barry, I get confused when you guys are talking about a letterboxed/cropped 4:3 looking bad on a 16x9 monitor, and 16x9 footage looking bad on a 4:3 monitor ... are you guys talking about in the field/editing, or after you've rendered to DVD? I understand in the field/editing they'll look off, but when I speak I'm usually doing it from a finished product point of view ...

In other words, when I render out my project to DVD, it doesn't matter if I'm watching it on a 4:3 TV or a 16x9 TV ... it holds it's shape & looks great. On the 16x9 it fills the screen perfectly, and on a 4:3 letterboxed bars are automatically added, so again the shape is held.

My biggest Q out of this was what would look best on my large 16x9 TV by just using the DVX and my NLE (Vegas). Since I'll be doing color correcting, and other effects anyway, it sounds like it's best to just stick with the 4:3 which will give me room to frame up/down if needed, and won't look noticable different than squeezed footage, especially with the effects & compression through rendering.

Man, guys, sorry for all the retard questions, but I've learned ... now to just apply & test.

 

[Rick Meyer]

Oh God. I am so afraid to tack on yet another post onto the "thread that will not die" but my question has EVERYTHING to do with this topic. And Barry, I know I can speak for most everybody on these boards, you have the patience of a Saint and we ALL appreciate your teachings. Having said that, please don't yell at me with purple-violet font.

I am filming my sister's wedding next weekend. I was ALL squared away with settings. Or so I thought. I was going to letterbox the footage than uprez in Photozoom...since the results looked so amazing. I was ALSO going to use 60i footage so I would have more leeway with slowing the footage down in post. However, this thread sort of killed this set-up. And good thing I read it too. My sister has a true 16X9 widescreen TV. Therefore, and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, SQUEEZE is the way to go because SQUEEZE will look right on her 16X9 TV? I think I understand that, FINALLY. My real question is, is it true that 60i and squeeze do not look right together? Could I get away with squeeze and 30p? And how slow can I get 30p footage.

Thank you for your wisdom everybody. I will be patiently waiting for a word of advice-

Rick

 

[Norm Sanders]

Ugh, I've been askin' too many questions to feel like I have the right to answer one ... oh well!

I don't know aboutyour NLE, but I'm assuming you'll be giving this to her on a DVD. When you render out to your DVD in in 16x9, it won't really matter if you shot in 4:3 or squeeze, as to whether or not it'll look good on her TV ... more a matter of having your project set as 16x9, then crop/squeeze your 4:3 footage to fit/adjust accordingly, then render out to your MPEG2 for DVD.

Resolution? That's something else, and has been the center of this thread lately ... but at least either way will LOOK right on the 16x9 TV as long as it's taken care of correctly during editing/post (with your 4:3).

I can't recall if it was Barry Green or jdanstan, in the last 24 hours or so, but it was mentioned about squeeze not working as well with 60i or 24P ... just can't find now which was which.

As far as slowing your 30P footage, I'm assuming you asking 'cuz you're working in a 24P timeline (or thinking you might)? If in a 24P timeline, you'd want to slow your 30P footage down 20% to 80% of it's original speed ... that way it'll match up in the 24P ... or something like that.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

No, it's not correct, because (and pardon me for "shouting", I don't mean to shout, but this point has to be driven home):

3) letterbox with no uprezz NO NO NO. LETTERBOX WILL NOT DISPLAY PROPERLY ON A 16:9 MONITOR!

Okay, I've calmed down now. Here's the thing: letterbox footage is 4:3! It is *not* 16:9, and it will look WRONG on a 16:9 monitor. If you play letterbox footage on a 16:9 monitor, you'll end up with stretched-out-wide footage with black bars on the top and bottom.

That's the difference. Squeeze is for use with a 16:9 monitor. Letterbox IS NOT. Letterbox is for use on a 4:3 monitor.

Squeeze looks right on a 16:9 monitor. Squeeze looks WRONG on a 4:3 monitor.

Letterbox looks right on a 4:3 monitor. Letterbox looks WRONG on a 16:9 monitor.

That's why the two modes exist. They are not an either-or choice that you decide based on your preferences; they exist specifically because they are not the same. One is suitable for making 16:9 footage. One is for making 4:3 footage, that looks like it's 16:9 (because it has letterbox bars on it).

Yeah I get that, Barry.

I just reread my post, however, and I did indeed preface the list with "for viewing on a 16X9 monitor" -- I just threw the letterbox 4:3 in there as I am trying to learn everything I can about getting the best resolution and intened my list as just best to worst resolution "period".

I thought the fact that non blown up letterbox or raw 4:3 was for a 4:3 monitor would be assumed. But I am only a bronze member and you don't know me so I guess there's no reason for you not to assume I'm a jackass, or an idiot -- and my list was confusing as it compared apples and oranges in a sense. I should have labeled it like this.

1) anamorphic adaptor for 16X9 monitor, or via DVD for a 4:3 monitor.
2) uprezzing letterbox with photo zoom pro and cropping to true 16X9 for a 16X9 monitor or a 4:3 monitor via DVD
3) letterbox with no uprezz on a 4:3 monitor
3) Squeeze for a 16X9 monitor or a 4:3 via DVD
4) blown up letterbox or 4:3 to 16:9 using your NLE for a 16:9 monitor or 4:3 via DVD.

Thanks Barry. I will shut up aftet this, and I will mail you a bottle of Tylenol should this post cause another aneurism.

 

[Barry_Green]

In other words, when I render out my project to DVD, it doesn't matter if I'm watching it on a 4:3 TV or a 16x9 TV ... it holds it's shape & looks great. On the 16x9 it fills the screen perfectly, and on a 4:3 letterboxed bars are automatically added, so again the shape is held.

Only because a DVD player does an automatic aspect ratio conversion. If you're shooting live, you'll see what I mean -- letterbox footage just looks wrong on a widescreen TV, and squeeze looks wrong on a 4:3 TV (which is really easy to see, since the DVX100A's LCD is 4:3, and so when you put it in squeeze mode, everyone looks tall and skinny). Letterbox footage on a widescreen TV makes everyone look short and fat.

But the presence of a DVD player in the imaging chain equalizes things, because DVD players incorporate aspect ratio converters. So if you know you're going for DVD, and you know you want a widescreen look, and you know you want it to play properly on both 16:9 and 4:3 televisions, then letterbox is completely the wrong mode to use.

it sounds like it's best to just stick with the 4:3 which will give me room to frame up/down if needed, and won't look noticable different than squeezed footage, especially with the effects & compression through rendering.

But if you shoot 4:3, and you intend to make the DVD we're discussing, you will have to stretch the footage to be widescreen somewhere along the way.

If you don't, and you leave the footage at 4:3 on the DVD, then it'll still sort of work; it'll be fullscreen on a 4:3 TV, and it'll probably have black bars on the sides on a 16:9 TV.

 

[Barry_Green]

Having said that, please don't yell at me with purple-violet font.

LOL! :grin:

And good thing I read it too. My sister has a true 16X9 widescreen TV. Therefore, and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, SQUEEZE is the way to go because SQUEEZE will look right on her 16X9 TV?

Yes.

My real question is, is it true that 60i and squeeze do not look right together?

You can use squeeze with 60i, but it takes a significant resolution hit. It ends up looking like VX2000 16:9 footage. Some people think that's fine. Some don't. Some think it's too low-res. Simple to test though -- just try it and see if you like it.

The thing about squeeze that works so great with progressive/THIN is that, in progressive mode, the DVX actually produces footage that's way higher resolution than a TV can safely display (which is why you get flicker on thin line detail). But the Squeeze process stretches the footage out and adds just enough softening/blur to mean that the end result is, squeeze/progressive/thin delivers the maximum resolution a TV can safely display.

That's not the case with 60i. 60i is already pre-softened, so squeeze mode softens the softened footage. And if you plan on slowing the footage down, that'll mean basically de-interlacing it as well. You might end up with quite soft footage. Definitely test it and see. You might like it, but make sure you like it before you shoot a project that's "for keeps".

Could I get away with squeeze and 30p? And how slow can I get 30p footage.

Squeeze works great with 30p. And you can slow 30p down to 50% speed, it's a little stuttery but it works better than slowing down 24p. Squeeze/30p might be the best way for you to go; definitely try it first and see if you like the look.

 

[Barry_Green]

As far as slowing your 30P footage, I'm assuming you asking 'cuz you're working in a 24P timeline (or thinking you might)? If in a 24P timeline, you'd want to slow your 30P footage down 20% to 80% of it's original speed ... that way it'll match up in the 24P ... or something like that.

That's true as well -- 30p, displayed in a 24p timeline, will give perfect slow motion (resolution-wise). However, it won't be very slow. It'll be just a little slower (20% slower) than regular.

I'm thinking that if you want to shoot 30p/squeeze and get slow slow motion, you'd probably want to edit in a 30p timeline and play the 30p footage back at 50% speed.

 

[Barry_Green]

I just reread my post, however, and I did indeed preface the list with "for viewing on a 16X9 monitor"

Yeah, that's what I kept in mind as I went through the list. You had specified 16x9, so that's why I had to point out in purple -- letterbox is a no-no for 16x9 monitors.

I guess there's no reason for you not to assume I'm a jackass, or an idiot -

I *never* assume that about anyone. I try to learn from you guys as much as I try to post back!

Thanks Barry. I will shut up aftet this, and I will mail you a bottle of Tylenol should this post cause another aneurism.

No need to shut up at all! And no aneurism the first time either -- I was just trying to make sure everyone knew to rule out the letterbox-for-16x9 option. That's a question that's been asked since December 2003 when the DVX100A first came out, and for some reason people still aren't clear on that. So I was trying to rule that out completely, which would then allow people to see the remaining options in the proper context. :thumbsup:

 

[Norm Sanders]

Yeah, I wondered about it being a little stuttery, Barry, when you mentioned slowing 30P down by 50% in a 30P timeline ... but, if you could ad just a touch of motion blur & supersampling, that might help to smooth out your slow motion shots without softening too much? What'dya think?

And I know that LIVE the footage will look wrong on the opposite size monitor/screen ... I personally don't care about live, as I'm just looking for the end result (i.e. DVD). I see what you mean about the 4:3 stretching for 16x9, but I don't really understand why/how it's stretching when both are supposed to be 720 wide? I thought it would just chop top/bottom, but not really sure why it'll stretch.

On a side note, for those who are doing the zombie short, and want to have theirs potentially on the DVD that's being discussed, Barry S stated that they have to be shot in 4:3 as they may put out two versions of the DVD for wide & full screen. With that, I know I'll go ahead and shoot in 4:3. Otherwise, I've just got to do some side by side testing to see what looks best with squeeze & thin detail, etc.

Thanks for all your help, Barry. 'Night all.

 

[LoveDVX]

Whoa Barry, now I learned something there.

A pro DVD marketed project for proper 16:9 viewing (letterbox on old TV) should be shot with thin-line detail when in squeeze?! I'm so glad you pointed that out. I'm not sure I would have tested this, assuming the problems with flickering in anything but squeeze for TV use. Does this seem to hold true all across the shooting board, have you found? Or should I switch to mid or thick to be safe in any certain situation?

Now I'm all warm with I-learned-something-new happiness.

 

[Norm Sanders]

For viewing on TV, squeeze is the ONLY one I've heard of using thin detail for. Everything else has been suggested as mid, or to personal taste (i.e. thick) because of the flicker issue. I learned this one as well regarding thin & squeeze. If you're shooting for film blow ups (not for DVD/TV) then use thin with your anamorphic, etc. for best results.

 

[Denwa]

This is a very valid concern. Letterbox footage can look odd when color corrected, and the bars may need to be replaced.


The idea behind letterbox, for this purpose, is to a) make framing easier in-camera, and b) get better compression efficiency. If you're going to be letterboxing it in post anyway, what do you lose by having the footage letterboxed in the first place?

Actually as I stated before you will lose LESS from the compression of a squeezed 16:9 image since the algo. does't have to compress the wasted material (bars).

Most often footage that is shot in 16:9 (either method) is outputed as 16:9 and 4:3 letterbox. If for DVD, then it is perferable to output 16:9 with a flag so that 4:3 screens will letterbox, and 16:9 screens will show true 16:9.


As for "upressing" you are technically corect, but I think many here are confused. You see you are upressing vertically the 16:9 image from the 4:3 letterbox back to 480 from 360 BUT 16:9 squeezed is already at 480. So shooting 4:3 letterbox then "uprezzing" up to 16:9 will not be higher quality. Although this has been done in camera so it depends on the resolution of your ccd's. yada yada yada

This whole issue can get confusing since it get's very techy. And I personally am too busy to get into the guts of it. I just had coffee for breakfast after another late night editing session and this is my personal break time. I actually stumbled onto this forum because I was looking for a way in software to remove letter box from Avid OMF media (source) files So that all the 4:3 letterbox footage would be 16:9 instead.

Look, if you really want a definitive annswer, send Adam Wilt an email and state that this is in answer to a never ending debate on this forum. He does't like to answer tech questions one on one (cause he'd never be able to leave his computer) but he will respond to general email. I've chatted with him before. He'll prpbably answer this upres 16:9 issue if he knows there will be a multitude on people seeing the response.


Anyways, I'm out of here..... debate on.