16:9 from DVX100 Letterbox
- Thread starter jjpopp
- Start date
Re: 16:9 from DVX100 Letterbox
Did you crop the footage to 16:9?
Take us through, step-by-step, what you did. Be as detailed as you can.
Did you crop the footage to 16:9?
Take us through, step-by-step, what you did. Be as detailed as you can.
Re: 16:9 from DVX100 Letterbox
The DVX100 can't do anamorphic. What it does in the Letterbox mode is give you letterbox on a 4:3 aspect ratio. In order to do anamorphic with the 100, you really have to use an anamorphic lens. Can you do an upconversion in post? Yes you can, but that's pretty pricey and the quality won't be as good as using an anamorphic lens.
The DVX100 can't do anamorphic. What it does in the Letterbox mode is give you letterbox on a 4:3 aspect ratio. In order to do anamorphic with the 100, you really have to use an anamorphic lens. Can you do an upconversion in post? Yes you can, but that's pretty pricey and the quality won't be as good as using an anamorphic lens.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: 16:9 from DVX100 Letterbox
Upconverting to anamorphic from letterbox isn't pricey, it's free. Most every NLE should be able to stretch the footage. Whether the quality is satisfactory is a matter of personal taste -- I find the results in Vegas to be pretty good, the results in Premiere 6.0 were decidedly unacceptable.
Upconverting to anamorphic from letterbox isn't pricey, it's free. Most every NLE should be able to stretch the footage. Whether the quality is satisfactory is a matter of personal taste -- I find the results in Vegas to be pretty good, the results in Premiere 6.0 were decidedly unacceptable.
Re: 16:9 from DVX100 Letterbox
The quality won't be *as* good as with the anamorphic lens (natch), but it's easy to do with Vegas alone, and the quality IS quite good.
Also, it should be (theoretically) of comparable quality to the squeeze mode on the 100A. Barry Green postulates that it might even be better.
The quality won't be *as* good as with the anamorphic lens (natch), but it's easy to do with Vegas alone, and the quality IS quite good.
Also, it should be (theoretically) of comparable quality to the squeeze mode on the 100A. Barry Green postulates that it might even be better.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: 16:9 from DVX100 Letterbox
Did I say that? Hmm... if I did, I don't recall... it depends on the algorithm used. Under normal circumstances I think squeeze would have a slight advantage over post-stretching, since post-stretching invariably will cause an uncompress/recompress cycle.
I think what I said was that squeeze mode could not be superior to letterbox mode, because both start with the same image, and squeeze mode then gets... well, squeezed. Someone had said that squeeze was superior to letterbox, but it can't be (leaving letterbox as letterbox, that is). If you go and stretch the letterbox image, then I'd expect squeeze could deliver a slightly better image (or actually a much better image, depending on how good your stretching algorithm is).
Then, the anamorphic adapter can handily trump both modes, but only if used correctly. If you don't take the time to extract the best quality from the anamorphic adapter, you could end up with images no better than squeeze mode, and it's certainly easier to shoot with squeeze mode. If you take the time to set up your shot properly, and adjust your lighting to bring your f-stop into the right range for the anamorphic, then the anamorphic can deliver quite superior results.
Did I say that? Hmm... if I did, I don't recall... it depends on the algorithm used. Under normal circumstances I think squeeze would have a slight advantage over post-stretching, since post-stretching invariably will cause an uncompress/recompress cycle.
I think what I said was that squeeze mode could not be superior to letterbox mode, because both start with the same image, and squeeze mode then gets... well, squeezed. Someone had said that squeeze was superior to letterbox, but it can't be (leaving letterbox as letterbox, that is). If you go and stretch the letterbox image, then I'd expect squeeze could deliver a slightly better image (or actually a much better image, depending on how good your stretching algorithm is).
Then, the anamorphic adapter can handily trump both modes, but only if used correctly. If you don't take the time to extract the best quality from the anamorphic adapter, you could end up with images no better than squeeze mode, and it's certainly easier to shoot with squeeze mode. If you take the time to set up your shot properly, and adjust your lighting to bring your f-stop into the right range for the anamorphic, then the anamorphic can deliver quite superior results.
Re: 16:9 from DVX100 Letterbox
You said it at one point (as an untested theory), though I don't remember your reasoning, and I'm, well, too lazy to search for the post.
In any case, Vegas will do ya fine.
You said it at one point (as an untested theory), though I don't remember your reasoning, and I'm, well, too lazy to search for the post.
In any case, Vegas will do ya fine.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: 16:9 from DVX100 Letterbox
Barry
Do you not think that squeeze mode in the 100a with it's 10 or 12 bit internal processing, not yield a superior result? :-*
Barry
Do you not think that squeeze mode in the 100a with it's 10 or 12 bit internal processing, not yield a superior result? :-*
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: 16:9 from DVX100 Letterbox
Dude, you used the kissy-face smiley!
From seeing resolution charts, etc., it looks like Squeeze mode is comparable to, if not slightly higher quality than, stretched letterbox. But comparing squeeze to letterbox is what we were discussing... and that would imply in the same camera. From what I've seen, squeeze is at least comparable to, and likely slightly superior to, post-stretched letterbox.
Dude, you used the kissy-face smiley!
From seeing resolution charts, etc., it looks like Squeeze mode is comparable to, if not slightly higher quality than, stretched letterbox. But comparing squeeze to letterbox is what we were discussing... and that would imply in the same camera. From what I've seen, squeeze is at least comparable to, and likely slightly superior to, post-stretched letterbox.