.6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamorphi

S

Solaam

Active member
Hey guys,

I was wondering if shooting with a .6 or .7 Wide Angle Adapter with squeeze mode is comparable to shooting with a 16:9 anamorphic adapter.

With the wide angle adapter, couldn't you get
a) better resoultion
b) shallower DOF
c) wider image for squeeze mode?

If anyone has these lens, I'd be grateful to see a test or two.

Just a stupid theory. ;D

Peace
 
Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

[quote author=Solaam link=board=Links;num=1088464354;start=0#0 date=06/28/04 at 16:12:34]Hey guys,

I was wondering if shooting with a .6 or .7 Wide Angle Adapter with squeeze mode is comparable to shooting with a 16:9 anamorphic adapter.  

With the wide angle adapter, couldn't you get
a) better resoultion
b) shallower DOF
c) wider image for squeeze mode?

If anyone has these lens, I'd be grateful to see a test or two.  

Just a stupid theory. ;D

Peace[/quote]

Hmmm. I can't address all of your questions exactly, but I'd have to say no. The anamorphic lens takes advantage of your entire available imaging area by optically distorting your image. The squeeze mode throws out 25% of your imaging area, then electronically distorts the remaining 75% to fill the full frame. So, the wide angle lens will put "more stuff" into Squeeze mode's 75%, but you'll still be throwing away 25% of the image.

I'm not 100% on terminology, but I'd say that, as a result, resolution would be lower with the wide/squeeze as a result... either you can say that the effective image resolution is the same horizontally and lower vertically, or you can say that resolution is lower all-around in terms of pixels-per-degree, due to the widening.

But the short answer: the wide angle will give you a wider angle, not address anamorphic concerns.

-Barry
 
Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

Good summation. To directly address your points:
a) better resoultion
b) shallower DOF
c) wider image for squeeze mode?
Click to expand...
a) Basically, squeeze mode is going to cost you resolution. You won't get better resolution, you'll get 30% less resolution.
b) DOF will be about the same, perhaps shallower with the anamorphic.
c) Yes, you would get a wider image for squeeze mode.
 
Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Links;num=1088464354;start=0#2 date=06/28/04 at 18:04:24]Good summation.  To directly address your points:
a) Basically, squeeze mode is going to cost you resolution.  You won't get better resolution, you'll get 30% less resolution.
b) DOF will be about the same, perhaps shallower with the anamorphic.
c) Yes, you would get a wider image for squeeze mode.[/quote]

I guess I'm still confused with the electronic squeeze mode.  

I thought that when you choose letterbox mode, you lose lines of resolution and when you select squeeze, you loss is miniminal.  I thought the only benefit of the 16:9 anamorphic adapter was a wider lens along with a shallower DOF.

I just kinda thought that if you shot with these lens along with the squeeze mode, the resolution loss wouldn't be that bad.

Still new to this guys so bear with me.  ;)

Peace
 
Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

Letterbox and Squeeze are based on the same premise: they both use only the central 75% of the CCD. Letterbox puts black bars over the image, squeeze stretches the image to fill the CCD. But they have the exact same detail within, just a different shape (4:3 with bars, or 16:9).

The anamorphic does not affect DOF (directly). Its advantage is not a wider field of view, it's that it makes the image become 16:9 instead of 4:3. It uses the full surface of the chip, and makes the DVX become, effectively, a "native 16:9" camera.
 
Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

I saw some test stills of the 16:9 anamorphic adapter and it seems like the image was slightly wider than the normal 4:3 standard. Not as wide as a shot with the .6 or .7 wide angle lens mind you, but it was still slightly wider.

So basically, I'll have to burn $800-$900 bucks to get a "native 16:9" camera? Boo. :'(

I'm just trying to find the best package deal for a wannabe indie filmmaker who does corporate side work. ;D

Thanks for the feedback B.

Peace
 
Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

Re: .6x Wide Ang Lens w/ Squeeze better than anamo

The anamorphic definitely makes the image wider -- it increases the field of view by 33%. But that's not really the *point* behind it -- it's not that it's a wide-angle adapter, it's that it changes the shape of the video to be widescreen instead of square-ish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top