A few Queries on aspect ratios..

[Brendan]

A few Queries on aspect ratios.

When using the squeeze mode on the dvx100e does the cam insert line23 wide screen data {data used to switch the arc settings of the display device} onto the tape?

How much of the CCD is being used in this mode?

Will I not get similar results by using the letterbox mode on my DVX100 to monitor my 16:9 frame then vertically stretch the frame past the letterbox in post or during capture to create anamorphic footage which displays correctly when edited in 16:9 viewing on a 16:9 pal monitor?

I realise that I lose about 25% resolution because in letterbox mode about 25% of the CCD is being masked but surely this is still the case when using the squeeze mode on the DVX100E as the new model still uses 4:3 CCD’s?

Please correct me if I’m wrong cause this is all guess work!

Many thanks and happy New Year!

 

[Barry_Green]

Re: A few Queries on aspect ratios..

When using the squeeze mode on the dvx100e does the cam insert line23 wide screen data {data used to switch the arc settings of the display device} onto the tape?

Presumably, but that's not a real answer of course. Someone with a DVX100A will have to answer that one...

How much of the CCD is being used in this mode?

Approximately 75%.

Will I not get similar results by using the letterbox mode on my DVX100 to monitor my 16:9 frame then vertically stretch the frame past the letterbox in post or during capture to create anamorphic footage which displays correctly when edited in 16:9 viewing on a 16:9 pal monitor?

Similar, yes. Identical? That remains to be seen. From what I've seen (which is basically just a res chart frame on Adam Wilt's review) squeeze mode seems to have been implemented competently (by that I mean that it's reasonably good, as opposed to Sony's PD150/VX2000 implementation which is simply horrid). You can expect around 360 lines of resolution from squeeze mode. You can get similar results by stretching the footage in post, provided that your editor uses a good-quality stretching algorithm (I found the results with Vegas to be completely satisfactory, with Premiere 6.0 they were quite unsatisfactory, and people have reported similar results with FCP).

Please correct me if I’m wrong cause this is all guess work!

And good guess work it is -- seems like you're right on the money.

 

[Brendan]

Re: A few Queries on aspect ratios..

Barry, thanks for the response.
With regards to stretching, I edit with premiere but the stretching will be done by matrox RT2000 as a realtime effect or possibly RTX100 extreme pro as pan and scan. Any thoughts on how these systems algorithms deal with stretching? Is there another system u would recomend for work with DVX100, paticularly where 16:9 streching and line23 WS data output is concerned?

 

[Barry_Green]

Re: A few Queries on aspect ratios..

I have an old RT2000 sytem here, in fact I use it as my internet/document station. Since discovering Vegas, I have become an ardent follower. I find Vegas does everything I need, and more, quicker and easier than ever possible in Premiere.

I tried Premiere stretching, like I said, and also enabled the "better resize" option -- the results were unacceptable. Vegas does a good job. But it's not perfect, I tried stretching SD DVX100 footage up to HD 1280x720 res in vegas, and the results were very, very soft -- I found S-SPline Pro does a phenomenal job of resizing something that big.

I meant to go do a test of stretching in S-Spline Pro vs. in Vegas, but work has picked up quite a bit so I never finished that test off. My guess is that it would produce very competitive results.