anamorphic adapter

pest22o

pest22o

Well-known member
I notice alot of you dont use this, why? is there something wrong with the widscreen anamorphic adapter that I dont know of?
 
It's an old discussion. Some feel that the current adapter just isn't worth using because it has so many quirks and doesn't do much better than the DVX's built-in 16:9 squeeze mode. The adapter will save you on resolution technically but whether you'll be able to actually see it is a case-by-case basis as focusing with the adapter is apparently difficult at times. Also, the adapter has remained an expensive add-on regardless of the problems with it and on top of everything many feel it's just not worth the money.

The adapter still has its uses though. When used correctly, you will get a slightly higher quality 16:9 image than squeeze mode, you can also use it along with squeeze mode to get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio (although that is more along the lines of an experiment with the DVX, it's much easier to use the adapter with a native 16:9 camera like one of the HDV cameras to get 2.35:1) and you also will be able to get some of the anamorphic characteristics such as halos around lights and other such aesthetics.
 
Jack_Felis said:
It's an old discussion. Some feel that the current adapter just isn't worth using because it has so many quirks and doesn't do much better than the DVX's built-in 16:9 squeeze mode. The adapter will save you on resolution technically but whether you'll be able to actually see it is a case-by-case basis as focusing with the adapter is apparently difficult at times. Also, the adapter has remained an expensive add-on regardless of the problems with it and on top of everything many feel it's just not worth the money.

The adapter still has its uses though. When used correctly, you will get a slightly higher quality 16:9 image than squeeze mode, you can also use it along with squeeze mode to get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio (although that is more along the lines of an experiment with the DVX, it's much easier to use the adapter with a native 16:9 camera like one of the HDV cameras to get 2.35:1) and you also will be able to get some of the anamorphic characteristics such as halos around lights and other such aesthetics.
Click to expand...


Ummm... yeah... what he said.



Great post:thumbsup:
 
I did a bunch of stuff in the squeeze w/ anamorphic for 2.35:1 ... then my lense was scratched by repair people, so I ended up doing chopped squeezed footage.

In the end, unless I needed a really wide angle, the chopped squeezed footage looked better.

And.. I don't miss my anamorphic adaptor. Only sometimes. Its really a pita.
 
i've seen better results (by the guys who did BROKEN) with the WIDE ANGLE adapter and squeeze mode (or letterbox mode i cant remember).

gives the look of a true 16:9 frame, and to the best of my knowledge not nearly as many hassles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top