Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anamorphic and Squeeze
- Thread starter reg59
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Anamorphic and Squeeze
Squeeze footage can be mixed with Anamorphic footage, yes. There will be a difference in resolution, and a very tiny difference in aspect ratio, but yes you can intercut them.
Squeeze footage can be mixed with Anamorphic footage, yes. There will be a difference in resolution, and a very tiny difference in aspect ratio, but yes you can intercut them.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Anamorphic and Squeeze
The anamorphic provides the most resolution, but may not be the artistically correct choice for all shots. You can do hyper-macro shots in Squeeze, you can do telephoto-extender shots in Squeeze, you can do things in Squeeze that you can't do with the anamorphic. So for some things you may choose to use Squeeze anyway (or shoot letterbox and stretch in post, as Disjecta has commented on in other threads).
The only converter for adding focal length is the Century 1.6 teleconverter. And yes, if you use the 1.6, you can make for quite noticeably shallower DOF.
The res change isn't really correctable in FCP, but using PhotoZoom Pro (see Disjecta) you can probably get a very good match.
And the book is available by clicking on the link below. The anamorphic adapter guide is incorporated in the new book.
The anamorphic provides the most resolution, but may not be the artistically correct choice for all shots. You can do hyper-macro shots in Squeeze, you can do telephoto-extender shots in Squeeze, you can do things in Squeeze that you can't do with the anamorphic. So for some things you may choose to use Squeeze anyway (or shoot letterbox and stretch in post, as Disjecta has commented on in other threads).
The only converter for adding focal length is the Century 1.6 teleconverter. And yes, if you use the 1.6, you can make for quite noticeably shallower DOF.
The res change isn't really correctable in FCP, but using PhotoZoom Pro (see Disjecta) you can probably get a very good match.
And the book is available by clicking on the link below. The anamorphic adapter guide is incorporated in the new book.
davidblumenfeld
Active member
Re: Anamorphic and Squeeze
I've got the same question on a doc project I'm working on next week with an anamorphic, which wont be suitable for run and gun stuff, and where I cant control lighting and positioning...I thought squeeze was the way to go for the stuff not shot with the Anamorphic...are we now saying that shooting letterbox and uprezing will be better? I want to keep the option of going to film open...Thoughts????
I've got the same question on a doc project I'm working on next week with an anamorphic, which wont be suitable for run and gun stuff, and where I cant control lighting and positioning...I thought squeeze was the way to go for the stuff not shot with the Anamorphic...are we now saying that shooting letterbox and uprezing will be better? I want to keep the option of going to film open...Thoughts????
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Anamorphic and Squeeze
Photozoom is free to download and try. I'd suggest trying it for yourself before deciding. There's nothing wrong with squeeze (as long as you're shooting 24P/thin) but letterbox-uprez may provide better results. I mean, in one way (squeeze) you're shooting letterbox and up-rezzing in the camera, in real time. In the other way (photozoom) you're shooting letterbox and up-rezzing in post, using a potentially better stretching algorithm that isn't restrained by the limitation of having to operate in real time.
So potentially the post stretch could produce better footage.
For going to film, you'd be better off to send the film transfer house a letterbox image anyway, and let them do the re-sizing (assuming you're using a quality film transfer house of course!) So if you're trying to protect for both, then letterbox (with some post-stretching) may be the preferable option for you.
Photozoom is free to download and try. I'd suggest trying it for yourself before deciding. There's nothing wrong with squeeze (as long as you're shooting 24P/thin) but letterbox-uprez may provide better results. I mean, in one way (squeeze) you're shooting letterbox and up-rezzing in the camera, in real time. In the other way (photozoom) you're shooting letterbox and up-rezzing in post, using a potentially better stretching algorithm that isn't restrained by the limitation of having to operate in real time.
So potentially the post stretch could produce better footage.
For going to film, you'd be better off to send the film transfer house a letterbox image anyway, and let them do the re-sizing (assuming you're using a quality film transfer house of course!) So if you're trying to protect for both, then letterbox (with some post-stretching) may be the preferable option for you.