Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

Beeblebrox

Beeblebrox

Well-known member
I was interviewing a DP the other day, who really wanted to use the mini35 with the DVX so that he could try shooting with a Cinemascope lens. We ended up not using him, but I've always wondered about using a 16:9 adapter in conjunction with the 16:9 squeeze mode.

Anyone tried this? Would it be worth it? I'm thinking you'll get an aspect ratio somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.16, but I'm not sure about that.
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

If you do this you will have a super-squeezed 720x480 image that a standard NLE won't fully unsqueeze.

The easier (and far cheaper than the mini35) way to do this is to use a 7200G anamorphic + camera letterbox. Process everything in your NLE as a 16:9 project and when you play it on DVD it will play as a 2.35:1 Cinemascope aspect project. Looks great, BTW.

According to some other posts here this system would not be recommended for film out, however, as you lose too much resolution.
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

Well, I'd think that if you were intent on doing a scope 35mm print, off of DVX footage, using the anamorphic adaptor AND squeeze mode would be the best option (at least for a cost/performance aspect).  It would get you approximately a 2.37:1 image, which is close enough to 2.39 that it won't make a difference at all in regards to composition (most theatres EVER so slightly mis-align the film print, and the discrepancy between the actual ratio and the initally composed ratio can be even greater than this difference).

DV is DV.  With 35mm scope lenses on the DVX, you're losing so much resolution as-is compared to a true 35mm scope presentation, that I highly doubt you'd notice that much of a difference between the Mini35 w/scope lenses, and the regular DVX anamorphic in conjunction with squeeze mode.  The Mini35 would soften the image, remember, so it probably doesn't really aid too much in resolution.

*also*, something to remember: 35mm scope lenses are 2:1.  Film, yes, is 4:3, but with traditional anamorphic photography, you get a ratio of 2.39:1.  The reason it's not 8:3 (which is should be, technically speaking) is because room is chopped off on the sides of the 35mm frame (this was done in the past because the optical audio track filled the sides) and a ratio od (about) 1.2:1 is gotten as the negative space. You then have the 2:1 compression added, giving you (about) 2.4:1.

What I'm trying to say is this; if you use traditional anamorphic cinemascope lenses with the Mini35 on your DVX, you'll have an anamorphic ratio of 8:3, not 2.39:1.  In order to GET 2.39:1, you'd be cropping the sides, which lowers your resolution again, and makes the entire purpose of shooting with cinemascope lenses useless.

If you really want to shoot scope, for a film print, I'd say that using the DVX's anamorphic adaptor with squeeze mode would be your best route.
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

Excellent post. One place where I'd differ though -- I'd still vote to use letterbox instead of squeeze mode. Squeeze doesn't add any resolution to what letterbox mode has, and to fill the film print you have to rely on the optical/uprezzing process of the film transfer house. I'm betting that an unmodified (letterbox) image is going to provide a better up-rez than an already-digitally-stretched squeeze-mode image.

And, having shot letterbox+anamorphic, you'll already have a proper image for your DVD version.
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

Then . . . the same could be achieved by shooting the anamorphic "clean" and adding the crop in post?
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

..yes unless you want to get into the whole before of after dct compression thing..lol but i certainly agree with barry,. i would stick with letterbox because the optical clarity would be better. ..its what i use for photozoom too.
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

Exactly. Applying the mask in post means that you will a) have to go through a decompress/recompress cycle, and b) theoretically the compression on the letterbox image will be a little more mild, perhaps resulting in a cleaner image overall, even before the decompress/recompress.
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

This is all very interesting.

But I don't understand why letterboxing would provide a better uprez to film for scope, when squeeze mode offers a better uprez for regular 16:9.

It seems to me like printing the fully squeezed image directly to film would work better. Am I missing something?
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

I'm a little lost though, Barry, because won't the transfer house just take your (now) 2.37:1 scope image and put it into the 1.2:1 shape on the 35mm stock?

If you shoot with the letterboxing, then the house will stretch your footage to become a 2.37:1 shape within the 1.2:1 35mm negative area. Isn't it better to have as little work in post to do as possible?

I'd agree if it was a 1.85:1 print you wanted, but with 2.39 they distribute in anamorphic, not with matting...
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

You're both asking the same question, so let me answer it as best I can:

First, keep in mind that we're starting with a 16:9 image already, because we're using letterboxing PLUS the anamorphic.

Getting from 1.33 to 2.35 requires two anamorphic steps: take a 4:3 image, squeeze it by 1.33, and then squeeze it by 1.33 again. The optical anamorphic takes care of one of those squeezes, so then the question becomes, how best to get the other squeeze.

The question is whether letterbox, which uses the central 360 lines of the CCD and is 16:9 in shape, can be blown up better than squeeze, which uses the central 360 lines and is 16:9 in shape. It is my guess that letterbox will provide the better starting point for the film transfer house.

Think of it this way: squeeze and letterbox start out the same. Both are using the central 360 lines of the CCD (actually 372, but let's not quibble). The difference is, squeeze mode digitally stretches those 372 lines to fill the full CCD, whereas letterbox mode leaves them in their original, unmodified, "pure" state.

Now, consider that the film transfer is going to be doing a high-def up-rez. Which will provide the better source: the original pure data, or an intermediate-step pre-stretched version?

won't the transfer house just take your (now) 2.37:1 scope image and put it into the 1.2:1 shape on the 35mm stock?
Click to expand...
No, because they're going to up-rez it to at least HD resolution, and maybe more. And I think that up-rez would be better performed from the original source, rather than from a partially-uprezzed intermediary step, which is what squeeze mode would represent.

Could be wrong, but it sure seems to make sense...
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

the issue is in optical vs electronic resizing. in the end you are doing the same thing either way.. just at different times, and using different methods. you are stretching the letterbox image. either your going to do it in cam electronically, or your going to do it later optically. im with barry in assuming that the single optical resizing will likely retain higher image fidelity concerning image sharpness. rather than slightly softening the image from the sqeeze mode, and then going through another optical transfer.
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

..dang, i must type slow. you got all that out when i was typing my little peice of poop beneath it.. LOLOL :P
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

I have been shut down once again by the masters...

And I love it! Next time anyone asks the question maybe I can beat you guys to it and look like the pro ;)

Thanks for the clarification guys (this became as good info for me as Beeblebrox ;D)
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

Thanks Barry...I have been thinking about this for a while and never asked it...you totally cleared that one up :)
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

Just want to understand...(my english is not good...)

I prefer the letterbox over the electronic squeeze mode, the image seems (to me) to be much sharper with letterbox than with squeeze.

If i film a wheel with anamorphic (or electronic squeeze), then the original shape is oval until i put it in the anamorphic timeline for correct shape.

BUT If i use anamorphic squeeze AND digital squeeze ( so 2 squeeze steps), then the shape will not be correct because i will still see an oval shape after one unsqueeze step. NO ?

AND if i use anamorphic squeeze and letterbox (which does not change the original shape) then it will display the correct shape in a 2.35 aspect ratio in a anamorphic timeline.

am i right ?
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

What about filmout concerns? Has anyone gone to 2.35:1 using this method and then gone to filmout?
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

Yeah, would it look completely horrid going to 2.35 scope on film from DV footage??
 
Re: Anamorphic lense WITH squeeze mode

I,ll have the chance to try the Panasonic anamorphic lense for the whole weekend. Victor at Intercité Video in Montreal (great people !)
will send it to me for a test with my DVX100A.

I heard in some posts here that we should work differently because it is more difficult to get the whole image in focus due to extreme wide angle...

thanks for sharing your knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top