Anamorphic resolution

G

goober542

Well-known member
Hello Barry I just recieved your anamorphic guide and its quite insightful. I have had the lens for a little over a year and shot alot with it, but after me and my Dp read through the guide and started playing around with squeeze mode(recently upgraded to the A) and really like the depth of field without the lens better. What I am really getting at is we are shooting a feature this summer that will hopefully get a blow; how horrible, in terms of lines or percentage loss of resolution are we going to suffer?

Thanks alot you truely are the DVX god.
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

No, I'm just the guy who writes long-winded responses! ;)

How "horrible" will it be? Not horrible at all. Squeeze is pretty good, actually -- the more time we spent with it during the three-camera shoot, the more I came to appreciate the flexibility of it. The anamorphic, when properly used, can deliver much higher resolution, that's true -- but dang if squeeze isn't easy to use!

Percentage-wise, in raw pixel terms, according to the resolution charts, you're looking at picking up as much as about 35%. In true practice it doesn't seem like it's quite that much. The DVX in squeeze/progressive/thin mode delivers as much resolution as a "native 16:9" interlaced camera like the PDX10.

I think the subtext in your question is, "is it okay to use Squeeze"? And the answer is sure it is. Especially if you can't get the type of shots you want with the anamorphic; if the limitations of the lens prevent you from making the proper artistic choices, then the question becomes, is more resolution worth not being able to get the shots you want?

You can always mix & match too... for sweeping vistas and wide shots, where the anamorphic excels and squeeze doesn't, you could use the anamorphic for those types of shots and then switch to squeeze for your lower-light/close-up/interiors.
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

If you are looking at a possible blow-up, or just wanting to know about resolution as far as raw pixels are concerned...what is the difference between the digital squeeze mode and the letterbox mode.....what kind of difference are you looking between those two options?
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

I just purchased the anamorphic adapter. Well, actually I purchased the Panasonic ana. adapter along with the DVX-100a today, and it should be here within two weeks (I'm in Iraq)...... so, I've been reading up on the posts and all that. I'm excited to start shooting, but am concerned that the anamorphic adapter may have too high of a learning curve for my timeframe. I don't have much time to be practicing with the adapter, so if filming in squeeze mode is easier maybe I should do that. Also, I've heard that it may be better to just shoot regularly, and then in post production they can change it to 16:9......with apprx. the same loss of resolution as filming in squeeze mode. Am I correct in that, and do you think it will be too difficult to use the anamorphic lens? Sorry, I am new at this, but want to do everything I can to make this a great experience and production.
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

[quote author=TJIsACoolGuy link=board=Events;num=1103348261;start=0#2 date=12/18/04 at 00:20:01]If you are looking at a possible blow-up, or just wanting to know about resolution as far as raw pixels are concerned...what is the difference between the digital squeeze mode and the letterbox mode.....what kind of difference are you looking between those two options?[/quote]
They start with the same image, but they are not for the same purpose. Squeeze is for 16:9 televisions, Letterbox is for 4:3 televisions.
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

[quote author=goober542 link=board=Events;num=1103348261;start=0#3 date=12/18/04 at 07:25:25]Barry have you seen the squeeze mode on a 35 blow up?[/quote]
I have not. I've seen letterbox footage blown up, but that was also through the mini35 so not a direct comparison.
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

[quote author=myifolio link=board=Events;num=1103348261;start=0#4 date=12/18/04 at 08:16:15]I don't have much time to be practicing with the adapter, so if filming in squeeze mode is easier maybe I should do that.[/quote]
If you don't have time to learn it, and you don't have the Anamorphic Adapter Guide, then don't use the adapter. That's bold to say, but for the circumstances you're describing, there's a good likelihood that you'll end up with footage that's softer than if you'd just used squeeze mode.

The anamorphic adapter requires proper attention be paid to it and to your shot setups in order for it to work its magic. You can't just point and shoot and get good results.

Also, I've heard that it may be better to just shoot regularly, and then in post production they can change it to 16:9......with apprx. the same loss of resolution as filming in squeeze mode. Am I correct in that
Click to expand...
Yes, you will get *approximately* the same results, depending on what editor you use to change to 16:9. You can shoot letterbox and stretch it in post to be anamorphic.
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

Did you mean that you have not seen squeeze used with a mini 35 or you have not seen squeeze mode at all blown up to a 35mm print?
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

I hate to be such a hassle but is squeeze mode more resolution than letterboxing and cropping I am supposing so cause that would only make sense, but not positive cause my DP currently has the ana guide and I can't just go look it up at the moment.
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

I have not seen Squeeze blown up. I have seen letterboxed mini35 blown up.

Squeeze is not more resolution than Letterbox, they are the same. The difference is that Squeeze is for 16:9 TV's, Letterbox is for 4:3 TV's.
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

I suppose my next question is then how bad was the letterbox compared to the anamorphic on blow up? Do you know anywhere I could see some grabs of the two compared?
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

It's impossible to compare a "grab" of a film blowup. Inherently you have to see it in the theater to see what it looks like "blown up".

I wouldn't say letterbox is "bad" -- letterbox mode, in 24p/thin line detail, resolves as much resolution as a "native 16:9" Sony PDX10. It's pretty good, actually. And, like I said, a lot more than 28DL got.
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

so is there any particular reason that it would be better to shoot letterbox over squeeze for a film out? To me it is much easier to use squeeze and then stretch it back out with my monitor and then edit in 16:9 with my playback monitor and editor.

Thanks again for all the help with this.

Ryan
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

There is a theoretical reason, yes. It's possible that you will get slightly higher quality on your film blowup going from letterbox rather than from squeeze, because your footage will need to be substantially up-rezzed, and it seems logical to say that going from the original, uncompromised source (letterbox) will produce a superior up-rez than going from the already-intermediately-stretched squeeze mode.
 
Re: Anamorphic resolution

No. Send it to them letterboxed, and they will extract the letterbox portion and blow that up.

Before making any decision, contact the lab you're planning on using, and get their recommendations. Every lab is different and may have different preferences or priorities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top