Anamorphic vs Letterboxing

CalMatt

CalMatt

New member
Ok... so I'm on my first project (a very small production), with a director (my friend), and a cinematographer that was recommended to him. I know quite a bit about all of this stuff, but don't have any experience, which is why I'm doing sound.

I've been watching the cinematographer, who definitely knows what he's doing with lighting, and has a ton of overall knowledge... but I'm beggining to question some things. I really like the guy, but on the first day, he forgot to put the camera in 16x9 mode... so quite a few of the scenes now will need to be letterboxed in post, and even worse, re-shot because the framing is just too tight (top and bottom). The next day, I noticed he switched to 16x9, but is using the cameras letterboxing instead of anamorphic. I asked him about it, and his explanation to me is that the GL2 is the only camera that can do true 16x9, and that capping with letterboxing is not too much different than shooting in anamorphic on the DVX. :undecided

I've never heard this before (the last part), and am really wondering now. Like I said, the guy is competant, but certain things (only based off of what I know, not experienced), has got me and the director raising our eyebrows.

Any thoughts?
 
Just to clarify Its the XL2 that has true 16:9. There's a couple ways of going about it. If your going to shoot letterbox I would put the letter box option on , put tape on the LCD where the letter box is, then take the letter box option off. So your framing for letter box but if you are just a bit off you can move it up or down to get the framing that you want. The actual letterbox will be down in post. And no, letter box on the dvx is not close to anamorphic. You gain an extra 33% with the anamorphic lens. Now its a matter of opinion if you want to use it. I personally can afford but would rather spend money on other production needs or equipment. I am attrated to the aspect ratio but not the fact that is distorts and its another lens in front the existing one. If its gonna be 16:9 I want it to be native, at least on DV.
 
I would use letterbox because either way your loosing part of the image, this way you can decide what pixels your loosing by framing the clip accordingly in post or when filming.
 
I've become a fan of letterbox mode. Recently it's become more and more common to see letterbox 16:9 content on 4:3 televisions. Conan O'Brien's show, for example, is broadcast this way. Lots of commercials, too.

Letterbox gives you the best of both worlds. It looks native on a 16:9 TV, yet also works fine on a traditional 4:3. You can shoot without concern of cropping, mattes, etc. in post.

Note that the camera doesn't have an "anamorphic" setting. It has squeeze mode, which is different from using the Panasonic anamorphic lens.

If you're shooting a narrative feature with the goal of transferring to film, then consider the anamorphic lens. Otherwise, I don't think it's worth the trouble.
 
I'm not familiar with the DVX, but when you guys talk about "Letterbox", is that basically a setting on it that shoots in 16:9 squeeze mode?

I was just a little confused, becuase I've always regarded 'letterbox' as a presentation format in which you are actually loosing resolution (because your wasting lines at the top and bottom on black bars)... but something needed when viewing 16:9 material on a 4:3 screen (unless going to pan and scan)

Where as I've always used anamorphic in terms of presenting video in a format that can either be shown in "letterbox-style" if on a 4:3 set, and shown also at 16:9 if on a widescreen set.

When you say "Shoot letterbox", do you really mean, shoot 4:3, then crop down to desired aspect ratio in post production?

thanks,

jg
 
Seems like everyone answered the question but I'll throw in my 2 cents. I think the first reply pretty much said it all. Also most DP's, I'd say 99 percent would advise NOT to use the digital squeeze in the camera. You'll loose resolution. If you need a squeeze use the lens specially made for that.

If you want a letterbox image it is best to do it in post production. That way you can adjust the image up or down if needed. But on set you should always tape off your monitors in the area of the screen where the black letterbox bars will go. I would recommed using clear tape so that you can still see the lines but are able to see in the matte. It helps to see things coming in the frame like lights and boom mics. A dp once recommended using scotch tape on the little dvx monitor for the letterbox bars because it allows you to see all the record, battery and display info on the camera. It works great!
 
draven4 said:
Seems like everyone answered the question but I'll throw in my 2 cents. I think the first reply pretty much said it all. Also most DP's, I'd say 99 percent would advise NOT to use the digital squeeze in the camera. You'll loose resolution. If you need a squeeze use the lens specially made for that.

If you want a letterbox image it is best to do it in post production. That way you can adjust the image up or down if needed. But on set you should always tape off your monitors in the area of the screen where the black letterbox bars will go. I would recommed using clear tape so that you can still see the lines but are able to see in the matte. It helps to see things coming in the frame like lights and boom mics. A dp once recommended using scotch tape on the little dvx monitor for the letterbox bars because it allows you to see all the record, battery and display info on the camera. It works great!
Click to expand...

What he said. Why mask in-camera? That just limits you in post. Maybe there's a tiny advantage to in-camera masking (read that somewhere, maybe helps with DV bandwidth and compression a TINY, TINY bit), but it's not even enough to consider that in your decision. What are you going to do when your boompole dips into the frame and you are masked off in-camera. NOTHING, you're screwed. Shoot in 4:3, then in post at least you have the option to move the frame down a nudge to get the boom out of the frame. This is super easy to do in Vegas, kind of like pan-and-scan, but in the vertical plane, not horizontal.
 
I agree. DO NOT use Letterbox mode on the camera. You lose the option to recompose your shot in post. Letterbox is easy to add in post and you can make it any size you want.
 
I just didn't know if the DVX actually had a "Letterbox Mode" setting, that had the camera shoot the full 4:3, but would maybe give you a little watermarked mask area on the viewfinder (but would not actually add that watermark effect... it would just be for composition purposes).

If not... it'd be kinda neet if they did... but I guess now most new cameras will be 16:9.

jg
 
I am going to fly in the face of convention and disagree with almost everyone here... don't wait until post to do your letterbox matting. Here's why... the DVX does not matte to a standard format. Super16mm standard is 1.77:1 or 1.66:1. On a monitor, when you bring bars in, these are the aspect ratios you are going to see. If you tape your monitor based on another film, you are going to miss-tape your monitor. The DVX mattes to black at 1.7:1

I am a D.P., and I've been shooting professionally for about six years. I've played around a lot with the DVX over the past couple, and I've settled on shooting with the bars in, not squeezed, not full frame. The squeeze makes framing/focus pulling irritating and impossible. It's too much of a hastle to keep switching back and forth, and if you have a shot with tons of rapid motion, you can miss little mistakes using that. If your D.P. had an operator who was really good at shooting with a squeeze, then I would maybe shoot squeeze. Maybe. I definately prefer shooting with the bars, and just doing a good job. There's no need to adjust framing in post if you're good at what you're doing.
 
I agree with Profnoxin. Be confident in your own talent or the crew. Until its all native, it won't matter anyway.
 
I'm going to raise another point, I understand its possible to get a little more vertical resolution if you shoot in letterbox mode. You can use a program like photozoom and actually gain something. I have long been an admirer of disjecta's work and he shoots letterbox all the time. I'm not nearly as adapt at this stuff as many of you but I have read(while not always understanding) a lot on this subject. I would love to hear disjecta's, Barry's and Jared's thoughts on this topic. Where's an expert when ya need one?
 
The point is why LIMIT yourself to the DVX's aspect ratio in-camera and why NOT leave yourself the flexibility to adjust the frame in post just in case? Do it in post and you can move the frame anywhere you want, yeah, you should NOT have to move it if you have a "good DP", but everyone makes mistakes in the heat of the moment sometimes, and by masking in camera you may end up dropping a shot you wanted when you otherwise might not have had to. PLUS, masking in post gives you the option to use any aspect ratio you want: 4x3, 16x9, 2.35:1, 1.7:1... Whatever. Do it in the DVX, and you don't have those options. Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing inherently bad about doing it in-camera, and you can skip a masking step in your workflow, but there is a price, and the price is flexibility. As long as you understand the trade-off, then you can make an informed decision about which way to go. Some people will legitimately use one or the other or both depending on the situation.
 
Watch the special features color correction part of Fincher's "se7en". They adjust the frame vertically several times in one of the scenes they show. These guys are very good technically. Why lose that option? You lose about 25% of vertical resolution in squeeze mode anyway. It's really very easy to mask the lcd at any aspect ratio you want. Got tape and a reference?
 
It's different when you are shooting film... often times the frameline needs to be adjusted because of VTR discrepency, or slip of the film in the gate while shooting... or the eyepiece is missaligned and so the image is slightly off kilter. This is not so with the DVX. Granted, I know that there is some mild difference between the image seen in the eyepiece and the LCD, so if you are, for whatever reason, doing a shot where you are very sketch about placing something too close to the frameline, I would suggest shooting full and dropping the mask in during post. I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to shooting full fram and masking.

When you are shooting film, there are frameline marks for different aspect ratios in the eyepiece. If the DVX had built in frameline markings for various aspect ratios, not only would I kiss somebody at Panny, but I would also start shooting full frame. Until then, It's too much of a crapshoot for me. I'd prefer to just do a good job, and take my time getting everything right.

But hey, if it doesn't turn out right, it can always be experimental.
 
this is a little off topic, i was wondering how does an anamorphic lense work, and what is it like quality wise? Does it change the resolution of you image is any way
 
An anamorphic lens shoots a squeezed image onto a full frame. In post, you unsqueeze the image, and voila, you have widescreen. It limits depth of field, can wreak havoc with colors, and makes focus pulling very diffucult unless you have desqueezing eyepieces/monitors. Some directors prefer it hands down to Super35/Super16/Matted Widescreen/70mm etc., because of the special look that it has. As to the rez question, I'll leave that to the video experts.
 
I agree with you completely about trusting your own crew and with the dvx. I personally don't lay tape on the the LCD. I was just giving him an option. Sounded like this guy didn't really know how to use the camera. As far as continuity with camera setting and shots. It doesn't mean he doesn't know how to frame but who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top