Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Eraserhead2416

Eraserhead2416

Active member
Wait wait wait, before you all go showing me links to other posts dealing with this question, please know I've looked through them all.
It may be an opinion thing, but really, there has to be a clear answer SOMEWHERE. All the back and forths...

What is the use of getting an Anamorphic lens for the DVX100a? At $800 I can't get it 'Just for the hell of it'.

Lets say that the top priority is shooting for high quality DVD and hopefully up to film, 1.85 aspect. I don't want any major hassles but I want, simply, the best image output and some room to play around while shooting.
Squeeze mode, simply because of the dissorienting stretching on the monitor (forget buying some piece of equipment to keep it from doing the ridiculous stretching...) is not really an option unless it is THAT BIG A DIFFERENCE. As for letterbox, does that just place black bars over the picture? I've done that with AVID and such, putting a couple strips of electrical tape over the LCD for reference, so I'm used to doing that- making it my first choice.

UNLESS buying an anamorphic adapter will provide me with much better quality and some room to experiment. What does it allow me to do, exactly? Can I change MM so I can use the flat 35mm, to the more cinematic 24mm, to the wideview/warped 16mm lens size? I hadn't heard that it does that, so I'm not getting all excited.

Simply put, best situation is that this project will go to film- is the anamorphic really worth purchasing in that case? Will it tie me down by not allowing some features, like zooming? Will it soften the edges of the picture like the cheap wide angle lens I screw to the front of a Sony TRV27 $500 plaything?

I just want a clear and precise answer, no heresay- Need facts!!

And really, what the hell is with the stretched LCD monitor picture in squeeze mode?? That's simply ridiculous and lazy when other cameras DON'T do that. like my $500 TRV27 plaything.

Oh, one last important question! Is shooting 16:9 even a choice when going to 35mm film? Or is it going to require some intense cropping (ie TIME which = lots of money).

Thanks for any help you can provide. DVXuser is simply the best resource I have found on the net.
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

..for best film out quality

anamorphic adaptor = #1

letterbox or crop in post = #2

..if you shoot squeeze you are stupid.


if you really want an explanation which i personally dont have the energy to give right now it been clarified 8trillion times on the board here.. at your request i wont link to any direct info.. do a serach on squeeze vs anamorphic or something.
sorry im not more explicative right now, but this i just ate lunch and im tired. :-/
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Ok, here are some links. . .

Just kidding

To answer your basic question, what the animorphic gives you over cropped letterbox or squeeze is ....... drumroll. . . RESOLUTION, about 20% more to be precise. It also gives you a wider field of view. Both letterbox and squeeze crop the 4:3 video to give you 16:9 format. The animorphic optically distorts the footage to fit a wider field of view onto the WHOLE 4:3 chip, which then in post can be stretch to the 16:9 aspect ratio to give you a normal looking image. This extra resolution will not matter so much if your plan is to go to 4:3 television, but anything beyond that is really noticeable, and shooting for the big screen, 4:3 is not an option as it will need to be cropped, you lose resolution. letterbox and squeezed, you lose resolution for the big screen as well. Anamorphic, you get the full resolution the camera is capable of. There are a couple of downsideds to shooting with the anamorphic, I suggest you pick up Barry's ana-guide to shoot properly with it. The one thing you probably wont like however is that shooting with the ana, will give you the same squeezed image on the viewfinder. That's just the way it is, however, you learn to compose shots just as well like this, over time. I have shot lots of 16mm with an anamorphic adapter as well, and it is the same situation. You could get a 5in 16:9 LCD to monitor your footage however.
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

..you forgot to explain why shooting squeeze is stupid for a film out.. ;) ok so ill slug it out of my fingers..



if your not shooting anamorphic for the filmout.. just shoot letterbox, or shoot 4:3 and crop it to your desired ratio in post. the afore mentioned "squeeze mode" is dumb for a film out. because all its doing is taking the letterbox image(not excactly the same pixel #.. but its so close that there is no real difference) and cropping offthe black bars, and stretching it tall to fill the frame in the camera.. it does a good job, but you still get some artifacts, and an obvious quality loss from stretching the image. .. and if your blowing up to film it would be better to use the original best quality image from letterbox in cam or post to blow up to film.. or high def to transfer to film.. theres no point in having the camera stretch it once for you, and make the image a little worse, and then just blowing it up again.. you should just do the bowup from the original image which is the best quality you could do it from.. not some intermediate slightly lower quality stretched 16:9 copy that youd get from "squeeze mode"

.. so its stupid for a film out.. its basically asking for a lower quality image to uprez.
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

i no that squeeze is stupid for film-out, but what if ur using the adapter, but certain especially dark or hand-held scenes can't be done wit the adapter. Should those be done wit squeeze(i no there will be a resolution difference)?
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

[quote author=LaFinDuMonde link=board=Events;num=1093283866;start=0#4 date=08/23/04 at 14:57:02]i no that squeeze is stupid for film-out, but what if ur using the adapter, but certain especially dark or hand-held scenes can't be done wit the adapter. Should those be done wit squeeze(i no there will be a resolution difference)?[/quote]

I'd do what Kai said and not use squeeze if you are doing film out. Even if it's too dark, use 4:3 and crop it.
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Well, if you're shooting anamorphic for the most part, and then in the low light scenes shooting in some form of spherical method, it would probably be best to shoot squeezed. Shooting in 4:3 or letterboxed is better for film outs because you're just transferring the whole 4:3 image onto the 4:3 film frame, and the projector masks it for you. If you're dealing entirely with anamorphic footage, then it's best to keep it anamorphic, rather than giving the post house *some* footage in anamorphic and *some* in 4:3 for them to print full frame. It just gives more headaches.


Thing is though, to be honest, I can't see a scenario where you'd have the resources of a film out, while you haven't got the resources to light a scene and use the anamorphic adaptor properly :-/
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

tru tru, but then again my film is rather run and gun/guerilla...amateur kids lugging around big lights at 2 oclock in NYC downtown IS NOT THE BEST IDEA...if you no wat i mean
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Well, if it's run and gun, I'd definitely just shoot in 4:3 and matte or go letterboxed. The anamorphic adaptor takes more time to focus, and the only way to really tell if it's in razor sharp focus is to have a monitor there anyways...which in run and gun you won't have.

So 4:3/letterboxed I'd say is the best.
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 1

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 1

You should buy the anamorphic guide on this site. Its has all the info you want about it. I just recieved mine a few days ago and its a great resource. and no, im not going to give any quotes from it.
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Dag, nothing for free these days?? Eh, when I get the adapter I'll get the manual, no problem.

As for the production that I hope to get to film out- it will be relatively big (at least a 50k budget) and I'll be shooting in exactly a year from now, so I have a fair amount of time to work out all the details.

So anamorphic is best when you have the time to do it right, and have a good monitor? (what resolution is exceptable?)

and 4:3 letterboxed in post or in camera when I'm in "aw crap" mode?
 
Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

Re: Anamorphic... wha?  Huh?  Squeeze? 16:9

The anamorphic is not well suited to run 'n' gun, but if you have the time to optimize your shots for it, it produces superb results.

With the guide you don't absolutely "need" a monitor to be able to focus with it, but it's always best to have one. Around 500 lines of resolution is appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top