Best Method for 2.35:1 w/ DVX ?

G

Gordon JL

Well-known member
Actually, it's really 2.39:1 now. I couldn't find any information on what the best method is to get the highest quality 2.39:1 footage, without using an anamorphic adapter.

Does the procedure involve uprezzing so that resolution can be "preserved"? I don't have any of these uprezzing programs as they're out of my budget; so I'm looking on how to get that wide look without it. I'd assume that the best method is to shoot in Squeeze mode, unsqueeze in post; and apply the bars on top and bottom to make it 2.39 (in this case, you'll need gaffers/translucent tape to tape the top and bottom of your SQUEEZED footage on the LCD screen, so you can frame things properly).

Any other, maybe better methods I should consider?
 
Absent the anamorphic adaptor, that is the best you can. Shoot squeeze and add the additional letterboxing in post.

Something you said, "shoot squeeze, unsqueeze in post" doesn't make any sense. You don't have to do anything special with squeeze footage in post. It is pure 16:9 widescreen DV and can be treated as such. Squeeze is just what's it's called on the camera.
 
Gordon JL said:
Actually, it's really 2.39:1 now. I couldn't find any information on what the best method is to get the highest quality 2.39:1 footage, without using an anamorphic adapter.

Does the procedure involve uprezzing so that resolution can be "preserved"? I don't have any of these uprezzing programs as they're out of my budget; so I'm looking on how to get that wide look without it. I'd assume that the best method is to shoot in Squeeze mode, unsqueeze in post; and apply the bars on top and bottom to make it 2.39 (in this case, you'll need gaffers/translucent tape to tape the top and bottom of your SQUEEZED footage on the LCD screen, so you can frame things properly).

Any other, maybe better methods I should consider?
Click to expand...

Actually your best method to get to a 2.35:1 with the DVX is going to be doing something you're saying is out of your budget right now, which would be using the anamorphic adapter, in conjunction WITH squeeze mode. Upon stretching it out, it will be a 2.35:1 frame. Short of that, some of the aforementioned methods will work just fine.
 
no no no, you don't want to use squeeze with the anamorphic adapter, you want to use letterbox, if you use squeeze your NLE will squeez it down to 16:9 and it won't look right.

I've used the anamorphic adapter/letterbox trick several times and it works GREAT.

Barry Green covers this subject in his book, and goes into detail why letterbox is the better choice.
 
anchoryanker said:
no no no, you don't want to use squeeze with the anamorphic adapter, you want to use letterbox, if you use squeeze your NLE will squeez it down to 16:9 and it won't look right.

I've used the anamorphic adapter/letterbox trick several times and it works GREAT.

Barry Green covers this subject in his book, and goes into detail why letterbox is the better choice.
Click to expand...

I can't find in the book where he discusses 2.39:1 -- which page is it?

I think the best thing to do, after I've shot squeeze and cropped in post; is to export the cropped 4:3 footage and uprez it.

Is there an option in Instant HD or PhotoZoom Pro that allows to you uprez at 2.39 instead of 16:9?
 
Gordon,

You're not getting it. There is no such thing as a 2.35:1 video format. DV and DVD are both either 4:3 or 16:9. So, 2.35:1 will always be delivered as 4:3 or 16:9 with some amount of letterboxing on the image.

It is true that you can shoot squeeze with the anamorphic and achieve 2.35:1, but you'll have to downsize it back into 16:9 with letterbox at some point just to get it on DVD. You can't put raw 2.35:1 footage on a DVD. So, anamorphic+squeeze has very little practical application.

Like Barry said, shoot squeeze (16:9), capture and edit it as 16:9, and add a letterbox to get it down to 2.35:1. That's the best practical path for you.

Josh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top