digitial anamorphic how good is it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
I am about to buy a New DVX 100A and I wanted to know how the digital anamorphic is with this camera? I used to use a pd-170 (with out the anamorphic adapter) the image didn't look to bad. I will be using 2 camera on every shoot. Sony DSR-570 and the DVX all in anamorphic widescreen.

I also wanna know if I am shooting with the DVX in DIGITAL widescreen will the LCD be showing me a 16:9 crop like the sony PD-150 did?

Thanks for everything!
Dave
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

In interlaced mode, the DVX's digital widescreen will look very comparable to the PD-150's. In progressive scan mode, the DVX's widescreen would look much better (not just interlaced/progressive, but the stretch algorithm just works much better on the progressive-scan footage).

And no, you won't see an unstretched image on the camera, you'll see it only in stretched mode.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

(And no, you won't see an unstretched image on the camera, you'll see it only in stretched mode)

Is there anything I can buy to put on the camera to view the "Digital anamorphic" image in letterboxed in the LCD?

It is so weird that the camera does not output letterboxed in the LCD for a preview, the crappy pd-150 does it....
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

There is nothing you can do to get the image letterboxed in the LCD.

Century Precision Optics makes an optical unsqueezer for the viewfinder, which goes for about $320 at adorama. Or you can use an external 16:9-shaped LCD or production monitor.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=nws;num=1084160946;start=0#3 date=05/10/04 at 10:33:44]There is nothing you can do to get the image letterboxed in the LCD.

Century Precision Optics makes an optical unsqueezer for the viewfinder, which goes for about $320 at adorama.  Or you can use an external 16:9-shaped LCD or production monitor.[/quote]

Barry,

Just out of curiosity, I heard that if you use the dvx100a's in-camera squeeze mode, you use only 75% of the ccds (410,000+.75=307500?). So, would that mean that, if you use the in-camera squeeze mode, it's roughly the same as having a 16:9 camera that has a lower ccd count, or is there more to it than that?
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

It does use 75% of the CCD, but there's a lot more to it than that, not the least of which is that it's true progressive scan (which gives you 33% higher resolution than interlaced).

CCD pixel count is just one way of measuring potential image quality, and more does not necessarily mean better.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

I tested the camera's anamorphic squeeze against shooting 16/9 cropped and putting it through a post production squeeze using a Snell & Wilcox ARC 100 (top flight aspect ratio converter) I then watched the results on a grade one monitor. Very surprisingly, the camera's digital anamorphic squeeze looked better than the v. expensive arc 100! I'm using the camera on a prime time tv drama as a third camera intercutting with 16mm and so far it's holding up well.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

Has anyone investigated using thick vs thin for digital anamorphic? (forgetting going back to film)

I wonder if thin or med in anamorphic would give extra resolution because of the process. I shot some footage in the default 24p adv mode- not realizing it defaults to thin- I was playing it back on my Zanyo Z2 16:9 projector and didn't notice any artifacts- I have to try this on a 16:9 capable CRT monitor to check this out.

ANy thoughts- or can anyone do a test?
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

I use the squeeze mode exclusively with 24pa for all of my shooting. I also use thin mode. It looks very crisp on my Plasma TV.

It is leagues ahead of anything else I've seen in other cameras.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

Definitely only use THIN when shooting with "squeeze mode". It'll give you the highest resolution, and the "squeeze" process should eliminate any thin-line artifacts.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

Has anyone tried a 1.33 image resized to a 16x9 image using a NLE? What does the image quality look like & how would this differ from the 100A's electronic stretch or the anamorphic.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

It has been my experience that the in-camera squeeze mode looks a lot better than resizing 4x3 footage...
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

It really depends on how good a job your NLE does. In Vegas I found the results quite acceptable, in Premiere 6.0 I couldn't get anything satisfactory. I've heard (no direct experience) that people were dissatisfied with the stretching results in FCP. I would expect post-stretching in After Effects to be superb, but I don't have any recent experience with it.

It all depends on how good your program is. But in-camera Squeeze Mode does a fantastic job on progressive footage (and a mediocre job on interlaced footage).
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

I looked more carefully at my anamorphic Squeeze mode footage shot in THIN on my Z2 projector. I am seeing many artifacts on shiny objects like mikes, drums, etc. I have to say overall I think the image looks good, but these highlites look almost like fine dropout. I dont think I am seeing that in squeeze mode Thick footage.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

Sorry, Barry Green is wrong. If you're going to show your work on a standard interlaced tv, ONLY use thick mode. Thin mode WILL cause aliasing jitter on fine horizontal lines. If you're only showing on progressive scan monitors (computer lcd etc.) or are going to print, than thin is best.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

Not really, when you are using a digital squeeze using thin mode is a must, as if you use Thickmode you will get artifacts/lost lines when you unsqueeze the footage. Even in unsqueezed footage, Thin mode is a better setting because you can add thickness to lines in post, but you cant take away thickness.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

[quote author=Gavin Finney link=board=nws;num=1084160946;start=0#14 date=05/22/04 at 08:51:55]Sorry, Barry Green is wrong. If you're going to show your work on a standard interlaced tv, ONLY use thick mode. Thin mode WILL cause aliasing jitter on fine horizontal lines. If you're only showing on progressive scan monitors (computer lcd etc.) or are going to print, than thin is best.[/quote]

For non-squeeze-mode footage your advice is correct. However, when using squeeze mode, the process of digitally stretching the image introduces enough blur to smooth over and mask any aliasing jitter. Try it, you'll see -- thin is definitely best when using squeeze mode.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

hmmm.....

I compared squeezed footage (which i dont like that much because of the so so quality) with 3 settings:
1-Thin 24p adv
2-Mid 24p adv
3-Thick 24p adv

...and the best results (to my eyes) on a standard TV is clearly "Mid"
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

I always shoot thin. Even most DVDs that are telecined these days are done so in a way that preserves the vertical detail. This is because future televisions will be able to show this detail better. In the future, why would you want your footage to look even more soft on HD screens when you can have that detail?

If you are very concerned, you can add a little blur to images that show flicker on standard monitors, but at least your source will be crisp.

And I believe Barry Green is right. When I take thin footage and stretch it to 16:9 animorphic, I don't find any problems.
 
Re: digitial anamorphic how good is it?

I may be wrong, but with the "mid" setting, it looks sharper than "thin" with the squeezed mode. I could not say about the anamorphic lens though.
In fact "thin" looks soft compared to "mid".

But i may be very wrong...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top