Dvx 16:9???

William_Robinette said:
There is no way this is true at all. The camera doesn't do any "bit shifting" to give you a better picture when shooting letterbox.
Click to expand...

The "camera" may not, but the DV codec absolutely does. The image is divided into macroblocks, with macroblocks from various areas of the image are combined and compressed into a fixed amount of data. The blocks with all black compress extremely well, nearly as though they weren't there at all, so the other blocks do not require as much compression.

I believe it has been noted on many occassions that the difference in image quality between LETTERBOX and NORMAL is about 5-10% improvement. The disadvantage is no flexibility to reframe in post. So, pick your poison, but it does make a difference.
 
It would be great if some professional in here could shoot some footage using all methods. Put the footage up as a sticky, and just tell everyone, "SHOOT THIS WAY, it yields the best result, see for yourself. However if you shoot this way you will get this result, see for yourself." That would put this question to rest and help out so many people here. It is the biggest question asked here. It needs to be answered, once and for all.

And i mean good cinematic footage, not just a pan on the street, we need to see what result these methods yield in a dramatic movie. It would be great if someone would do this.

I don't know if he does this type of stuff, but it would be great if someone like BARRY GREEN did it. That way we all know that each method was properly done every step of the way.
 
craigbowman said:
Why not just simply look at an example of dvx letterbox to 16:9 using photozoom pro, particularly the last half at 1.85:1, instead of discussing how many angels may or may not fit on the head of a pin?

http://www.pinelakefilms.com/photozoom.html

If for some reason you think this stinks then don't use it.
Click to expand...

Man, that's just crazy beautiful. I'm itching to get my cameras but I need to
decide between two DVX100b's or one XH-A1. Shots like these really lean me
towards the DVX.
 
The issue here is that, as with most things, there is no "one best way" .. if there was, the camera would only do it that way. Instead the camera gives you options, depending on what you need.

If you want 4:3, then shoot 4:3 .. obviously.

If you want 4:3, letterboxed ("widescreen look") footage, right out of the camera, with minimal work in post, but for use in a 4:3 environment. Then shoot letterbox.

If you want 16:9 footage right out of the camera, ready to feed into any other native ("anamorphic") 16:9 environment. ... including for example a 16:9 production monitor on set. Then shoot "Squeeze".

If you want the above, but using the full resolution of the chips, then use an anamorphic converter lens.

If you want something else. 16:9, or wider even, with full control of the image conversion and "cropping". Then shoot 4:3 and crop in post.



I don't care what one of Barry's tests shows if I can choose for myself the look I want. Instead of trying to define one option as "best", learn how to use them all, and then it's your choice.

- Mikko
 
I think which aspect ratio to shoot in is one of the biggest time wasters in video making. Squeeze, letterbox, anamorphic adaptor all yield nice results. All the DVX movies released on the big screen - November, Lonesome Jim, Land of Plenty, Iraq in Fragments - were all shot letter boxed, and all look very nice.

There are a lot of more important things to plan when making a movie - don't waste too much time on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top