DVX100A's 16:9 stretch feature
- Thread starter Trucci
- Start date
Re: DVX100A's 16:9 stretch feature
Well, yeah. You're purposely doing away with the top and bottom of your picture (and all the pixels in them) when you crop a 4:3 image.
With the squeeze mode 16:9, you don't lose those pixels. Hence, the resolution is higher by definition.
Well, yeah. You're purposely doing away with the top and bottom of your picture (and all the pixels in them) when you crop a 4:3 image.
With the squeeze mode 16:9, you don't lose those pixels. Hence, the resolution is higher by definition.
Re: DVX100A's 16:9 stretch feature
..the anamorphic adaptor allows you to actually use all the pixels by optically squeezing a 16:9 image onto the 4:3 ccd. the squeeze mode just takes the letterboxed image you would ge by running the dvx inletterboxed mode(after cropping off the top and bottom to make a 16:9 image) and expands that image to the 4:3 space.. so you are still losing the actual pixel resolution,and could do the same thing (probably even with better results pending the quality of the softwares scaling algorythms)in post, by taking the regular dvx100 letterbox image, and cropping the black bars off and expanding the center image to fill a 16:9 window. squeeze mode just does this in the camera for you.
..the anamorphic adaptor allows you to actually use all the pixels by optically squeezing a 16:9 image onto the 4:3 ccd. the squeeze mode just takes the letterboxed image you would ge by running the dvx inletterboxed mode(after cropping off the top and bottom to make a 16:9 image) and expands that image to the 4:3 space.. so you are still losing the actual pixel resolution,and could do the same thing (probably even with better results pending the quality of the softwares scaling algorythms)in post, by taking the regular dvx100 letterbox image, and cropping the black bars off and expanding the center image to fill a 16:9 window. squeeze mode just does this in the camera for you.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: DVX100A's 16:9 stretch feature
Squeeze mode doesn't give you any more resolution than letterbox mode. Letterbox mode is for 4:3 video, with black bars on it. Squeeze mode is for making 16:9 video. It'll have the same resolution as letterbox mode (if you stretch the letterbox mode to be anamorphic).
If you want actual widescreen 16:9 footage, you have three choices: use the anamorphic adapter (best results, most cost); use squeeze mode (no additional cost, decent results) or crop & stretch in post (no additional cost, some hassle in post, decent results).
Squeeze mode doesn't give you any more resolution than letterbox mode. Letterbox mode is for 4:3 video, with black bars on it. Squeeze mode is for making 16:9 video. It'll have the same resolution as letterbox mode (if you stretch the letterbox mode to be anamorphic).
If you want actual widescreen 16:9 footage, you have three choices: use the anamorphic adapter (best results, most cost); use squeeze mode (no additional cost, decent results) or crop & stretch in post (no additional cost, some hassle in post, decent results).
frank
Member
Re: DVX100A's 16:9 stretch feature
Barry I'd be interested in your views based on the images showing "squeezed" shots and shots taken with the panasonic 16:9 anamorphic adaptor at this link?
http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/
Certainly in full zoom mode the squeezed shots (photos of the bookcase) looked sharper than the same shot taken with the Panasonic adaptor.
What is the consensus amongst the experienced users of the panasonic adaptor? If you want to shoot 16:9 is the Panasonic adaptor worth the money???
Please help or post some screen grabs...
Barry I'd be interested in your views based on the images showing "squeezed" shots and shots taken with the panasonic 16:9 anamorphic adaptor at this link?
http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/
Certainly in full zoom mode the squeezed shots (photos of the bookcase) looked sharper than the same shot taken with the Panasonic adaptor.
What is the consensus amongst the experienced users of the panasonic adaptor? If you want to shoot 16:9 is the Panasonic adaptor worth the money???
Please help or post some screen grabs...
Trucci
Well-known member
Re: DVX100A's 16:9 stretch feature
Yeah, what's up with the stretched image looking sharper than the anamorphic lens shot? Does this mean you should take off the adaptor for full zoom shots? Or is the brand of the adaptor to blame?
Also, have there been any tests with the in camera stretch mode vs post stretching yet?
Yeah, what's up with the stretched image looking sharper than the anamorphic lens shot? Does this mean you should take off the adaptor for full zoom shots? Or is the brand of the adaptor to blame?
Also, have there been any tests with the in camera stretch mode vs post stretching yet?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: DVX100A's 16:9 stretch feature
Hey Frank,
That's actually my site. I took those shots.
At full telephoto, it's very, very difficult to get the anamorphic adapter to focus sharply. I've taken to sticking to Z90 and below.
Since taking those shots, I've done extensive testing and come to the conclusion that the anamorphic adapter is seriously superior to stretching the footage, around 20% superior, as long as you stay away from the full telephoto end of the spectrum. The difference is more noticeable the larger the screen you go to -- on the camera's LCD you won't notice any difference, on a 25" TV the anamorphic may look a little better but you won't really notice it, but on my 10' projection screen, the anamorphic was clearly superior. On the big screen I'm expecting the difference to be dramatic.
So, in short, I bought the anamorphic adapter. For ultimate widescreen quality it's definitely worth it. Just stay at Z90 or below, and bring along a good-quality high-res CRT monitor to set focus with.
As far as "squeeze mode" goes, it looks reasonably disappointing from what I've seen. Adam Wilt did some testing and res-chart shooting with a DVX100A in both interlaced and progressive, and declared that in interlace, the DVX100A squeeze mode was on par with (or slightly inferior to) the PD150's electronic 16:9!!! The PD150 has a lousy 16:9 mode, so this is not good news. In progressive mode the results were better, about comparable to what you'd get by stretching in post. Disappointing, because Canon's in-camera 16:9 is really good, I was hoping Panasonic's implementation would be comparable with Canon's, but it looks like instead it's more along the lines of Sony's. Oh well.
Hey Frank,
That's actually my site. I took those shots.
At full telephoto, it's very, very difficult to get the anamorphic adapter to focus sharply. I've taken to sticking to Z90 and below.
Since taking those shots, I've done extensive testing and come to the conclusion that the anamorphic adapter is seriously superior to stretching the footage, around 20% superior, as long as you stay away from the full telephoto end of the spectrum. The difference is more noticeable the larger the screen you go to -- on the camera's LCD you won't notice any difference, on a 25" TV the anamorphic may look a little better but you won't really notice it, but on my 10' projection screen, the anamorphic was clearly superior. On the big screen I'm expecting the difference to be dramatic.
So, in short, I bought the anamorphic adapter. For ultimate widescreen quality it's definitely worth it. Just stay at Z90 or below, and bring along a good-quality high-res CRT monitor to set focus with.
As far as "squeeze mode" goes, it looks reasonably disappointing from what I've seen. Adam Wilt did some testing and res-chart shooting with a DVX100A in both interlaced and progressive, and declared that in interlace, the DVX100A squeeze mode was on par with (or slightly inferior to) the PD150's electronic 16:9!!! The PD150 has a lousy 16:9 mode, so this is not good news. In progressive mode the results were better, about comparable to what you'd get by stretching in post. Disappointing, because Canon's in-camera 16:9 is really good, I was hoping Panasonic's implementation would be comparable with Canon's, but it looks like instead it's more along the lines of Sony's. Oh well.
frank
Member
Re: DVX100A's 16:9 stretch feature
Thanks Barry for your comments and for setting up those shots on your website. I was hoping someone would post useful stuff like that. The images are certainly very thought provoking and probably raised more questions in my mind than solved them. But I'll take your recomendation on board when buying the adaptor. Thanks for your feedback.
Thanks Barry for your comments and for setting up those shots on your website. I was hoping someone would post useful stuff like that. The images are certainly very thought provoking and probably raised more questions in my mind than solved them. But I'll take your recomendation on board when buying the adaptor. Thanks for your feedback.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: DVX100A's 16:9 stretch feature
For an anamorphic adapter? Panasonic's the only one made that works with the DVX. Century doesn't currently offer one that will work with the DVX. They are developing a prototype, and at last word the adapter may cost $2,000. Ken Robings of Century visits this site, so you should ask him directly about Century's plans. But as of today, as of right now, there is only one anamorphic adapter that works with the DVX100, and that's Panasonic's.
For an anamorphic adapter? Panasonic's the only one made that works with the DVX. Century doesn't currently offer one that will work with the DVX. They are developing a prototype, and at last word the adapter may cost $2,000. Ken Robings of Century visits this site, so you should ask him directly about Century's plans. But as of today, as of right now, there is only one anamorphic adapter that works with the DVX100, and that's Panasonic's.
