How to get high quality widescreen footage

Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

You have to leave the letterbox on. There is no cinemascope aspect for DVD and it will appear vertically stretched...so don't even go there.

The rendering time for me using Photozoom is exactly 5 seconds a frame.

I'm using a Dell Inspiron 8200 laptop, 1.6ghz processor, 500mb of RAM, and writing the files to a 7200 Firewire external hard drive.
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

I'm experimenting with your technique now, rendering out several thousand frames to compare letterbox vs. the 864x616 technique.

I'm also going to go in and stretch the letterbox footage to 720x588 which, when cropped to 720x480, should be an anamorphic frame. I'll then compare the two on my 16x9 monitor and see how they compare...
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

Okay, testing is in...

Disjecta and IAL are on to something here.

I ran two tests: I up-rezzed letterbox footage exactly as Disjecta described, and then I also up-rezzed that same letterbox footage as I described (i.e., instead of going to 864x616 and scaling down, I just went to 720x588 and cropped off the letterbox bars). I then tested that footage against each other.

To my eyes, there's practically no difference -- 864x616 and resized down looks identical to 720x588 cropped, except that 588 isn't the right size (there was still a little bit of black bar left over) so I'd have to figure out the math to determine the exact height to crop to.

So I'd say, figure out what the height is, and do that method, as it will take less time (4 seconds per frame, vs. 6 for 864x616).

Now, comparing against each other, there was practically *no* difference. So I just so happened to have the exact same footage shot with the anamorphic, so I compared the "poor man's anamorphic" against genuine anamorphic.

The results are very close indeed. I'd say the resized footage looks a little "sharper", in the terms of sharpened highlights, etc. The anamorphic footage looks a little bit "smoother". The sharpening might show up as grain on the big screen, but on my 13" monitor the results were quite competitive!

Disjecta, try running your test again but resize it to 720x592 and then crop to 720x480 for playback (obviously setting pixel aspect ratio to 1.2), and see how you think the footage compares against your method. I'd like to see if you get similar results as well.
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

Will do. I'm encouraged that you found similar results. I'm testing mine on a 42" plasma and I don't see any grain or artifacts on well-exposed footage.

I'll let you know when I try your dimensions out. May not be till tomorrow evening.
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

That video was quite impressive, and unexpected, disjecta. I didn't think the difference would be as drastic as it was...
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

yeah, this looks to have some promise, although having to render it in multiple batches sounds like it's a hassle. If there was another way to do this all at once it would make the process far simpler...
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

OMG I just did a comparison of an image uprezzed using this... the quality of the uprezzing is REMARKABLE... the edge enhancement isn't even noticable... this is definitely comparible to a telecine conversion or uprezzing to HD...
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

Barry, I ran your numbers on some footage with mine and there is no perceptible difference (like you said, we just need to work out what the math is for the vertical size). However, I found that there was no time saved while rendering...weird.

Yes, the render time and limited batch processing is a hassle but look at it this way, you have complete control over your image. It's like using an anamorphic lens but you can also use a teleconverter or wideangle as you normally would, plus you have complete control over exposure and the all-important shallow depth of field... while getting high quality 16x9 footage.

And the most incredible thing is that the software only costs $50. EDIT: $129 for the pro version, which is needed for this procedure.

Barry, I think this is an important enough discovery to make this post a sticky...at least for a while. What do you think?

NOTE: Like the criteria for successfully using Magic Bullet, the same rules apply here. If your footage is not well exposed and nicely balanced, you will not get optimal results. Uprezzing does increase any noise already inherent in your footage. Something well lit is going to look a lot better than something shot in low light, etc.
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

[quote author=THiNSPiRiT link=board=Events;num=1097768895;start=15#28 date=10/14/04 at 22:49:56]OMG I just did a comparison of an image uprezzed using this... the quality of the uprezzing is REMARKABLE... the edge enhancement isn't even noticable... this is definitely comparible to a telecine conversion or uprezzing to HD...[/quote]
On the upcoming DVD I put samples of up-rezzing the DVX to HD resolution using this same program (PhotoZoom PRO), and in my opinion, the results are very comparable to the native HD resolution of the JVC HD1 that we shot side-by-side. It really is amazing software.

The results get even better if you use a chroma-smoothing codec (such as Matrox or Avid)... Vegas' codec and Avid's codec don't do chroma smoothing, but when I put the source footage through the Matrox codec and then up-rezzed from there, the results were flabbergasting... I started calling my camera the HDVX100!
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

Let's sort out the exact procedure, and then post a tutorial on that with the minimal steps (like, if you really think the 720x600-ish footage looks just as good, and adds just as much to your footage as the 864x616 method did, then let's develop the math and the step-by-step tutorial to make it right).

On my system it was about 5.5 sec/frame for the 864 method, and about 4, maybe 4.5 sec for the 720 method. I'm surprised you didn't notice a time difference?

I don't have a 100A (man, I gotta get one of those!) but I'd really like to see the difference between squeeze mode and PhotoZoom. Do you have a 100A? Could you shoot some of your exquisite nature footage in squeeze, and side-by-side (or one right after the other) in letterbox, and let's test that, I think that would be a compelling test...
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

... ;)
the pro version of the software is 129.00 euros or whatever that symbol is.. so it will be close to 129.00 american dollars pending the market.   the non pro versio is 49.00.

its important to note that  when resizing the footage , it has to be taken into account that  the DVX letterbox image area is not true 16:9  ( the center image area is taller than 360 pixels).  so for a proportional uprez, a little bit of the top and bottom of the image will be cropped off.   if your uprezzing the whole 4:3 frame, and letting the NLE crop off the black in the  the size should be 864x640 which is a proportional uprez. then when the NLE places it in the center  you  little of the image area as well as the black bars will be left out to give it its proper proportions. if you use the 616 height it will fit the letterbox image perfectly into thet 16:9 frame but its actually a  slightly vertically squished image.  it doesnt look bad, and ive used it before, but its just not tecnically correct, and the image wont be correctly proportional.


i usually use the whole 4:3 frame cause its easy , and i didnt notice a big time difference, from outputting, or processing the black bar area,  but im sure there is one. ive just never actually really timed it. ..usually start it going, and go do something else.  so cropping on output should be faster  , and also allows you to have an excact image size for placing in the 16:9 project, instead of having the NLE crop to or only display the correct image area (the rest of the image would be out of the project window area-   offscreen).

i havent done it in a little while, but if i remember correctly, the easy method would be to export to the .TIF sequence from premiere as 720 x 480 and then have photozoom pro resize to 864 x 640 and re import into the NLE.  the reason i use the 864 dimension is because i figure it allows photozoom pro some more room for enhancing the image on the horizontal plane as well as the vertical. if you leave it at 720 width, it can only sharpen a pixel 720 width, and then ppro will expand it to a 1.2 pixel aspect which just stretches pixels.  at 864 width im hoping it can squeeze a little more detail in there by actually uprezzing it. but as you guys said, i cant personally see a real difference... the detail is so fine.

for cropping it to 16:9 on output from the NLE it would be a cropped .tif image sequence  of 720 x 360 to  get the center  16:9 image out, and resized to 864 x 480 in photozoom pro.  this would be the time saving method , and should also save a little space on the drive when doing all this. its a proportional resize of 1.3333333333333 %      (remamber that 720 x360 in square pixels is 648x360)

anyway ive done alot of work with it as im sure barry has as well. i started playing with it cause barry was working with it some time ago . the reason i have, and what ive determined that i can do, is make a nice HD anamorphic or cropped 2.35:1  image for filmout  from anamorphic footage, or even letterbox!  it looks very good, and i would project it any day.  its no viper filmstream footage, but its better than any HD output from an SD cam ive seen , and is plenty good enough IMHO.

let me know if there are any errors or question regarding the math.  ;)
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

Barry, if this tutorial can be worked up fairly quickly, perhaps you could include a simple insert with your book/dvd? Definitely value-adding material. Btw, are you willing to announce the price (so as I can set it aside)?
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

Barry and Neil,

My next question is this:

If I import something shot in squeeze mode into a 4x3 timeline and resize it so that it letterboxes, am I dealing with the same resolution image as I would if I shot in letterbox mode?

This is not the usual question of comparing letterbox and squeeze on a 16x9 timeline...

The theory seems to be that the resolution should be exactly the same given that the camera is just cutting away the letterbox portion. If that footage is then resized down to the 4x3 letterbox size, shouldn't it be the same?

I ask because I have been shooting squeeze mode exclusively since getting this camera and I would like to run the same process on the footage I have already and get the same sort of results.

I did a test with Photozoom where I resized some footage shot with squeeze mode from 720 to 864 and, while I noticed some sharpening, it didn't come close to the drama of the 4x3 resize.

By the way, Barry, I do own the 100A and squeeze mode on a 16x9 timeline doesn't hold a candle to the uprezzed letterbox footage. The example I posted earlier in this thread demonstrates that.
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

Regarding letterbox/squeeze: un-squeezing squeeze mode back down to letterbox won't be quite the same as shooting letterbox in the first place: it'll have been through two digital resize processes. Best to start with the cleanest footage possible, which would be letterbox.

Second, good to hear that the photozoom seriously outpaces squeeze mode. I'd expect that -- as a programmer, there's no way I'd expect a real-time 1/60-second process like squeeze mode to compete with a five-second stretch process in post. So it's good to hear that there are possible results that exceed what Squeeze can do. I'm very impressed with squeeze mode, I think it's just excellent for an in-camera process, but to have an even higher-quality option in post is obviously a bonus for all.

Third, yes there will be a mention of this technique in the DVX book. I had initially experimented with it a while back but didn't take it far enough, and I didn't get the kind of results that Disjecta got.

Fourth, regarding 864: 864 is only relevant if you're going to stay on the computer (i.e., using Quicktime or WM9 for final output). If you're going to DVD, you have to resize back down to 720 anyway. The question is, does that additional stretch to 864 allow Photozoom to do some magic to the image, which survives the re-size back down to 720?

Fifth, is the additional detail and "image happiness" you're experiencing simply the effect of the unsharp mask? Let's simplify things: Disjecta, try applying an unsharp mask to your original footage, without PhotoZooming it, and let's see how that compares to your final product.

Sixth, yes the price has been announced, I put it in the other thread. We're going with $69.95 for the package, with a special introductory price of $10 off through the end of the year, so those who order early will get it for $59.95.
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

Barry,

I tried the unsharp mask on the original letterbox footage in a 16x9 project and the results were pretty good. However, the subtleties that are inherent in the uprez process are quite obvious to me. Photozooom Pro handles the image more gracefully than the unsharp mask. Essentially the UM is sharpening a soft image and approximating detail as opposed to Photozoom's ability to retain that detail.

It's really noticeable on a TV screen... Posting screen grabs is pointless here because the differences are noticeable on the moving image on a TV screen and not by showing two stills side by side.
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

What exactly is the difference between Photozoom and Photozoom Pro, other than price?
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

The number of methods and control of resizing available. The S-Spline resizing that we are using here, I believe, is not available on the basic version.
 
Re: How to get high quality widescreen footage

Okay, so now I am trying the uprez technique on some squeeze footage that was imported into a 4x3 timeline and reduced to letterbox.

An initial inspection looks to me like the results are as good as with the footage shot with the in-camera letterbox.

More when I see all of the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top