I just fell in love with my DVX100a all over again!

that was beautiful! not to get too much off topic, but what settings did you use for exporting and uploading to youtube? this is way too good to be standard def. XD
 
no, it's not. Because it is. 4000 bit rate, h.264, 872x480. Yea, that's how ya do it, oh and youtube is terrible, vimeo is only way to go for decent quality.
 
I shoot squeeze all the time. I never even think about it anymore. The footage matches up to my xha1 when I edit, and I don't have to do anything special in post.
 
I originally stayed away from squeeze because of the LOSS OF DETAIL scare. But now that's all I use. I don't see any lose.
 
A little bit off the subject but I was recently at a live event where they had 3 DVX cameras and were projecting a 16:9 image on screens. I asked one of the camera operators if they were shooting in sqeeze. Yes and the projector or some other piece would then interpret as 16:9. It looked good, even on a 12 ft. wide screen.
 
I've shoot mostly letterbox but a few things squeeze. I think I will do more. Any issues with squeeze mode and making DVDs?
 
I use regular 4:3 because it allows you the use of panning/cropping in post after the letterbox. It can spice up any dull, static shot and allow for movement. Besides, you can then just cut out the letterbox and it will be 16:9 or just squeeze it in post, am i wrong?
 
JFEditorIV said:
Why would you not want to give yourself those advantages in a competitive market? And even if you aren't competitive, how can you say widescreen fullscreen uncompressed doesn't look better than 4x3?
Click to expand...

Maybe because his content is more suited to the 4x3 aspect ratio? There are a lot of reasons to go wide screen, but there are reasons to go 4x3 as well. You cannot say one is worse/not competitive in such a blanket way.
 
dude the dvx is sd, so I upload sd. I go sd for uploads also because not everyone has crazy fast computers that can play the video in it's native frame rate. So they are left watching choppy video that no one wants to see.
 
Last edited:
I'm definitely down to upload hd in the future, I just don't think anyone really would wanna see a high quality image that has a crap frame rate. I try to watch stuff on a not so old pc and it is choppy has hell. I want smooth playback before a little bit sharper image
 
I use regular 4:3 because it allows you the use of panning/cropping in post after the letterbox. It can spice up any dull, static shot and allow for movement. Besides, you can then just cut out the letterbox and it will be 16:9 or just squeeze it in post, am i wrong?

kinda was hoping if someone could comment on what they think. isn't simply just cutting out the area inside the letterbox make it 16:9?
 
go dig up a comp with a gig of ram and a single processor and you will know what I mean by crap frame rate. The playback turns into a picture slideshow.
 
JFEditorIV said:
There are 0 reasons to go 4x3 other than having a professional assignment in which a tv commercial or public display screen requires it due to formatting issues. From merely a visual standpoint it's like saying there is an advantage to shooting hd over sd. If you are presented with the choice, why choose the less visually appealing one when all the hollywood movies and tv commercials and the mass of the viewers are loving the upgrade of quality. Those eyes get trained to accept that as professional. To those eyes, 4x3 would look unprofessional. It's about staying ahead of the curve and giving yourself every advantage possible when you try to make this a career for yourself. If it's a recreational thing or a casual video then this doesn't apply to you but if the feature is there, use it to prolong the market value/appeal of your dvx and enhance the impact of your work.
Click to expand...

I had a response typed out, but I'll pass on posting it. Let us agree to disagree.
 
Inoran said:
I use regular 4:3 because it allows you the use of panning/cropping in post after the letterbox. It can spice up any dull, static shot and allow for movement. Besides, you can then just cut out the letterbox and it will be 16:9 or just squeeze it in post, am i wrong?

kinda was hoping if someone could comment on what they think. isn't simply just cutting out the area inside the letterbox make it 16:9?
Click to expand...


Although more time consuming, shooting 4:3 and cropping to 16:9 in post allows you the freedom to reframe shots, gives you the highest resolution, and permits easier off-screen tracking. I used to do this until I realized, as others have already noted, that the resolution loss in squeeze is difficult, if not impossible, to detect, if shot in progressive. A pixel purist, however, will crop 4:3, whether his eyes can see the difference or not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top