Oh No! Not ANOTHER 16:9 Post!

dvxhutch

dvxhutch

Well-known member
I know, I know, we're all getting sick of posts about which way to shoot with the DVX to get the best 16:9 image. I'm not going to add to the debate, I'm going to let two experts do the talking.

This is a quote from WIM WENDERS, who shot PARIS, TEXAS, winner of the Palm D'Or at Cannes, and WINGS OF DESIRE, a film on many crtitic's top ten lists of all time. He shot the 2004 DVX movie LAND OF PLENTY starring Michelle Williams, and had this to say:

Question: This is a technical question. Why didn't you use the anamorphic lens for the Panasonic camera?


Wim Wenders: The only anamorphic lens available was a plastic lens, and the image without anything, just cropping, was better quality than using that plastic lens. Maybe by now there are other lenses but at the time there was only one lens available. It was as big as the camera so it defeated the purpose in a way. And it ruined the image. It was really bad quality. And it brought down the s-stop. It was junk. We did one shot and then threw it away. I mean we returned it.

James Longley, director of the Academy Award nominated doco IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS, wrote this:

A side issue:
Many people have commented that they prefer to use an anamorphic adapter on this camera to give a 16:9 aspect ratio without losing resolution -- I think this is a toss-up. The anamorphic adapter itself will slightly lessen the sharpness of the image, and close-up focusing is very difficult. I think the option of using "letterbox" or "squeeze" (the same thing, in terms of resolution) gives very nice results without adding extra weight and optical issues to the camera. It's analogous to the difference between shooting Cinemascope and Super35 on film -- Cinemascope uses the whole area of the negative, but Super35 (which crops the top and bottom of the frame to get a wide aspect ratio) has much nicer optical resolution because you can continue using spherical lenses instead of anamorphic. I once asked Robert Richardson (ASC) about how he dealt with this issue when he was shooting widescreen on Super8mm film for inclusion in JFK -- he preferred to simply letterbox the tiny frame and live with lower picture res than mess around with the focus problems of anamorphic lenses. The case with the anamorphic adapter on this camera is similar -- I think you can get fine results using letterbox format on the DVX100A, with fewer complications.

What do you guys (and gals) think? And could someone PLEASE write a sticky about the 16: 9 question?!
 
I agree that nobody wants to debate this anymore, but Noobs will always be searching for an answer on this one. The difference is you've got a couple respectable opinions in your post. If I remember right, Barry Green once said he shoots Squeeze a lot, but didn't write like it was a critical issue. Stu M. the DVRebel shoots 4:3 and letterboxes in post. I've seen good images from all three, but I have also seen a lot of unecessary info and arguements on this topic, especially on picture quality.

I think a sticky would be a good idea if it was divided into three catagories...Squeeze, letterbox and 4:3 post crop. You could probably find three good statements for all three.

Of course, people could chime in about ana lenses and such, but the main question could be dealt with up front with a suggestion that the users experiment with all three. It all depends on workflow and projects and personal preferences.

I like the idea of retiring this issue in some way.
 
I third the motion for a sticky.

I have some examples of all the laying around somewhere and would be willing to post them up.
 
All else aside, in motion picture cinematography, there are still those that cling to anamorphic photography, and want to shoot everything in that format.

It's an interesting case, because anamorphic came about as a "work-around" solution to the technical constraints of the time. It also has "drawbacks" such as the size of the lenses, shallower focus, flares, etc.

Yet, what came out of it is a tradition of films made that way, and there is a unique look to it. The fact that the anamorphic image is squeezed and then unqueezed on projection results in an interesting look. Sometimes manipulating images this way creates a unique look, for better or worse. There is also the "tall bokeh", the flares, sometimes a little barrell distortion, sometimes some vignetting, a sort of strange ways things expand and contract as the camera pans and tilts.

Compared to anamorphic, a 2.35 pull from Super 35 can look a bit too realistic and flat. So, while anamorphic may be a combination of "faults" and trade-offs, and may be tougher to work with, it creates something unique and distinctive.

Honestly, I wish I had an anamorphic adaptor for my DVX, I'd love to shoot with it, challenges or not.
 
Joshua makes a point about anamorphic shooting, so what about making four catagories...Squeeze, Letterbox, 4:3 and Anamorphic.

The sticky could relate what each aspect is and what the workflow demands. Have each section written by someone that primarily shoots in that format. Shouldn't need more than a page for each section.

Then...let the debate rage on...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top