Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

T

trtmac

Member
Hi...

I have the 16:9 anamorphic lens from Panasonic. I have a DVX100A. I've tried shooting some test and monitoring on a broadcast monitor - component...

I shoot in PAL.
I've tried both 50i and 25p.

I can not see any difference in quality between the Squeze mode and the 16:9 anamorphic lens!

What do you people say? - Is there a difference? - Do you think the difference is bigger in NTSC world than in our PAL world?

Is there anyone else that has done these tests?

Best regards

Toke
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

it makes a difference for projection on the big screen... if your looking at small format viewing like that.. its like looking at a pic at 640x480 res and one at 1024x768 at the same print size from 30 feet away.. they will look the same.. but the more you blow them up..or get closer.. theres going to be an obvious difference.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

I've tried viewing this on a 50" HD screen...
I've tried zooming in 400% in Photoshop.
I really can't see the difference... I'd really love to be able to see it as I'm a big fan of true 16:9 anamorphic... I'll try putting it up in our HD-cinema and see if I can see the difference...

/toke
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

strange .. for alot of shots, i can plainly see the difference in my regular monitor or oin the ntsc out.... if your zoomed in the ana gets softer(unless you set it up right) and the difference is less, but anything wider is immediatley noticeable for me.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Can you post your test frames? I'd love to look at both of them blown up in Photoshop as well. Maybe somebody here with really precise eyes can spot the difference.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Also, the difference would be slightly higher in NTSC world, no? Because with PAL you have a higher resolution to start out with...

If you want to render anamorphic as square pixels, it would be 853x480 (about). The difference between 853x480 and 720x480 is greater than the difference between 853x480 and 720x576. If you changed the ratio to 1024x576 (in PAL) then you'd be scaling the horizontal resolution much higher than needed, and inadvertently soften the image...no?

While viewing on an HDTV would give better results resolution-wise in PAL, in their respective formats, the difference would be greater in NTSC, no?

It's early so I apologize if I'm talking entirely out of my ass here...but right now, it seems to make sense...NTSC users get a slight advantage with the anamorphic over PAL users, comparative to shooting in their respective 4:3 ratio.

??? ??? ???
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Hi there...

Yes I belive you are rigth concerning the difference between PAL and NTSC...

Just to clarify: This discussion is ONLY regarding the difference between Squeze mode (DVX100A only!) and using the Panasonic 16:9 anam. lens.

I've posted some framegrabs - if anyone's interested...

http://www.f-film.com/ftp/Test/dvx100.html

Best regards
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

[quote author=iamloser link=board=Links;num=1085421978;start=0#3 date=05/24/04 at 12:51:55]strange .. for alot of shots, i can plainly see the difference in  my regular monitor  or oin the ntsc out....   if your zoomed in the ana gets softer(unless you set it up right) and the difference is less, but anything wider is immediatley noticeable for me. [/quote]

I would agree with this... I can see differences on the 20" NTSC monitor, and on the 65" HDTV it's even more obvious...
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Okay, in an attempt to settle this once and for all, here are some resolution chart shots:

http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/AnamorphicResolutionChart.BMP
http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/LetterboxResolutionChart.BMP
http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/StretchedLetterboxResolutionChart.BMP

All shot 24PA, thin-line detail.

As even the most casual of observations will show, the anamorphic is substantially superior in resolution to the letterbox shot.  (I know you wanted squeeze, but I don't have a 100A so squeeze is not an option for me.  However, it is impossible for squeeze to have higher resolution than the letterbox shot, as squeeze IS letterbox, with some post-stretching).  To make a direct shape comparison, I used Photoshop's resize function to make the stretched-letterbox shot.

If you want to see squeeze-mode resolution charts, check out adam wilt's review in DV magazine, where he posts some extracts.  They weren't shot under identical circumstances as mine, of course (I don't know what zoom setting/aperture he used, etc) but the resolution looks very similar to my stretched-letterbox shot so it should be directly comparable:
http://img.cmpnet.com/dv/magazine/2003/1203/16x9p.jpg

Now, what I discovered is, you cannot ever solve this question once and for all.  The nature of the lens makes direct comparisons nearly impossible.  For example, in order to match the frame size, you have to zoom out substantially on the letterbox shot -- and zooming out causes fine detail to blur.  Secondly, because of the zoom differential, if you're shooting 3D objects (like a real-world scene) then the anamorphic's background will be blurrier (because at equivalent framing, the anamorphic will be set to a more telephoto setting, causing shallower DOF).  Third, there are some framing shots that you simply cannot equate: the anamorphic is wider-angle, and the letterbox/squeeze mode will never get that wide (unless you add a wide-angle adapter, which introduces its own optical aberrations).  And, the squeeze mode shot can look significantly more telephoto than the anamorphic (especially considering the astigmatism you encounter as the anamorphic approaches full telephoto).

Finally, aperture plays a role.  These shots were optimized to show the anamorphic in its best light (after all, why take a shot showing it looking lousy?  If you're paying $800, you want to see an improvement, right?  So I made it look the sharpest I could).  You have to stop down to get the verticals and horizontals in focus at the same time.  These shots were taken at f/8.0, with the chart about 2 feet from the front of the lens, at about Z27.

So... to sum up... squeeze mode is much less hassle to shoot with, and more flexible.  But the anamorphic is capable of delivering much higher resolution (under ideal circumstances).  If you take the time and the care to set up your shots to make best utilization of the anamorphic adapter, you can get dramatically higher resolution photography with it.  If you don't take that care, you could easily squander most if not all of the resolution benefit it's capable of.  Or, to paraphrase from Spider-Man: "With Great Resolution Comes Great Responsibility."
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Hi there...

Yes - I'm only interested in the comparison between Squeze mode and 16:9 anam. The 4:3 letterbox is out of the question - and Squeze mode is FAR superior to the 4:3 letterbox. Eventhough you say it's it's actually the same - it's not!

So I'm still on the lookout for comparison tests between Squeze and 16:9 Anam. - preferably in PAL...As that should also have an effect...

Best regards

/toke
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

trtmac, Barry has laid it out quite beautifully for you and you should go back and read his post several times carefully.

Barry is correct: Squeeze mode cannot be superior to letterbox, because both use the same portion of the CCD and nothing more. Squeeze mode then stretches the image vertically to get rid of the black bars at the top and bottom. This makes it "anamorphic," yes, but the camera can't add resolution it doesn't have to start with.

(However, I've heard it said with other cameras that the in-camera squeeze mode is superior to doing it in post, since the resampling occurs before the DV compression is applied. )

Barry even did the hard work to simulate, as best he could, the results of squeeze mode. (his third screen shot). He's been very generous -- you really should listen to him.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

I just re-read my last post, and realized that one statement might cause confusion:

<quote>(However, I've heard it said with other cameras that the in-camera squeeze mode is superior to doing it in post, since the resampling occurs before the DV compression is applied. ) </quote>

I realized that someone reading it might think I said that other cameras do squeeze mode better than the DVX. The DVX probably also applies the squeeze before DV compression. It's just I didn't know for sure, that's why I started talking about "other camers."
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Links;num=1085421978;start=0#8 date=05/25/04 at 14:19:48]Or, to paraphrase from Spider-Man: "With Great Resolution Comes Great Responsibility."[/quote]

I like that Barry... I may have to quote you, by way of Spiderman.

Thanks for all your hard work on this BTW...
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

And trtmac, I posed a resolution chart from squeeze mode as well, so you can do a direct comparison. You'll also see that the squeeze-mode chart looks almost exactly like the stretched letterbox chart.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?


A few notes:

1) Squeeze actually is superior to letterbox, because, as someone mentionned, the DV compression is introduced after the squeezing. Remember that DV compression is 5:1 and is far from negligeable.

2) If you're going to be doing a lot of serious zooming you should know that this lens becomes a serious pain in the a**.

3) Squeeze is much better in progressive than in interlaced. That's why in this camera it becomes a real option, whereas on the PD-150, which was not progressive, it was not.

4) This lens is only truly necessary if you are going to output to 35mm. Only by viewing your SOURCE TAPE directly on an HD monitor or by zooming in photoshop will you see the differences. Any other mode of distribution (DVD for instance) will introduce its own artifacting and wipe out your hard-earned extra resolution.

Now on 35mm, it's a different story... I'd say it's a requirement, in fact.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

"Squeeze is much better in progressive than in interlaced."

Why is it so much better in progressive mode?

And then we have to edit in 23.98, so for me with FCE2 I can't, so no progressive mode for now. Too bad.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

.. without being technical (at all..) progressive gives higher resolution than interlaced material, so it better.


..and you dont have to edit in 24p if you shoot progressive. why dont you just shoot 30p? or 24p with the regular 2:3 pulldown from the factory f5 setup. then you can edit regularly in ntsc 29.976
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

The charts speak for themselves: in progressive, Squeeze delivers a great high-resolution image with about 360 lines of res. In interlaced, it doesn't look so good (maybe 230 lines?)

Interlaced:
16x9i.jpg


Progressive:
16x9p.jpg
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Whoa! Guys! I'm very thankful for this thread, though I'm JUST GOING NUTS!
I always thought with the 100A (PAL) the anamorphic adapter is a MUST, but after comparing Barrys charts (where I do NOT find the resolution with the adapter to be substantially superior) I now think I can sell my anamorphic adaptor and get rid of another problem as well: I'm still stuck with the fact that the anamorphic makes filtering/matteboxes much, much more difficult (e.g. expensive - only solution is Chrosziel). With streched mode I have so much fewer hassles that I REALLY do ask myself if the anamorphic adapter is worth the very TINY advantage in resolution...

*cry*

BTW I also agree that the streched mode should be better than letterbox stretched in post, even if the CCD pixel area is the same. But the DV wavelet compression is definitely a good point which makes the streched version better than letterboxed...

Anyone in Europe wants to buy an unused anamorphic adapter :-/ ?
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Shooting squeeze mode is definitely easier than shooting with the anamorphic. But you don't see the difference? Let me put side-by-side extractions up:
SQUEEZE:
16x9p.jpg

ANAMORPHIC:
AnamorphicResolutionChart.JPG


Look at the horizontal wedges -- the squeeze taps out at about the right edge of the large wedge, marking almost 400 lines of res... but the anamorphic is crystal-clear at that point, and continues on in the smaller wedge, clearly resolving what looks like up to 550 lines. That's a 30% increase in resolution.

What was most surprising to me was that I expected to see some degradation on the vertical wedges, but there isn't any. It's just as sharp in the verticals, and way way sharper in the horizontals.

But, with that said, like I always say, try squeeze mode -- if you like it, use it. It's very good for an in-camera squeeze, and it's much less hassle to shoot with. But the anamorphic adapter is capable of delivering *much* higher resolution, when proper care is exercised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top