Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

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

Barry, thanks for the tests. You're right.

Unfortunately I only have a bad A3 laserprint of a testchart but I'm going to do a test tomorrow using a PAL 100A camera and will post the results here within the next 24hrs.

Then I'm going to make a decision.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

COuldn't wait that long: My tests are done.
I don't have such a good chart as Barry does (unfortunately)... so don't expect nice and shiny pics! They're ugly...

look at http://www.dcsfilm.com/dvxtest

Result:

Yes, even with a 100AE (PAL), the vertical resolution with the anamorphic adapter IS CONSIDERABLY HIGHER.

Phew. That was causing me some sweat, guys.

On the other hand... I'm still seriously thinking about if that MORE of resolution is worth the other problems (filtering, zooming, focusing)... difficult to say...
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

You hit that nail on the head -- like I usually say, using the anamorphic adapter involves several compromises, but gives the highest-resolution picture. Using squeeze mode involves only *one* compromise - resolution. So if you've got the time, the tools, the experience and the expertise, you can get the best results with the anamorphic. If instead you're shooting run 'n' gun, you probably wouldn't get any better results with it than you would in squeeze.

It's not an easy choice, certainly not a "no-brainer", there are lots of factors to consider.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Interesting more test results!!!

Now I did this: I used a high quality MPEG-2 2-pass VBR encoding for two charts filmed with anamorphic adapter and in Squeeze Mode. I put it on DVD. (All PAL!!)

These are the results:

A) When played from a PC using a VGA connector and the quite good scaler of a ATI 9600 and you project it with a SVGA projector, the difference is IMMEDIATLY NOTICABLE. The resolution still is much better with the anamorphic.

B) Then I put the DVD in a Pioneer Player and used an s-video connection to project it on screen. Still a noticeable higher resolution.

Folks, that definitely prooves that even for DVD usage the anamorphic has a better resolution than squeeze mode (on a 100AE).

But I can't still answer the question (Barry commented on that too) if this really justifies the limitations with focus, zoom and (what I consider a major issue) usage of filters. I guess everyone of us has to decide on his/her own..
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

...forgot to mention that of course all footage was native 16:9 (horizontically squeezed) and marked as "16:9" in the DVD authoring application.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

ownt. nice post Conection, nice post barry. helped me in deciding on getting it or not.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Clearly the Anamorphic has a higher detail/resolution level. However I can't help noticing in both compairisons there is an IMAGE QUALITY difference that goes beyond resolution. The squeeze mode is noticably brighter or at least whiter, and seems to have a different contrast ratio. I wonder what this comparison looks like when filming diverse color paterns...
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

If you're basing your question off the pictures I posted, then I'm not sure that's a valid concern... I didn't take both those shots.  Adam Wilt shot the squeeze chart, I shot the anamorphic.  So there's no way to know what image processing may have gone on, whether his paper was "whiter" than mine (that the chart was printed on), if he did any sort of level adjustment in post, etc.

If you look at JanBee's pictures, which are of the same piece of paper by the same shooter under the same light conditions, then the pictures seem much more similar, as far as whiteness and contrast, etc.

As an experiment, I brought my shot into photoshop and just did an "auto levels" adjustment, and it looks a lot more similar to adam's now:

AnamorphicResolutionChart2.JPG
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Those charts don't lie -- Great Post
I decided to go with the anamorphic because I use a DVX100 which does not have the squeeze-mode. I also feel I'm closer to my subject with the anamorphic optics (that may just be me though). What I'm wondering is, if I wanted to mix footage from the DVX100 using the anamorphic adapter with footage from the DVX100A in the squeeze-mode would the aspect ratios from each match up in editing .
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

The aspect racio is slightly, slightly different. But NO ONE will probably notice, I bet. I'd make sure that you mix footage for new scenes only (anything else makes no sense anyway).
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Hi JanBee,
I'm sorry, pardon my questioning I'm just a student :-/
What do you mean by new scenes only.
And, I thought Anamorphic was anamorphic.
Thanks for you help.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Yeah, there is a tiny difference in aspect ratio. I think the adapter is just a little wider than the letterbox/squeeze modes.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

Well, actually anamorphic means "you need to stretch one axis to get the aspect ratio you intended". If our target aspect ratio is 16:9 (=5,333:3) but want to use all pixels of a 4:3 frame we need to compress horizontically from 5.333(:3) to 4(:3), so by a factor of 1.333 (=5.333/4).

You can do that by either using an anamorphic lens or electronically (in the latter case not by compressing horizontically but by STRECHING vertically - streching, which is the reason why we lose resolution).

Now. No matter if you compress either or strech the other axis... you have to do it by a certain factor, and that factor should be constant when going from 16:9 to 4:3. But if there is any lens maker or algorithm writer who uses 1.3 instead of 1.333 (as an example) you have a slightly different frame. But no one will probably ever notice.

Its hard to tell if Panasonic was a little off the road with the STRECH function or with the anamorphic lens. They do not use exactly the same factor. But in my opinion that is of no matter.

BTW: This does not apply to letterboxed 16:9, which is just a 4:3 frame with black stripes on top and bottom to mask it as a 16:9 frame, and which "wastes" the storage room where the black stripes are... Its the kind of "evil" 16:9 ;D
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

student,

by new scenes I was thinking of: It is probably not that wise to cut a medium shot of a person (shot with the anamorphic) and a close-up of that person (shot with the Stretch function) directly together.

Maybe I'm wrong, and it'll pass unnoticed.

But at least if you have a new location, a new scene, I can't image that anyone will notice if you mix anamorphic lens with streched footage.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze og Anamorphic lens?

I understand now JanBee, thanks for the clarification. The reason I was wondering is because I 'm planning on using the DVX100(ana) and the DVX100a(squeeze) together shooting the same scene from two different angles. This could create a problem if the two angles are similar enough. With a slight difference in aspect ratio there could be a distracting. A quick fade from one angle to the other may help. Anyway thanks Barry and JanBee for all the tasty info.
 
Re: Once n' for all: Squeze or Anamorphic lens?

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

Hi,

I will be shooting a feature in a few days on the 100A to blow up to film, and have been madly doing tests and researching this anamorphic/squeeze/4:3 letterbox thing.

Here are thoughts based on tests:

As many have noted, in any wide(r) shot, you pretty much have to use anamorphic. The difference is noticeable (I'm using a 13" and 20" NTSC monitor). Squeeze on a wide shot is noticeably soft compared. You're better off using unadulterated 4:3 if you can't use the anamorphic, because at least you're leaving the image alone from electronic manipulation (this is assuming you have the capacity to properly on-line your footage uncompressed from your source tape for a film blowup...if you're just dumping it into FinalCut, for example, for television playback, squeeze is fine. But if you are going to film and doing a proper blow-up, ask yourself: do you want a $5000 camera electronically fooling with your image or a $100 000 machine at your lab at the end of the line?) And as Barry points out, squeeze is letterbox anyways. And for me, the 4:3 in the wider shots was cleaner than the squeeze.

Getting back to anamorphic: "wider" means anything from 0 zoom to about 60-70 zoom on the anamorphic. But that leads to the next issue:

As you lose the 30% telephoto capacity using the ana, the "telephoto" capabilities of the 100A become very limited. In fact, to call shots at the far end of the zoom "telephoto" with an ana attached is a bit of an exaggeration. I worked out that a full zoom (z99) with the ana attached is a mere 237mm (35mmstill equivalent), and because of the problems of the ana at that zoom length, you can't really use it that way, unless you're outside with tons of light, stopped down to below f8-11. So a fair range to use it before the light demands get too hard is to about z80 (hard meaning the light demands get far more significant: I'm thinking when you're inside lighting for faces, for example.) But the problem is that z80 is only about a 117mm (35mm still). Not too "telephoto."

I've done exterior tests full telephoto (80-99) with the ana, squeeze and 4:3 letterboxed, and found virtually no difference when you're stopped (f11-16) down between the three. If I did see a difference, I would have to say that the 4:3 looked a bit cleaner than the other two. But it's hard to say. In that situation, the question is more how telephoto you want to go. Remember: the ana at z99 is equal to about z84 on the straight lens.

Also, I also shot squeeze and 4:3 with the Century 1.6x telephoto add-on, and the results were quite good. And that's the thing: if you want even semi-dramatic telephoto effect, you're not going to get it with the anamorphic, and I'd say, at this time based on my EXTERIOR tests, you're best shooting straight clean 4:3 and cropping it in the lab (although take into account you're detail and movement).

This is really a part I discussion, because I'll be doing my lower light interior telephoto tests tomorrow and see how they respond. My rationale is that the look or texture in telephoto generally in all video is more pleasing and better looking than the wides, particularly if you're not shooting difficult vertical lines or excessively detailed situations. So you can get away with more, and that's where I think I may use the anamorphic up until about z70, and then anything where I want to compress and get a more telephoto effect while maintaining a more open aperture, take off the ana and use straight 4:3 and crop in the lab.

A closeup, for example (standard, not ECU) at about 10-11 ft (focus # 74) from the subject with the ana attached (about z90+), with a full diffused 400w key at about 6 feet; my camera was exposing ok wide open. But according to Wilt's critical focus chart, I should have been at f8!! That's a bit of a pain to work with in a pinch, 5 stops 'under.'

That woman DP (forgot her name) on "November" shot with a Pan 100, and she didn't mention anything about using an anamorphic. And she got a bunch of acclaim for her shooting. What she did say, importantly, is that she shot most of the film in telephoto with shallow depth of field...I think she said "there were only about 3 wide shots." I think this is key.

Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks.

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

Hey Bill,

there is nothing to be added. You're absolutely right, this exactly is our strategy in our upcoming film: Using the anamorphic for wide and medium shots only - and having a tendency to use more tele shots anyway (basically because of the shallower depth of field!).

And another good thing is, this made it easier for me to think about a solution how to use filters for the anamorphic: I just DON'T. If I really need a filter in a wide shot (which I hardly do), I just take the anamorphic OFF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top