quick question
- Thread starter Evan S
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
It's how the DVX100A shoots 16:9 footage. Normal mode is 4:3, Squeeze mode is 16:9.
Barry_Green
Moderator
"Squeeze" should probably be more appropriately named "stretch" mode. It takes the letterbox image and stretches it vertically to fill the full frame. It converts the 4:3 footage into 16:9 by chopping off the top and bottom.
As to whether you "lose quality" -- well, that's a subjective question. It's creating something that wouldn't otherwise exist. So is that "lower quality"? Lower, as compared to what? Your only other option is 4:3 (from the DVX).
Squeeze mode does a great job in conversion and retains a tremendous amount of resolution (provided you only use it in progressive-scan mode, with THIN line detail). For example, I shot a resolution chart on a DVX in 24p/THIN/Squeeze, and also on a Sony FX1 in DV mode using its "native 16:9" CCD. The squeeze footage is just as high-resolution as the native 16:9 footage from the interlaced FX1!
A pure progressive 16:9 chip would deliver more resolution than Squeeze, yes. The XL2 in progressive mode with "norm" vertical detail is higher-resolution than Squeeze footage. But Squeeze is as high-resolution as you'd get from any interlaced camera.
In short: it's not the same as having a native 16:9 CCD, but it's as good or better than any other 1/3" camera can deliver in 16:9 mode excepting only the XL2.
As to whether you "lose quality" -- well, that's a subjective question. It's creating something that wouldn't otherwise exist. So is that "lower quality"? Lower, as compared to what? Your only other option is 4:3 (from the DVX).
Squeeze mode does a great job in conversion and retains a tremendous amount of resolution (provided you only use it in progressive-scan mode, with THIN line detail). For example, I shot a resolution chart on a DVX in 24p/THIN/Squeeze, and also on a Sony FX1 in DV mode using its "native 16:9" CCD. The squeeze footage is just as high-resolution as the native 16:9 footage from the interlaced FX1!
A pure progressive 16:9 chip would deliver more resolution than Squeeze, yes. The XL2 in progressive mode with "norm" vertical detail is higher-resolution than Squeeze footage. But Squeeze is as high-resolution as you'd get from any interlaced camera.
In short: it's not the same as having a native 16:9 CCD, but it's as good or better than any other 1/3" camera can deliver in 16:9 mode excepting only the XL2.
Barry_Green
Moderator
If the monitor you're using is 16:9-shaped, then yes you'll see the image in its proper aspect ratio.Shadow said:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Squeeze is infinitely more convenient; anamorphic gives you about 33% more resolution when properly used.
When not used properly, the anamorphic makes footage blurry. So it's important to take the care to use it properly. And if you do, it delivers significantly more resolution. But it has substantial drawbacks to it as well.
When not used properly, the anamorphic makes footage blurry. So it's important to take the care to use it properly. And if you do, it delivers significantly more resolution. But it has substantial drawbacks to it as well.
HorseFilms
Look ma no hands
The more I shoot in squeeze mode, the more I'm really liking it.
Thanks, Barry.
When you say "not used properly," what aspects of the anamorphic are you talking about?
Not attaching properly, not focusing properly, etc.?
An answer to this would be particularly helpful because we are right now trying to decide whether to purchase the adapter or not.
And -- is all this info about anamorphic in the DVX book?
Thanks for your help,
Jesse
When you say "not used properly," what aspects of the anamorphic are you talking about?
Not attaching properly, not focusing properly, etc.?
An answer to this would be particularly helpful because we are right now trying to decide whether to purchase the adapter or not.
And -- is all this info about anamorphic in the DVX book?
Thanks for your help,
Jesse
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, it's all in there. I spent about 34 pages talking about the anamorphic adapter. It would be difficult to summarize here, I would refer you to the book (if you have it).
If you don't have it, I would say "do not consider shooting with the anamorphic adapter without reading that book first". Not just to push my own product, but seriously -- the anamorphic can yield awful results if you don't know how it works and how to get the best from it. The book has charts and methods and techniques that explain all you need to know to get it to perform to its best. Basically it requires you to work at certain focal length and aperture combinations -- if you operate outside of those restrictions, your footage will be irretrievably out of focus. You have to know the rules, the ranges, the combinations in order to get it to work properly in whatever circumstance you happen to be shooting under.
Like I said, that chapter occupies about 34 pages. Once you've read it and understand it, and know what you need to do, then it can be summarized with a few lookup tables.
If you don't have it, I would say "do not consider shooting with the anamorphic adapter without reading that book first". Not just to push my own product, but seriously -- the anamorphic can yield awful results if you don't know how it works and how to get the best from it. The book has charts and methods and techniques that explain all you need to know to get it to perform to its best. Basically it requires you to work at certain focal length and aperture combinations -- if you operate outside of those restrictions, your footage will be irretrievably out of focus. You have to know the rules, the ranges, the combinations in order to get it to work properly in whatever circumstance you happen to be shooting under.
Like I said, that chapter occupies about 34 pages. Once you've read it and understand it, and know what you need to do, then it can be summarized with a few lookup tables.