Shoot 4:3 or 16:9 anamorphic?

P

Patch2000

Member
I just purchased a DVX100B, I should be getting it this week, I'm very excited.
I have never shot with this camera before, I have used the Sony PD150 up until now.

My question is what aspect ratio should I shoot. I want to be able to offer my clients
2 versions of the final master. A 4:3 letterbox version and a 16:9 anamorphic version.
The reason for this is that I feel by having 2 versions, their masters will have longer
shelf life. Also if they want to re-use some of the footage as stock footage in the future, it will be much more advantagious if it is 16:9 anamorphic.

I have read on these forums that some people have said to shoot 4:3 full frame and
then letterbox the video in post. I understand that this gives you the flexibility in post to move the image up or down to give you the best framing possible. I have done this many times when creating 4:3 letterbox masters. The problem is when you scale up to create 16:9 anamorphic you loose alot of resolution. Isn't it better resolution wise, to shoot 16:9 anamorphic in the field and then create a 4:3 letterbox in post?

I undertand that the DVX100B does a stretched squeeze and that the camera is not
native 16:9 , but I still I feel I will get the best quality for 16:9 anamorphic if I shoot that way in the field.

Any thoughts?

Patch2000
 
upconverting the footage to 16:9 in post will not visually lose you any more information than shooting 16:9 squeeze. I rarely will shoot something 16:9 in camera, and 95% of my work is presented "widescreen". It just gives you more options in post, like reframing the image.
 
Patch2000 said:
... The problem is when you scale up to create 16:9 anamorphic you loose alot of resolution.
Click to expand...
YOur camera creates it the same way as you alluded to when shooting in squeeze mode.

Squeeze vs. Blowing up in your NLE should be a close call with most NLE's coming out slightly ahead as a little better, because your big 'ol computer taking its time to scale should be better than your camera doing it in real time.

FCP for example is pretty decent at doing this. I actually blow tons of stuff up to 200% or more for just aesthetic reasons and if its properly exposed and lit you can do a lot before. But I think Vegas, which is not as good for compositing, doesn't do as well as FCP so it might be a closer call.

Q: Do you have Barry's book? All of this is at the end of the book and he discusses in detail the various resolutions. For example he higly recommends blowing up in post for filmmout because the NLE may have a higher resolution scalling anyway PLUS if you shoot squeeze then you would have to blow ups, but just doing it in post gives you a cleaner starting point.

If you don't have barry's book you should get it. You'll get 10% as much out of your camera without it.

Squeeze or Blowing up in your NLE should still produce as high a resolution or more as consumer SD TV will display.
 
Last edited:
actually vegas is pretty good for composiitng. i ont know how ot use it... but ihave been reading, and aprenttly if you know what your doing it s good.

look up Vasst.com. DAvid Jimerson's site.
 
Thanks for the info guys you guys are a great help.
I have bought Barry's book but it's still on order.

Another question and I know this has been talked about to death,
but if I'm planning to end up with 16:9 anamorphic masters, should
I buy the 16:9 lens adapter?. I really hate 4:3 and plan to push 16:9
anamorphic as much as possible to my clients because that is the future.
Also I would prefer if my Camera Originals are 16:9 anamorphic.
I know I have heard that the 16: 9 lens adapter is a lot harder to focus with
and this would be a big concern for me. I usually shoot run and gun
and don't have alot of time fiddling with the focus. Focusing was the thing I hated
the most with the PD 150.

Is the 16:9 lens adapter that much sharper than the squeeze mode?

Patch2000
 
yes is mutch sharper but this is a HUGE can of worms .. you should search "Anamorphic Adaptor"

sometimes the search doesn't work for stuf since we changed servers, but google does, it will direct you to old DVXuser threads.

Look at Shed on my website for an all anamorphic movie.
Look for "field theory" on this website
http://www.deadkidz.com/
for stunningly sharp anamorphic footage
Look at Odd Squad in my website for Anamorphic extablishing shots, 35mm adpator closeups, and stock lens run and gun all edited together.

But the short answer is with teh Ananmorphic you can't use auto focus and you can't focus by eye and you can't run and gun and suddenly like a film camera you have to worry about what your exposure settings are to get critical focus. Big pain. Although I use it on occasion.
 
Again thanks for the info Jack, you have been very helpful.
I guess my best bet is to rent one and see if I like it or not.

Thanks
Patch2000
 
I just checked out your deadkidz website, the videos are really cool. The images
are amazing, were all of the videos were shot with a DVXB100?
Another question did you shoot everything 24P?

Patch2000
 
ahhh deadkidz not me ...
but yes those were 24p or pA I woudl imagine and shot with the anamorphic
I meant look at Shed on MY website for an all anamorphic. My website is linked from ny sigantures below (french quarter features.com)
 
are you a member of Deadkidz?

i just took issue with the video of the guys pissing off the old lady. Thats very unprofessional thing to post along side your work.
 
deadkidz isn't really our "work" its more of an outlet for us. a place to showcase our twenty something angst. we all live in new york and are working "professionals" in our respective fields. we also have pictures of topless girls on the site.

jesse
 
jessecoane said:
deadkidz isn't really our "work" its more of an outlet for us. a place to showcase our twenty something angst. we all live in new york and are working "professionals" in our respective fields. we also have pictures of topless girls on the site.

jesse
Click to expand...


i respect that. No hard feelings. i apologise again for speaking aggresively unneccesarily. :)

The production quality is pretty good though i must admit.
 
jessecoane said:
Oh and the only thing on our site shot with the anamorphic adapter is "field theory" The rest were cropped 4x3.
Click to expand...

yeah those roof top shots are mad sharp - the deep focus really works with the shots of the bridge and all.
 
ya i got to say we were really lucky with that whole project. dvx loves overcast days. The sky was a like a big soft box.

And TimurCivan, no hard feelings at all. I'm glad I found the thread and we could talk about it. You're reaction was totally normal. I mean look at the site. Its very abrasive.

jesse
 
Well, I have wondered before from your guy's site if you were complete sociopaths or just shining that on :cheesy:

but anyone that beats a guy up with a giant fish and jumps out of shower curtains rapping and wearing fake gold teeth is cool in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top