squeeze or letterbox

J

johnnylanz

Member
I have to decide on squeeze or letter box, I'm gonna shoot 24p- I want to be able to blow up to film - be ready for festivals, and TV market, and DVD
what is the best choice for the dvx 100b in todays market for a doc ...is there a advantage to letterbox?

Thanks+
Johnny Lanz
 
squeeze or letterbox

squeeze or letterbox which is better for post and film blow up Im shooting a doc with a 100b

Johnny Lanz
 
I would not use letterbox, you can always add that in post, but make sure to mask off the LCD screen so you can compose for 16:9 within the 4X3 image. Squeeze on the DVX I am unfamiliar with, not sure if it really changes the field of View. DO a test, switch between the two, if you see a change in the field of view ( ie you see more on the left and right of frame ) then use that function. If you DO NOT see any change (ie the frame is the same exact frame in both squeezed and unsqueezed just in a 16:9 ratio) then don't use it.

Hope I've made sense

Allen
 
letterbox

letterbox

whats the difference between letterbox and normal according to Barrys book letterbox is better for hd up rez and film blowup why is it better then normal if letterbox could be done in post
 
There is a third option, too, the anamorphic adaptor. That tops any other method in terms of quality.

Have you tested SQUEEZE compared to 4:3 uprezzed to 16:9 in post. You might be surprised, but you won't know unless you test your shooting and settings and your post process.

What is the realistic chance of you actually doing a "film out" of this video? It's usually very slim, unless you know in advance you have the funding to do it.

One thing you need to decide is: what is your primary target market? TV, DVD, or festivals? SD TV would dictate a 4:3 workflow, maybe shoot 4:3 and letterbox in post. DVD would lean towards SQUEEZE for a pure 16:9 workflow. Festivals all have different screening requirements you won't be able to predict (and few require film out), so they goal there is to just shoot and color correct the best you can, and hope (because projections vary wildly in quality, another thing you won't be able to predict or control).
 
Letterbox, considering that a third of the image is just black bars, is a much simpler image for DV to compress. Think of it as more of those precious bits are going to the actual image, instead of being wasted on rendering sections of the image you're only going to mask off in post, anyway.

However, it's a marginal improvement, and your stuck with the letterbox you get, so you better nail those shots the first time.
 
Shoot 4:3. Letterbox in post.

You can then leave it 4:3 letterbox or blow it up to 16X9 in your NLE

Depending on your NLE blowing up to 16X9 there is either comparable or better resolution to in camera squeeze.

Also you can reframe in post - i.e. move the image up or down for perfect framing behind the letterbox outside the 16X9 bounds.

So for image quality 4:3 letterbox is better than squeeze, resolution is comparible but there is no scaling.

Blowing up your image in post depending on your NLE will be about the same as squeeze or better in terms of resolution and damaging the image.

So about the worst thing you can do is shoot squeeze in camera. It leaves you less options in post and will hurt your image as bad, or maybe slightly worse than anything you do to it in post.

Finally the film that won best cinematography at Sundance in 04' or 05' was shot on a DVX100 (not A or B) in 4:3 and letterboxed in post, then blown up to 16X9.

Shooting 4:3 to letterbox in post preserves the most options and won't hurt your image more than shooting squeeze and will probably hurt it less.

The only reason to shoot squeeze IMHO is for easy work flow like in a 48hour film contest, or when you are submitting to someone who wants you to hand them a tape of 16X9 footage.
 
Ummm I would use squeeze... but Barry's book says not to, and I hope I don't get flamed for it.
Isn't squeeze 720x480 with a 1.2 PAR while letterbox is a 720x360 with a .9 PAR? Therefore you get more resolution with squeeze.
 
No. On an HVX in DV mode yes. On a DVX. No.

Squeeze is not 720X480 with 1.2 PAR. Its 720X360 blown up to 720X480. But the camera has not recorded 720X480 at 1.2, it's only recorded the center 360 or so, which gets stretched vertically (so the name Squeeze is a technical misnomer, but its called that because it looks squeezed)

DISCLAIMER: Not yelling in Bold and Caps, only using to highlight the key points as the post is long and wordy.

If squeeze gave you 500 lines of resolution the camera would be a native 16X9 camera and we would never be having this conversation at all. And Panasonic would have never have made and sold the $700 anamorphic adapter, which is the only way to get true 1.2 pixel (ultimately) 500 line resolution in 16X9 out of the DVX.

The XL2 does that. The HVX does that. The DVX does not.

The chipset for the DVX is native .9 pixel aspect or 4:3, to get 1.2 and 16X9 it fudges the image. While letterboxing does not work against the native chip set. It just covers part of the image.

Squeeze and Letterboxing in camera or in post both use only the center 270-300 lines or so out of 500.

So they are the same resolution more or less but letterboxing may provide more resolution because it manipulates the center portion of the image less.

While squeeze ultimately outputs actual 16X9 shaped footage with a 1.2 pixel aspect ratio as you pointed out, it gets there by throwing away information and strecthing and distorting what is left. It blows up 300 lines to occupy the space the top and bottom 100 lines each it threw away. Bad.

And while Letterboxing only gives you Square video with .9 pixel aspect ratio as you pointed out, again, it is not blowing up or stretching anything.

So squeeze throws away part of the image and then twists and distorts that same center information that letterboxing leaves untouched ...

Letterboxing is just showing you the center 270 or 300 lines which look exactly the same as they would whether you letterbox or not. Think of the letterbox as wearing a black hat and socks. Take them off and your jeans and t-shirt still have the same thread count ... there's just more to see ... put the black hat and socks on, now you no longer see your head or feet but your middle is exactly the same ...

... As opposed to squueeze which lops your head and feet off then stretches your middle out over the same place. Now the thread count in your jeans and Tshirt is streched and pulled and actually less resolution over the whole area.

....

But ... say you want actual 1.2 pixel aspect ratio true 16X9 video ultimately. In otherwords, not letterboxed in a 4:3 but actual 16X9 shaped video. When you hand it to a Movie Exec on a DVD you want him to put it in his DVD player and play it on his widescreen plasma in full widescreen. Or you are going to blow up to film or project your video and want it to be 16X9 shaped. Should you shoot squeeze then. As I said in my previous post: NO.

Your much more viable options are as follows and are captioned under the heading BLOW IT UP IN POST:
1) blow it up in your NLE
2) Use Magic Bullet instant HD to blow it up (not worth it if you have FCP, FCP does the same job)
3) Use photozoom pro to blow it up frame by frame in post (very time consuming and space consuming)
4) Use real time blow up to get to 16X9 when transferring from one media to another. Can be expensive.

"But Jack," you say "aren't you blowing up the center area again? Twisting and distorting it just like you said squeeze did?"

The answer is yes ... and no.

The difference is that squeeze uses the tiny 1/3' inch chips to blow that up over 500 lines. It just doesn't do as good a job as FCP or Instant HD. It can't. It has a fraction of the power of your computer and graphics card and most of that is devoted to taking in tons of video information and compressing it within an inch of its life.

And it can't even come close to the Photo Zoom Pro process which actually seems to add (perceived) resolution.

I've never tried method 4, the real time blow up, but its what THE FILM THAT WON THE CINEMATOGRAPHY AWARD ON A DVX AT SUNDANCE DID.

If you letterbox in post you can keep those 270 lines untouched in a 4:3 frame and you have actually not "hurt" your resolution in terms of the max resolution that the camera is capable of recording . You could even change your mind and stay 4:3. But YOU HAVE THE CLEANEST STARTING POINT FOR ALL YOUR POST FILTERING ETC. INCLUDING BLOWING UP TO 16X9. A MUCH CLEANER IMAGE THAN SQUEEZE CAN GIVE YOU.

So again
- cleaner, undistorted video to post with
- the option of reframing in post
- the same amount of information as squeeze only not distorted which leads to a slighlty higher resolution
- preserves the most options / allows you to change your mind in post

.... means squeeze is good for handing off a tape to someone else that wants to use it in a 16X9 project without processing it, or for a 24 or 48 or 72 hour film contest or similarly time constricted situation, and that is about it

Of course if you are really worried about resolution and want true 16X9 shoot with the anamorphic adaptor ... THAT does give you true 1.2 pixel aspect, 16X9 shaped video out of the DVX because it distorts the image optically before it gets to the lens / sensors. And that is all fine and good because now the sensors are recording on all 500 lines, so the space that would be between your black bars on a 4:3 TV is actually 500 lines. But the trade offs are - much more time in focusing, you need and external monitor, and you can use absolutely no other lens accessories over the anamorphic adapter.
 
Last edited:
Some do some don't.

Turn on letterboxing in your camera, then you can cut and place some quality gaff tape over the LCD.

Or buy these:
http://www.evsonline.com/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=SSDVX

or these:
http://www.aspectcorrect.com/product/cameras/DVX100Bframe.htm?=DVX100B.htm


I kind of prefer the clear Aspect Correct (second link) because there is a line which tells you where to frame but you can still see behind it. So if there is something juicey there then you can pan up or down to get it in between what will eventually be black bars.

Now in terms of image quality, letterboxing in camera is the same as doing it in post, but why throw away the freedom doing it in post allows you.
 
Jack

Thanks
we're shooting family history I'm a performer Actor writer ...so its important to have mask on lcd- when going to 16:9 from 4:3 you lose on top and bottom- so when I shoot without it I have to be careful on closeups to have a wider shot
 
So just use one of the above methods. Again you can use the in camera black bars for reference when placing gaff tape. Also remember that while, yes you do loose the top and bottom, if you letterbox in post you can reframe and move up and down to feature aunt Gladys's lovely hat if you choose, so don't freak out about it too much. :)
 
I dont know what other people are doing but you should check out Boris Continuem Completes new Uprezer. It works better then InstantHD in my opinion, and if you play around with it you can get AMAZING results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top