Squeeze v. Letterbox

L

LittlePush01

New member
Hello everyone,

I've had a DVX100b for a few months now, doing little projects, but am finally gearing up to do longer format shortfilm with some friends this summer.

Long story short: I can't decide whether to use Squeeze or Letterbox. I don't have the funds for a 35mm adapter yet, but this is a serious, shoestring effort at filmmaking, something we'd be able to show other people and submit to smaller festivals.

If I understand my research correctly, both modes lose resolution, with Letterbox not appropirate for widescreen televisions, and Squeeze being lousy for an up-rez job.

So, I'm just looking for a few opinions. If it matters, we'll be shooting in 24p and doing post in FCP.

Thanks!

LittlePush01
 
I assume you shoot in 16.9 widescreen, edit and master completely in original format. Then output to whatever format the festival wants. 16.9 anamorphic , 4.3 letterbox or Full Frame center cut.(squeeze)
4.3 LB will change the aspect ratio while squeeze will zoom in and you will lose your sides of the frame.
LB is better accepted than FF because it preserves your framing, you need to shoot with FF in mind.

Deliver in 16.9 1.7.8 widescreen and convert to what is required.
CHEERS
 
Last edited:
Come On! Squeeze is the way to go. Letterbox sucks. It is another name of 4:3 mode with 25% Top-Bottom lost ...

In camera Squeeze is the best way to get 16:9 footage. Must shoot in Progressive mode with VerticalDetail-Thin.
 
Squeeze.

The only time letterbox is actually useful is if you have to play to a standard 4:3 TV straight from the tape.

If you take it into post at ALL, letterbox gives you nothing that you can't do better yourself. If widescreen is what you want, shoot squeeze.
 
Shoot squeeze, edit in post, export as follows:

h.264, 872x486, square pixels, best quality, multipass encoding

Burn that as a widescreen DVD and you'll be able to watch full screen on an HDTV or letterboxed on a 4:3 TV.
 
That's not really going to be your best choice for DVD. :) H.264 is highly compressed and will have to be re-compressed to MPEG-2 for DVD, and it's the wrong frame size (as well as pixel shape) for DVD.

Best choices for DVD, which will give you the highest-quality image (fewest recompression steps):

1) Author in a program which allows you to open your editing project in the DVD program. You will then be using the original files. However, the next option offers you more direct control over the render --

2) Render as MPEG-2 already optimized for DVD (720x480, 1.21 pixel if widescreen; variable bitrate of 6500 to about 8500. Two-pass can only help.) This is what any DVD authoring program is going to do to any other type of footage anyway, so you might as well make it yourself from the original source footage; it's the best quality you can get. You can make a straight 24p (no pulldown) file -- and this is the better way to go if you have 24p footage and edited as 24p.

3) Render as uncompressed -- either with the same frame size/pixel as the MPEG-2, or as 874x480 with square. Again, you can make this straight 24p, no pulldown.

4) Render as DV (widescreen if widescreen). If it's 24p footage and you want the authoring program to make a 24p DVD, you would usually use 2:3:3:2 pulldown, but check with the program for certain. This is a recompression step, but at least it's to the same codec as you started with and probably most of the footage you didn't do anything to (no FX, cuts, etc.) won't have to be recompressed at all.
 
I agree never shoot in 4.3 LB that is a delivery option. Shoot with whatever preserves your original aspect ratio and that would be squeeze if you only have a choice of letterbox , edit native, then deliver in what format is requested

Delivery.
That is what they ask for if not HD specs.
The television SD standards we are asked to deliver to NBC Universal is 4.3 LB or widescreen 16.9
FF / Squeeze is done by the networks themselves, and some shows play LB if native 16.9 to preserve the aspect ratio.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
And you'll want to shoot 24pA from what I understand, at least if you are going to transfer it to film (I shoot 24pA regardless). Of course, if a 35mm adapter is out of your price range, the cost of transferring to film will present its own financial challenge...it ain't cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top