Squeeze vs. Letter Box

I've done everything in letterbox. Then not long ago a tried squeeze. It is not bad at all. The next time I tried letterbox again. Both are good.
 
There are several threads discussing this in more detail. I have always used letterbox but if you search the site you will find tons of information. :beer:
 
As for the letter-boxed vs squeeze question, I have experimented with both and have projected examples of both on a large screen just to see the differences. Personally, I could see no difference in resolution or quality in the images. To me, it was six of one or half a dozen of the other. The advantage of squeeze mode, as WR stated, is that squeeze is easier and faster to edit. Simply capture into a 16:9 timeline and go to it. Letter-boxing adds the necessity of cropping each and every clip to size then zoom to fit the screen. If it's just something short, it might be okay. But if you're working on anything of length, letter-boxing adds to the amount of work needed to complete the project. Letterboxing is actually shooting 4:3 with bars at the top and bottom. If you're going to do that, then just shoot 4:3 to begin with, then letter-box in post so that you have a bit more control over the final framing of your shots. Personally, I'm too lazy for all that work. Squeeze mode does all I need, has more than adequate resolution and is easy to work with. Of course, this is just my two cents worth. You gotta make your own decisions as to what you want.
 
Between squeeze and letterbox, in almost every case, squeeze, hands-down, no question. Especially if you have any notion of making a widescreen DVD.
 
I like letterbox because you can output to a standard TV and see your image without being squeezed.

I have shot the 2 latest dvxfest movies in squeeze as recommended, and found that color correction and effects are easier because you don't have to worry about coloring the "black bars" of a letterboxed (4:3) image.

If I'm doing a test that I'm playing back from the cam onto a standard tv, I use letterbox, but for "real" shooting, I use squeeze.
 
yeehaanow said:
and found that color correction and effects are easier because you don't have to worry about coloring the "black bars" of a letterboxed (4:3) image.
Click to expand...

That is a major issue. It also applies to things like transitions or FX which distort the image shape.

You'll also find that squeeze makes sharper widescreen DVDs than cropped letterbox footage. All other things being equal, of course.
 
Buying a monitor that can show you 16:9 and 4:3 is one of the best investments you can make. It makes shooting squeeze a lot easier.

Now that so many people are moving to HD, you should be able to find a 9" SD production monitor for a few hundred bucks. Then you also get overscan and blue gun, which come in very handy.
 
From Kino-Eye:
Shooting 4:3 or 16:9 letterboxed within the 4:3 frame assures it plays on every TV, if you choose squeeze, you limit your screening to televisions and projectors capable of 16:9, which is not yet universal, also, some experts suggest even if you want squeeze, the scalers you can use in post will do a better job than the scaler built into the camera for creating a squeezed 16:9 version. Shoot 4:3 with vertical detail set to thin and you will get the best up-convert to 16:9 HD or film out possible. And while it’s more work to do the squeeze in post, the creative advantage is you can correct framing slightly up or down in post, so you might even consider shooting 4:3 even if your final destination is a 16:9 video.
 
NoNoob said:
From Kino-Eye:
Shooting 4:3 or 16:9 letterboxed within the 4:3 frame assures it plays on every TV, if you choose squeeze, you limit your screening to televisions and projectors capable of 16:9, which is not yet universa
Click to expand...


That's ONLY if you're playing the raw footage straight from the tape. Most people don't do that. Most people go through some kind of post and export for computer/web playback or for DVD, in which case the above is not an issue.

The footage on any current Hollywood DVD is "squeeze" footage; a properly-set DVD player has no problem displaying it with letterbox bars on a 4:3 TV.

If, after post, you want to go back to DV tape and have it display properly on a 4:3 TV, you can choose to letterbox the footage then.

also, some experts suggest even if you want squeeze, the scalers you can use in post will do a better job than the scaler built into the camera for creating a squeezed 16:9 version.
Click to expand...
This has been covered on this board quite a few times before. It's not so in most cases. The DVX takes the raw signal and does its processing from that. Any NLE doing the scaling is working from the processed, compressed DV image, which has much less to work with than the pre-DPS signal.


Shoot 4:3 with vertical detail set to thin and you will get the best up-convert to 16:9 HD or film out possible. And while it’s more work to do the squeeze in post, the creative advantage is you can correct framing slightly up or down in post, so you might even consider shooting 4:3 even if your final destination is a 16:9 video.
Click to expand...
I would recommend this fully when debating whether to shoot full-frame 4:3 or letterbox, as are your only options on the original DVX100 (non-A or B). But not between squeeze and letterbox.
 
That quote from Kino•Eye was something I ran into there while researching something else.
Thought to post it here for discussion.

The chip in our DVX's is 4:3, with a horizontal resolution of approximately 500 lines.
When switched to 'letterbox' the scene is electronically limited to a little over 300 lines of that resolution.
[feel free to correct me if I am in error- please]

Is the same not true when switched to 'squeeze' mode?
And, isn't the use of the $900+ Panasonic Anamorphic Adapter important to the end results?

Maybe the best thing to do is shoot just 4:3 all the time and add a mask in post (which is really easy to do)?
Or, mask the video at the matte box during actual production?

On the matter of being switched 'electronically'- the change is not a property of a physical change at the image plane, right?

Thanks for answering these questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top