Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

I suppose we should then say, "I'm shooting in *about* widescreen, not really, but it's close enough!" :P

I didn't know that Premiere had a slightly different widescreen ratio than other programs, and that other programs ALSO do widescreen differently than what would truly come out as a 16:9 ratio. Weird...

I guess I'll just stay with the good old bars! Heck, I'm sticking to a 2.35:1 matte! Or should I use 2.39? Or 2.40?? :P
 
Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

I think when the posts above say "360 x 480" they really mean "720x360"... perhaps this is the cause of some of the confusion? When cropping to 16:9, you don't change the width of the image, just the height - unless you want to lose more quality than necessary...

-Barry
 
Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

You are correct. The 16x9-shaped image should be derived from a 720x360 frame (in NTSC, of course).
 
Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

Good thread. I think what I'm writing is related...

I set out today to cut a custom 16x9 template out of plastic for the camera's LCD. The problem I immediately noticed was that a template covers important shooting data such as the audio meters.

Taping the field monitor off to 16x9 is easy enough, but I need the use of the LCD for steadicam work.

Does the following sound like a good project workflow?

1. Shoot with the in-camera letterbox option, thus eliminating the need for an LCD template.
2. Cut/remove the matte in FCP creating a native (looking) widescreen image. The video at this point would no longer be 720x480, but 720x360. (On the other hand could I just import the footage into a 720x360 timeline and center the image?)
3. Edit.
4. Lock edit.
5. Create a new 4x3 sequence.
6. Place the nested 720x360 sequence into the 4x3 sequence. The video will automatically be letterboxed.

I feel like I will be going to much trouble in order to create a letterboxed 16x9 image, but I guess that's how it goes.

My purpose for not editing with the camera's built in 16x9 matte is that I don't want the matte to bleed into the picture when applying effects, etc.

As I re-read my post a third I think the workflow I outlined is the same as the workflow outlined a few posts up. The difference is I want to remove the in-camera matte as a first step.

Thank you. I hope this is relevant to the discussion.

SamG
 
Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

Don't bother ever removing the in-camera matte. Just edit the video as 4x3 and lock it. If you want to add a matte on at the end you can, but why bother?
 
Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

Just a thought, but couldn't you tape the LCD off with a semi-transparent tape of sorts? Best of both worlds :D
 
Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

This is a question is a bit off-subject to this thread, but definated related.

Has anyone else here worked with other Digital Video standards that accept 16:9 without squeezing the image into the tape and stretching it in the projection.

Do I have to use HD deck to get a true 16:9 written to the tape? I think Windows Media format can do this also, but I would like to know if DVCAM or DVPro formats can handle it.

Personally, I wouldn't want to edit anything in squeezed format -- god only knows what's going on in the NLE when text (let alone color correction) is being added to them.

I'd capture the stream in squeezed form, output it to a true square pixel 16:9, edit it, then output it back to a new medium that fully supports 16:9.
 
Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

It doesn't work that way.

HD is the only square-pixel format. All other formats use non-square pixels, or no pixels at all.

A DSR570WS or an SDX900 both use 16:9-shaped 2/3" CCD's, and they record full-resolution native 16:9 video at 720x480. That's just how it works. If you play it back on a widescreen TV, it will display properly, by interpreting the pixels as wider than they are tall. If you play it on a 4:3 TV, it will look squished. But it's the same data on the tape.

Televisions don't have pixels (well, I'm talking about conventional TV's, not LCD's etc). The pixels are interpreted and displayed. The aspect ratio of each pixel is interpreted by the television.

DV, DVCAM, and DVCPRO are all perfectly capable of natively recording 16:9-shaped video from a native 16:9-shaped CCD... but they will record it at 720x480, because that's what DV is. And it's not "squished" or "squeezed", it's just the pixel array that's used.

HD uses square pixels. No DV (or other standard-definition) video format uses square pixels, whether for 4:3 or 16:9, whether Digital Betacam or DVCAM or DVCPRO or MPEG-IMX or BetacamSX. And, of course, no analog system uses pixels at all (like BetaSP or Hi8 or VHS or whatever else).
 
Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

I shot a feature w/ the DVX and the issue of renting an anamorphic adapter came up and we ended up rejecting it due to cost and light loss. I have heard that there is a 1 stop loss w/ the adapter, and with the night exteriors, doubling the light would have have been difficult. Difficult with a doccumentary as well I assume.

-j
 
Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem


I am surprized that those upper end models do not support higher resolution. Should have known better I guess. Anyone have any ideas about the different formats that get projected during festivals?

However, there's really nothing stoping me from uprezzing the images I capture from my DVX to HD standard format. The only real problem is the HD standard that I'd have to conform to. And of course the aliasing problems, and among whole other bag of problems that come with uprezzing.
 
Re: Squeeze .vs Letterbox - Technical Theorem

[quote author=j link=board=Events;num=1076431425;start=25#48 date=02/21/04 at 00:25:35]I have heard that there is a 1 stop loss w/ the adapter,[/quote]

I don't believe that's accurate -- I've never noticed any darkening of the image with the anamorphic. In fact, when using the mini35, we double-shot some scenes with the DVX&anamorphic combo, and when using that combination we had to actually stop down 4 stops to match the exposure we were getting with the mini35 at wide-open.

I don't think there's any light loss when using the anamorphic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top