Still don't git it.

T

The_Hermitt

New member
Well, uhm...

I guess I'm still not clear as to what is better. I own a DVX100A and want to know if it's better to shoot with the sqeeze mode, with the letter box mode, or with an anamorphic
Lens. If I wanted to blow it up to 35, what would be the best choice.
 
Re: Still don't git it.

I'm no expert, but from what I gather the order of acceptability is:

1. Anamorphic lens

2. Squeeze Mode

3. Letterbox Mode (the reason why this is the least acceptable way to do it is that it just adds black to the top and bottom of the screen, which you could do in post and have more control of the composition.)
 
Re: Still don't git it.

With a 4:3 CCD (found in all prosumer camcorders) the camera scans only the middle of the CCD to produce the 16:9 aspect ratio. The result of this process is a loss of vertical resolution. Lost verticle resolution means lost quality (only 75% of the resolution is used).

The 16:9 anamorphic lens "squeezes" the wider image into the 4:3 CCD, making it distorted when viewed by a 4:3 device (it looks squeezed on your viewfinder) but when editing in a 16:9 timeline on a NLE and output to a 16:9 capable format, it becomes "wide screen." You use all of your CCD "real estate" and save quality.

Think of the anamorphic process as fooling the 4:3 CCD into being a 16:9 CCD.

The final output of your media determines what is the best shooting mode for your DVX100A

16mm or 35mm film: Anamorphic lens and 24pa editing in a 24pa capable NLE (example, Final Cut Pro 4.5).

Standard NTSC television: 60i plain lens 4:3.

DVD (standard): Generally best to work in 60i plain lens 4:3.

DVD (anamorphic) Either 24pa anamorphic lens or 60i anamorphic lens.

Also note that with modern NLE, it is generally easy to convert from one system to another.
 
Re: Still don't git it.

Thank u guys for u're quick response. Ignorant as I was, I bought the wide angle .6x before I heard about the 16/9. Now that I'm low on the funds, I'm wondering if this "squeeze mode" is an option. Will it help with the resolution.(for 35 blow up) What does the squeeze really do? In rookie terms.
 
Re: Still don't git it.

[quote author=Slapdragon link=board=news;num=1088882851;start=0#2 date=07/03/04 at 12:53:19]16mm or 35mm film: Anamorphic lens and 24pa editing in a 24pa capable NLE (example, Final Cut Pro 4.5).
[/quote]

Does Vegas work with 24PA?
 
Re: Still don't git it.

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=news;num=1088882851;start=0#4 date=07/03/04 at 15:12:58]

Does Vegas work with 24PA?[/quote]

My last experience with Vegas was that it had a real crappy capture program (VidCap) and that it choked on 24PA captures. I worked with one company that was replacing its Premiere / Macintosh combos and went with Viao / Vegas, but had to keep its Macs on hand for capture stations (sometime ago).

I think Vegas users have been using third party Scenalyzer software for capture. I have not heard positive things about Vegas handling the wide range of things FCP does without sweat (DV50, DV100, etc) but I think they are making a lot of progress. I do not have experience with the latest version of Vegas, so maybe things have improved.
 
Re: Still don't git it.

If you're going out to film, I think Barry Green said that it's better to shoot 4:3 letterboxed than it is to shoot squeezed mode.  Something about the uprezzing happening only once if you're blowing up the 4:3 image (because remember, film is 4:3, and when they project in 1.85 they only mask part of the frame)...but if you're shooting in squeeze mode, there's already a scaling of the image done *in standard def*.  The film transfer house is likely to use High Def up-rezzing, so rather than scaling the image in SD, and *then* HD, go straight to HD (less artifacting).  I *THINK* Barry said this, and if he didn't (and nobody else did) then regardless it makes sense...no?

But of course, well shot - and properly focused - anamorphic (16:9 concversion lens) footage will definitely be sharper on the bigger screen.
 
Re: Still don't git it.

[quote author=Slapdragon link=board=news;num=1088882851;start=0#5 date=07/03/04 at 15:35:42]

My last experience with Vegas was that it had a real crappy capture program (VidCap) and that it choked on 24PA captures.  I worked with one company that was replacing its Premiere / Macintosh combos and went with Viao / Vegas, but had to keep its Macs on hand for capture stations (sometime ago).  

I think Vegas users have been using third party Scenalyzer software for capture.  I have not heard positive things about Vegas handling the wide range of things FCP does without sweat (DV50, DV100, etc) but I think they are making a lot of progress.  I do not have experience with the latest version of Vegas, so maybe things have improved.[/quote]

You must be referring to Vegas 3 or older. Versions 4 and 5 handle 24pA *very* well.

I've *never* had a problem capturing 24pA footage with the Sony Capture software which comes with it. (I've never had a problem capturing 24pA footage with the JVC SR-VS30U dual-deck VCR, either, but that's another discussion entirely.)
 
Re: Still don't git it.

Mike's right, about what I said. And I agree with David, I think Vegas handles 24PA superbly, and I find the capture program completely functional. But then again, my only other extensive editing software experience is Premiere, so I don't have that much of a basis to compare...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top