The Water's Edge
- Thread starter disjecta
- Start date
Pyriphlegethon
Active member
Re: The Water's Edge
Back to the Aspect Ration discussion
With my DVX100 (no "squeeze mode" just letterbox) all the camera does is add black bars, correct?
So, I would like to shoot 4:3 and add my own black bars as a matte in Premiere, this way I could have a little bit of control on shot compostion within the boundaries of my mask. I could frame shots with some tape on my LCD screen to give me an idea of the aspect ratio.
This would be easier than shooting in the DVX letterbox and then cropping it morein post, correct?
However, I was wondering if you shoot 16:9 so that you can edit within the 16:9 setting and export a 16:9 DVD. If I do the above mentioned, and shoot 4:3, cropping in post, my only option is to allow the DVD player to read it as 4:3, correct? I can't tell PPro to import 4:3 footage into a 16:9 timeline. Therefore my final DVD will not be read as 16:9 and adjusted by the player accordingly.
Is this reasoning correct. Sorry about all the questions but I'm a big fan of cine-style aspect-ratios. Something about it adds a very professional feel.
Thanks again!
Back to the Aspect Ration discussion
With my DVX100 (no "squeeze mode" just letterbox) all the camera does is add black bars, correct?
So, I would like to shoot 4:3 and add my own black bars as a matte in Premiere, this way I could have a little bit of control on shot compostion within the boundaries of my mask. I could frame shots with some tape on my LCD screen to give me an idea of the aspect ratio.
This would be easier than shooting in the DVX letterbox and then cropping it morein post, correct?
However, I was wondering if you shoot 16:9 so that you can edit within the 16:9 setting and export a 16:9 DVD. If I do the above mentioned, and shoot 4:3, cropping in post, my only option is to allow the DVD player to read it as 4:3, correct? I can't tell PPro to import 4:3 footage into a 16:9 timeline. Therefore my final DVD will not be read as 16:9 and adjusted by the player accordingly.
Is this reasoning correct. Sorry about all the questions but I'm a big fan of cine-style aspect-ratios. Something about it adds a very professional feel.
Thanks again!
Re: The Water's Edge
You can bring 4x3 footage into a 16:9 project in Vegas 5 with no trouble at all and output a perfect 16:9 DVD - and still have room to "wiggle."
I don't use Premiere but I would assume that either a) it's just as powerful as Vegas and the option to bring in that footage should be simple and doable, or b) it's time to look for some new NLE software.
You can bring 4x3 footage into a 16:9 project in Vegas 5 with no trouble at all and output a perfect 16:9 DVD - and still have room to "wiggle."
I don't use Premiere but I would assume that either a) it's just as powerful as Vegas and the option to bring in that footage should be simple and doable, or b) it's time to look for some new NLE software.
disjecta
Lucky Duck
Re: The Water's Edge
Yes, you are correct that you can easily bring in 4x3 footage into a 16:9 environment in Premiere.... what was I thinking? :
Maybe I'm just a widescreen snob but I don't shoot anything in 4x3 anymore because the footage will definitely look better in my experience using the in-camera squeeze than stretching it in your NLE if you are wanting widescreen output, that is.... I guess that's the messy part I was referring to.
Yes, you are correct that you can easily bring in 4x3 footage into a 16:9 environment in Premiere.... what was I thinking? :
Maybe I'm just a widescreen snob but I don't shoot anything in 4x3 anymore because the footage will definitely look better in my experience using the in-camera squeeze than stretching it in your NLE if you are wanting widescreen output, that is.... I guess that's the messy part I was referring to.
Re: The Water's Edge
You're definitely right there, disjecta. I just wish cameras would have selectable ratios of 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 instead of 16:9 - no film is shot at 16:9; the only thing that ratio is used for is HDTV, and that's a video medium, not film. The DVX is marketed towards the "low budget filmmaker," so 16:9 is a poor choice for "widescreen" in my opinion. Yes, you can "letterbox" your 16:9 footage in your NLE (which is I'm sure what you're doing with all of your wonderful 2.35:1 nature clips), but that's the very same technique that someone uses when they take their 4x3 footage and mask it to be 16x9. I assume you would get more resolution out of the camera using the squeeze mode as opposed to shooting in 4x3 and letterboxing the footage in post (right?), but then you also lose the ability to "wiggle" - which is something that can really help the final composition of your output. I don't think there really is one good solution.
Just so I know (since I'm not rich enough yet to afford a DVX myself
), when you shoot in "squeeze" mode, does your footage appear stretched in the viewfinder or LCD while you shoot? I think I would find that incredibly annoying to deal with.
You're definitely right there, disjecta. I just wish cameras would have selectable ratios of 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 instead of 16:9 - no film is shot at 16:9; the only thing that ratio is used for is HDTV, and that's a video medium, not film. The DVX is marketed towards the "low budget filmmaker," so 16:9 is a poor choice for "widescreen" in my opinion. Yes, you can "letterbox" your 16:9 footage in your NLE (which is I'm sure what you're doing with all of your wonderful 2.35:1 nature clips), but that's the very same technique that someone uses when they take their 4x3 footage and mask it to be 16x9. I assume you would get more resolution out of the camera using the squeeze mode as opposed to shooting in 4x3 and letterboxing the footage in post (right?), but then you also lose the ability to "wiggle" - which is something that can really help the final composition of your output. I don't think there really is one good solution.
Just so I know (since I'm not rich enough yet to afford a DVX myself
), when you shoot in "squeeze" mode, does your footage appear stretched in the viewfinder or LCD while you shoot? I think I would find that incredibly annoying to deal with.
disjecta
Lucky Duck
Re: The Water's Edge
Yes, the footage does appear stretched in the viewfinder but Century Optics makes an attachment for something like $300 that "unsqueezes the footage to the proper aspect"
Personally, I've never had a problem composing with the stretched viewfinder... but everyone is going to have different needs...
By the way, matting widescreen footage to a 2:35 aspect, while the same technique as matting 4:3 to 16:9, is not the same in terms of quality loss if you are going to be watching it on a widescreen TV. My end output is widescreen TV, not film so the matting appears above and below the movie but there is no footage stretched so it maintains its resolution. I'm not really losing any information because I'm already framing for 2:35 when I'm shooting so what's above and below the final cut, as it were, is insignificant.
Yes, the footage does appear stretched in the viewfinder but Century Optics makes an attachment for something like $300 that "unsqueezes the footage to the proper aspect"
Personally, I've never had a problem composing with the stretched viewfinder... but everyone is going to have different needs...
By the way, matting widescreen footage to a 2:35 aspect, while the same technique as matting 4:3 to 16:9, is not the same in terms of quality loss if you are going to be watching it on a widescreen TV. My end output is widescreen TV, not film so the matting appears above and below the movie but there is no footage stretched so it maintains its resolution. I'm not really losing any information because I'm already framing for 2:35 when I'm shooting so what's above and below the final cut, as it were, is insignificant.
Re: The Water's Edge
Okay, so it seems like the "squeeze mode" on the DVX is identical to the "16x9 mode" on Sony's cameras (with the notable exception that the image in the Sony cameras is displayed in the proper aspect ratio on the LCD and viewfinder while you're shooting.)
I guess what I am not understanding is how you have any better resolution using the squeeze technique vs. "letterboxing" in the camera (or for that matter, shooting 4x3 with the camera and then matting it to whatever resolution you like in post). If you have a 4x3 CCD to work with, then that's what you have to work with, right? How can you get extra resolution out of the CCD by smashing the picture together horizontally? (Or does the squeeze mode stretch the picture vertically?) Either way, logic would tell me that if you're stretching out the pixels when you record the image, then "destretching" them to fit a different aspect ratio would just distort the image and lessen the quality of your picture.
I believe this is why the XL2 is making such a fuss about their "native 16x9 mode" or whatever they're calling it - giving users the impression that in that mode, they're getting much better resolution than the DVX can put out. Of course, they've also crammed more pixels onto the CCD without increasing it's physical size, which brings along it's own set of problems.
What we really need is a camera with a true 16x9 CCD (assumingly at 2/3"?) that both records at a much higher resolution than we currently do without sacrificing picture quality. Apparently, that's "too expensive to produce" (I know nothing about the technical process of manufacturing a CCD, but it seems to me that with all we can do in this day and age it should be possible), so the best we can hope for right now is the DVX. My point really was that no matter what "mode" you use to shoot with, it's still an SD camera - and you're not using the full resolution of your widescreen HDTV, squeezed or not. Since everyone I know still owns a "regular" 4x3 TV, and I don't have the ability to shoot with the clarity of HD, it feels like the whole situation is moot until someone starts putting out some true 16x9 HD 24p consumer cameras (and that probably won't happen for awhile).
Excuse my ignorance if I'm missing the point or I'm getting something wrong; I'm just a kid and not an expert on any of this stuff by any means.
By the way, I never made a post in this topic about your work, but "The Water's Edge" is probably the best footage I've ever seen shot with the DVX. I keep trying to check out "part 2," but the server it's on never lets me. I am hoping my posts do not come across as argumentative to you, because they are not meant to be that way at all... I'm just feeling really frustrated with all of the limitations and closed doors I'm seeing with the technology that is realistically available to me.
Okay, so it seems like the "squeeze mode" on the DVX is identical to the "16x9 mode" on Sony's cameras (with the notable exception that the image in the Sony cameras is displayed in the proper aspect ratio on the LCD and viewfinder while you're shooting.)
I guess what I am not understanding is how you have any better resolution using the squeeze technique vs. "letterboxing" in the camera (or for that matter, shooting 4x3 with the camera and then matting it to whatever resolution you like in post). If you have a 4x3 CCD to work with, then that's what you have to work with, right? How can you get extra resolution out of the CCD by smashing the picture together horizontally? (Or does the squeeze mode stretch the picture vertically?) Either way, logic would tell me that if you're stretching out the pixels when you record the image, then "destretching" them to fit a different aspect ratio would just distort the image and lessen the quality of your picture.
I believe this is why the XL2 is making such a fuss about their "native 16x9 mode" or whatever they're calling it - giving users the impression that in that mode, they're getting much better resolution than the DVX can put out. Of course, they've also crammed more pixels onto the CCD without increasing it's physical size, which brings along it's own set of problems.
What we really need is a camera with a true 16x9 CCD (assumingly at 2/3"?) that both records at a much higher resolution than we currently do without sacrificing picture quality. Apparently, that's "too expensive to produce" (I know nothing about the technical process of manufacturing a CCD, but it seems to me that with all we can do in this day and age it should be possible), so the best we can hope for right now is the DVX. My point really was that no matter what "mode" you use to shoot with, it's still an SD camera - and you're not using the full resolution of your widescreen HDTV, squeezed or not. Since everyone I know still owns a "regular" 4x3 TV, and I don't have the ability to shoot with the clarity of HD, it feels like the whole situation is moot until someone starts putting out some true 16x9 HD 24p consumer cameras (and that probably won't happen for awhile).
Excuse my ignorance if I'm missing the point or I'm getting something wrong; I'm just a kid and not an expert on any of this stuff by any means.
By the way, I never made a post in this topic about your work, but "The Water's Edge" is probably the best footage I've ever seen shot with the DVX. I keep trying to check out "part 2," but the server it's on never lets me.
I am hoping my posts do not come across as argumentative to you, because they are not meant to be that way at all... I'm just feeling really frustrated with all of the limitations and closed doors I'm seeing with the technology that is realistically available to me.Michael_Blackbourn
Active member
Re: The Water's Edge
Thanks for posting that clip. It is outstanding. I am continually amazed by the capabilities of both this camera, and those who choose to operate it. Very inspiring work.
Is there a 2x teleconverter for the DVX that allows zoom-through and isnt all that expensive? I don't own a DVX yet but I'm starting to put together my accesories list for when I do. Thanks again for the eye-candy.
Mike
Thanks for posting that clip. It is outstanding. I am continually amazed by the capabilities of both this camera, and those who choose to operate it. Very inspiring work.
Is there a 2x teleconverter for the DVX that allows zoom-through and isnt all that expensive? I don't own a DVX yet but I'm starting to put together my accesories list for when I do. Thanks again for the eye-candy.
Mike
Re: The Water's Edge
Dis, beautiful piece man. Haven't read all of the posts, so I don't know if you answered this already, but did you use a jib in any of the shots? Everything moved very nicely in this piece. Excellent choice of music. You must be one very peaceful man to live someplace like this.
Dis, beautiful piece man. Haven't read all of the posts, so I don't know if you answered this already, but did you use a jib in any of the shots? Everything moved very nicely in this piece. Excellent choice of music. You must be one very peaceful man to live someplace like this.
Fred_Plowman
Well-known member
Re: The Water's Edge
One word.. Awesome! i was thinking about the same things.. Ducks and geese comfortable with your presence.. just a nice piece all together..
i believe i have read in other threads about the 16:9 letterbox and squeeze virtualy being the same in resolution. There was no discernable difference.. can anyone expound upon that?
One word.. Awesome! i was thinking about the same things.. Ducks and geese comfortable with your presence.. just a nice piece all together..
i believe i have read in other threads about the 16:9 letterbox and squeeze virtualy being the same in resolution. There was no discernable difference.. can anyone expound upon that?
Re: The Water's Edge
..in short they are pretty close to the same in image quality, but letterbox has a bit better image quality than squeeze. they use an almost identical pixel area for image info, but then of course squeeze mode takes that image, and digitally stretches it tall to fill the frame.. so your losing some quality from the stretching (same as if you cropped the black bars off in post, and stretched the letterbox iamage to fill the frame..but the camera does a pretty good job, and some NLEs do not. but some do)-vs letterbox mode is the original untouched pixels.
...i still dont understand why "squeeze" mode isnt called "stretch" mode ... its not squeezing anything. its stretching it.. and the name seems to mislead and confuse alot of people.
..in short they are pretty close to the same in image quality, but letterbox has a bit better image quality than squeeze. they use an almost identical pixel area for image info, but then of course squeeze mode takes that image, and digitally stretches it tall to fill the frame.. so your losing some quality from the stretching (same as if you cropped the black bars off in post, and stretched the letterbox iamage to fill the frame..but the camera does a pretty good job, and some NLEs do not. but some do)-vs letterbox mode is the original untouched pixels.
...i still dont understand why "squeeze" mode isnt called "stretch" mode ... its not squeezing anything. its stretching it.. and the name seems to mislead and confuse alot of people.
disjecta
Lucky Duck
Re: The Water's Edge
I used the Cobra Crane II....The trick is to make sure that your tripod is locked down as much as possible. Lock it for both pan and tilt and let the crane move around instead.
This puppy takes a lot of practice and the tendency is to tilt or pan too fast which doesn't give a nice feel. When I did those shots, it almost felt like I was going too slow, but when I looked at it later, it seemed to be perfect...
Thanks for the nice comments,
Good luck..
I used the Cobra Crane II....The trick is to make sure that your tripod is locked down as much as possible. Lock it for both pan and tilt and let the crane move around instead.
This puppy takes a lot of practice and the tendency is to tilt or pan too fast which doesn't give a nice feel. When I did those shots, it almost felt like I was going too slow, but when I looked at it later, it seemed to be perfect...
Thanks for the nice comments,
Good luck..
disjecta
Lucky Duck
Re: The Water's Edge
When I was using the crane with my Sony DSR-250, I used to hook it up to a TV. I spent about $100 on a handheld TV at Radio Shack. All I needed it for was framing, not color and all of that, I set that using the camera's viewfinder.
For these shots, I just flipped out the DVX LCD monitor and put it at an angle where I could see it at all times....didn't bother with an external monitor this time 'round.
And just to clarify my previous post about locking the tripod, you obviously wouldn't lock it for a pan if you intend on swinging the crane around.
When I was using the crane with my Sony DSR-250, I used to hook it up to a TV. I spent about $100 on a handheld TV at Radio Shack. All I needed it for was framing, not color and all of that, I set that using the camera's viewfinder.
For these shots, I just flipped out the DVX LCD monitor and put it at an angle where I could see it at all times....didn't bother with an external monitor this time 'round.
And just to clarify my previous post about locking the tripod, you obviously wouldn't lock it for a pan if you intend on swinging the crane around.
Re: The Water's Edge
[quote author=iamloser link=board=Clips;num=1087699633;start=60#74 date=08/09/04 at 09:00:43]..in short they are pretty close to the same in image quality, but letterbox has a bit better image quality than squeeze. they use an almost identical pixel area for image info, but then of course squeeze mode takes that image, and digitally stretches it tall to fill the frame.. so your losing some quality from the stretching (same as if you cropped the black bars off in post, and stretched the letterbox iamage to fill the frame..but the camera does a pretty good job, and some NLEs do not. but some do)-vs letterbox mode is the original untouched pixels.
...i still dont understand why "squeeze" mode isnt called "stretch" mode ... its not squeezing anything. its stretching it.. and the name seems to mislead and confuse alot of people.[/quote]
Wow, thanks for that bit of info. That really clears up the misconceptions I had about the "squeeze" mode, and you're right - they shouldn't be calling it that. So really, the only advantage to "squeeze" is that it *may* do a better job of stretching the video for "widescreen" output than your NLE would... but that's not even a guarantee. (And if you have a letterboxed 16x9 DVD, can't a widescreen TV stretch it for you? I realize this example has a much greater loss of resolution than a true anamorphic DVD gives you, but assuming you don't have the anamorphic adapter in the first place, all you have to work with is a 4x3 CCD. I don't see how stretching it in camera vs. stretching it with your NLE or on stretching it on your widescreen TV at home makes much of a difference, resolution-wise.) This is all very interesting and informative discussion - and I apologize for doing it in your Water's Edge topic, disjecta, but since it seems that you have a strong opinion about the subject and others are offering replies that somehow seem to discount it, I'd really like to learn more about how this whole process works. Thanks a bunch!
[quote author=iamloser link=board=Clips;num=1087699633;start=60#74 date=08/09/04 at 09:00:43]..in short they are pretty close to the same in image quality, but letterbox has a bit better image quality than squeeze. they use an almost identical pixel area for image info, but then of course squeeze mode takes that image, and digitally stretches it tall to fill the frame.. so your losing some quality from the stretching (same as if you cropped the black bars off in post, and stretched the letterbox iamage to fill the frame..but the camera does a pretty good job, and some NLEs do not. but some do)-vs letterbox mode is the original untouched pixels.
...i still dont understand why "squeeze" mode isnt called "stretch" mode ... its not squeezing anything. its stretching it.. and the name seems to mislead and confuse alot of people.[/quote]
Wow, thanks for that bit of info. That really clears up the misconceptions I had about the "squeeze" mode, and you're right - they shouldn't be calling it that. So really, the only advantage to "squeeze" is that it *may* do a better job of stretching the video for "widescreen" output than your NLE would... but that's not even a guarantee. (And if you have a letterboxed 16x9 DVD, can't a widescreen TV stretch it for you? I realize this example has a much greater loss of resolution than a true anamorphic DVD gives you, but assuming you don't have the anamorphic adapter in the first place, all you have to work with is a 4x3 CCD. I don't see how stretching it in camera vs. stretching it with your NLE or on stretching it on your widescreen TV at home makes much of a difference, resolution-wise.) This is all very interesting and informative discussion - and I apologize for doing it in your Water's Edge topic, disjecta, but since it seems that you have a strong opinion about the subject and others are offering replies that somehow seem to discount it, I'd really like to learn more about how this whole process works. Thanks a bunch!