up-res vs anamorphic?
- Thread starter rogue
- Start date
Well, there is obviously an advatage cost-wise to uprezzing - as you don't need to buy the anamorphic adapter. There is a sticky at the top of the TECHNICAL forum that demonstrates various uprez techniques. I also believe there are some focus issues with the anamorphic adapter. I haven't used one, so perhaps someone with more experience could respond in regards to the advantages of the anamorphic adapter route.
For me it was a matter of convience and quality.
I tried some of the out of camera conversions, export footage to tiff, use batch process to process TIFF, re-import as sequence...
Do you know how many tiff images are in an hour footage ? alot. and the time it takes to do the above start to finish, alot. and syncing the sound back after the process.
With the anamorphic - screw it on - align, tighten, shoot.
As far as focus.. I don't have any complaints with it, some have made comments but most say it is very usable. Several reports are on the internet about the 16:9 adapter and all give high marks, as well as I.
Anamorphic image quality is very good, I'm using the panasonic, and really enjoy using it and impressed as well. Proper Lighting is one of the key factors.
I know the move is to widescreen hd but I can't afford HD right now with native 16:9 but I can afford an adapter, so the footage I shoot now will have a better look on the ever popular widescreens down the road.
My choices were - Uprezing (too much work), letterbox (lower image quality + black bands), squeeze (about as good as letter box).
$700.00 for the adapter New, and you can probably sell it off when you finally get the camera of your dreams, like the new panasonic HDvx.
The advantages ? Ease of use + General Overall Image Quality. The adapter uses all the ccd so no additional image processing wizadarty is needed.
The disadvantages ? If you have the time on your hands and a tight budget then the out of camera processing may get you by. Obviously its about $550.00 cheaper, software cost.
Someone else made a good comment - If the shelf life of the footage is short and destined to standard tv now why bother with the added cost or effort, and you did say NTSC.
However - if the footage may be needed later, having the best image quality is important from the start, and all the uprezing in the world won't add details to the image.
Lets say you shot with an anamorphic; One year later you wanted to re-process the footage with some vidoe processing tweaks to make it look better, no problem because the native image quality has the head room and have not already been altered.
Try that with images already processed, in my opionion you don't gain as much because some of the headroom is already used in the first place.
I would suggest renting one if possible for a weekend.
I tried some of the out of camera conversions, export footage to tiff, use batch process to process TIFF, re-import as sequence...
Do you know how many tiff images are in an hour footage ? alot. and the time it takes to do the above start to finish, alot. and syncing the sound back after the process.
With the anamorphic - screw it on - align, tighten, shoot.
As far as focus.. I don't have any complaints with it, some have made comments but most say it is very usable. Several reports are on the internet about the 16:9 adapter and all give high marks, as well as I.
Anamorphic image quality is very good, I'm using the panasonic, and really enjoy using it and impressed as well. Proper Lighting is one of the key factors.
I know the move is to widescreen hd but I can't afford HD right now with native 16:9 but I can afford an adapter, so the footage I shoot now will have a better look on the ever popular widescreens down the road.
My choices were - Uprezing (too much work), letterbox (lower image quality + black bands), squeeze (about as good as letter box).
$700.00 for the adapter New, and you can probably sell it off when you finally get the camera of your dreams, like the new panasonic HDvx.
The advantages ? Ease of use + General Overall Image Quality. The adapter uses all the ccd so no additional image processing wizadarty is needed.
The disadvantages ? If you have the time on your hands and a tight budget then the out of camera processing may get you by. Obviously its about $550.00 cheaper, software cost.
Someone else made a good comment - If the shelf life of the footage is short and destined to standard tv now why bother with the added cost or effort, and you did say NTSC.
However - if the footage may be needed later, having the best image quality is important from the start, and all the uprezing in the world won't add details to the image.
Lets say you shot with an anamorphic; One year later you wanted to re-process the footage with some vidoe processing tweaks to make it look better, no problem because the native image quality has the head room and have not already been altered.
Try that with images already processed, in my opionion you don't gain as much because some of the headroom is already used in the first place.
I would suggest renting one if possible for a weekend.
I killed an anamorphic lense and tried the upres technique.... the results were good ... but I just didnt have the time for it.. so I spat out some more $$ for a new ana lense. The ana has its drawbacks like .. its hard to get a shallow DOF... but there are tricks you can use if your creative. The focus was an issue for me initially.. but learning the focusing techniques takes about 5 minutes.. and the issue is resolved.