Widescreen / long lens look ????

B

Birdboy

Member
Hey everyone,
 I have the Anamorphic adapter & Barry's great guide. Thanks Barry , the charts & a tape are the wip !!

When we shoot Steadicam we are always wide to 'kinda wide. But when we do CU of faces & stuff with the adapter you need to stop down to f14.
Everything sharp SUCKS. (Besides you need 10k's.)
I have the Century 1.6x and WFO it is beautiful.

So my question is, how do I process the footage in-camera or in After Effects to cut into an Anamorphic show without shooting with the adapter ?  Squeeze is not so good.  Noisy & yucki !

Is there a method of stretching in AE and tagging the clip Anamorphic, and re-importing to FCP ?

Hmmm...

Thanks in Advance,
Steve

PS If you have the adapter and don't have Barry's manual, Get it.
 
Re: Widescreen / long lens look ????

If you're staying with widescreen TVs, I'd assume that squeeze mode would be the best non-anamorphic route to go quality-wise. Stretching in post is done after the image has been compressed to tape, losing some effective resolution. It would depend on the program you used though to stretch the footage I suppose - I'd still think regardless that squeeze would be the best, however.
 
Re: Widescreen / long lens look ????

[quote author=Mike_Donis link=board=news;num=1097117015;start=0#1 date=10/06/04 at 22:59:12]Stretching in post is done after the image has been compressed to tape, losing some effective resolution.  It would depend on the program you used though to stretch the footage I suppose - I'd still think regardless that squeeze would be the best, however.[/quote]

Probably not. Squeeze is in camera alogrithm, and on top of that, you still have the compression on tape. This probably depends on the software you use, but with Vegas it looks like image->letterbox->tape->post->stretch is better than image->squeeze->tape->post->stretch.
 
Re: Widescreen / long lens look ????

Yes, the compression is still on the tape. But the frame being compressed is in 16:9, and is 720x480 - at least according to the compressor - even if the effective resolution is only about 720x360.
Because the compression is made regardless *using* the 720x480 pixels (after having been squeezed) then I'd presume that would yeild the best results. Better than having the compression be applied to the WHOLE frame, and then completely discarding the top and bottom of the picture...

I don't know 100% (I haven't been able to test it on a 100a) but it seems to be the case...
 
Re: Widescreen / long lens look ????

Mike,
My head is spinning ! It seems you think SQUEEZE is better than SHOOT NORMAL & SQUEEZE IN AE, is that right ?

Hmm ...

I will have to test this one.
If we tag the normally shot stuff as anamorphic, then full rez but odd shaped ?

I use FCP. I think you can tag the clips with Apple + 9. Check the ANA. check box. IF you are really close I wonder if you will notice the squish.

Thanks for all your effort so far,

Steve
 
Re: Widescreen / long lens look ????

I do think that squeeze is better than cropping and stretching in post - Jerry XCheck thinks the opposite though. I own the 100, so I'm just going by speculation - I think the best thing is to shoot a couple tests and compare the differences.


It has been said (and I agree) that if you're printing to FILM it would yeild higher quality to shoot in 4:3 and letterbox - but that's because film itself is 4:3, and they project the middle section
...but don't let that be confusing. If you're staying in Standard Definition digital video, the best non-anamorphic route should be squeezed mode, because of the 4:1:1 compression being applied *after* the image is stretched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top