Jump to content


Photo

Anamorphic on camera squezze!


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 04 March 2007 - 07:45 PM

I have a couple of projects that I'm oganizing some of them is are in poor countries in Africa and Asia, the directors that I found they don't have the anamorphic adapter for the cam, so my question is how bad is the squezze mode?

Best
  • 0

#2 Daniel Sheehy

Daniel Sheehy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 04 March 2007 - 09:22 PM

I have a couple of projects that I'm oganizing some of them is are in poor countries in Africa and Asia, the directors that I found they don't have the anamorphic adapter for the cam, so my question is how bad is the squezze mode?

Best


What exactly are you trying to find out?
Shooting in squeeze mode, for final play-out in 4:3 is not a good idea.
Shooting squeeze mode for 16:9 play-out is the reason they included the mode.

If you are asking if the loss of resolution is going to be acceptable, well the best thing would be to shoot some footage & see what you and the directors think.
Some people are happy to go that path, others prefer to go with a native 16:9 camera.
  • 0

#3 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 05 March 2007 - 02:08 AM

Off course I'm going to 16:9 that why we are shooting like that
second the answer to this question is a technical answer please respond if you have the actual knowledge,
second the idea of the people in Africa or Asia to buy an anamorphic adapter or an HVX is imposible so please
just answer my question
what is the loos of quality with the squezze mode in the dvx, if the plan is to go 16:9

Thanks
  • 0

#4 Jim Feldspar

Jim Feldspar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Student

Posted 05 March 2007 - 08:23 AM

Off course I'm going to 16:9 that why we are shooting like that
second the answer to this question is a technical answer please respond if you have the actual knowledge,
second the idea of the people in Africa or Asia to buy an anamorphic adapter or an HVX is imposible so please
just answer my question
what is the loos of quality with the squezze mode in the dvx, if the plan is to go 16:9

Thanks


Sir, the man offered his help. If it doesn't give you exactly what you need, why not thank
him and ask (everybody) for greater clarification? The tone of your reply is that of a
director dressing down a p.a..

Maybe you're under a lot of pressure, I don't know, but there may be people who could
help you and are declining to get involved based on your sharpness.

I don't have any answers for your technical questions but good luck with your productions.
  • 0

#5 Daniel Sheehy

Daniel Sheehy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 05 March 2007 - 03:59 PM

Off course I'm going to 16:9 that why we are shooting like that
second the answer to this question is a technical answer please respond if you have the actual knowledge,
second the idea of the people in Africa or Asia to buy an anamorphic adapter or an HVX is imposible so please
just answer my question
what is the loos of quality with the squezze mode in the dvx, if the plan is to go 16:9

Thanks


No need to get all huffy. I didn't give you a technical answer, because you didn't ask a technical question. ('How bad..' is NOT a technical question.)
As for 16:9, well, you weren't specific... so I wasn't going to assume anything.

To the technical...

4:3 SD (i.e. the DVX100) is 720x525 (NTSC) or 720x625 (PAL) lines. To achieve 16:9, it crops or squeezes the image into 720x480 lines
Therefore when shooting 16:9 on the DVX100a, you might lose anywhere between 45 - 145 horizontal resolution lines, depending whether you're shooting NTSC or PAl.

So, like I said before, now that you know the technical explanation, you will still have to make a subjective call about whether you & those working on the project with you are happy with the resolution loss. You are not going to know 'how bad' it is until YOU look at it and decide whether you are ok with how it looks.

Another option is to shoot 4:3 (full resolution) and the up-rez the footage to 16:9. There are a couple of fairly good programs that do this. (Photozoom, Instant HD...)

If you have further questions, or things still need clarifying, feel free to do the polite thing, and post an expanded or more specific question.
  • 0

#6 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 05 March 2007 - 06:03 PM

My great gentelmen, don't feel offended or touchy about the way I wrote my reply, first I didn't mean to be rude, if it came that way.... The magic word will be I'm sorry, and I'm

Second, English is not my first tongue( ugly excuse I know) if the angle of the question didn't seem technical, welll then is my mistake also, it was a technical question about how I can replace the Anamorphic adapter with just the cam squezze? and alos trying to find out how much res was going to be loss

Anyway, to get jumpy my dear cinema companions, I meant no disrespect what so ever

Best
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

CineTape

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Glidecam

CineTape

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post