A better way to make hi-def footage with the dvx100e!!

[Mark Grgurev]

Ok, I don't own a DVX100 or DVx100e but I was thinking about a better way to make Hi-def footage with a standard definition dv camcorder. Get a pal DVx100(or any pal camera) and put a 2:35 anamorphic adapter on it. When U stretch it to its correct size the video will be 1344px by 576px. Its horizontal resolution is actually greater than 720 hi-def. Then U can add black bars to the footage and shrink it to 1280 by 720 or U can use s-spline pro to up-rezz it to 1920 by 1080.


I haven't tried this but, if I'm right, you'll get awesome results!!

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Why do you think the anamorphic adaptor is going to add horizontal pixels?

[Joan d'Arc]

Well... it really improves the image.

The people at "Opera Films" (see www.operafilms.com) explains the process and it really works. You're putting 576 vertical lines in a 2,35:1 format. They used a system called "double 16:9", consisting on using a 16:9 anamorphic adapter and at the same time, the 16:9 mode od the camera. Very nice results.

I'm now making some tests with a VX2000 and a KOWA ANAMORPHIC LENS and blowing it up to HD with Magic Bullet and I'm getting impressed...

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Joan:

I understand very well why one uses an anamorphic image, but Mark wants to get 1344 pixels horizontally. The anamorphic adaptor does not create pixels - that's done either by the CCD or by a program like s-spline.

I wanted him to clarify how he was getting the 1344 pixels and to point out that anamorphic adaptors merely distort the image for later stretching. The key advantage is that cropping in camera or post or electronic in camera squeeze loses pixels.

But you're not going to get pixels that were not there unless you use s-spline or similar method and then those are interpolated pixels.

[Joe Carney]

Some programs will let you convert anamorphic to true widscreen which in effect resizes the video to more pixels across. Programs like Virtual Dub do this.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

That's just a stretch/resize and thus a quality loss - so it's not uprezzing, it's down rezzing...

s-spline is the only program that does an okay job of uprezzing with minimal quality loss.

That's nothing like shooting more pixels at image capture time.

[Barry Green]

Guys, keep in mind (like Stephen is saying): ALL NTSC DV is 720 x 480. It doesn't matter what anamorphic lens you stick on the front of your camera, you'll still be recording 720 x 480. That's all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.

If you choose to stretch those 720 x 480 pixels into different shapes (like 1344 x 480 or whatever) you're NOT ADDING ANY RESOLUTION. You're just optically changing the shape of the pixels.

Using a 16:9 anamorphic adapter lets you have more pixels because the conventional way of getting 16:9 is by cropping off the top and bottom, thus throwing away pixels. The anamorphic adapter lets you use the full surface of the chip -- which is 720 x 480. Even if you used the mini35 and added a Cooke or Hawk anamorphic lens from a 35mm movie camera, with a 2:1 squeeze factor, it would still record onto (you guessed it) 720 x 480.

There are no more pixels. The only way to get more pixels (again, like Stephen said) is to use a program like S-Spline Pro to do up-rezzing.

[Mark Grgurev]

Ok, I was wrong by saying "adding horizontal pixels" what I meant was

Lets say ur using Adobe After effects and u make a comp that is 720x480 and U import anamorphicly squeezed footage into it, when u convert it to square pixels, the only way U can fit the entire image into the comp is by changing the comp size 853x480.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

My guess is that using the 16:9 squeeze mode plus the anamorphic adaptor on the DVX100A in 24p thin mode would create the best widescreen look on any miniDV camera...

Lawrence of Arabia 2 anyone?

:)