squeeze or no squeeze? at DVinfo.net

Michael Buendia · February 5th, 2005, 12:36 PM

with the dvx100a, are there any advantages in shooting 16x9 squeeze mode over normal 16x9 (mattes) if your end project will end up in 4x3 format/letterboxed? do you gain any lines of resolution in squeeze mode or do you end up with 360 lines either way?

mb

Barry Green · February 5th, 2005, 02:29 PM

No advantage whatsoever. You will actually end up with slightly less resolution in your specific stated case.

Squeeze mode is for when your footage will be displayed on a 16:9 television. For your specific needs (a 16:9 image letterboxed within a 4:3 video stream, for display on 4:3 televisions) Squeeze mode would be the wrong choice.

Glenn Gipson · February 5th, 2005, 10:50 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Buendia : with the dvx100a, are there any advantages in shooting 16x9 squeeze mode over normal 16x9 (mattes) if your end project will end up in 4x3 format/letterboxed? do you gain any lines of resolution in squeeze mode or do you end up with 360 lines either way?

mb -->>>

Squeeze mode will give you a wider field of view then simply chopping off the top and bottom of a 4:3 image (matte approach.)

Barry Green · February 6th, 2005, 02:54 AM

Incorrect. Squeeze uses the exact same width area of the CCD as Letterbox mode does. It just digitally stretches it.

The anamorphic adapter will give you a wider field of view, but Squeeze mode does not.

Peter Jefferson · February 6th, 2005, 03:40 AM

it really is wirth the added resolution by going anamorphic, on top of that the friggin lens ends up looking like a bloody panavision which is no bad thing ;)

but as mentioned, your field of vision is only strected vertically, u gain nothing horizontally.

Glenn Gipson · February 6th, 2005, 06:04 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Incorrect. Squeeze uses the exact same width area of the CCD as Letterbox mode does. It just digitally stretches it.

The anamorphic adapter will give you a wider field of view, but Squeeze mode does not. -->>>

I compared squeeze mode on my 100A to the in-camera letter box mode, and I noticed a wider field of view. Maybe it's a psychological thing, but it was why I chose to shoot my comedy in squeeze mode. I'll test it out again, though.

Peter Jefferson · February 6th, 2005, 06:08 AM

line the edge of your frame up with a vertical object, like a door or pole youll notice that the width will not change.
One way to preserve SOME resolution, is to run the video track (in post) just on the edge of the action safe area (pan crop tool). This will shrink your footage a lil but you can save anything between 7 to 10% if shot correctly.

Glenn Gipson · February 6th, 2005, 06:21 AM

No need to test, you guys you would know more then me about this. I'm not that technical. But damn, if I would have known this before....

Arne Johnson · February 8th, 2005, 04:38 PM

What if you vainly hope that one day you'll be one of the 1% of people who get a film out? Is letterboxing still better? (obviously Anamorphic is best, but we don't have that option).

Barry Green · February 8th, 2005, 10:44 PM

Letterbox would be preferable to squeeze for a film transfer, yes.

Peter Jefferson · February 12th, 2005, 08:08 PM

if your going to letterbox, i would suggest doing it in post.. this will at least give u 20 odd % more framing, so u can correct or adjust framing in post if need be.

another thing, if u run 4:3 in a Vegas 16:9 project, it will NOT strecth your footage, instead, you can go into the pan crop of the clip and select 16:9. All it will do is CROP the tops and bottoms off.. it will not stretch your footage

I had to return my anamorphic lense due to the plastic securing thread being so damn plasticcy, that i knew it would be a continuing problem. I do all my 16:9 work in post now.. i shoot 4:3, wack on a 16:9 project and adjust the pan crop to fit 16:9, and THEN i change the aspect OF THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL CLIP to 16:9

I lose no resolution by doing this, apart from gettin the tops and bottoms chopped.. which im ok with anyway.. btu tahts vgas.. i dont know what u use..

Daniel Hollister · March 27th, 2005, 03:00 AM

I recommend using a matte in post. That way you don't see it stretched when previewing your video, and you don't have to flag it as anamorphic.

However, just a little advice in regards to the anamorphic - get it. Get it if you can afford it. Trust me.

The difference on paper doesn't seem like a lot to people. Some minor increase in resolution. But the difference when it's being displayed at full-quality on a television is really what matters - and I'm telling you from experience, it's amazing.

I've always watched my projects on a 54" HDTV. It's fairly easy to see grain or pixellation on that thing.

Without the anamorphic, the DVX is sharp, but it's not like razor-sharp. You can still tell it was shot DV, see some artifacts or graininess every now and then.

With the anamorphic lens, the footage looks RAZOR SHARP. The difference is huge, it's actually VERY noticable. I'm very glad I bought it.

Just my $.02, of course.

Jim McQuaid · March 27th, 2005, 01:41 PM

No one mentioned it in this thread but another clear advantage of dong the 16:9 matte in post is that you can adjust the vertical cropping anywhere within the 4:3 image. I have found this invaluable and I like having the option to adjust the framing in post in case I did not exactly nail it in the heat of battle, especially for moving the camera.

Jon Fordham · March 27th, 2005, 08:29 PM

Well, no one mentioned the clear advantage of lighter compression that is gained by cropping in camera...

I strongly disagree with the practice of "doing it in post"!

Daniel Hollister · March 28th, 2005, 05:04 AM

Yes, "doing in post" is GENERALLY a bad thing to do, usually due to lower image quality as a result of altering your image.

HOWEVER, this is a case where it actually works the other way around. You add a matte in post, you can take it out. You add it in-camera, you're stuck with it.

Perhaps it's not a choice that will matter too often, but it is nonetheless a choice you have, and doing it in post does not in any way degrade your image quality - but gives you more options. I mean, what if you decided you wanted to crop this wide to 2.35:1 or something? You'd have to go in and do that in post anyway.

February 5th, 2005, 12:36 PM	#1
Michael Buendia Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: los angeles, california Posts: 71	squeeze or no squeeze? with the dvx100a, are there any advantages in shooting 16x9 squeeze mode over normal 16x9 (mattes) if your end project will end up in 4x3 format/letterboxed? do you gain any lines of resolution in squeeze mode or do you end up with 360 lines either way? mb

February 5th, 2005, 10:50 PM	#3
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Re: squeeze or no squeeze? <<<-- Originally posted by Michael Buendia : with the dvx100a, are there any advantages in shooting 16x9 squeeze mode over normal 16x9 (mattes) if your end project will end up in 4x3 format/letterboxed? do you gain any lines of resolution in squeeze mode or do you end up with 360 lines either way? mb -->>> Squeeze mode will give you a wider field of view then simply chopping off the top and bottom of a 4:3 image (matte approach.)

March 27th, 2005, 01:41 PM	#13
Jim McQuaid Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Durham, North Carolina Posts: 61	16:9 in post No one mentioned it in this thread but another clear advantage of dong the 16:9 matte in post is that you can adjust the vertical cropping anywhere within the 4:3 image. I have found this invaluable and I like having the option to adjust the framing in post in case I did not exactly nail it in the heat of battle, especially for moving the camera.

March 27th, 2005, 08:29 PM	#14
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	Well, no one mentioned the clear advantage of lighter compression that is gained by cropping in camera... I strongly disagree with the practice of "doing it in post"! __________________ Jon Fordham Director of Photography www.jonfordham.com

February 5th, 2005, 02:29 PM	#2
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	No advantage whatsoever. You will actually end up with slightly less resolution in your specific stated case. Squeeze mode is for when your footage will be displayed on a 16:9 television. For your specific needs (a 16:9 image letterboxed within a 4:3 video stream, for display on 4:3 televisions) Squeeze mode would be the wrong choice.

February 6th, 2005, 02:54 AM	#4
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Incorrect. Squeeze uses the exact same width area of the CCD as Letterbox mode does. It just digitally stretches it. The anamorphic adapter will give you a wider field of view, but Squeeze mode does not.

February 6th, 2005, 03:40 AM	#5
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	it really is wirth the added resolution by going anamorphic, on top of that the friggin lens ends up looking like a bloody panavision which is no bad thing ;) but as mentioned, your field of vision is only strected vertically, u gain nothing horizontally.

February 6th, 2005, 06:04 AM	#6
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Incorrect. Squeeze uses the exact same width area of the CCD as Letterbox mode does. It just digitally stretches it. The anamorphic adapter will give you a wider field of view, but Squeeze mode does not. -->>> I compared squeeze mode on my 100A to the in-camera letter box mode, and I noticed a wider field of view. Maybe it's a psychological thing, but it was why I chose to shoot my comedy in squeeze mode. I'll test it out again, though.

February 6th, 2005, 06:08 AM	#7
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	line the edge of your frame up with a vertical object, like a door or pole youll notice that the width will not change. One way to preserve SOME resolution, is to run the video track (in post) just on the edge of the action safe area (pan crop tool). This will shrink your footage a lil but you can save anything between 7 to 10% if shot correctly.

February 6th, 2005, 06:21 AM	#8
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	No need to test, you guys you would know more then me about this. I'm not that technical. But damn, if I would have known this before....

February 8th, 2005, 04:38 PM	#9
Arne Johnson Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: United States Posts: 88	What if you vainly hope that one day you'll be one of the 1% of people who get a film out? Is letterboxing still better? (obviously Anamorphic is best, but we don't have that option).

February 8th, 2005, 10:44 PM	#10
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Letterbox would be preferable to squeeze for a film transfer, yes.

February 12th, 2005, 08:08 PM	#11
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	if your going to letterbox, i would suggest doing it in post.. this will at least give u 20 odd % more framing, so u can correct or adjust framing in post if need be. another thing, if u run 4:3 in a Vegas 16:9 project, it will NOT strecth your footage, instead, you can go into the pan crop of the clip and select 16:9. All it will do is CROP the tops and bottoms off.. it will not stretch your footage I had to return my anamorphic lense due to the plastic securing thread being so damn plasticcy, that i knew it would be a continuing problem. I do all my 16:9 work in post now.. i shoot 4:3, wack on a 16:9 project and adjust the pan crop to fit 16:9, and THEN i change the aspect OF THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL CLIP to 16:9 I lose no resolution by doing this, apart from gettin the tops and bottoms chopped.. which im ok with anyway.. btu tahts vgas.. i dont know what u use..

March 27th, 2005, 03:00 AM	#12
Daniel Hollister Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 128	I recommend using a matte in post. That way you don't see it stretched when previewing your video, and you don't have to flag it as anamorphic. However, just a little advice in regards to the anamorphic - get it. Get it if you can afford it. Trust me. The difference on paper doesn't seem like a lot to people. Some minor increase in resolution. But the difference when it's being displayed at full-quality on a television is really what matters - and I'm telling you from experience, it's amazing. I've always watched my projects on a 54" HDTV. It's fairly easy to see grain or pixellation on that thing. Without the anamorphic, the DVX is sharp, but it's not like razor-sharp. You can still tell it was shot DV, see some artifacts or graininess every now and then. With the anamorphic lens, the footage looks RAZOR SHARP. The difference is huge, it's actually VERY noticable. I'm very glad I bought it. Just my $.02, of course.

March 28th, 2005, 05:04 AM	#15
Daniel Hollister Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 128	Yes, "doing in post" is GENERALLY a bad thing to do, usually due to lower image quality as a result of altering your image. HOWEVER, this is a case where it actually works the other way around. You add a matte in post, you can take it out. You add it in-camera, you're stuck with it. Perhaps it's not a choice that will matter too often, but it is nonetheless a choice you have, and doing it in post does not in any way degrade your image quality - but gives you more options. I mean, what if you decided you wanted to crop this wide to 2.35:1 or something? You'd have to go in and do that in post anyway.