Squeeze Mode on DVX 100B at DVinfo.net

Brian Osburn · February 23rd, 2006, 01:36 AM

So is there a significant loss in res compared to the anamorphic adapter? I read the DVX Book by Mr. Barry Green and it was very helpful. I do remember him saying it was a res loss but I’m just curious if it is that noticeable.

I doubt that I am going to blow my Indi Feature up to film but I want to shoot it and have the option to blow it up if I changed my mind later.

Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Brian

Bob Zimmerman · February 23rd, 2006, 03:16 AM

why not crop in post then.

Brian Osburn · February 23rd, 2006, 10:34 AM

So then should I shoot in letterbox and then crop the black bars then edit in 16:9?

Barry Green · February 23rd, 2006, 08:34 PM

The resolution loss in Squeeze, vs. the hassles avoided from not having to use the anamorphic adapter, are a pretty even match.

Squeeze Mode does involve a res loss, bringing your ultimate resolution down to about 360 lines (when shooting 24p/thin). With the anamorphic adapter you could get almost 1/3 more resolution. However, the anamorphic introduces so many compromises into the shooting equation that many people don't bother with it, and just choose squeeze instead.

While squeeze involves a res loss, keep in mind that it brings the overall resolution down to basically where interlaced "native 16:9" cameras end up. Those cameras have a max. of 360 lines as well, because they're interlaced. (I would say don't use squeeze if you're shooting interlaced, because then it'll drop you down to around 270 lines!)

In short, I find Squeeze acceptable for most purposes.

Brian Osburn · February 24th, 2006, 09:46 AM

Thanks Barry. I really found your book helpful and these fourms are great to.
Brian

Peter Jefferson · March 3rd, 2006, 09:54 AM

dont forget, what were calling a "loss in resolution" isnt actually a degredation of resolution.. its a digital cropping and then vertical stretching of the footage... in the end what youre really "losing is the top and bottom of the frame

one ting i wan to know though, is whether Pana have set the DVX10b to tag 16:9/squeeze mode footage? or do u have to set the aspect manually like the 100a??

anyone wana buy a DVX100 original?? LOL less than 250hrs on the clock.. lol

Bob Zimmerman · March 3rd, 2006, 10:28 AM

So when shooting squeeze mode, will it fill a widescreen tv the same way a native 16:9 would? Or will there be lines at the top and bottom?

What about the outside chance of a video going to film? Is squeeze a problem?

Tim Borek · March 3rd, 2006, 04:12 PM

I shoot with a DVC80 and GS120. I really like the anamorphic 16:9 mode (SLIM) in the GS120 and want to be able to match it with my primary camera, the DVC80. If the Panasonic AG-LA7200 Anamorphic Lens Adapter does such a lousy job, why is it so expensive? Am I better off paying $750 for the AG-LA7200, or just selling my DVC80 and paying the difference for a used DVX100/A? I'm guessing the cost will be about the same either way. 24p isn't very important to me, so the main advantage of the DVX with 16:9 squeeze is that it would be a lighter, shorter rig (plus the other step-up features of the 100). Did I just answer my own question?

Which DVX100 -- original DVX or DVX100A -- has the better low-light performance? (I often shoot weddings and stage productions, so this is important.)

Peter Jefferson · March 6th, 2006, 05:57 AM

Tim, the adapter isnt "bad" its jsut a lil awkward to work with.. especially if your taking teh adapter on and off periodically, the mount itself is ok, but the thread is cheap arsed plastic which will soon wear off and be useless. I returned 2 adapters for this reason. The lens is fine and makes the DVX a kickarse 16:9 camera, considering the native wideangle on the leica on its own..

moving along.. with regard to low light performance, the 100 original release is far cleaner by a country mile than what the 100a ever could be. running both side by side, you can see the differences and periosidically one must check exposure levels to match, what might be f2.8 on the 100a, would be f4 on the 100, now this is al dependant on the lit environment. Its not THAT noticable, but crank the gain and you CAN tell teh difference..

one thing though, in reply to the low light noisiness of teh 100a, i find that the 100a has a richer colour and wider dynamic range than the 100
(irrespective of the scene setting configs) .. ive even dumbed down my 100a to match the 100and still the colours are just that little bit deeper.

Barry Green · March 6th, 2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Zimmerman

So when shooting squeeze mode, will it fill a widescreen tv the same way a native 16:9 would?

Yes.

Quote:

Or will there be lines at the top and bottom?

No. You can get that look with "letterbox" mode, but Squeeze makes a 16:9 image that will fill a 16:9 screen.

Quote:

What about the outside chance of a video going to film? Is squeeze a problem?

Well, no. I mean, a film transfer is going to involve an aspect ratio crop anyway, to convert to 16:9 one way or the other. I would say you'd be a little better off shooting 4:3 and protecting for 16:9 if you know you're going to do a film transfer, rather than having the camera do an intermediate stretch, but -- if you KNOW you're going to film, you should be shooting on an HVX anyway for high-def and native 16:9. That's a step you could take that would make a huge difference in resolved resolution on the big screen. As long as you're not going to take that step, I'd say the difference between squeeze mode and cropped 4:3 is going to be very minor.

I'd say go squeeze. If you're shooting 24p/thin, you'll get just as much 16:9 resolution out of squeeze mode as an interlaced "native 16:9" camera can deliver.

Bob Zimmerman · March 6th, 2006, 10:31 AM

Barry you probably have been ask this, but how is the stardard DV on the HVX?

But for me the HVX200 is a ways off. I've got about $3,000 now. To get the HVX200 and all that goes with it is way out of what I can do right now. The best I can do is the DVX or wait alittle longer and see what Canon comes out with.

Hugh DiMauro · March 7th, 2006, 11:14 AM

Barry:

Is there a resolution loss shooting with the 16 X 9 bars in letterbox on the 100b?

Barry Green · March 8th, 2006, 02:03 AM

Standard DV on the HVX looks fantastic -- in 16:9 it's native 16:9 full-resolution, and in 4:3 it looks about the same as the DVX.

When going to letterbox there's no resolution loss at all, because you're still displaying 4:3 video, just covering up some of the screen. So the area between the letterbox bars is resolving exactly the same as it would have in fullscreen 4:3 mode.

Actually, in letterbox it's a little bit cleaner, because the compression is more efficient due to the repetition in the letterbox bars.

Hugh DiMauro · March 8th, 2006, 07:40 AM

Music to my eyes, Barry. I'm still waiting for your book and DVD (along with my Panasonic rebate check). Can't wait to dive in head first.

Look here, too! http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=60750

(Sorry for my redundancy. I am middle aged and my synapses just don't fire like they used to)

Thanks!

February 23rd, 2006, 01:36 AM	#1
Brian Osburn Tourist Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4	Squeeze Mode on DVX 100B So is there a significant loss in res compared to the anamorphic adapter? I read the DVX Book by Mr. Barry Green and it was very helpful. I do remember him saying it was a res loss but I’m just curious if it is that noticeable. I doubt that I am going to blow my Indi Feature up to film but I want to shoot it and have the option to blow it up if I changed my mind later. Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Brian

March 3rd, 2006, 04:12 PM	#8
Tim Borek Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Westfield, IN Posts: 353	DVC80 + 16:9 adapter or DVX100 I shoot with a DVC80 and GS120. I really like the anamorphic 16:9 mode (SLIM) in the GS120 and want to be able to match it with my primary camera, the DVC80. If the Panasonic AG-LA7200 Anamorphic Lens Adapter does such a lousy job, why is it so expensive? Am I better off paying $750 for the AG-LA7200, or just selling my DVC80 and paying the difference for a used DVX100/A? I'm guessing the cost will be about the same either way. 24p isn't very important to me, so the main advantage of the DVX with 16:9 squeeze is that it would be a lighter, shorter rig (plus the other step-up features of the 100). Did I just answer my own question? Which DVX100 -- original DVX or DVX100A -- has the better low-light performance? (I often shoot weddings and stage productions, so this is important.)

March 7th, 2006, 11:14 AM	#12
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,207	Barry: Is there a resolution loss shooting with the 16 X 9 bars in letterbox on the 100b? __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

March 8th, 2006, 07:40 AM	#14
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,207	Music to my eyes, Barry. I'm still waiting for your book and DVD (along with my Panasonic rebate check). Can't wait to dive in head first. Look here, too! http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=60750 (Sorry for my redundancy. I am middle aged and my synapses just don't fire like they used to) Thanks! __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

February 23rd, 2006, 03:16 AM	#2
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	why not crop in post then.

February 23rd, 2006, 10:34 AM	#3
Brian Osburn Tourist Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4	So then should I shoot in letterbox and then crop the black bars then edit in 16:9?

February 23rd, 2006, 08:34 PM	#4
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	The resolution loss in Squeeze, vs. the hassles avoided from not having to use the anamorphic adapter, are a pretty even match. Squeeze Mode does involve a res loss, bringing your ultimate resolution down to about 360 lines (when shooting 24p/thin). With the anamorphic adapter you could get almost 1/3 more resolution. However, the anamorphic introduces so many compromises into the shooting equation that many people don't bother with it, and just choose squeeze instead. While squeeze involves a res loss, keep in mind that it brings the overall resolution down to basically where interlaced "native 16:9" cameras end up. Those cameras have a max. of 360 lines as well, because they're interlaced. (I would say don't use squeeze if you're shooting interlaced, because then it'll drop you down to around 270 lines!) In short, I find Squeeze acceptable for most purposes.

February 24th, 2006, 09:46 AM	#5
Brian Osburn Tourist Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4	Thanks Barry. I really found your book helpful and these fourms are great to. Brian

March 3rd, 2006, 09:54 AM	#6
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	dont forget, what were calling a "loss in resolution" isnt actually a degredation of resolution.. its a digital cropping and then vertical stretching of the footage... in the end what youre really "losing is the top and bottom of the frame one ting i wan to know though, is whether Pana have set the DVX10b to tag 16:9/squeeze mode footage? or do u have to set the aspect manually like the 100a?? anyone wana buy a DVX100 original?? LOL less than 250hrs on the clock.. lol

March 3rd, 2006, 10:28 AM	#7
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	So when shooting squeeze mode, will it fill a widescreen tv the same way a native 16:9 would? Or will there be lines at the top and bottom? What about the outside chance of a video going to film? Is squeeze a problem?

March 6th, 2006, 05:57 AM	#9
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	Tim, the adapter isnt "bad" its jsut a lil awkward to work with.. especially if your taking teh adapter on and off periodically, the mount itself is ok, but the thread is cheap arsed plastic which will soon wear off and be useless. I returned 2 adapters for this reason. The lens is fine and makes the DVX a kickarse 16:9 camera, considering the native wideangle on the leica on its own.. moving along.. with regard to low light performance, the 100 original release is far cleaner by a country mile than what the 100a ever could be. running both side by side, you can see the differences and periosidically one must check exposure levels to match, what might be f2.8 on the 100a, would be f4 on the 100, now this is al dependant on the lit environment. Its not THAT noticable, but crank the gain and you CAN tell teh difference.. one thing though, in reply to the low light noisiness of teh 100a, i find that the 100a has a richer colour and wider dynamic range than the 100 (irrespective of the scene setting configs) .. ive even dumbed down my 100a to match the 100and still the colours are just that little bit deeper.

March 6th, 2006, 10:31 AM	#11
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	Barry you probably have been ask this, but how is the stardard DV on the HVX? But for me the HVX200 is a ways off. I've got about $3,000 now. To get the HVX200 and all that goes with it is way out of what I can do right now. The best I can do is the DVX or wait alittle longer and see what Canon comes out with.

March 8th, 2006, 02:03 AM	#13
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Standard DV on the HVX looks fantastic -- in 16:9 it's native 16:9 full-resolution, and in 4:3 it looks about the same as the DVX. When going to letterbox there's no resolution loss at all, because you're still displaying 4:3 video, just covering up some of the screen. So the area between the letterbox bars is resolving exactly the same as it would have in fullscreen 4:3 mode. Actually, in letterbox it's a little bit cleaner, because the compression is more efficient due to the repetition in the letterbox bars.