dvx100 -2.35.1 widescreen

Daniel Carruthers · May 9, 2007

Im shooting a short tommorow. and the director wants a 2.35.1 aspect ratio?

I dont have the wideangle adaptor.I know if I did I could crop the footage in camera giving me that aspect

But I dont,so Im gonna shoot in 4.3 than crop it later in post.

I guess my question is,is this a good idea to use this camera and go for that aspect ratio.

Daniel Sheehy · May 10, 2007

If its the only camera you have access to, then go for it.

It might be better if you can get a hold of a native 16:9 chip camera, as cropping that down to 2.35:1 will result in less resolution lost.

It depends on how important it is for the project, to be able to milk that extra little bit of resolution out of the shots.

Jonathan Bowerbank · May 29, 2007

Try shooting some tests in that vertically stretched "anamorphic" mode then deanamorphisize in post back to 16:9 then do a 2.35:1 matte and see what kind of quality you get.

Just a suggestion :)

Michael McIntyre · May 31, 2007

Try shooting some tests in that vertically stretched "anamorphic" mode then deanamorphisize in post back to 16:9 then do a 2.35:1 matte and see what kind of quality you get.

Just a suggestion :)

Actually - you might want to just crop. According to Barry Green's book, SQUEEZE mode "tops out at about 350 lines of resolution, a bit less than straight letterbox mode. SQUEEZE mode is a little bit lower resolution because it's been through a digital-stretching process, but it's 16:9 shaped".

Jonathan Bowerbank · June 1, 2007

It's not squeeze mode in camera. I know with most consumer DV cameras, when you go to 16:9 letterbox, it squeezes the frame and you lose resolution. But this is a vertical stretch in camera, rather than a squeeze. So essentially, wouldn't you be using MORE horizontal lines of resolution when capturing your footage?

It's essentially the same principal as deanamorphisizing, right?

Michael McIntyre · June 1, 2007

It's not squeeze mode in camera. I know with most consumer DV cameras, when you go to 16:9 letterbox, it squeezes the frame and you lose resolution. But this is a vertical stretch in camera, rather than a squeeze. So essentially, wouldn't you be using MORE horizontal lines of resolution when capturing your footage?

It's essentially the same principal as deanamorphisizing, right?

The DVX100 A & B series have straight 4:3, Letterbox (black bars on top and bottom) and Squeeze (which stretches the image to fill the 720 x 480 frame making it 16:9).

You'd think it would be more resolution but it's not. The only way (with the DVX) to get the best 16:9 is with the somewhat awkward lens adapter.

I was just quoting from Barry Green, author of "The DVX Book", Panasonic guru and frequent poster on that 'other' website dvxuser.com.

Further - "The result is a significant loss in resolution as compared to anamorphic, but the image is now suitable for playback on a widescreen television. Letterbox mode would be preferable to Squeeze mode for a film blow-up or HD up-rez.".

Sounds like reverse logic but it's true. His book has the focus chart tests to point out where the lines of resolution drop off and I've shot tests as well.

I really was hoping for in-camera Squeeze (fake 16:9) to be better. I already had a 16:9 broadcast monitor and was all prepared for a workflow to go straight out to 24p 16:9 DVD. I did 2 days of shooting at the start of the project to go down that road. Those 1st 2 days also really pushed the camera in some extreme set-ups where detail was key. Some of the 'weaker' areas of the DVX stock lens are wide-open and wide-angle. It really showed but was not much of a problem for the project. Once you 'flag' the footage as anamorphic, you can intercut with letterbox - it just gets 'de-sequeezed' in a 4:3 timeline.

If Letterbox is good enough for a HD blow-up and Oscar nomination "Iraq in Fragments" (dir. James Longley), then count me in.

Jonathan Bowerbank · June 1, 2007

Ahhhh, thanks Michael. Kinda lame that this feature is included in the camera if you're in fact losing detail & resolution as a result.

I've never shot with the stretch setting, since I've never had a 16:9 monitor to output to while shooting, plus it's just awkward composition wise to have that distorted image in the LCD, ha ha

thanks again Michael :)

Michael McIntyre · June 1, 2007

Ahhhh, thanks Michael. Kinda lame that this feature is included in the camera if you're in fact losing detail & resolution as a result.

I've never shot with the stretch setting, since I've never had a 16:9 monitor to output to while shooting, plus it's just awkward composition wise to have that distorted image in the LCD, ha ha

thanks again Michael :)

Sure thing, Jonathan. I agree - it is kinda weird. You'd think that with the pixels covering what seems like a smaller area, it would translate to a nice 16:9 workaround. As I mentioned with that shoot, I went so far as to even ignore everything I'd read. I was determined that it had to be as good if not better than letterbox. I guess there's just some weakness in that electronic process that doesn't fly.

Oddly enough, the DVX100B will 'un-squeeze' the vertically-stretched picture in the LCD for you. In the ASPECT CONV setting, you can force it to display the aspect ratio you want or just leave it on 'AUTO' and it will automatically kick in when you go to Squeeze mode. I think that's only an option on the 'B' though. I could be wrong (I don't have a DVX100A) but I'm somewhat sure that's the case.

It's also unfortunate that the Anamorphic adapter is difficult to work with. I went so far as to e-mail Barry Green, asking if all the horror stories were out there because of newer operators not accustomed to handling optics. He assured me that, no, it really is awkward. Filtration can't be added to the end and focusing gets really goofy. Most matteboxes are not an option. For focusing, you have to determine the focal point without the aid of the LCD or viewfinder.

Not to get off-topic, I guess I just need to get a HD camera {at some point} but I'm still loving what I'm seeing from the DVX and most of my work is still SD.

Enjoy San Francisco for me! A little land-locked here in Denver but loving that as well.

Been good chatting with you, Jonathan

Hans Kellner · June 2, 2007

I guess my question is,is this a good idea to use this camera and go for that aspect ratio.

(sorry, a little late answering for your timeframe)

I filmed our short Headshot using the DVX100A and cropped in post for 2:35. You may watch it here:

http://www.vizpictures.com/headshot/

I played around with the anamorphic adapter but it was too much of pain to use. We opted instead to shoot 4:3 and use guides on the lcd and monitor for the 2:35 limits.

Jonathan Bowerbank · June 2, 2007

Not to get off-topic, I guess I just need to get a HD camera {at some point} but I'm still loving what I'm seeing from the DVX and most of my work is still SD.

I agree the DVX still has its advantages over most HD cams, even the HVX. I've still yet to see anything impressive shot with the HVX. What I've seen always tends to have a blue bias with really poor flesh tones. But the DVX works better on both accounts, despite its lower res.

Michael McIntyre · June 3, 2007

I agree the DVX still has its advantages over most HD cams, even the HVX. I've still yet to see anything impressive shot with the HVX. What I've seen always tends to have a blue bias with really poor flesh tones. But the DVX works better on both accounts, despite its lower res.

Agreed... Seems like we've sorta hijacked this thread but oh well......

There really isn't much middle ground with the HVX -> people either love it or could care less. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more buzz around the Sony V1U. But, then again, there's the whole HDV debacle too (love it or hate it).

As this has progressed though, I'd be curious to hear which route was taken by the original topic starter: 2.35 widescreen on the DVX.