In-Camera 16:9 (squeeze mode) .vs Cropped Letterbox Examples at DVinfo.net

Rodger Marjama · March 25th, 2004, 11:09 AM

Even before buying my DVX100A, I had been wanting to buy the DVX100 since it first appeared at WEVA back in 2002. Since then, I have been doing as much as possible with available clips and involved with forum discussions in all matters relating to this fine camera.

Shortly after buying the DVX100A, I made a determination based on my understanding as well as first hand use with the DVX100A, on how Squeeze Mode is superior in quality as well as workflow to letterbox mode. I post most everywhere about this and why I believe it is so.

I was asked by Barry Green yesterday over on 2-pop to do a comparison shot between these two modes and post the results. He want some live moving tree leaves, but since there are no tree leaves here right now, I just did a couple of frame grabs of at test chart.

So, for any interested in which is better, squeeze mode or letterbox, you might want to go this link and read my explanations and take a look for yourself at the images.

Here's the link: http://www.uemforums.com/2pop/ubbthr...b=5&o=&fpart=1

Hope this helps any who are wondering which to use for 16:9 shooting.

-Rodger

Marc Martin · March 25th, 2004, 08:13 PM

Very interesting. I have imported the images in Vegas, resized the squeezed images to 720*480. The letter box has more resolution than the others images. S-pline tends to makes some problems, like distorsion or aliasing.

I would like to have more tests like this on the differents gamma.

It could help folks like me to decide to update or no from DVX100 to DVX100A.

Takeshi Fukushima · April 7th, 2004, 11:23 PM

Just wondering about the anamorphic vs squeeze image comparison.
If the "squeezed image" is digitally squeezed, wouldn't the anamorphic adaptor be cleaner since it is optical.
maybe the drawback for the anamorphic adaptor is that it cannot use filters etc, as easier than on the normal lens.
Has anyone worked out a comparison of the anamorphic vs. squeeze image quality?
Thanks
takeshi

Nick Campos · April 10th, 2004, 07:47 AM

Hi there.

Im trying to understand why squeeze mode is being compared to letterbox mode?One is for 16x9 and the other for letterboxed 4x3.
.....Am I missing something?

Please would someone explain!!

-Nick

Michael Petro · April 10th, 2004, 09:01 AM

I am trying to figure out squeeze mode also .. like how much rez am I losing .. I can tell some is gone. and
I know in letter box I am just chopping the top and bottom out but whats left looks sharper to me( of course I am a newbie camera owner and I could be doing something wrong). However does squeeze spread across a wide screen proper?

michael Petro

Rodger Marjama · April 10th, 2004, 09:49 AM

The reason for the comparison is to help determine if shooting squeeze mode (in-camera 16:9) will produce higher quality then shooting letterbox or 4:3 mode and cropping to 16:9 in post.

Alot has been said in the referenced post I mentioned in my inital post starting this topic. If you intersted, you might just click and read the post I linked.

-Rodger

Stefan Scherperel · April 10th, 2004, 10:38 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Campos : Hi there.

Im trying to understand why squeeze mode is being compared to letterbox mode?One is for 16x9 and the other for letterboxed 4x3.
.....Am I missing something?

Please would someone explain!!

-Nick -->>>

Nick, The reason that everyone is comparing 16x9 and letterboxed 4x3 is because they start out the exact same way, and have the potential to end up the same, with different results. To clarify, both 16:9 and 4:3 use only a part of the 3ccds to produce the image. both use the center part of the ccd much like the way you see a cropped 16:9 image on a 4:3 TV. THe difference between these images is that 4:3 stays croped within the 4:3 frame, thus makig it about 360x720 pixels (correct me on the pixel count guys). The squeezed mode takes that same image and actually stretches the vertical resolution back to 480pixels. You can then edit the footage in a true 16:9 timeline having the full vertical resolution to work with. On a 4:3 television, these two images will look the same (after having gone to dvd or back out to tape after editing). However, you can take your 4:3 image and stretch it the same way in post making it 480pixels high as well. This is what is being compared, whether stretching it in camera (before compression) or stretching it after compresseion in you post production will give you better results. And looking qat Rodgers test results it seems clear that squeeze mode is the winner, which I actually leave my camera in 90% of the time.

Rodger Marjama · April 11th, 2004, 08:24 AM

I would say there is (or was) really no doubt in-camera 16:9 (squeeze mode) is the winner over letterbox or 4:3 mode in overall quality. It is however less of a winner then I had predicted it would be. None the less it is superior quality-wise and add to that the easier/quicker work in post for true 16:9 output and it really make almost no sense to shoot in anything but squeeze mode when final output is slated for 16:9.

About the only reason for any other mode is if you were going to tape where you need the letterbox bars or really feel the need to have some head room to adjust your 16:9 crop window in post.

I do wish someone would do some similar tests using the DVX100A in squeeze mode against the early model DVX100 using the anamorphic adapter and also the DVX100A with the adapter. It would be a very telling test for sure and put to rest the idea of "how much better" the anamorphic produces 16:9 footage.

My belief is that due to the focus issues with the anamorphic and to some degree barrel distortion, those of us lucky enough to have the DVX100A are already doing the best 16:9 right from the camera without the anamorphic lens.

Can someone please prove me wrong??? I'm sure that a bunch of DVX100A users would like to know for sure.

-Rodger

Nick Campos · April 13th, 2004, 04:24 PM

Oh,...I see...So let me get this straight.

For 16x9 delivery,squeeze mode wins.(obviously)
And for letterboxed 4x3 delivery,squeeze mode???...

Sorry for the hassles,but Barry had me convinced 4x3 letterbox was the way to go for 4x3 letterbox delivery.

thanks.
-Nick

Barry Green · April 13th, 2004, 05:32 PM

For 16:9 delivery, squeeze mode can deliver a slightly higher quality output than stretched letterbox, primarily because you avoid a recompression cycle on post-processing.

For 4:3 delivery, letterbox mode will deliver higher quality than unsqueezed/letterboxed squeeze mode.

Ben Gurvich · April 13th, 2004, 07:33 PM

When i shoot in squeeze mode, i can capture into premiere fine, but when i take it into after effects things fall apart, it goes back to the squished look or squeezes it again.

Does anyone else have this problem?

Stefan Scherperel · April 13th, 2004, 11:45 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Ben Gurvich : When i shoot in squeeze mode, i can capture into premiere fine, but when i take it into after effects things fall apart, it goes back to the squished look or squeezes it again.

Does anyone else have this problem? -->>>

Just right click on the file in after effects and click, interpret footage. Check the 16:9 box and your set. or you can just use the transform controls to spread it out. There really is no difference the way the file is save whether it be 4:3 or 16:9, it is the same resolution (720x480). The difference comes into the 16:9 flags that are set to tell your NLE or whatever you use that the pixels need to be 1.2 instead of .9 for normal dv. I think those numbers are right, but it's somewhere around there.

Edmond Chan · April 19th, 2004, 01:41 AM

I think Rodger is right...

I think the real question is what's the different between the squeeze mode compare with the AG-LA7200 Anamorphic Lens adapter? I think for utlimate picture quality, the anamorphic lens maybe a little better since the optical lens do the trick... but how much different? a 9 to 10... Is that worth the USD 800?

By the way, once you use the squeeze mode... the source will automatically add-in a 16:9 flags - is that correct? If yes... why the adobe premiere can reconize it and the adobe aftereffect can not? it really don't make any sense...

Question... if i open the premiere in 720x480 and import the squeeze mode inside... and make the clip set as it original aspect ratio... will the clip transform back to 4x3???

Ed

Guy Bruner · April 25th, 2004, 08:03 PM

A good reason for shooting in squeeze mode is that it is most compatible between 4:3 and 16:9 sets when the delivery is DVD. The DVD player automatically adjusts for the set format and will play the video at full screen on HDTV and letterboxed on SDTV. If you shoot letterbox and put it on DVD, it will pillarbox on 16:9 sets...most folks object to that.

BTW, here is a technical report that has been posted before that explains very well the technical aspects of DV.

March 25th, 2004, 11:09 AM	#1
Rodger Marjama Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Loveland, CO Posts: 101	In-Camera 16:9 (squeeze mode) .vs Cropped Letterbox Examples Even before buying my DVX100A, I had been wanting to buy the DVX100 since it first appeared at WEVA back in 2002. Since then, I have been doing as much as possible with available clips and involved with forum discussions in all matters relating to this fine camera. Shortly after buying the DVX100A, I made a determination based on my understanding as well as first hand use with the DVX100A, on how Squeeze Mode is superior in quality as well as workflow to letterbox mode. I post most everywhere about this and why I believe it is so. I was asked by Barry Green yesterday over on 2-pop to do a comparison shot between these two modes and post the results. He want some live moving tree leaves, but since there are no tree leaves here right now, I just did a couple of frame grabs of at test chart. So, for any interested in which is better, squeeze mode or letterbox, you might want to go this link and read my explanations and take a look for yourself at the images. Here's the link: http://www.uemforums.com/2pop/ubbthr...b=5&o=&fpart=1 Hope this helps any who are wondering which to use for 16:9 shooting. -Rodger __________________ Rodger Marjama www.speedwing.net

April 7th, 2004, 11:23 PM	#3
Takeshi Fukushima Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 86	squeezed image vs anamorphic adaptor Just wondering about the anamorphic vs squeeze image comparison. If the "squeezed image" is digitally squeezed, wouldn't the anamorphic adaptor be cleaner since it is optical. maybe the drawback for the anamorphic adaptor is that it cannot use filters etc, as easier than on the normal lens. Has anyone worked out a comparison of the anamorphic vs. squeeze image quality? Thanks takeshi

April 10th, 2004, 09:49 AM	#6
Rodger Marjama Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Loveland, CO Posts: 101	The reason for the comparison is to help determine if shooting squeeze mode (in-camera 16:9) will produce higher quality then shooting letterbox or 4:3 mode and cropping to 16:9 in post. Alot has been said in the referenced post I mentioned in my inital post starting this topic. If you intersted, you might just click and read the post I linked. -Rodger __________________ Rodger Marjama www.speedwing.net

April 11th, 2004, 08:24 AM	#8
Rodger Marjama Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Loveland, CO Posts: 101	I would say there is (or was) really no doubt in-camera 16:9 (squeeze mode) is the winner over letterbox or 4:3 mode in overall quality. It is however less of a winner then I had predicted it would be. None the less it is superior quality-wise and add to that the easier/quicker work in post for true 16:9 output and it really make almost no sense to shoot in anything but squeeze mode when final output is slated for 16:9. About the only reason for any other mode is if you were going to tape where you need the letterbox bars or really feel the need to have some head room to adjust your 16:9 crop window in post. I do wish someone would do some similar tests using the DVX100A in squeeze mode against the early model DVX100 using the anamorphic adapter and also the DVX100A with the adapter. It would be a very telling test for sure and put to rest the idea of "how much better" the anamorphic produces 16:9 footage. My belief is that due to the focus issues with the anamorphic and to some degree barrel distortion, those of us lucky enough to have the DVX100A are already doing the best 16:9 right from the camera without the anamorphic lens. Can someone please prove me wrong??? I'm sure that a bunch of DVX100A users would like to know for sure. -Rodger __________________ Rodger Marjama www.speedwing.net

March 25th, 2004, 08:13 PM	#2
Marc Martin Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 80	Very interesting. I have imported the images in Vegas, resized the squeezed images to 720*480. The letter box has more resolution than the others images. S-pline tends to makes some problems, like distorsion or aliasing. I would like to have more tests like this on the differents gamma. It could help folks like me to decide to update or no from DVX100 to DVX100A.

April 10th, 2004, 07:47 AM	#4
Nick Campos New Boot Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Africa Posts: 6	Hi there. Im trying to understand why squeeze mode is being compared to letterbox mode?One is for 16x9 and the other for letterboxed 4x3. .....Am I missing something? Please would someone explain!! -Nick

April 10th, 2004, 09:01 AM	#5
Michael Petro New Boot Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8	I am trying to figure out squeeze mode also .. like how much rez am I losing .. I can tell some is gone. and I know in letter box I am just chopping the top and bottom out but whats left looks sharper to me( of course I am a newbie camera owner and I could be doing something wrong). However does squeeze spread across a wide screen proper? michael Petro

April 10th, 2004, 10:38 AM	#7
Stefan Scherperel Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Seattle WA Posts: 209	<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Campos : Hi there. Im trying to understand why squeeze mode is being compared to letterbox mode?One is for 16x9 and the other for letterboxed 4x3. .....Am I missing something? Please would someone explain!! -Nick -->>> Nick, The reason that everyone is comparing 16x9 and letterboxed 4x3 is because they start out the exact same way, and have the potential to end up the same, with different results. To clarify, both 16:9 and 4:3 use only a part of the 3ccds to produce the image. both use the center part of the ccd much like the way you see a cropped 16:9 image on a 4:3 TV. THe difference between these images is that 4:3 stays croped within the 4:3 frame, thus makig it about 360x720 pixels (correct me on the pixel count guys). The squeezed mode takes that same image and actually stretches the vertical resolution back to 480pixels. You can then edit the footage in a true 16:9 timeline having the full vertical resolution to work with. On a 4:3 television, these two images will look the same (after having gone to dvd or back out to tape after editing). However, you can take your 4:3 image and stretch it the same way in post making it 480pixels high as well. This is what is being compared, whether stretching it in camera (before compression) or stretching it after compresseion in you post production will give you better results. And looking qat Rodgers test results it seems clear that squeeze mode is the winner, which I actually leave my camera in 90% of the time.

April 13th, 2004, 04:24 PM	#9
Nick Campos New Boot Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Africa Posts: 6	Oh,...I see...So let me get this straight. For 16x9 delivery,squeeze mode wins.(obviously) And for letterboxed 4x3 delivery,squeeze mode???... Sorry for the hassles,but Barry had me convinced 4x3 letterbox was the way to go for 4x3 letterbox delivery. thanks. -Nick

April 13th, 2004, 05:32 PM	#10
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	For 16:9 delivery, squeeze mode can deliver a slightly higher quality output than stretched letterbox, primarily because you avoid a recompression cycle on post-processing. For 4:3 delivery, letterbox mode will deliver higher quality than unsqueezed/letterboxed squeeze mode.

April 13th, 2004, 07:33 PM	#11
Ben Gurvich Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 329	When i shoot in squeeze mode, i can capture into premiere fine, but when i take it into after effects things fall apart, it goes back to the squished look or squeezes it again. Does anyone else have this problem?

April 13th, 2004, 11:45 PM	#12
Stefan Scherperel Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Seattle WA Posts: 209	<<<-- Originally posted by Ben Gurvich : When i shoot in squeeze mode, i can capture into premiere fine, but when i take it into after effects things fall apart, it goes back to the squished look or squeezes it again. Does anyone else have this problem? -->>> Just right click on the file in after effects and click, interpret footage. Check the 16:9 box and your set. or you can just use the transform controls to spread it out. There really is no difference the way the file is save whether it be 4:3 or 16:9, it is the same resolution (720x480). The difference comes into the 16:9 flags that are set to tell your NLE or whatever you use that the pixels need to be 1.2 instead of .9 for normal dv. I think those numbers are right, but it's somewhere around there.

April 19th, 2004, 01:41 AM	#13
Edmond Chan New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: ho chi minh city, vietnam Posts: 22	I think Rodger is right... I think the real question is what's the different between the squeeze mode compare with the AG-LA7200 Anamorphic Lens adapter? I think for utlimate picture quality, the anamorphic lens maybe a little better since the optical lens do the trick... but how much different? a 9 to 10... Is that worth the USD 800? By the way, once you use the squeeze mode... the source will automatically add-in a 16:9 flags - is that correct? If yes... why the adobe premiere can reconize it and the adobe aftereffect can not? it really don't make any sense... Question... if i open the premiere in 720x480 and import the squeeze mode inside... and make the clip set as it original aspect ratio... will the clip transform back to 4x3??? Ed

April 25th, 2004, 08:03 PM	#14
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	A good reason for shooting in squeeze mode is that it is most compatible between 4:3 and 16:9 sets when the delivery is DVD. The DVD player automatically adjusts for the set format and will play the video at full screen on HDTV and letterboxed on SDTV. If you shoot letterbox and put it on DVD, it will pillarbox on 16:9 sets...most folks object to that. BTW, here is a technical report that has been posted before that explains very well the technical aspects of DV.