-
Anamorphic vs. Letterboxig in post for online distribution
I’m working on a film, the final product will be a 16:9 aspect ratio. We’re shooting the DVX100a. My feelings are to shoot in anamorphic squeeze mode to create a higher quality image. The thing is that the final project is going to be
1. Projected as a QT file off a labtop with a crappy to medium quality digital projector for a live presentation,
2. Then distributed on Myspace and Youtube as an online promo.It might live on to become part of a DVD as some point but my producer is not concerned with that.
I am under the impression that QT won’t support Anamorphic, so I’ll have to distort the image back to as if it was 4:3 with a letter box for the live sreening. And online, the video will be compresssed so much that the extra res from anamorphic won’t make a difference.
So is there any reason to shoot anamorphic opposed to 4:3 and cropping it later in post? thanks everyone
-
11 Replies
-
Garbage in, garbage out… the better you start with, the better the end product. The anamorhic lens will make a difference however small, it will be there.
Jerry
Apple Certified Trainer
Author: “Jerry Hofmann on Final Cut Pro 4” Click here
Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D
-
But doesn’t QT not suport anamorphic? The client is projecting the QT file for the presentation so won’t I have to scale the squeezed anamorphic image back down to get it to play properly in QT?
-
He has to project from a file? I do this all the time from my mac and don’t have a problem. Try one full screen. Or you could make him a DVD, that definately will work from a Mac.
Jerry
Apple Certified Trainer
Author: “Jerry Hofmann on Final Cut Pro 4” Click here
Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D
-
My client wants to screen the movie directing out of quicktime. He’s going to have his labtop plugged into a projector and screening straight out of that. He specifically does not want a DVD. So is there anyway to get my Anamorphic sequence out onto a QT file, without distorting it down? Which is essentially reducing the quality of the anamophic back to as if I would have shot 4:3, only I don’t get the vertical wiggle room to play with.
-
When you capture a tape shot with the squeeze setting or with the anamorphic lens you will have the same format in FCP (or QT) 720×480 anamorphic. But the squeeze mode has been electronically cropped and resized in the camera where as the lens is using the entire CCD and no upscaling is being done. So you will get a better (sharper image) The lens has its down side but you do get a better image. Lenses #1 down side is lens flare.
-
You can play the anamorphic video directly out out QT player if you have QT Pro installed.
If the file plays squeezed then go to the “window” menu and select “show movie properties”. Select “video track” and click on “visual settings”. Unclick “preserve aspect ratio” and enter in new pixel dimensions in the boxes provided to stretch the image back to normal. A good starting place is to punch in 1280×720 pixels. If this size isn’t ideal then drag the bottom right corner of the player box to the best size. Also click on “high quality” in the bottom right corner or else it will play at 1/2 resolution (this goes for playing dv from the QT player in general).
If you’re not using an anamorphic lens on the camera, I wouldn’t bother with the shooting in anamorphic mode in the camera as you won’t gain any resolution advantage as a previous poster commented. It is possible (though I haven’t tested it) that by shooting in anamorphic mode in the camera that you may see smaller compression artifacts though if the resizing is done before the compression takes place in the camera.
Good luck with your film!
-bruce
-
thanks Bruce. I’ve been searching for the ability to play back anamorphic in quicktime properly for a while. Very helpful.
I don’t have an anamorphic lense. My choice is shoot 4:3 and crop in post, or shoot squeeze mode anamorphic. Won’t even squeeze mode give me more resolution than 4:3?
-
As Sacci says above, the resolution of your entire image will be 740 x 480 regardless of whether you choose to shoot 4:3 or squeeze. Your choice to crop the 4:3 image would be when the resolution loss would occur. So…
For 16:9 final output, shoot squeeze or use an anamorphic lens with your camera set to 4:3. Don’t letterbox or crop at any stage of the process, unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
One example of a good time to throw away some resolution by letterboxing, would be when the only monitor available is 4:3 only. In this case, create one letterboxed version for this viewing only.
Good luck.
Tom
-
thanks Bruce. I’ve been searching for the ability to play back anamorphic in quicktime properly for a while. Very helpful.
I think if you save the QT file with the new settings, it will play back un-squeezed the next time.
I don’t have an anamorphic lense. My choice is shoot 4:3 and crop in post, or shoot squeeze mode anamorphic. Won’t even squeeze mode give me more resolution than 4:3?
The DVX100a has 4:3 chips. When you set it to record in anamorphic mode, the camera shoots a 4:3 image, crops, and then re-sizes to fill the screen with an anamorphic image. The result is that you’ll crop in the camera or in FCP. Your choice.
-
For final online distribution, encode your final edit to your codec of choice and convert the HD or anamorphic SD frame size to a square-pixel 16×9 aspect ratio, e.g., 720×405, 640×360, 400×226, 320×180, etc. We do this all the time.
A big pet pieve of mine is when someone works in beautiful widescreen format (whether it’s HD, anamorphic SD or letterbox SD) and they encode it for the web in letterbox format. This is wasted resolution and wasted bandwidth. If it’s originally letterbox, crop it out! If it’s originally HD or anamorphic, don’t add it in! The black letterboxing just adds to the file size and makes it look ugly against whatever webpage background there is.
Marco Solorio | OneRiver Media
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up