I bought a freewell anamorphic lens for my Mavic air 2 and need help with how to desqueeze the videos.
Hi and welcome to the user to user forums.
That depends on how you are going to use the footage in your project.
There may be several solutions.
I can think of one way but may not be ideal.
If you want the whole video to be from the anamorphic lens shots.
First set the aspect ratio of the anamorphic lens as your project ratio.
Import a video clip. You will be told it is the wrong aspect ratio and do you want to change it?
Select No. The clip should appear in the recorded aspect ratio centered but the image will be short of the edges.
Select the Size/ Position / Rotation tool and apply. Deselect the 'maintain aspect ratio' box. Stretch the width of the image to fit.
Do be aware that videoing with such a filter will have drawbacks.
You are creating a wider image using the same amount of pixels as if the lens filter wasn't in place.
That means when stretched, the sides of the images may become more distorted and go softer as the sharpness disappears, as there are less pixels recording the same amount of data as the center of the image but using less photo-sites. This is not easy to cure as any sharpening will need the use of a graduated mask or the whole image will be sharpened by the same amount.
That may also produce some graininess into the video especially if shooting in less than bright sunshine.
Ray.
Hi
Do be aware that videoing with such a filter will have drawbacks.
You are creating a wider image using the same amount of pixels as if the lens filter wasn't in place.
This is not correct. The principal of anamorphic photography is to expose all the pixels of a sensor with a taller aspect ratio, in this case the Mavic Air 2 with a 4:3 (1:1.33 AR) sensor, by squeezing (actually stretching the verticals) optically whilst recording, in order to create a wider 1:2.35 cinema aspect ratio on digital de-squeeze in post production.
That means when stretched, the sides of the images may become more distorted and go softer as the sharpness disappears, as there are less pixels recording the same amount of data as the center of the image but using less photo-sites.
Also not correct. The vertical stretch (aka squeeze) is linear over the sensor and any loss would be caused by the quality of the anamorphic (element, not a filter) which in the case of the Freewell adapter would be reflected in the low purchase price.
Peter
Hi Peter.
Thank you for the correction.
Personally I like the look of wide angled shots for a more cinematic look but have never liked the addition of the offered anamorphic lens adapters for the DJI series of products. It could therefore be the quality of the glass as an additional element always causes some light loss even with the best glass in use.
So I'm not sure what I see if you are correct but to me the output looks less sharp and distorted. Some of that could be the parallax problems that occur when shooting at wider angles. Maybe it is a lack of contrast from the light being scattered differently or as you point out, the quality of the element. I really am not sure, but this is what on average I notice when looking at comparison videos of unprocessed footage I see on YouTube. Freewell do seem to be the best of the bunch for this type of accessory for smaller sensors though.
To me it looks soft with a lack of contrast.
Ray.
Hi
From experience of wide angle converters both cheap ~ £20 with poor contrast, softness and colour aberration control, and expensive £200+ with good aberration control, sharp image and good contrast, you get what you pay for both in quality of image and in distortion.
From lens theory of many years ago, it is my understanding that the anamorphic lens should be between the lens main elements that correction for colour aberration and convergence such that the added unwanted effects of the anamorphic elements can be minimised with the elements. With any converter/supplementary lens stuck on the front you are very dependant upon its own control of distortions, colour aberration control and induced softness.
John EB
I know that the desqueeze factor is 1.15. So I take the 15 out of 100 and put the 85 that I get in my y scale. I don't know how to do that in magix. I also have heard about the edges looking soft with the wide angle bit I think being able to get the lens flair is worth it. I just want to see how much I can do in post to correct it.
Thank you both so much for helping out. I've been looking all over for help.
Hi Darius.
I don't know how to do that in magix.
If you haven't been able to follow fully what I had put in my reply just do the following.
Start a new project. Type the width and height of the frame in the appropriate boxes as that aspect ratio may not exist as a preset in MEP.. The dimensions are in pixels.
Then the frame speed of the files. 48kHz for sound samples and open the project. Find the files you need and add them one by one to the timeline on the same track. At this point just put them butt joined. Then highlight the first one by clicking on it. Make sure the timeline marker is on the clip so you can also see it in the monitor view. Then apply the Size \ Position \ Rotation tool and do the following to the first clip.
Then right click the same clip and do as follows
Even if the stretch was not applied %100 accurately at least every other file in the project will have been stretched by the same amount. That means when you eventually move them around or crop parts of them they will match width seamlessly to each other. I have used JPEGs in my example simply because I don't have different sized video clips. The method is equally valid for all file types.
Ray.