Finally! An actual video about the process of de-squeezing more than one image. Fantastic video. Can't believe there isn't a default setting for anamorphic photography!!!!
You can figure out the percent you need to squeeze in Luminar with the formula 100 * 1 / [squeeze factor, 1.33, 1.8, etc]. So, 1.33x is 75%, 1.5x is 67%, 1.66x is 60%, 1.8x is 55%, and of course 2x is 50%
@@AlienGrade (1/1.6)x100=62.5% for the height. Keep 100% for the width. You want to squeeze the height, not desqueeze the width because that would result in magnification and potential loss of detail.
Thanks for this, I'm really interested in experimenting with Anamorphic photography and this video was really useful starting point when it comes to processing
Hello, I saw you mention how in lightroom you could desqueeze the photo (with the aspect tool) without having to re-import if the lens had a smaller squeeze factor. Do you by any chance know the value for which I would stretch for a x1.33 lens?
Ja, beide Programme haben tools zum korrigieren der Verzerrung. In Lr unter Transformieren und in Ps entweder in camera raw, das funktioniert ähnlich wie in Lr, oder unter den Filtern mit dem adaptive wide angle filter. Ich kann bei bedarf auch mal ein Video dazu machen
@@florian.augustus.alexander Hi Florian - hab’s ausprobiert - funktioniert leider nicht . Beide Tools korrigieren entweder Tonnen oder Kissenförmige Verzeichnung. Bei der speziellen Optik des Sirui kommt es jedoch horizontal an den Rändern zu eine Beugung der Linien nach innen und vertikal nach außen - also einer Mischung aus Tonnen- und Kissenverzeichnung . Das könnte man jetzt pro Bild mit „Verzeichnen“ korrigieren, ist natürlich mühsam und ungenau . Hättest Du da eine Idee?
hello Florian, thank you very much for your comprehensive overview about the development of squeezed photos.. one aspect that interests me and perhaps others: are there any differences in the quality (sharpness, contrast, noise, distortion) between all those programs? e.g. I could imagine that Davinci uses other compression algos than a specific photo program.. at the moment I only use Capture one because of its stunning quality aspects in RAW, but C1 dienst support any changes in the aspect ration until now...
Hi Tom, thank you, glad to hear! That in fact is a really interesting point. I haven't seen any drastic differences, but I can imagine there are some slight ones. Espacially between Resolve and the other apps. as the foundation between a dedicated desqueeze function and a generic stretch might be different.
@@florian.augustus.alexander hi Flprian, thank you for your quick reply... that is in fact an interesting point, not discussed by other contributors. But what I meant was actually meant much more simply: what direct output quality is / can be generated? As a newbie particularly with video cutting and a photograph I was surprised that davincis output as export via the still grabbing function generated a mushy 6mp pic from an actual 61mp original .dng I didn't find a way to change the export quality into 100% ... is there a "trick" to change that easily? Viele Grüße, Tom ps. Another mostly underr aspect could be the general handling of picture data by different development software - as there are big differences e g between genuinely for photography developed sw like capture 1 or Lightroom (the latter has a more flat colour and contrast behaviour and minor "exactness"/ sharpness) there should be much great deviations between photo- and videgraphic sw... tbt: to be tested
@@tom_nuyts Hi Tom, yes the exporting options for photos aren't great in Resolve. When you export by grabbing stills, the image will have the timeline resolution. So in order to have the full res of the original photo, you have to make sure that the timeline you drop the photo in has the same resolution. It is a bit inconvinient with multiple aspect ratios etc. But then I mainly do the cropping afterwards in Lightroom. Another way would be to export the photos as a tiff sequence for example in the delivery tab. But surely Resolve isn't optimized for photo editing. But I still like the tools it offers very much. Yeah I guess there might be more differences with how the raw photos are interpreted between the different apps, but I haven't really taken my time analyzing that yet. But that could be a good idea to take a closer look at.
What i do is desqueeze the jpegs and open them on the second monitor to get the feel, edit the squeezed RAWs in lightrom, export and desqueeze the final jpg
Ich hab noch kein anamorphes Objektiv. Wenn ich durch den Sucher schaue ist das Foto bei der Aufnahme dann auch so gequetscht oder sieht das in dem Augenblick "normal" aus?
Bei der S1/S5 gibt es im Videomodus gibt es einen ananorphen desqueeze, dh die Preview und Playback sind korrekt dargestellt, aber sobald man in einen Fotomodus wechselt ist das Bild wieder verzerrt. Deshalb ist zum bild abschätzen die einzige Möglichkeit zwischen den Modi zu wechseln. Alternativ wäre eine Möglichkeit mit externem Monitor der einen ananorphen desqueeze hat zu arbeiten. Dann spart man sich das Modus switchen.
@@florian.augustus.alexander ah ok. Alles klar. Stimmt,..Jetzt wo du es sagst. Ich probiere das mal aus. Danke für die Antwort und das hilfreiche Video 🙏
Wouldn't the correct way of desqueezing be to alter the height of the image? When altering the width you have to add pixels that are not there. If you decrease the height you throw away pixels you don't need..
LrC kann über den Slider nicht mal einen 1.8x desqueezen, PS und Resolve benötigen eine Umwandlung, was auch seine Nachteile hat. Da bleibt dann Luminar noch übrig
Finally! An actual video about the process of de-squeezing more than one image. Fantastic video. Can't believe there isn't a default setting for anamorphic photography!!!!
Thank you really appreciate it! Yeah it would be really great having that in photo editing software!
You can figure out the percent you need to squeeze in Luminar with the formula 100 * 1 / [squeeze factor, 1.33, 1.8, etc]. So, 1.33x is 75%, 1.5x is 67%, 1.66x is 60%, 1.8x is 55%, and of course 2x is 50%
Thanks for the tip, that's useful to know
what is 1.6x anamorphic squeeze, would it be 60%?
@@AlienGrade (1/1.6)x100=62.5% for the height. Keep 100% for the width. You want to squeeze the height, not desqueeze the width because that would result in magnification and potential loss of detail.
@@talialiber2389 Your Awesome! Thank you!
Thanks for this, I'm really interested in experimenting with Anamorphic photography and this video was really useful starting point when it comes to processing
🎉 The only video I could find!
Hello, I saw you mention how in lightroom you could desqueeze the photo (with the aspect tool) without having to re-import if the lens had a smaller squeeze factor. Do you by any chance know the value for which I would stretch for a x1.33 lens?
Hi Florian, merci für das Video. Hast Du einen Tip, wie man die tonnenförmige Verzeichnung in LR oder PS korrigieren kann ?
Ja, beide Programme haben tools zum korrigieren der Verzerrung. In Lr unter Transformieren und in Ps entweder in camera raw, das funktioniert ähnlich wie in Lr, oder unter den Filtern mit dem adaptive wide angle filter. Ich kann bei bedarf auch mal ein Video dazu machen
@@florian.augustus.alexander Danke Dir , ich werde es mal probieren - und ein viedeo dazu ; immer gerne !
@@florian.augustus.alexander Hi Florian - hab’s ausprobiert - funktioniert leider nicht . Beide Tools korrigieren entweder Tonnen oder Kissenförmige Verzeichnung. Bei der speziellen Optik des Sirui kommt es jedoch horizontal an den Rändern zu eine Beugung der Linien nach innen und vertikal nach außen - also einer Mischung aus Tonnen- und Kissenverzeichnung . Das könnte man jetzt pro Bild mit „Verzeichnen“ korrigieren, ist natürlich mühsam und ungenau . Hättest Du da eine Idee?
hello Florian, thank you very much for your comprehensive overview about the development of squeezed photos..
one aspect that interests me and perhaps others: are there any differences in the quality (sharpness, contrast, noise, distortion) between all those programs? e.g. I could imagine that Davinci uses other compression algos than a specific photo program.. at the moment I only use Capture one because of its stunning quality aspects in RAW, but C1 dienst support any changes in the aspect ration until now...
Hi Tom, thank you, glad to hear! That in fact is a really interesting point. I haven't seen any drastic differences, but I can imagine there are some slight ones. Espacially between Resolve and the other apps. as the foundation between a dedicated desqueeze function and a generic stretch might be different.
@@florian.augustus.alexander hi Flprian, thank you for your quick reply... that is in fact an interesting point, not discussed by other contributors. But what I meant was actually meant much more simply: what direct output quality is / can be generated? As a newbie particularly with video cutting and a photograph I was surprised that davincis output as export via the still grabbing function generated a mushy 6mp pic from an actual 61mp original .dng I didn't find a way to change the export quality into 100% ... is there a "trick" to change that easily? Viele Grüße, Tom ps. Another mostly underr aspect could be the general handling of picture data by different development software - as there are big differences e g between genuinely for photography developed sw like capture 1 or Lightroom (the latter has a more flat colour and contrast behaviour and minor "exactness"/ sharpness) there should be much great deviations between photo- and videgraphic sw... tbt: to be tested
@@tom_nuyts Hi Tom, yes the exporting options for photos aren't great in Resolve. When you export by grabbing stills, the image will have the timeline resolution. So in order to have the full res of the original photo, you have to make sure that the timeline you drop the photo in has the same resolution. It is a bit inconvinient with multiple aspect ratios etc. But then I mainly do the cropping afterwards in Lightroom. Another way would be to export the photos as a tiff sequence for example in the delivery tab. But surely Resolve isn't optimized for photo editing. But I still like the tools it offers very much. Yeah I guess there might be more differences with how the raw photos are interpreted between the different apps, but I haven't really taken my time analyzing that yet. But that could be a good idea to take a closer look at.
Thank you, really informative! I learned a lot!
Thank you! That's great to hear!
I would be awesome if adobe implement dequezing in LR. Lens correction profiles woumd be nic fir anamorphic lenses.
I’m really interested the Davinci resolve way, after color grading the photo on time line, how can you export them as photo not video?
you can export the stills of each "photo" on the timeline.
What i do is desqueeze the jpegs and open them on the second monitor to get the feel, edit the squeezed RAWs in lightrom, export and desqueeze the final jpg
Thanks man!
Ich hab noch kein anamorphes Objektiv. Wenn ich durch den Sucher schaue ist das Foto bei der Aufnahme dann auch so gequetscht oder sieht das in dem Augenblick "normal" aus?
Bei der S1/S5 gibt es im Videomodus gibt es einen ananorphen desqueeze, dh die Preview und Playback sind korrekt dargestellt, aber sobald man in einen Fotomodus wechselt ist das Bild wieder verzerrt. Deshalb ist zum bild abschätzen die einzige Möglichkeit zwischen den Modi zu wechseln. Alternativ wäre eine Möglichkeit mit externem Monitor der einen ananorphen desqueeze hat zu arbeiten. Dann spart man sich das Modus switchen.
@@florian.augustus.alexander ah ok. Alles klar. Stimmt,..Jetzt wo du es sagst. Ich probiere das mal aus. Danke für die Antwort und das hilfreiche Video 🙏
Luminar Neo just crashes everytime I try to do this
Nice video - Just subscribed
Thanks mate!
Wouldn't the correct way of desqueezing be to alter the height of the image?
When altering the width you have to add pixels that are not there. If you decrease the height you throw away pixels you don't need..
Hä, warum findest du die Luminar-Variante am besten? Die hat ja die meisten Manuellen Schritte und der Desqueeze ist einfach nach Auge
LrC kann über den Slider nicht mal einen 1.8x desqueezen, PS und Resolve benötigen eine Umwandlung, was auch seine Nachteile hat. Da bleibt dann Luminar noch übrig
actions PSh luminar)))