Do you save much space shooting 2:1 rather than 16:9?

[Matt Hutchinson]

Hi,
We're shooting a low budget feature in January, and making 3 copies of the footage is testing our storage resources.

Since we're shooting a human drama, we were going to shoot 4K 16:9 and frame for 1.85:1. However, I believe shooting 2:1 and framing for 2.39:1 will use less storage space? Does anyone know how much of a difference this will make? If it saves a decent amount of space, we'll definitely shoot this way.

Thanks!

 

[George Butterfield]

Hi,
We're shooting a low budget feature in January, and making 3 copies of the footage is testing our storage resources.

Since we're shooting a human drama, we were going to shoot 4K 16:9 and frame for 1.85:1. However, I believe shooting 2:1 and framing for 2.39:1 will use less storage space? Does anyone know how much of a difference this will make? If it saves a decent amount of space, we'll definitely shoot this way.

Thanks!

I think this info is on the web, but I'm too busy to look right now, why not shoot a 5 minute clip at 4K HD and another 5 minute clip at your desired 2:1 format and compare the sizes of the two clips, that's your answer. I shoot exclusively at 4K HD right now RC8. The RC also makes a huge difference of course. You could make just one copy, then just back up the "good" clips.

 

[PatrickFaith]

If you have a ipad, get the app "KataData" - it quickly calculates storage requirements for all RED formats and acquisitions modes. It also calculates the sizes for DI. http://katabatic.tv/katadata/

 

[Björn Benckert]

If my math is not completely off then you would save 11.11%

According to the following:

16:9 = 4000x2250 = 90000000 pixels
2.1 = 4000x2000= 80000000 pixels

(9000000-80000000) / 9000000 = 11.1111%

It does not seem like a lot but I find it much easer to work with 2:1 in post and the resolution you have at hand still let you crop quite a bit before the image deteriorate. Do not know how much it helps for REd rocket playebacks etc, but those last procent usually makes a difference.

For 2.41 you got:

2.41 = 4000x1660 =6640000 pixels


So 2.41 gives a difference from 16:9 of about 26%

 

[Glen Powell]

If you have a ipad, get the app "KataData" - it quickly calculates storage requirements for all RED formats and acquisitions modes. It also calculates the sizes for DI. http://katabatic.tv/katadata/

+1 on this suggestion.

This app will definitely help you - You'll be able to quickly input the variables and compare your options. +No math...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

R3D is a variable compression, so apps like KataData can only approximate, but they come reasonably close. 4K 2:1 is 11% smaller than 4K 16:9, in my experience the actual difference in recorded frame size is less than that 11% -- probably around 8% or so. Just going off the top of my head. Have not shot with a RED One in over a year and EPIC files are larger.

All due respect here, but drives and storage are super cheap -- $150 buys you a 3TB HDD these days. 3TB HDD holds roughly 20 hours of 4K 2:1. I've been involved in several low budget (or no budget) productions. If we got to the point where storage was a concern, I would think that catastrophic failure had already set in elsewhere. Just sayin'

 

[Marc Wielage]

Since we're shooting a human drama, we were going to shoot 4K 16:9 and frame for 1.85:1. However, I believe shooting 2:1 and framing for 2.39:1 will use less storage space? Does anyone know how much of a difference this will make? If it saves a decent amount of space, we'll definitely shoot this way.

To me, aspect ratios are an artistic choice, not a technical choice. I wouldn't decide on one or the other based solely on storage space. I do think 16x9 full frame is the most efficient use of screen real estate, especially for an indie feature that will find its biggest audience in home video and downloads.

 

[Matt Hutchinson]

All due respect here, but drives and storage are super cheap -- $150 buys you a 3TB HDD these days. 3TB HDD holds roughly 20 hours of 4K 2:1. I've been involved in several low budget (or no budget) productions. If we got to the point where storage was a concern, I would think that catastrophic failure had already set in elsewhere. Just sayin'

Thanks for the advice guys! Jeff, you're absolutely right, I guess I should have clarified that it's ULTRA low-budget (10 grand for actors and catering, the crew are all in final year film school and doing it for free), and we've already spent the whole budget, plus gone into debt to buy the BT R1 - totally worth it, but every penny counts!

I'm thinking 2:1@Redcode42 is what Fincher shot SOCIAL NETWORK on, and we'll be shooting a lot of lowlight and greenscreen, so 42 seems pretty necessary? Is there a chart somewhere that compares the compression/aspect ratio for a 64GB SSD? Could only find one for the Epic.

Thanks again guys

 

[Harry Stanton]

Cool app. Just downloaded it.