Cinemascope 2,35:1 release print

[Szymon]

Hello all,
Perhaps there aleready is a topic solving this, but I just can't find a suitable thread.And it seems essential knowledge to me now, that is neither on the www.red.com, neither easy accessable on reduser.net. I am a cinematographer willing to shoot a feature in cinemascope on RED, i would love to use standard zeiss set, without anamorphic lenses, but i would need to know the best workflow for cinemascope print. seems most posts focus on either HD output, or 1:1,85 cinema output. are cinemascope issues covered anywhere? could not find no user handbook, no transparent fact file, just hours of digging this forum:

What is the optimal workflow, and camera parameters, as well as dpx file size, and what project type to set in final cut, when i want the final cinema print to be WIDESCREEN 2,35:1 aspect ratio.

and now detailed questions:

1. Red is natively 2:1 framesize, I can either shoot 4K 2:1 and display cinemascope letterbox,or set the project to 4K cinemascope 2:,35:1. is there any difference in quality between the two?

2. if I do the arrilaser film-out in cinemascope in 4K in european feature film budgets reality it is usually too expensive, so we end up having to do it in 2K. And now 2K in 1,85:1 is 2048x1108 and looks OK in cinema. but is it still OK in terms of quality drop to print cinemascope that is only under 900lines (2048x871 pixels)?

3. how to prepare the dpx files for film out in cinemascope? when i shoot on set i have standard zeiss lenses, i letterbox the image to 2,35:1 and it is OK, but the cinema print at some point has to have the image squeezed into 4:3 frame (deanamorphosis),so it could be unsqueezed back to normal 2,35:1 in the projection. i expect to loose pixel size from square to squeezed, and loose quality in this process. do i just do it by stretching the image horizontally in SCRATCH or QUANTEL, or is there a different way to save as much RED ONE quality as possible?

4. Final cut pro project settings for editing 2,35:1 material. should i set it to HD 25p1080, and simply render letterbox, or is there any way to natively open the 2,35:1 material in final cut pro 6 without having to render black stripes on every single shot?

thank you all in advance for answers and directions.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Hello all,


What is the optimal workflow, and camera parameters, as well as dpx file size, and what project type to set in final cut, when i want the final cinema print to be WIDESCREEN 2,35:1 aspect ratio.

you dont want to finish in final Cut for filmoutput anway...fcp`s rgb renderengine is 8 bit only.
fcp cant read dpx files, you would need gluetools

if you have the dollars for a filmoutput you should do the CC and finishing in a posthouse

 

[Szymon]

right, and that is what i do! i edit myself FCP and then take dpx via crimson /redcine to post house to do CC on nucoda or quantel or scratch. that was not the question...

 

[J. Bernard Vallon]

if I remeber correctly, redcine let's you crunch or stretch an image as one of your output parameters. You should probably crop to 2.35:1 and output to 4:3 from redcine to get as close to your RAW files as possible when doing a transformation like that.

I don't know if redcine let's you change your pixel aspect ratio, but couldnt you just oversample your output and keep square pixels until your ready for the laser?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If you had shot 4K 2:1, you would have framed for cropping 2:1 to 2.39 : 1, and shot a framing chart that matches your scope framing in the viewfinder.

At some point, you'd letterbox your footage in editing to 2.39, either before you started cutting, or during, or after -- it doesn't matter so much because it's temporary.

You take the EDL and original R3D files, which are 2:1, into a post house and they create a 2K or 4K RGB master that is 2:1. Hopefully you edited your framing chart into the master or delivered it separately, but anyway, during the D.I. color-correction session you can choose to either look at the whole frame, 2:1, or letterbox it to 2.39.

The final files are still 2:1 full-frame (so you have options later to make 16x9 HD masters, any panned & scanned versions, etc.).

You set the Arrilaser to use only the 2.39 : 1 area of the 2:1 files, and you also set it to convert that to 2X anamorphic (usually I think it just records out every horizontal line twice.) It also has to fit the image into the sound aperture width.

So yes, the area used for the film recording in 2K would be around 2048 x 857 pixels, and it's done all the time for 2K D.I.'s of Super-35 projects composed for scope. If 4K, it would be around 4096 x 1714.

 

[Simon Baechler]

There is a cinemascope resolution as well. It's 1828x1556 with a 2:1 pixel aspect ratio.

 

[Joe G.]

qs

qs

"Hopefully you edited your framing chart into the master or delivered it separately, but anyway, during the D.I. color-correction session you can choose to either look at the whole frame, 2:1, or letterbox it to 2.39."

How can a "framing chart" be "edited into the master"?


"There is a cinemascope resolution as well. It's 1828x1556 with a 2:1 pixel aspect ratio."


Can you explain this in detail?

 

[Simon Baechler]

"There is a cinemascope resolution as well. It's 1828x1556 with a 2:1 pixel aspect ratio."


Can you explain this in detail?

In Redcine set the project resolution to 1828x1556 and the pixel aspect ratio to 2. Then in the Clip setting scale to
89.258%.

We just did a test today using this resolution vs 4K. It's on the arrilaser right now. I post the results tomorrow. Well not the actual results but my impression.
Theoretically with this resolution you have basically the same vertical resolution as with 4K but you only have 2K files.

 

[Rubancam]

The easy way is crop top and bottom if it is film out or use letter box at 2.35:1 or 2.55:1 will have nice wide screen frame if it is for TV or DVD. In this way we have leverage to offset the image top to bottom to adjust framing, head room etc. Just great option to have : -)

 

[Simon Baechler]

The Arrilaser only accepts certain resolutions. And you are going Anamorphic anyway at some point if you shoot 2.35 aspect ratio.

 

[Robert Sanders]

I think all the Anamorphic proponents understand that it's "easier" to simply shoot spherical and crop top and bottom to achieve the aspect ratio. We get it. No need to continue to hammer that point over and over and over.

There are far too many subtle "beautiful errors" that anamorphic photography lends an image that goes far beyond a simple aspect ratio preference. We've all documented what we like about anamorphic photography in several threads throughout this site.

When A-List shooters like Michael Bay, Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson (and others) continue to shoot anamorphic it would be foolish if RED didn't fully support a lens format that's not only still popular, but making a come back. And to RED's credit they've made the first attempts at adding the necessary anamorphic features. We still have a little ways to go (like a proper deanamorphizer in the viewfinder). It's primarily why many folks have asked for a 4x3 sensor in the Epic with enough resolution to satisfy the 16x9 shooters and still gives the proper sensor height so anamorphic lenses can target properly.

 

[Rubancam]

i think the Anamorphic proponents are slightly squeezed hight image, So it gives that look unique look. i have tired in FCP , changing the aspect ratio to -10 and it gives the anamorphic look. Have anyone tried it ?

 

[Simon Baechler]

Im not talking about anamorphic capture but anamorphic projection. 2.35 aspect has to be converted to anamorphic if you output to 35mm. This has nothing to do with the look. Just with the fact that the film frame is rectangular and there must be room for the sound track. This thread is about film output.

 

[Simon Baechler]

Ok, screened the test results. 2K anamorphic (shot spherical 4K2:1, converted to anamorphic in Redcine) looks phantastic on 35mm. But - 4K looks even better. I was surprised to see such a difference. Ok, we watched it back to back and the 2K had NR turned on, but 4K was definitely sharper than 2K.
The material was shot in 4K 2:1 and then converted to dpx with Redcine.
The 2K was 1828x1556 2:1 and the 4K was 4096x2048 and then rendered in Baselight to 3656x3112 2:1 before outputting it to film at Egli in Zurich on their Arrilaser.

Regards
Simon

 

[Joe G.]

finishing

finishing

"The 2K was 1828x1556 2:1 and the 4K was 4096x2048 and then rendered in Baselight to 3656x3112 2:1 before outputting it to film at Egli in Zurich on their Arrilaser.

Regards
Simon"

Do the film-out companies charge a significant increase for the 4k option vs. the 2k?

What prices are realistic?

And is the "Baselight" system required, thus increasing costs more?

Any insight on a cost comparison between 2k and 4k finishing?

 

[Simon Baechler]

Actually I think the company charged the same for 2K and 4K. All the workflows and tools used are the same. The only thing that is different is the amount of data transferred. We are delivering the dpx files though. So no RAW-rendering is involved on their part.

The Baselight is just a color grading system that the post house uses. Like Scratch or Speedgrade.

For prices contact the post house of your choice. You can deal with them. Prices differ greatly if your project is a commercial or non-commercial project.

 

[M Most]

Actually I think the company charged the same for 2K and 4K. All the workflows and tools used are the same. The only thing that is different is the amount of data transferred. We are delivering the dpx files though. So no RAW-rendering is involved on their part.

I don't know how anyone can charge the same for a 2K film recording as a 4K film recording because recording 4K takes a much longer amount of time to do. On an ArriLaser, for instance, recording a 2K frame takes approx. 1.7 seconds per frame for 1.85:1. In 4K, it takes 2.9 seconds, or 1.7 times the amount of time as the 2K. This doesn't add seconds to the film out process, it adds hours. Many hours. Not to mention the additional time it takes just to copy 4 times as much data before you even begin the process. Any company that's offering this at the same price is giving it away - not a good way to either make money or stay in business for very long.

 

[Simon Baechler]

I just noticed as of now Redcine 3.1.2 has some severe bugs when you render to an anamorphic resolution.
You have to quit and restart Redcine for the image to be displayed correctly. Horizontal shifts are rendered double of what they are displayed. And is it just on my system that Redcine reverses all vertical shifts when you re-open an xml Project?