I'm trying to figure out whether or not shooting 4K 2:1 makes sense if we're going to be placing a 2.35:1 matte on the image for mastering. Is there any reason that we should instead be shooting 4K 16:9? Why does anyone shoot 2:1 at this point? It seems like 4K 16:9 and 4K HD are the preferred formats. Thanks, Tommy
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
2:1 vs. 16:9
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
- Moderator
- #2
Jeff Kilgroe
Well-known member
Advantage of 16:9 - more vertical image real-estate to work with.
Advantages of 2:1 - Still gives you some extra vertical space for shifting your frame up / or down when you matte to 2.35:1. You will get a little bit longer record times as it takes up a bit less space. You have access to faster frame rates. 2:1 also transcodes a bit faster as each frame has fewer pixels to process.
4KHD is desirable because it converts at half res (1/4 of the total pixels) to 1920x1080.
If you're shooting 4K with the intent of delivering 2.35:1 as a final. Then 2:1 makes a lot of sense. Then again, if you have the time and media budget and whatnot to shoot 16:9, you probably won't regret it.
If you're delivering 2.35:1, you probably don't want to shoot 4KHD as it is a slight crop of the 4K area. So it's a further crop of the typical S35 frame. But then again, it's still a great format and probably the one I shoot to most these days. But then again, most of my stuff is formatted 16:9 and finished to deliver on DVD and the web, with the possibility of going to Blu-Ray or other HD deliverable.
Advantages of 2:1 - Still gives you some extra vertical space for shifting your frame up / or down when you matte to 2.35:1. You will get a little bit longer record times as it takes up a bit less space. You have access to faster frame rates. 2:1 also transcodes a bit faster as each frame has fewer pixels to process.
4KHD is desirable because it converts at half res (1/4 of the total pixels) to 1920x1080.
If you're shooting 4K with the intent of delivering 2.35:1 as a final. Then 2:1 makes a lot of sense. Then again, if you have the time and media budget and whatnot to shoot 16:9, you probably won't regret it.
If you're delivering 2.35:1, you probably don't want to shoot 4KHD as it is a slight crop of the 4K area. So it's a further crop of the typical S35 frame. But then again, it's still a great format and probably the one I shoot to most these days. But then again, most of my stuff is formatted 16:9 and finished to deliver on DVD and the web, with the possibility of going to Blu-Ray or other HD deliverable.
- Thread starter
- #3
- Banned
- #4
Jason Payne
New member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Jeff,
Will shooting at 4K - 2:1 (with in intention of a 2.40 aspect ratio and film out) still protect you for possible 16x9 (1.78) video deliveribles?
Also, what resize fit/stretch settings in REDrushes would you recommend for transcoding the 2:1 material to 16x9 for editorial? Fit width? Fit height?
Thanks for any insight you can offer.
Jason
Will shooting at 4K - 2:1 (with in intention of a 2.40 aspect ratio and film out) still protect you for possible 16x9 (1.78) video deliveribles?
Also, what resize fit/stretch settings in REDrushes would you recommend for transcoding the 2:1 material to 16x9 for editorial? Fit width? Fit height?
Thanks for any insight you can offer.
Jason