Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

4:3 Full Height Reqeust

Joseph Coleman

Joseph Coleman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Detroit, MI
Website
www.mediacoleman.com
Hello,

I'm curious if Red is planning on adding a full height 4:3 option to the format options? Something like a 4213(or 4214) x 3160. I know that the 6:5 option is the proper format for 2:1 anamorphic. But I have the opportunity to work with a 1.8x adapter. This would help out a lot!

Thanks
 
+1...
 
Wouldn't it be even easier to just allow 2x stretch monitoring independent of resolution? You could go 6kHD (full height), while still seeing an desqueezed image, and then crop in post as needed.

In other words, wouldn't've been super easy/better to have implemented desqueeze as a monitor function (like every other 3rd party monitor) and then not have to worry about data/debayering compatibility or having to code this stuff into firmwares?
 
Sometimes I wish RED would come out with a portrait version of their sensor strictly for anamorphic shooting.


Turn the sensor sideways and give us a windowed version that's capable of at least 4320 vertically (for that 2160p finish). Granted we would need to get from 3160 (current Dragon max height OR max width with the ANA version of the camera) to 3840 or (better yet) 4096.


Would be cool to at least have the option and I think anamorphic has become such a fad now that there probably is a decent market for it.


Dragon ANA - 4096x4320 sensor, s35 window, 60p etc. Probably will never happen (and likely impossible with dragon sensor) but it would be cool for a company to make a camera/sensor with an ANA version in mind.
 
I'm lost in much of this topic.

Dragon was and is made with anamorphic imaging in mind.

There are only be two true anamorphic standards. 2X and 1.33X.

1.33X was developed with 16x9 (1.78:1) digital sensors in mind to produce the wide screen aspect ratio.

2X is the "real standard" and anamorphic look that nearly everybody is actually going for. The 6:5 modes on Dragon are what you want for this in reality and they do use the full sensor height. It is designed not for 2:1, but rather the more commonly and much desired 2.40:1.

See my notes here:
phfx_redDragon_anamorphicShooting.jpg



The weirder and rarer anamorphic lenses like the 1.5X Isco was designed for 3:2 use oddly on still cameras for a variety of reasons. I owned 6 of these at one point for anamorphic timelapse and various other activities. 1.8X is something "new" and won't be a standard, however, if I was to work with a 1.8X adapter I would run the 6:5 mode and crop into whatever final aspect ratio you are after.

As for a sideways sensor? Mount the camera sideways. Are even mount the anamorphic lens at a different orientation if you are doing something really crazy.

_MG_0870.jpg
 
Phil Holland said:
As for a sideways sensor? Mount the camera sideways. Are even mount the anamorphic lens at a different orientation if you are doing something really crazy.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have for sure. You still end up having to cut off a ton of resolution to get to a 16:9-2.39:1 finish though. The best option is 6:5 and turning the camera sideways IF your end goal is full 16:9. Doesn't work with PL mount lenses (rentals at least)

My point is, it would be cool to have a native 4:3 sensor or taller. Resolution gain for shooting ANA instead of sacrificing horizontal pixels. Having a native 4:3 or taller sensor almost encourages you to shoot anamorphic and I like having that extra incentive :) If the horizontal resolution caps frame rates so be it. It doesn't hurt to have the option. Seems like a native 16:9 (or whatever Dragon is) alienates anamorphic a bit and you are always left contemplating whether leaving those pixels on the floor is worth it. I personally do because I finish in 4K but...you know what I mean. When you can shoot 6144 wide it's tough to drop that down by 2,000 just for a look that the audience will never pick up on.
 
Luke Neumann said:
Oh, I have for sure. You still end up having to cut off a ton of resolution to get to a 16:9-2.39:1 finish though. The best option is 6:5 and turning the camera sideways IF your end goal is full 16:9. Doesn't work with PL mount lenses (rentals at least)

My point is, it would be cool to have a native 4:3 sensor or taller. Resolution gain for shooting ANA instead of sacrificing horizontal pixels. Having a native 4:3 or taller sensor almost encourages you to shoot anamorphic and I like having that extra incentive :) If the horizontal resolution caps frame rates so be it. It doesn't hurt to have the option. Seems like a native 16:9 (or whatever Dragon is) alienates anamorphic a bit and you are always left contemplating whether leaving those pixels on the floor is worth it. I personally do because I finish in 4K but...you know what I mean. When you can shoot 6144 wide it's tough to drop that down by 2,000 just for a look that the audience will never pick up on.
Click to expand...


I think the point I'm making is that Red produces a wide sensor and even the maximum frame rates are tied to the vertical resolution. Once you have a system that is 4:3 you will begin to ask yourself why the sensor can't be wider?

Which leaves the thought on the floor of if your sensor is 4:3 and you shoot for 16x9, 1.85:1, or 2.40:1 you are cropping off a handsome amount of pixels from the vertical resolution and leaves you with those same "feels" of sacrificing in a different way.

If you have a 1.9:1 (Dragon is 1.94:1 at 6K FF) you are loping off the horizontal pixels only when shooting for anamorphic, if you are 4:3 you are loping off vertical pixels for any sort of flat shooting.

I think overall what I'm saying is there's one way that "makes more sense" in our widescreen world and we aren't exactly dealing with a system that capture a single format. It's a multi-format system and unlocking how you want to shoot with it is part of the equation.

In reality if you got a 4:3 sensor and say it was a hair taller than Dragon, you must ask why not add the horizontal resolution and the various other "bonuses" that come with a larger format and resolution.

Right now Epic Dragon is the highest resolution anamorphic camera on the market until the Alexa 65 supports that format and has the glass to match.
 
Phil Holland said:
I think overall what I'm saying is there's one way that "makes more sense" in our widescreen world and we aren't exactly dealing with a system that capture a single format. It's a multi-format system and unlocking how you want to shoot with it is part of the equation.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I think that 1.9:1 has less options than 4:3. If the current sensor was 6144x4608 you would have more options.

Now, for all I know, RED engineers would probably just laugh at that. I mean, it's easy for me to sit here and say "I wish the sensor was taller" but it could very well be impossible and PROBABLY not worth it. It would probably be hard for RED to implement...people go into 8K FF and it's 4:3, could piss people off. I can dream though right?
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
6KHD is NOT "full height" - even though it should be - it's 3132.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that (don't own a Dragoon), thanks for the heads up.

That said, the same logic applies; shoot 6kFF and then just desqueeze/crop to suit whatever format you want (or your lenses are good for). That'd be full height/res to play with and no need to limit your spherical sensor size.

EDIT: Looking at the last few posts, I do think going to DCI -- DSMC's 4096x2160 instead of keeping the R1's 4096x2304 (16:9) -- was a bit of a mistake. It meant you were shooting 16:9 all the time, but could crop down to 4kDCI if you were going theatrical (which is less often for probably 90% of RED owners).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top