4.5K 2.40:1 or 4K 2:1 for 2.40:1 Widescreen film release?

[Richard Foster]

I am starting to shoot some 2nd unit this weekend on our first independent feature. The fall colors are beautiful right now.

I was going to commit to 4.5K 2.40:1 at Redcode 42 but I noticed in American Cinematographer that Jeff Cronenwaith had done the Social Network for 2.40:1 shooting at 4K 2:1. I'm not sure why. It would seem to me that the higher resolution of 4.5K would be better, but I guess you have more fudge factor on frame adjustments, especially North-South with the 4096x2048 frame.

What are your thoughts on this? I would really appreciate your input before I commit.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I am starting to shoot some 2nd unit this weekend on our first independent feature. The fall colors are beautiful right now.

I was going to commit to 4.5K 2.40:1 at Redcode 42 but I noticed in American Cinematographer that Jeff Cronenwaith had done the Social Network for 2.40:1 shooting at 4K 2:1. I'm not sure why. It would seem to me that the higher resolution of 4.5K would be better, but I guess you have more fudge factor on frame adjustments, especially North-South with the 4096x2048 frame.

What are your thoughts on this? I would really appreciate your input before I commit.

Thanks in advance.

Yeah - more room for post repos - if you use a lot post repos/stabilization - it can depend on lenses - as 4.5K will push further out on the image circle - so ... you need to watch out for falloff on lenses like Cooke S4s, etc.

That said - I'm a 4.5K for 2:40 guy - all the way.

 

[Richard Foster]

Thanks, Mark. I'm using FF Nikon glass, so image circle is no problem. And as to repos, I shoot and frame as accurately as I can, so I would lean to 4.5K for 2:40 if those are the only reasons.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Well, I like to shoot a close to finished image as well... but you should consult with the director- they may want to shoot loose.

If so, then opening up to 2:1 lets you shoot precisely what you as DP want in the 2.40 area (or 2.35... whatever) and he director can have their looser frame that way.

For myself (i.e. when I am directing and shooting) its 4.5k 2.40 all the way.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

4,5 k is a no go for a project that ends in Color, wich is where indiefilm often finish.

I've shot in 2:1 and cropped to 2.39 for 35mm ana print. Ouput files where dpx 2k 2048x1556.

Patrick

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Two reasons to prefer to record 2:1 instead of 2.35 : 1 is (1) to be able to slightly reframe the image in post for the final 2.35 image if necessary, and (2) to make the 16x9 full-frame HD broadcast version a bit easier to pan & scan.

 

[Richard Foster]

David, I will be directing as well as DPing, so I can count on my framing choices, I think, and would like all the resolution the MX can give. How much of a problem is your item 2, the easier to pan and scan in 2:1? Are you saying, and I value your expertise, that you would not shoot 2.40:1 4.5K? Or would you if you could and were in total control?

Thanks as always for all your generous help.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David, I will be directing as well as DPing, so I can count on my framing choices, I think, and would like all the resolution the MX can give. How much of a problem is your item 2, the easier to pan and scan in 2:1? Are you saying, and I value your expertise, that you would not shoot 2.40:1 4.5K? Or would you if you could and were in total control?

Thanks as always for all your generous help.

I'm a big fan of shooting 2.35 35mm anamorphic so I say shoot it the way you want, don't worry so much about TV. I'm just saying that there are practical benefits to having a bit of wiggle room in post, not so much artistic benefits. I tend to consider those practical issues more when working for directors & producers who I don't know very well, to give myself more flexibility. When working with directors that I know well, who are committed to the theatrical frame that they create, I can worry less about needing that post reframing flexibility.

It also depends on the project of course, if there will be some action scenes with wild uncontrollable movement of cameras and action, then you may want more reframing flexibility. Something that will need a lot of efx work done to it may also want some ability to reframe the shot.

2.35 is really a theatrical format where the image will be shown BIGGER horizontally, not smaller vertically; I also tend to push for it less strongly if I feel that large-screen projection and theatrical distribution, or a film festival run, are less likely to happen and that it's more likely to just get dumped to cable.

Though for an artistic, less commercial, film where framing is everything, and where it's likely to get shown on art house cable channels or go out to DVD / Blu-Ray in its original framing, I'd pick 2.35 anyway if I thought it was the best choice, even if it never was projected on the big screen.

But sometimes you do something fairly commercial but likely to just go to cable, and most people are going to see it in 16x9 full-frame (or god forbid, 4x3 full-frame), so why fight it by going for a 2.35 image? It will probably never be seen that way and you might as well get a good composition that is designed for the way that most people are going to see it.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I'm a big fan of shooting 2.35 35mm anamorphic so I say shoot it the way you want...

David,

I agree with you perfectly.

What I am always impressed by is how you compose your thoughts so succinctly and clearly. I've written about this before, but again and again.

If I had written a reply to express all that it probably would have taken me 2000 words.

Clear and concise advice second to none. An example all the time.

Thanks again- for everything. From your films to your time here.

 

[Rob Delafonte]

As much I love shooting 4.5k 2.4:1, I have to wonder how much additional quality over 4k 2:1 you'd actually see, even on the big the screen. If it's a negligible difference (and I'm inclined to believe it is), it may be more valuable (even as a safety net that you don't plan on using) to have the framing wiggle room provided by 2:1. I mean, resolution-wise it's gonna look awesome regardless, so I see no harm in having the additional flexibility...

 

[Mars Oliva]

4.5K, if I remember right, was not available untill last spring. I remember becouse I shot a film last summer on 4.5K. The workflow wasn't perfect last summer, so the time they shot Social Network it wasn't possible.

 

[Richard Foster]

Thank you all for your answers. Quality is very important to me, so even though 4480/4096 is only a 10% difference, I'll take all I can get. I am concerned about the Color problem Patrick mentioned. I will have to test it, but does anyone else have info? I just assumed Color could handle 4480x1920 4.5K.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I am concerned about the Color problem Patrick mentioned. I will have to test it, but does anyone else have info? I just assumed Color could handle 4480x1920 4.5K.

Colors does a half debayer and see the 4,5k footage as 2240x960. The solution I'm thinking of is to render from REDCINE-X dpx either in 4k ana flat 4096x1744 (41MB/frame) or 2k ana squeezed 2048x1744 (18MB/frame) (wich is the format for my 35mm scan) but the second option is not good for a 4k DCP.

Here some fast tests I've done from original files shot in 4,5k output in 2k dpx from Color, and from REDCINE-X (full debayer). Please test yourself to get your final decision.

Greatings

Patrick

 

[Robert McGee]

I guess 4.5K would make a difference but with I wonder 2.4:1 would look on 5K on the Epic.

I never liked the idea of chopping off lines from the top and bottom of the image just to give it a certain aspect ratio. I think the real difference maker on the Red one would be an Anamorphic lens to get 2.35 to you don't have to cut off so much when you go for 2.40

 

[sandro-bachmann]

How much are we away, from 2:35:1 by shooting 4,5K ?

if i remeber right, its something around 2:33:1 right?

i like the idea, of shooting the way, your final product has to look like.

i just, like to see, the final format an set, and not going to crop and chopping the image later in post.

 

[Ravi Kiran]

I never liked the idea of chopping off lines from the top and bottom of the image just to give it a certain aspect ratio. I think the real difference maker on the Red one would be an Anamorphic lens to get 2.35 to you don't have to cut off so much when you go for 2.40

It would be great to have a custom anamorphic lens for 16:9 sensors so that you could use it to get 2.40:1 without cropping the sides the way you do with 2x anamorphic lenses. That way you get extra resolution and the anamorphic flares and bokeh.