4000 line format to workaround Qtime issues? why lose 2 million pixels with 2:1?

[Mark Pugh]

I'm sure there must be a simple explanation:
Given the quicktime issues with a 4096 16:9 pixel file size, the current uselessness of a 4k 16:9 proxy file, why can't we select a 4000-line crop 16:9 format in camera, or something just under 4000 lines?
I for one wouldn't miss the extra 96 lines for now.
Can someone clarify why the largest options we have for a 16:9 image are 3k, or 4k 2:1 which, when cropped, takes over 10% off the width and height of a 4k 16:9, AND MORE THAN 20%, (MORE THAN 2 MILLION PIXELS) off the image area?

 

[Oliver Koeppel]

Cineform thought same way. They designed a tool for that.
Look at this:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12120&highlight=seductive+metadata+control

 

[Mark Pugh]

That's a $2000 solution.
I'm wondering why we can't have a zero-cost, zero hassle option in camera that doesn't waste as much resolution as the current camera formats.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Can someone clarify why the largest options we have for a 16:9 image are 3k, or 4k 2:1 which, when cropped, takes over 10% off the width and height of a 4k 16:9, AND MORE THAN 20%, (MORE THAN 2 MILLION PIXELS) off the image area?

I am 99% sure it's a Quicktime lib thing.
And I am 100% sure it's a temporary issue.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

It's a very temporary issue....

Graeme

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Lol!!

Build 16 is soon to come, I guess...

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Looking forward to build 16

 

[Mark Pugh]

Graeme, I love you.

 

[Curran Giddens]

Thanks for the excellent news! Things are really coming together nicely.... Now all we need is a pull list feature in RedCine....