Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

4K 2:1...

Off your rocker...

Jim

Kyle Presley said:
I have heard (can't cite it) that 16x9 is roughly similar to the aspect of our own eyes. Two eyes, with a little overlap... Kind of makes sense. Anybody else heard this before, or am I off my rocker?
Click to expand...
 
4k 2:1 is a great format to master, as it can contain both HD and Scope aspect ratios without losing too much resolution:

340703508-69c5142a76747005dd9cecfd6b5d48d3.4e1695d8-full.png

Red is 2:1, Blue is 2.4:1 (Scope), Green is 1.78:1 (HD)

I feel like Scope media on a Blu-Ray is already sacrificing too much vertical resolution, pity they don't support Full Height Anamorphic like DVDs do. But as far as a single clean aspect ratio to Rule Them All, 2:1 is a lot nicer than the DCI Spec 4k 1.89:1
 
Last edited:
Jannard said:
I make lots of statements when I have no idea what I'm talking about... :-)

We have seen just about every aspect ratio and feel that 2:1 is a great look... a bit more wide screen than 16:9 and very logical. We have no idea who set the 16:9 standard and what they were thinking. "Who made these rules anyway?". We all just like 2:1 better. We always have. I guess now that people are beginning to pay attention to what we say... we should voice our humble opinion.

Jim
Click to expand...

Lol. Thanks Jim. Well, one thing that's cool is that because you are the industry's biggest 4k advocate and it's (in a sense) a new format, I don't see why you can't or shouldn't push for a different and better standard. Makes perfect sense :)
 
We like the look of 2:1. Plus it is the easiest format to go to 1.89:1 and 2.40:1. Best of all worlds.

Jim
 
In 2009 Youtube went to 2:1 format then they changed back.
edit:
this was also the same year they started experimenting with 4k delivery

youtubescreenshotk.jpg
 
Davis, YouTube is "broadcast", so I'd say they should stick to 16:9 while it is the broadcast norm.

Goddard's graphic shows 2:1 splits the difference between 16:9 and 2.4:1. Very smart.

But I am thinking about shooting and delivering 2:1, for both theatrical and broadcast. I would love to know what David Mullen thinks about this.
 
Maybe it's a right time to invite Vittorio Storaro soon in RED Studios Hollywood and show him EPIC footage @ 4K 2:1 Univision as he proposed and "established" that format about 15 years ago.

Also one another good idea could be like this one that is about how to get Steven Spielberg in Epic digital thing is to invite Janusz Kaminski who is the "current" Steven cinematographer (also one of the best living cinematographers) in RSH,

Btw, Kaminski likes to shoot handheld, he likes to experiment with image and lenses and also he is a sort of very open minded guy.

If those guys like a Vilmos, Vittorio and Janusz can "approve" Epic than doors to the future of 4K digital acquisition are pretty wide open...
 
Jannard said:
We like the look of 2:1. Plus it is the easiest format to go to 1.89:1 and 2.40:1. Best of all worlds.

Jim
Click to expand...

Darn, Jim - I need to move back to California ... I miss being able to easily stay up for these late night sessions. Truly great times and not available anywhere else. Hope you know how much all this is appreciated :)
 
J Davis said:
??? you following the news right?
they are now competing with netflix
Click to expand...

Not really. Been too busy. So many digital deliveries... Last I heard they were going to broadcast the Copa America live. :)

Anyway, why couldn't they make movies play on an aspect that was exactly the same as the film you picked? I am not a programer, but it sounds simple enough.
 
I guess a was reacting to your dismissive tone, but I don't really care, you can call Youtube broadcast if you want. And recently Youtube did decided to go head to head with netflix and offer streaming movies which I think is an interesting move and a logical one, especially since the netflix content is leased and another provider such as youtube can probably offer a different selection. Open market is good. You can read more about youtube movies here http://www.youtube.com/movies

I also think I understand why youtube abandoned the 2:1 delivery aspect ratio. Now that HTML player technology is rapidly evolving past codec licensing issues per browser, we are seeing online video embedded in a page layout more and more. There is no need to have a standard aspect ratio, either the page layout would be designed around the deliverable aspect ratio as in a movie, or the video would be delivered in an aspect ratio to match the layout - like sports or news.

At this point in time I see 2:1 as being a great capture aspect ratio, especially if you are unsure if the content is going to be cropped to 1:2.39 or 16:9. You have bases covered. 2:1 can also be a good deliverable aspect ratio if you are talking about delivering to your client. But as far as a global aspect ratio for delivery to viewers. Uh-uh ... I don't believe that will happen.
 
"...the 16:9 (1.77:1) aspect ratio was proposed by Kerns H. Powers, a member of the SMPTE Working Group On High-Definition Electronic Production, nobody was creating 16:9 videos..."

the 16:9 to me is highly artificial, because it was just created to have a perfect mix of all existing standard ratios to fit into one with all others having the smallest borders possible.
so as a de facto standard for TV it's a pretty good idea, but then taking a mix ratio all the way into production to shooting features(!) in that standard to me just doesn't make any real sense.

graphic showing the mixed ratios:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Kerns_Powers,_SMPTE_derivation_of_16-9_aspect_ratio.svg

the rest of the story is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9

teaching this stuff each semester, I can almost tell this by hart :)

cheers
p
 
If I'm not mistaken, 1.78 was chosen as a standard because it close to the middle of 1.33 and 2.35 (though not as close as, say, 1.85). Frankly, that makes a lot of sense considering this generation of TVs bridged the gap between SD and HD. Now that we're moving from HD to 4k, 2.00 makes sense as a good middle ground between 1.78 and 2.35.
 
I like the nice round number :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top