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...

Jannard

Jannard

Red Leader
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
8,248
Reaction score
7
Points
0
We believe this should be the future standard.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
We believe this should be the future standard.

Jim
Click to expand...

Fully agree on the 4K part...and you would know.

Curious why you prefer 2:1 over 4K HD or 16x9 in terms of devices like 40-50" flat panels, iPad HD, etc. that might seem odd at that aspect ratio?

-michael zaletel
 
I LOVE 4k 2:1. But I am a little confused...standard for what exactly? In home deliverable (i.e. the replacement for bluray), theatrical DCPs...?

Can you somehow influence TV makers to start making 2:1 panels?
 
2:1 makes a great presentation. Better than 16:9 in our estimation. Acquiring in 2:1 and extracting 2.40:1 is also a viable option.

Jim
 
Interesting Jim, you never make statements without really good reasons -- what exactly about 2:1 do you think is better than 16:9 or another?
 
2:1 is a nice compromise, you could view both 2.4:1 and 16:9 without too much letterboxing (although all the old 4:3 stuff would be very letterboxed).

I think that aspect ratio should be an artistic choice and films should always be viewed in the original ratio, but TV manufacturers and distributors seem to think we would prefer a chopped-off (or worse, stretched) picture just to use all the pixels.
 
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

AnthonyFlores said:
Interesting Jim, you never make statements without really good reasons -- what exactly about 2:1 do you think is better than 16:9 or another?
Click to expand...
 
Apparently we agree with him. Standards are set by "who knows who"... we have said all along that 4K is the real standard for the future (not 1080P). We are also saying that 2:1 should be the standard (not 16:9). Who knows if anyone will listen to us...

Jim

bjonsson said:
Vittorio Storaro proposed this aspect ratio almost 15 years ago. He called it Univisium. Nobody would listen to him.

http://www.cinematography.net/Files/univision.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium
Click to expand...
 
I was about to mention Storaro who had a pretty remarkable eye . It is hard to go back to 16:9 after you have shot wider aspect ratios.
 
The good news is that if you shoot 2:1 you have more options than if you shoot 16:9. Pick this one apart...

Jim
 
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?
 
I adore wiiide aspects. But if my DP tells me he wants to shoot 2:1 so that we don't have to compromise his composition...

And so that he doesn't have to compromise on-the-go by working with two aspects in mind...

Oh, and 2:1 is beautiful. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top