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...

Correct, but we all have a 16:9 wide screen screen.
First we had 4:3 televisions.
Then came 16:9 and we had horizontal black bars.
No we have 16:9 televisions and if we want to see a movie we get vertical black bars.
The industry has to make a dissision, and I know one company who just did ;-)
When RED Scarlet Fixed will be available to me, I wil shoot Full Sensor size and crop to 2:1, I think...

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

Jim
Click to expand...
 
Seems to me the stills standard is 3:2 and the motion standard should be 2:1. While there are lots of exceptions (and should be)... this is my gut instinct having shot (and watched) for 38 years.

BTW... I acknowledge that there will never be just one standard... nor should there be. 2:1 puts you in the best position to handle many options for motion.

Jim
 
Alex.Mitchell said:
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.
Click to expand...

1.78 or 16:9 is more exactly 1.777... which is also 1.333... times 1.333... ((4:3) * (4:3)) and furthermore, 1.333... times 1.777... ((4:3) * (16:9)) is 2.40 (2.3703...)

There's a logic in the madness.
 
I think J David was responding to Roberto, Jim... as for 2:1 it makes total sense. But almost everything post (pre RED) made little sense... and I'm guessing its because it made "them" important
as the last thing anyone one wants to do is simplify things when one can charge money to be the resident "workflow" expert. Sounds crazy, but look at the insanity of standards bodies, they all seem to meet
an agenda, and usually an agenda of a company trying to establish themselves as the source" look at all these effin codecs we have brand to brand. thats the downfall of capitalism really... in technology, monopolies always
drive innovation faster... capiitalism always slows it down. look at 3G for video on the phone.. it was available in Japan and S Korea in 2001!
 
Jannard said:
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
Click to expand...

It looks like 16:9 came about in the early 1980s as a way for the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers to promote electronic production of movies for the new HDTV technology. The key player was Kerns H. Powers, Research Manager for the Television Communications Division at the David Sarnoff Research Center and a member of the SMPTE Working Group On High-Definition Electronic Production. Powers was working to develop an aspect ratio for HDTV that would encompass the variety of aspect ratios used in film and TV:

“As the story goes, using a pencil and a piece of paper, Powers drew the rectangles of all the popular film aspect ratios (each normalized for equal area) and dropped them on top of each other. When he finished, he discovered an amazing thing. Not only did all the rectangles fall within a 1.77 shape, the edges of all the rectangles also fell outside an inner rectangle which also had a 1.77 shape. Powers realized that he had the makings of a "Shoot and Protect" scheme that with the proper masks would permit motion pictures to be released in any aspect ratio. In 1984, this concept was unanimously accepted by the SMPTE working group and soon became the standard for HDTV production worldwide.” [Source: Understanding Aspect Ratios, copyright 2001 by CinemaSource. http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf ]

So 16:9 was based on production and distribution concerns and had nothing to do with how an image looks on screen.
 
Patrick Grossien said:
"...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
Click to expand...

Patrick, I'm a little behind you. I hope you don't make me stay after class. ;-)
 
They must not have taken 2.40:1 into account. Doesn't matter... 2:1 still seems like the best solution to me... as well as the rest of the RED team. But what do we know?

Jim

Douglas Learner said:
It looks like 16:9 came about in the early 1980s as a way for the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers to promote electronic production of movies for the new HDTV technology. The key player was Kerns H. Powers, Research Manager for the Television Communications Division at the David Sarnoff Research Center and a member of the SMPTE Working Group On High-Definition Electronic Production. Powers was working to develop an aspect ratio for HDTV that would encompass the variety of aspect ratios used in film and TV:

“As the story goes, using a pencil and a piece of paper, Powers drew the rectangles of all the popular film aspect ratios (each normalized for equal area) and dropped them on top of each other. When he finished, he discovered an amazing thing. Not only did all the rectangles fall within a 1.77 shape, the edges of all the rectangles also fell outside an inner rectangle which also had a 1.77 shape. Powers realized that he had the makings of a "Shoot and Protect" scheme that with the proper masks would permit motion pictures to be released in any aspect ratio. In 1984, this concept was unanimously accepted by the SMPTE working group and soon became the standard for HDTV production worldwide.” [Source: Understanding Aspect Ratios, copyright 2001 by CinemaSource. http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf ]

So 16:9 was based on production and distribution concerns and had nothing to do with how an image looks on screen.
Click to expand...
 
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...

Jannard said:
Off your rocker...

Jim
Click to expand...


actualy it's all to do with distance to screen. 16:9 is right (i checked myself and found this to be true) if your looking at a computer monitor but as you aproch infinate distance you get closer to 2:1 (like a bird). so one could argue 16:9 for tv and 2:1 for cinimar. haveing said that, my eye can show better than 24 fps so human abilatys aren't everything.
 
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...

i belive 16:9 was made a standerd as it was the best ratio of 4:3 and 2.40:1 in the tirst place .
 
I predict the future standard will be 4K but with an aspect ratio between 16x9 and 16x10.66 (2:3) not 2:1 and certainly nothing wider than 2:1.

Here's why...

I don't think it is efficient to use up so much horizontal space on a desktop, tablet, phone or wall without using more of the always available vertical space. The primary constraint in a home on the wall, on a desk or etc. is the horizontal, there is almost always plenty of vertical space. Standards usually get set by product sales and consumers will want more square footage of viewable area for the given horizontal wall space or desktop space than 2:1 allows.

Convergence of media and devices will mean compromising what's best for movies (2:1 or even wider) to better accommodate what's best for mobile apps, websites, productivity applications, news and data 2:3 (iPhone is 960x640 for a reason and iPad is even 3/4). Somewhere in between will win.

In the future, we will no have niche viewing devices. All viewing devices will be multipurpose, except maybe the cinema screen (which is why we'll all still want to go).

Don't bet on 2:1 for home, office or mobile "delivery". That would be costly in my opinion. Acquisition is another topic.

-michael zaletel
 
Jim, did you see my question on page 1? Are you saying 4k 2:1 is your preferred format for acquisition, home delivery, theatrical or what? All of the above?
 
conversations like this to me are some of the most fascinating. i think the only movie i can think of that is in 2:1 is Miyazaki's Spirited Away and i LOVE it.
 
Btw Jim, I very much agree, I love 2:1, I just want to be on the same page here
 
absolutely - it is a nice compromise and looks very "proportional" to my eye :blink:
 
I'll admit I never quite got why 16:9 became the standard. The few times I've seen a feature in 2:1 it just felt more natural.

I may be a fan of good old 720p still (feel free to throw rocks at me over that one) but I agree with this one 100%. :-)
 
michael zaletel said:
I predict the future standard will be 4K but with an aspect ratio between 16x9 and 16x10.66 (2:3) not 2:1 and certainly nothing wider than 2:1.

Here's why...

I don't think it is efficient to use up so much horizontal space on a desktop, tablet, phone or wall without using more of the always available vertical space. The primary constraint in a home on the wall, on a desk or etc. is the horizontal, there is almost always plenty of vertical space. Standards usually get set by product sales and consumers will want more square footage of viewable area for the given horizontal wall space or desktop space than 2:1 allows.

-michael zaletel
Click to expand...

Michael, I agree with your sentiments. Imax 1.43:1 projection is a success why cant the experience be enjoyed at home?
I had 15 years shooting 4:3 and was one of the first to jump into owning a 16:9 camera for TV docs, striving for a cinematic feel for docu dramas. It became far easier to put a boom mic into the scene without it getting into frame but harder to hide lights :)
From the framing perspective I miss the element of vertical juxt position that was so easy to achieve with 4:3, countered by an easier achievement of horizontal tension in 16:9.
Imagine yourself in the living room in 2040 when the whole wall, top to bottom is a living electric canvas where you could be totally immersed in the image, then up pops a scope image wouldn't it (comparably) make you feel like you are seeing the world through a letter box?
With 3D perhaps finding its legs who is to say that the growth of 3D in the next decades will act as a catlyist toward immersive experience.


Mike Brennan
 
While we are loving standards and all, just remember that 24fps is a standard that, I think was based on the slowest film could go through the camera and still have a smooth looking image. How about if we use 4K 2:1 we use say 48fps and start to make things look real life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top