4K 2:1...

[Gino Papineau]

2:1 Yes 100% agree

 

[David (dudi) Namir]

16:9 is 1:1.78 and it is a compromise between 1;1.85 which was the American wide screen (not anamorphic) and the EUB standard for wide screen 1;1.66
Yes, standards nobody knoww where the came from but they do have their roots somewhere.

There’s a common joke that makes the rounds of forwarded Internet email that claims the width of the booster rockets on the Space Shuttle) are constrained by the width of an ancient Roman chariot (more colorfully, by “a couple of horses’ asses”). Here’s the linkage:

• Why are the boosters the width they are? So they can fit through train tunnels.
• Why are train tunnels the width they are? Because of the gauge of the track.
• Why do we use that particular track gauge in the US? Because it was built by British engineers who used the British standard.
• Why was that track gauge the British standard? Because it was based on existing horse-pulled mine cars that ran on rails.
• Why was that the width of mine cars? Because it was the standard cart width.
• Why was that the standard cart width? Because it was the spacing of ruts on British roads.
• Who made the ruts? The Romans.
• Why was that the spacing of the ruts? That was the standard width of a Roman chariot.
• Why was that the standard width of a Roman chariot? Because the chariot was pulled by two horses.
• Ergo, the requirements for the Space Shuttle booster rocket width was originally set by a couple of horses’ asses.

 

[Henk van den Doel]

We've been shooting 2:1 from the first day we got the camera, and deliver a lot in this ratio to clients too. Most of them love it. On the web it looks classy, on a 16:9 tv it looks nice with hardly any letterboxing, and on the big screen it is wide enough to fill most of the surface. Our first independent movie, we also finished in a 2:1 ratio. It's really pretty actually. But I also think that by the time 2:1 is the new standard, we'll start delivering in 4:3 again. That will look so good by then

 

[JanneJansson]

I think you'll find that they settled on 16:9 because it was the biggest that they could reliably make CRT's at the time!!

CRT flickering also forced them to use interlace scanning to double the framerate without increasing the bandwith. Very nice that CRT are not a major concern anymore. Seems logical and feels good to evolve from 4:3 TV -> 16:9 HD -> 2:1 4K.

 

[Leo Valen]

I agree that 2:1 makes a good standard for image sensors as it's a reasonable compromise between 2.39:1 and 1.85:1 and allows for using the same equipment for shooting in any aspect ratio using the same equipment and optics, and without having to use anamorphic lenses to utilize a reasonable area of the image sensor.

However, it's currently only a viable mastering format for web use, and not for TV or cinema.

 

[andrewhake]

I have used 2:1 for everything for so long. Working on my own animation projects I can do whatever I want, and I want 2:1 simple as that. Completely agree with Jim on this one, it makes sense. Who cares if most TVs are 16:9? 2:1 just for this simple fact: 4096x2048, 2048x1024, 1920x960, 1280x640, 1024x512, why the hell not? Simple clean, logical. Why in the hell should people be shooting what some committee somewhere decided they should shoot?

 

[Ameer Azari]

So...where does this future standard leave Scarlet?

 

[Christian Edwards]

Thanks for that David ... If I ever own 2 horses I'll name one Future and the other Proof

 

[Michael Millichamp]

David, is that all true?

 

[Patrick Grossien]

I think you'll find that they settled on 16:9 because it was the biggest that they could reliably make CRT's at the time!!

as mentioned in my earlier post
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?60740-4K-2-1...&p=788227&viewfull=1#post788227

16:9 just derives from the mix of all the (until then) existing formats.
it was created to have a screen format which will fit all the existing ratios into one single format. from legacy 4:3 old cinema / tv up to cinemascope 2.35:1.
so when watching each format, you have the most effective screen use for each single format.
that's why I find shooting features in 16:9 so weird, because actually it was just a problem solver for the home screen.

and as for constructing screens, the format ratio doesn't really create any technical problems (or at least logically shouldn't) because the wider the format,
the smaller the hight of the screen. so actually the wider the format, the less screen surface you have. so it should even be easier.
...of course only as long as you stay in the same width.

sorry if sound like a smartass just want to share ...

cheers!
p/

cheers!

 

[Jim Hoffman]

Word is iPhone 5 is redesigned using the entire front surface as its screen. Looks about 2:1 to me.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

I love 2:1. Both our first and second films were shot in 2:1. If we do a third, I will also make that one 2:1. I think it is the ideal aspect ratio!

16x9 isn't bad. . . it's just not quite wide enough for my tastes. And 2.4 is just awfully wide for most of the things I like best.

Stephen

 

[M Most]

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

You know what you personally happen to like. As does Vittorio, with whom I had a number of conversations about this very topic. He would point out both the artistic and mathematical appeal of a 2:1 aspect ratio, and he might also point out how some of the great paintings of the masters were composed on that shape (among others, the Last Supper and many of Caravaggio's works - as I recall, he's a great admirer of Caravaggio...). But despite these views, Vittorio was never able to get the industry to embrace the notion of a 2:1 aspect ratio because there are some very practical reasons why it's, well, impractical. As you point out, it converts relatively painlessly to current standards, but I would point out that there is no 2:1 delivery system at all at the moment. The thing about shooting ratios is that at least to me, they shouldn't be a compromise to every possible delivery format, they should be a format in which at least one primary deliverable will be seen, so that the cinematographer can frame properly for that format with the understanding that other formats will be extracted and THEY will be the compromise. At this point in time, the most common deliverables are probably 16:9 (the video deliverables), 1.85:1 (many theatrical releases) and 2.39:1 (scope prints and many DCPs for theatrical releases). The compromise for 1.85 from 16:9 SI considerably less than from 2:1, and 2.39 is kind of it's own beast, really requiring framing appropriate to that wide an image. So while in your view you happen to like 2:1 and feel it can be converted to the current delivery formats well, I feel that 16:9 is a better choice for either a 16:9 or 1.85 deliverable, and 2.39 delivery really requires composition that is not obvious if you're looking primarily at 2:1.

I would also ask a question that hasn't really been asked yet, at least as far as I can tell. When the 2:1 sensor was developed, there were probably some technical reasons for that choice, not aesthetic ones. I'm not making a causal connection here, but is it possible that your affinity for a 2:1 image has been influenced by having a 2:1 sensor that was developed for other reasons - just like 16:9 came to be? Just asking......

 

[Leo Valen]

I have used 2:1 for everything for so long. Working on my own animation projects I can do whatever I want, and I want 2:1 simple as that. Completely agree with Jim on this one, it makes sense. Who cares if most TVs are 16:9? 2:1 just for this simple fact: 4096x2048, 2048x1024, 1920x960, 1280x640, 1024x512, why the hell not? Simple clean, logical. Why in the hell should people be shooting what some committee somewhere decided they should shoot?

Not sure if you read my previous post on screening 2:1 material on digital cinema, but to sum it up you have to fit the 2:1 image into a 2.39:1 or 1.85:1 container. This has several issues:

1) The frame size will end up at something like 1716x858 (2:1 in 2.39:1) or 1998x999 (2:1 in 1.85:1). Interpolating/scaling between similar frame sizes (2048,1998, 1920 etc) visibly reduces sharpness.

2) Unless the projected image is properly masked, there will be visible dark areas on either side of the image (left and right if 2:1 in 2.39:1, top and bottom if 2:1 in 1.85:1). Masking is usually automated, but cinemas generally do not have presets for 2:1 and may not be able to mask the image at all, resulting in a dark blue area surrounding the image.

3) The image won't even be close to covering the screen, and if proper masking is not in place it will be very visible to the audience that the image is not covering the screen.

It's technically possible to configure theaters to correctly screen 2:1 material in a full 2048x1024 or 4096x2048 container and with proper masking, but this is quite a bit of work and venues generally won't have this capability until 2:1 becomes part of DCI and SMPTE standards. I guess that could suddenly happen if Spielberg or Peter Jackson decided to shoot a movie in 2:1 ; )

Personal opinion: 2:1 probably looks best on monitors and small screens. 2.39:1 works better for cinematic material.

Regarding 2:1 on TV: Depending on context, 2:1 material might be rejected (for the same reason as 5:4 or 4:3 material might), or scaled and cropped to 16:9. In the case that 2:1 is actually viewed, e.g. as part of a program, you might leave the viewer with the impression that the material was not created for TV.

 

[Simon Dunne]

First off, add 2:10 here to this image, so people can start to visualize what to expect;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s_svg.svg/1000px-Filmaspectratios_svg.svg.png

As for what the eye can see, try the following;

-Focus you eyes on an object 1m in front you
-Place your 2 index fingers vertically together on the tip of your nose, so your hands are near you mouth and the tops of your fingers near your eyebrows
-Pull both fingers apart, away from each other, left to the left, right to the right
-Whilst still looking at you object, stop you fingers when they reach the edge of your eyes vision
-That is how wide you can see
-Do the same horizantally, over lapping your fingers and starting at the nose again and pull them apart, one up, one down
-That's the height of your vision
-Draw an imaginary rectangle and that is your eyes vision!

It's very close to 2:1 on my eyes!!

 

[Thomas Koch]

When I first saw this thread title, I though we were going to get an update on how many fps we can get out of it the epic.

I like shooting 4K 16x9 over 2x1 because it has more vertical resolution.

 

[eric a wahl]

Personally I have enjoyed the 4.5k mode visually.
I also like this because it uses more of my glass....

 

[Thomas Church]

To be honest, in terms of movies my favorite aspect ratios are 2.35:1, 4:3 and 1.66:1.

I dislike 1.85 and 16:9. I find them inexpressive.

 

[joshua csehak]

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?

Well if you grab a tape measure and measure out the limits of your field of view (VERY unscientific, of course), it comes to about 2.40:1. So I guess that's more what we naturally see.

As you get more widescreen (or more square), it gets harder to compose an image in the frame. That's why most paintings are around 4x3, or a little widescreener. You can stretch a canvas to anything you want -- no format limitations there. But interestingly, I think most smaller paintings (like say, Vermeer) are 4:3, where the larger ones (say, Guernica, or "Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going?") are much wider. Personally, I think it's a matter of what's appropriate for the content. You're gonna want to shoot most documentaries at 4:3 or 16:9 -- if you get too wide, it can be silly. But something like 2001, or an epic western, it needs to be some serious widescreen. Unless of course, you're showing it on an IMAX screen that engulfs an audience's FoV. I can also imagine useful applications for 3:4 (interviews, stuff on cell phones/tablets you can easily rotate).

That said, since less and less people are doing 4:3 these days, 2:1 seems like a nice sensor size ratio that'll allow for maximum flexibility of cropping options.

Edit: That said again, I imagine 50 years from now (or probably sooner), resolution will be limited to the glass, and with hardware that can handle as much data as you can feed it, sensors will probably be square, to make best use of your lens. So I say, square standard!

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I too like 2:1, it's the middle way between 16:9 and 2:35:1 so it becomes a great format when you want a more "grand" feel but still want to get up close on people.
2:35:1 gets a bit too wide in some stories and in others 16:9 becomes too much television.

But still, format is up to choice, I can just crop how ever I want and create my own format, 2.1:1? :coolgleamA: