4K 2:1...

[Ketch Rossi]

Always loved 2:1 now in 4k even more...

 

[Joseph Podlesnik]

I enjoy discussions of human perception. For what it's worth -

Seeing is more agenda-driven than we think. “Vision… is not the simple thing it is imagined to be. It has to do with desire and possessiveness more than mechanical navigation, and it entangles us in a skein of changing relations with objects and people. In particular, vision helps us to know what we are like: we watch versions of ourselves in people and objects, and by attending to them we adjust our sense of what we are. Because we cannot see what we do not understand or use or identify with, we see very little of the world-only the small pieces that are useful and harmless: Each act of vision mingles seeing with not seeing, so that vision can become less a way of gathering information than avoiding it.” – James Elkins (“The Object Stares Back: On the Nature of Seeing”, p 201.)

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I think that aspect ratio should be an artistic choice and films should always be viewed in the original ratio.

+1

---

 

[chuck colburn]

I enjoy discussions of human perception. For what it's worth -

Seeing is more agenda-driven than we think. “Vision… is not the simple thing it is imagined to be. It has to do with desire and possessiveness more than mechanical navigation, and it entangles us in a skein of changing relations with objects and people. In particular, vision helps us to know what we are like: we watch versions of ourselves in people and objects, and by attending to them we adjust our sense of what we are. Because we cannot see what we do not understand or use or identify with, we see very little of the world-only the small pieces that are useful and harmless: Each act of vision mingles seeing with not seeing, so that vision can become less a way of gathering information than avoiding it.” – James Elkins (“The Object Stares Back: On the Nature of Seeing”, p 201.)

WTF?

 

[noah newtown]

2:1...my photo/still standard is 2:1 ...so +1

 

[Frank Cueto]

Maybe this is a forward looking statement from Jim taking into consideration a soon to be announced 4K 2:1 display?

Just saying...

 

[Zack Birlew]

Hmm... the issue is not with the technological details but with industry and consumer acceptance. I still hear people complain about the "bars" on 2.35:1 movies on widescreen televisions and they get finicky about sometimes seeing just a little bit of bars some of the time (1.78:1?). The industry is already mixed up enough as it is but what it all comes down to 99% of the time, as some have already said, is 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, anything else is either blown up or used as extra space for cropping.

 

[James Brundige]

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

+1

At home, I think using the vertical space of 16:9 makes sense. In the theater, give me big and wide. Maybe a really cool creative cutting edge\ camera company could make a 2:1 4K projector.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Good point on computer displays. 2:1 is a good capture format, but for the home 16:10 or taller makes more sense (as I write this comment on my TV). My main 'monitor' at home is a 52" LCD. I would love a nice 4k display for more than just film consumption.

If we do ever get "Video Walls" we're going to be consuming all manner of data.... much of which has no aesthetic justification to be widescreen. Conversely, if we interact with walls closely we aren't going to want data down by our ankles so a super wide 4:1 aspect will most likely dominate at about shoulder height.

If we're talking purely cinematic presentation I would petition heavily against 2:1 4k and instead advocate 2.35:1 4.5k or 5k. Theaters almost always build their screens to 2.35 and then 'crop' horizontally with curtains. It's a lot harder to build a descending/ascending curtain than two curtains on the side. I find curtains less distracting than letterboxing since it establishes a more defined border.

 

[Randall Weatherington]

History of 16:9

Consider this an "official" explanation of how 16:9 was derived because I heard this announcement in an SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) meeting a few years ago.

"16:9 is an average of all formats"

The speaker went on to say that they considered all of the pros and cons of each aspect ratio, but 16:9 was the best compromise.

I personally like 2:1 because it is the aspect ratio of 65/70mm 5 perf motion pictures, and is close enough to anamorphic 2.40 to give that nice wide screen look.

 

[Teague Kennedy]

Here's an idea: Convince the networks to acquire 2:1 and use the extra space at the bottom of the 16/9 displays for their tickers/crawls/pop-up-ads and all the other crapola that they now place on top of the hard earned image.

 

[Marc Wielage]

History of 16:9... Consider this an "official" explanation of how 16:9 was derived because I heard this announcement in an SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) meeting a few years ago. "16:9 is an average of all formats"

There's a good explanation at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9

When 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 popular choices in 1980 were: 4:3 (based on television standard's ratio at the time), 1.66:1 (the European "flat" ratio), 1.85:1 (the American "flat" ratio), 2.20:1 (the ratio of 70 mm films and Panavision) and 2.35:1 (the CinemaScope ratio for anamorphic widescreen films).

Powers cut out rectangles with equal areas, shaped to match each of the popular aspect ratios. When overlapped with their center points aligned, he found that all of those aspect ratio rectangles fit within an outer rectangle with an aspect ratio of 1.77:1 and all of them also covered a smaller common inner rectangle with the same aspect ratio 1.77:1. The value found by Powers is exactly the geometric mean of the extreme aspect ratios, 4:3 (1.33:1) and 2.35:1, which is coincidentally close to 16:9 (1.77:1). Applying the same geometric mean technique to 16:9 and 4:3 yields the 14:9 aspect ratio, which is likewise used as a compromise between these ratios.

I can remember around 1989-1990, when HiVision demos started becoming regularly featured at NAB, the American Society of Cinematographers was livid because nobody had bothered to talk to them about 1.77 being used for HD. Their point was that 1.85 was at least a "legitimate" theatrical aspect ratio that was widely used, but Sony's response was that 1.77 made "more mathematical sense in terms of bandwidth." This is based on my memory of meetings at that time.

There' also the "Golden Ratio" (1.61), widely used in art and architecture for hundreds of years, certainly since the Renaissance. Having seen every aspect ratio under the sun, I've always felt that 1.77 is a reasonable compromise, and it doesn't bother me -- but it's just one of many valid creative choices for the cinematographer, no different than a painter choosing a canvas of a specific size. As long as the painting is good, the canvas is secondary.

But for television, I'm not sure 2.0 makes any sense, simply because of the lack of displays. To me, it's hard to lump all movies into one aspect ratio. Generally, I think comedy works better in 1.85, and certain kinds of action-adventure films work better in 2.40. Sometimes, I think 2.40 isn't appropriate for all kinds of movies (and I struggled years ago doing video transfers of at least half a dozen of Blake Edwards' comedies, all of which were scope). Spielberg and Coppola have proven that you can make great, profound movies in 1.85, and that ultimately, story trumps over everything.

 

[Jannard]

The 1st question I always ask is "who made these rules anyway?" (like who decided that 1080P was a film replacement?)

It isn't about what so and so thought was a good idea at the time... it is what is best now and moving forward.

IMHO... 2:1 is the best looking all around aspect ratio... and is a great place to start no matter what aspect ratio you want to end up at, especially if you take 4:3 out of the mix.

If (when) we make a display... it will be 4096 x 2048.

Jim

 

[David Limpus]

The fastest way is to provide a 4K playback device to the masses and then maybe manufactures will make cost effective 2:1 4K screens because we won't like watching it cropped and down rez on a current 1920x1080 screen.

 

[Leo Valen]

If (when) we make a display... it will be 4096 x 2048.

Jim

While I'd love to see that display, I think what's missing on the market today is a sub-$50k (and preferably much cheaper) monitor that can reproduce the DCI P3 color space for digital cinema and deliver decent contrast. Many content producers today have no idea how their work is going to look on the screen until the d-cinema master has already been produced, often by converting material that has been graded for analog film or *shiver* sRGB video.

Within a few years, every single commercial cinema that screens mainstream movies will be digital and configured to a very strict set of standards, including image size / aspect ratio, contrast and color space. If those standards are adhered to also during post production and the material is monitored on proper equipment, content producers will be able to gain full control over how their movies will look like on every cinema screen without juggling around with LUTs and a 15-person lab and DI crew.

BTW, the 4K D-Cinema pixel array is 4096*2160, and that's not going to change for a long time, so your 2:1 display should probably be 4320*2160 ; )

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I think there's something wrong with trying to compare human field of vision with a screen size and form. It will always be an image, not an illusion of perception.
The level of immersion will never be that of an illusion until you present near a 180 degree view.

What we are working with here is making images and it's about the image form. It's also wrong in my opinion to just stick to one format because not all stories are made for that. A 2:35:1 image is good for a grand scale, landscapes, vistas, a larger scope, but it also requires a larger screen. 16:9 works better to capture a smaller space, to be near the people. 2:1 works somewhere in between I think.

As always you should choose the format that best fits your story. That is my opinion.

 

[Leo Valen]

I think there's something wrong with trying to compare human field of vision with a screen size and form. It will always be an image, not an illusion of perception.
The level of immersion will never be that of an illusion until you present near a 180 degree view.

Good point. But you'd also need to provide something like 120 degrees of vertical view and true 3D (holographic) projection, as well as a color space and dynamic range approaching that of a real-world scene. Those might be long-term goals, though : )

 

[peter roehsler]

When RED came out with 2:1, it was some kind of a new challenge to frame for it, surprising as the camera was itself. Over time it has gotten quite natural for me and I still feel sorry for any sensor space I should have to throw away because of some format requirement. Of course 2.4 is fun (poor man´s cinemascope), as you actually gain access to some previously unused sensor area (and compensate for the loss of picture height by going 4.5k sideways), but apart from that I don´t see any reason to go back and mimik 35mm film gates.

 

[M Most]

While I'd love to see that display, I think what's missing on the market today is a sub-$50k (and preferably much cheaper) monitor that can reproduce the DCI P3 color space for digital cinema and deliver decent contrast.

The Dolby monitor offers exactly what you just described.

Within a few years, every single commercial cinema that screens mainstream movies will be digital and configured to a very strict set of standards, including image size / aspect ratio, contrast and color space. If those standards are adhered to also during post production and the material is monitored on proper equipment, content producers will be able to gain full control over how their movies will look like on every cinema screen without juggling around with LUTs and a 15-person lab and DI crew.

I think that statement is a considerable exaggeration. It's not particularly difficult to set up a proper digital cinema viewing environment, and it most definitely does not take 15 people and a lab crew. It just takes a bit of understanding and some rather simple tools. And LUTs are not necessary for digital cinema monitoring if the viewing environment is set up properly. They might be necessary to produce other deliverables, but not the digital cinema version.

 

[michael zaletel]

The 1st question I always ask is "who made these rules anyway?" (like who decided that 1080P was a film replacement?) Jim

In the case of the aspect ratio of the iPad 4:3, I would say Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive made the rule and consumers validated their choice. Other tablet sizes and aspect ratios had been tried for years and failed. There's just something about that size that nailed the tablet format. Apple's recent TV commercial mentions "curling up with a Movie". I don't foresee any 2:1 tablets and tablets will be a major movie viewing source in the future.

If (when) we make a display... it will be 4096 x 2048.
Jim

People are going to want to hook their Apple TV's, XBox's and Playstations to their Displays and are going to want to airplay stream their iPad games to their large displays. Because of the iPad, top gaming content is going to target 4:3 and 2:3 and maybe 16:9 but not 2:1. A 4096 x 2048 display will show black bars on both sides 682 pixels wide. 33% of the display real estate will be wasted. When Apple opens up the Apple TV to iOS apps, this is going to become even more critical.

The future of entertainment (especially home entertainment) includes apps, immersive games, web, interactive news, video chat as equals with cinematic entertainment. When RED makes a display, please consider one that is 4096 x 3072 and give us black bars top and bottom when watching 2:1 films. That looks cool anyway.

-michael zaletel