4K 2:1...

[Bill Anderson]

We are indebted to you, Mr. Jannard, but not nearly as much as we are going to be, in the near future. ( ;

 

[Mark Wilkinson]

Um, Keith, I think you're totally losing it. The Genesis and the F35 are essentially the same camera.

I thought the F23 and the Genesis were essentially the same camera, but the F35 had the super35 sensor?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Same sensor in both cameras. Standard 35mm (Academy) is approx. 22mm wide, Super-35 (Full Aperture) is approx. 24mm wide -- the active sensor area in the Genesis / F35 is 23.622mm wide, more or less Super-35 in width.

The sensor was developed by Sony in a joint deal with Panavision, and was first used in the Genesis for a few years exclusively, and then Sony was able to build the F35 with it, more or less the same camera in the basics (sensor, SRW1 deck) though some of the electronics are slightly newer in the F35, and Sony and Panavision supposedly have the sensors made at different plants, though that may be apocryphal. Genesis uses Panalog, F35 uses S-Log.

 

[C. Jagan Mohan]

We believe this should be the future standard.

Jim

For the past more than 15 years we are making all our film in 2.35:1. Films once you see this wider, difficult to adjust for anything narrower than this.

 

[kenneth gruyaert]

For the past more than 15 years we are making all our film in 2.35:1. Films once you see this wider, difficult to adjust for anything narrower than this.

Its not narrower, its higher. And i think 3:2 would be the best allround format. I have a 16:10 computer monitor and i find it more limiting vertically than horizontally when watching pictures or video while a bit more horizontal bias than 4:3 seems better so 3:2 seems about right. I wish i could buy a 60inch+ 6144x4096 tv display in the near future, it would work great with the upcoming full frame Epic.

It seems strange to me that RED is planning 3:2 and 4:3 sensors on future cameras while at the same time advocating a 2:1 ratio as the future standard.

 

[Meelis Veeremets]

I have been shooting almost all project 2:1 since since december'10 - tv, commercial, cinema...

 

[Justin Marx]

What would be the main reason to shoot 2:1 instead of Full Frame?

 

[M Most]

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

Well, basically George Lucas did. And at the time, few agreed with him. It's probably fair to say few agree with him now. But at the time, he was hell-bent on shooting "digital," whatever that entailed. The available technology at the time forced the decision to go with the HDTV standard.

Don't forget, he also shot a scene that many people remember for the first of the Star Wars prequels (which was shot on film) using a digital betacam as an "experiment". It stood out like a sore thumb, but George claimed at the time that it was indistinguishable from the film. So one can draw their own conclusions.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

What would be the main reason to shoot 2:1 instead of Full Frame?

It's a little less data so you have a little more leeway on compression and frame rate choices. And for a movie intended to be shown in 2.40 : 1 scope, recording 2:1 gives you a little extra space above and below the 2.40 frame to work with in post but it's not too much excessive info either.

These are different arguments than the artistic / aesthetic one about 2:1 as the intended aspect ratio for display and release. If you want to read more about that, see:

http://www.storarovittorio.com/inglese/univisium.swf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

 

[Marc Wielage]

Don't forget, he also shot a scene that many people remember for the first of the Star Wars prequels (which was shot on film) using a digital betacam as an "experiment". It stood out like a sore thumb, but George claimed at the time that it was indistinguishable from the film. So one can draw their own conclusions.

DP David Tattersall told me it was a scene on the balcony where they talked about the "midi-chlorians" in the kid's blood, and that it was shot on a prototype Sony 1080 Cinealta HD camera -- not Digibeta. I thought the scene was a little noisy, but not terrible.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think that scene was shot on a 1080/50i Sony HDW-700 type camcorder, the generation before the 24P F900. But it isn't far off to call them Digital Betacams...

 

[Jason Beckwith]

DP David Tattersall told me it was a scene on the balcony where they talked about the "midi-chlorians" in the kid's blood, and that it was shot on a prototype Sony 1080 Cinealta HD camera -- not Digibeta. I thought the scene was a little noisy, but not terrible.

I thought it was terrible. Midi-chlorians are the worst addition to Star Wars after Greedo shooting first!

Oh, wait... We are just talking aesthetic and I just flashed my geek card, huh!?!

 

[Justin Marx]

It's a little less data so you have a little more leeway on compression and frame rate choices. And for a movie intended to be shown in 2.40 : 1 scope, recording 2:1 gives you a little extra space above and below the 2.40 frame to work with in post but it's not too much excessive info either.

These are different arguments than the artistic / aesthetic one about 2:1 as the intended aspect ratio for display and release. If you want to read more about that, see:

http://www.storarovittorio.com/inglese/univisium.swf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

David don't you get the most coverage with FF?

 

[Marc Wielage]

I think that scene was shot on a 1080/50i Sony HDW-700 type camcorder, the generation before the 24P F900. But it isn't far off to call them Digital Betacams...

It's definitely possible it was interlaced footage, but it wasn't quite as bad as standard def. I agree, the cameras from that era had a lot of issues. Heck, even the 900 had a bunch of problems, especially low-level noise. There were certainly experimental 1125-line Hi-Vision cameras going back to 1990, so they'd been around for awhile.

Still, getting back to the original thread issue: it takes a lot of guts and commitment to shoot a given aspect ratio (like anamorphic scope) and having to way to fix headroom problems. To me, the flexibility of shooting in 16x9 and then reframing when needed is a major benefit.

I thought it was terrible. Midi-chlorians are the worst addition to Star Wars after Greedo shooting first!

I generally try to avoid arguing with directors over writing or story points when I'm color correcting. BTW, the version on home video came from digital files, so at least it avoided the IN/IP stage in the theatrical film print, and it's cleaned up a little more.

 

[M Most]

Still, getting back to the original thread issue: it takes a lot of guts and commitment to shoot a given aspect ratio (like anamorphic scope) and having to way to fix headroom problems. To me, the flexibility of shooting in 16x9 and then reframing when needed is a major benefit.

Really? We were both around when features were finished via contact printing and reframing was a quality sapping optical effect that was rarely done. I don't seem to recall headroom problems or poor compositions as a result of that. And that only went on for, oh, about 80 years.

I think the only thing that's required to shoot in the aspect ratio you're releasing in is talent and a knowledge of composition, which hopefully every working cinematographer and his or her operators have in abundance.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Really? We were both around when features were finished via contact printing and reframing was a quality sapping optical effect that was rarely done. I don't seem to recall headroom problems or poor compositions as a result of that. And that only went on for, oh, about 80 years.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. I'm speaking mainly of digital capture. And I did many, many, many Super 35mm jobs where we wound up doing a ton of repositions in post, hundreds and hundreds of scenes. I'm sure you have, too.

My point is, if they're shooting full-ap 2:1, there's nowhere to go if they're projecting in the same aspect ratio. We can always blow up, but if there's insufficient headroom, we can't magically paint it back in. (OK, maybe they could in a dreamworld of unlimited time and money, but not for everyday projects.)

I think the only thing that's required to shoot in the aspect ratio you're releasing in is talent and a knowledge of composition, which hopefully every working cinematographer and his or her operators have in abundance.

I agree completely. The only exception is: directors love to change things.