Aspect Ratio

[Michael Barosky]

For a project that will be released in 2.4:1 aspect ratio, is there any disadvantage to choosing the 6k 2.4:1 project setting? Or to put it another way, is there an advantage to filming in 6k 17:9 and changing it later in Post?

 

[Phil Holland]

Yes and no to both workflows.

First notable thing. RED's 2.4:1 format is actually 2:37:1. Additionally the most common and actual delivery ratio is 2.39:1. In a digital world this is less of an issue, but 2.39:1 is the theatrical standard. This comes down to rounding and all sorts of other things, so don't get hung up on that too much, but you will be doing some sort of frame extraction if you are trying to hit 2.39:1 specifically. That said, I know streaming services have used 2.37:1, RED's native format a bit natively

Anyways.

Big advantage for shooting a larger in height (or even width) is reframing in post. Specifically with taller format you can fine tune your headroom on closeups. You can create guides in camera that can help with this workflow and it's incredibly common to shoot this way.

I sort of dance between different workflows project to project. I'm also a stickler for composition, but if I'm pressed for time on set, frame extraction certainly has advantages.

 

[K. Rixon]

The only time I don't use the full sensor area (6k 17:9) is when I want to overcrank past 40fps. 6k 2.4:1 will unlock 50 fps, which I find more aesthetically pleasing on a 23.97 fps timeline. Unless you're worried about storage, I'd shoot the full sensor with guides and reframe (if needed) in post.