first time user don't understand when to use 2:1

[ramdop]

hi

i read all over the place and still don't understand

when one will use 4k
and when he/she will use 4k 2:1

i know it about resolution

but is it like aspect ratio?

is it for anamorphic?

i am about to shoot music video for the first time with this cam

 

[Shawn Nelson]

What is your deliverable?

I prefer 2:1, 16x9 feels like "the new 4x3", too vertical for me.

 

[ramdop]

just want to understand this.

so it's kind of aspect ratio

if so why not just mark it on the view finder like 2.40:1 or 4x3 or anything
way change resolution in cam?

 

[Shawn Nelson]

just want to understand this.

so it's kind of aspect ratio

if so why not just mark it on the view finder like 2.40:1 or 4x3 or anything
way change resolution in cam?

Aspect Ratio is a result of resolution. 4096x2048 is a 2:1 aspect ratio, 4096x2304 is a 16:9 aspect ratio.

Because 16:9 requires more pixels, there are data considerations.

I recommend spending the time to read the manual in it's entirety, it would help. Pay special attention to the section that shows what project settings can be recorded to which media.

 

[ramdop]

thanks

i just did, before writing this post.

and the FAQ too

 

[jimhare]

If you are working on a music video (TV) then this will give you a letterbox within your 16:9. So on 4:3 it will be double-letterboxed.

They do this a lot with 2.35:1 feature films, where you still see a letterbox on a widescreen.

Very cinematic, I like it!

 

[Brook Willard]

The 2:1 modes were created because it was the first aspect ratio that RED enabled. Back when the cameras first shipped, 2:1 was the only mode we could shoot! It was a mode created out of necessity. The 16:9 functionality was enabled later on in development.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

The Univisium 3-perf film proposed format frame.

2:1 aspect ratio or "Univisium (Latin: "unity of images") is a proposed universal film format created by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, ASC, AIC

and his son, Fabrizio, to unify all future theatrical and television movies into one respective aspect ratio of 2.00:1.

The proposed format also includes new standards for projection that maximize the efficiencies of the Univisium format."

More>>>

 

[Roberto B]

More>>>

as any italian.. the man is an artist.. full artist.. his case.. also a little bit crazy..

"Additionally, Storaro has reframed many of his earlier widescreen releases for the 2:00:1 ratio upon DVD release, including Apocalypse Now, Reds, and The Last Emperor."

edit
did me write little bit..?

 

[Tim Hole]

cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, ASC, AIC

Love him. What a guy. and still gutted that I haven't seen Caravaggio (one of my favourite artists...)

Sorry-off topic but could resist when such a name is spoken!

 

[ramdop]

thank you all

i am well know of the Univisium

this one is great:

"There is no point in having sharp images when you've fuzzy ideas." Jean-Luc Godard.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

"Additionally, Storaro has reframed many of his earlier widescreen releases for the 2:00:1 ratio upon DVD release, including Apocalypse Now, Reds, and The Last Emperor."

is this true? and if so, did he crop them?

 

[Giancarlo Bianchi]

I know we Ain´t talking about scope here, but I have always love this quote:

Cinemascope — it’s only good for snakes and funerals! (Fritz Lang in JLG Le Mémpris)

 

[Liam Hall]

Love him. What a guy. and still gutted that I haven't seen Caravaggio (one of my favourite artists...)

Sorry-off topic but could resist when such a name is spoken!

Caravaggio was lit by Gabriel Beristain. Oh wait, you mean the artist, not the film of the artist. Try the National Gallery, there's lots there, he's one of my favorite painters too...

 

[nick allsop]

i would shoot 2:1 if i wanted to finish at a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

 

[Chris Pickle]

On a music video, almost anything goes, but for most feature work and especially indie stiff, aspect ratio choice can become a nightmare.

16:9 is basically the new defacto standard for a project that is going to broadcast but not to any theatre. What has happened is that people have purchased a flat screen TV and then they see something in 2.35:1 and their head explodes. They've got black bars on their 16:9 TV. "I though the new TV was gonna fix that shit!"

Plus a broadcaster might buy your indie flick in 16:9 but they will probably ask you to crop it if you shot 2.35:1 Yes they'll broadcast a big Hollywood flick in 2.35 (but then not always) I see broadcasters crop massive films to 4:3

I think shooting 16:9 will cause a filmmaker less heartbreak. You tell yourself now that you will never crop it for "no one!" that is until a broadcaster dangles that small little cheque for $60K and you're so deep into post costs and etc.... You WILL take the money and you WILL crop your film to do it.

 

[Michael Hahn]

So, the Ops Guide, and maybe I missed this after reading it three times, doesn't seem to really say what the difference is between 4K HD, 4K 2:1, and 4K 16:9. Is is all just aspect ratio differences? Does anybody know? It's really hard to search this forum to find answers for this, since "4K" and "ratio" and whatnot or so common.

I want to shoot a feature and at the end of the day have a 2.35:1 look. I don't want problems with compression, or conversions, or anything in editing in Final Cut. Just a smooth workflow. So, which of the three is the right choice? Is there a right choice?

Thanks!!