I want my 16:9

[Evin Grant]

I see no real advantage to having a 1.77:1 ratio greater than 4K. 1.77:1 is not a theatrical standard, it's the HD standard. It might seem like splitting hairs but I think a better alternate ratio is 1.85:1 which is actually theatrical widecreen. I'd submit a better resolution would be 4995x2700, at least then if you did use the full aperture it would match a proper projection format. If you're shooting for HD delivery then just shoot quad HD and be happy with a 4x oversample. Personally I really like 2:1 and think it's a natural next step for 4K broadcast.

 

[Maz Mawlawi]

The 4800x2700 would allow you to shoot a little wider compare to quad HD...(and yet keeping thE ease of framing 16x9 without cropping in post)

 

[Yaque Silva-Doyle]

How is this even a conversation. It is an almost ubiquitous request at this point in time. Looking forward to having a 16x9 / 1.77:1 ratio in camera.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

I think if red create a bigger 16:9 option it would be fantastic if it was about 23.5-24mm wide ..... And hopefully this would allow 100fps (since there would be a small vertical readout reduction)...

Great for 50hz world
(100fps is less likely to get flicker)

Great for commercials
(16:9 and best compromise between rez and lens performance... )
Great for getting the edge to edge best out of lenses like ultra primes
(yes my UPs and DPs cover 5k but like many other lenses not with highest performance)
Great for flexibility of matte boxes with lenses like red 17-50 and DP 16-42 and Optimo 15-40
(Wide on a 16-42 with the MB20 and Obox we frequently have to pull the MB or crush it right back and pullin the back filter.. from playing around with Redcine and diffent frame sizes I can see we would be fine if we shot s35 instead of 5k)

Pretty please

Michael

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I see no real advantage to having a 1.77:1 ratio greater than 4K. 1.77:1 is not a theatrical standard, it's the HD standard. It might seem like splitting hairs but I think a better alternate ratio is 1.85:1 which is actually theatrical widecreen. I'd submit a better resolution would be 4995x2700, at least then if you did use the full aperture it would match a proper projection format. If you're shooting for HD delivery then just shoot quad HD and be happy with a 4x oversample. Personally I really like 2:1 and think it's a natural next step for 4K broadcast.

Quad HD is too much lens cropping. On MX we never use it, on Epic we never use it.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

:huh::huh:


This statement kills me... Maybe not such a good choice of words for an old man like myself. OK, this statement I find laughable...

Like I said, there are many exceptions. I state only tendencies. Definitely older DPs often dislike Red. Fewer young DPs dislike Red. Definitely the current generation gap is very much a technological one. I know some real old timers who still edit on Steenbecks. (If I did that, editing a music video would take 6 months). They talk about things like how important it is to "touch film with your hands" as part of the creative process. I am not of the hippie generation. To me this is just nonsense. I grew up with techno, not Arlo Guthrie. To me folk music is unpleasant noise. To me, abstraction is more interesting than the tangible. There is a generation gap - but of course there are many exceptions - you sound like one.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Quad HD is 3,840 x 2,160 which can be an excellent choice for TV finish. Evin suggested 4,995 by 2,700 for its native 1.85:1 match to DCI theatrical finish and mild crop for TV. Others like 4,800 by 2,700 as a native 1.78:1 option that uses all the vertical resolution available to maximize oversampling benefits. I like to shoot 5K FF with 1.78:1 guides, expecting to chop the sides symmetrically, with the bonus of being able to custom crop when desired.

I have no doubt that on some shots the QHD crop would be a detriment as Rob noted. That said, on some shots it might be a plus.

I do like the idea of future firmware builds supporting more formats. That said, I would put a limited number on the regular menu list and bury the rest in an advanced menu or the post community might find even more negative things to say about RED, if that's possible ,-)

Cheers - #19

 

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Blair. Options, especially as it seems these modes would be very easy to implement via firmware. I would like BOTH a full sensor height 1.85 mode (4,995 x 2,700) and full sensor height 1.78 mode (4,800 x 2,700). Both are very useful and both preserve wide lens reach better than 5K 2:1 and crop, getting the most bang from the sensor while not artificially inflating file size. I can see that the existing Epic 5K 2:1 mode is also very useful for custom framing and ultimate post flexibility. But I'd really like to have the other two options.

 

[Milan Spasic]

As for Alexa, it seems to appeal to an older crowd, and the Epic/Red a younger crowd. Older people are more often reticent about computer technology and new ways of doing things, younger people less often. I have also noticed that the university graduate crowd embraces Epic a lot more than those who are self-taught and do not have a university degree. These are not absolutes and there are many exceptions, but it's a strong tendency and reveals a technological generation gap that is present in many aspects of life, not just production.

Absolutely ridiculous premise. I know at least as many young technophobes as I know older ones. There are simply people who not very good at what they do and those who are and those who are willing to embrace change and those who reject it. Nothing to do with age or degrees. I have one but frankly, all the most useful knowledge I possess did not come from attending school.

Oh and I believe nobody mentioned 4kWS mode, also dearly missed from the R1 days.

 

[Simon N]

I asked Red directly about this and have just been told that 4k 16:9 will be available in a future firmware upgrade.

 

[Maz Mawlawi]

Maybe the same reason Apple has been taking away DVD drives, and for awhile there, firewire... or no USB port in iPads, and in FCP X -- a lot of things. Wasn't there a thread from RED's Jim Jannard, perky, visionary leader, talking about how he wanted the standard to be 2:1?
Apple attempt, usually successfully, to set the standard and lead the way to the future, often with teething pains and lots of grumbling, and RED might be attempting that as well. RED's total and utter contempt for 1920x1080 is well documented and if numero uno wants the standard to be 2:1, would he be really interested in supporting 16:9?

RED might very well be attempting to set broadcasting standard at 4k 2:1 with a patient arm wrestle. Well, you asked for "anyone" to attempt to answer your question. That's my best guess. I watched a fair bit of 'Columbo' so my credentials are reasonable, albeit that was in 4:3.

well the problem is to this day most TV Channels are still requiring you to frame your important scenes and titles in a center cut safe frame (4;3) when you shoot 16:9 and even when they broadcast 16:9 because they are still trying to cater to the good old 4;3 people and not put black bars....can you imagine how bad framing would be in 2:1 for center cut? I am all for 2:1 but please give us 16:9 as a stepping stone for TV work in the mean time....