Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

I want my 16:9

A. Clint Litton said:
Really would love a 5K 16:9 option (even if it wasn't a true 5K wide, but a "mere" 4.8k). Windowing down all the way to 4kHD seems like a punishment...
Click to expand...


Agree! Desperately need 16 x 9 aspect ratios in all the Epic Resolutions....or i guess i can continue to watch the producer's eyes glaze over when i have to explain the extra steps in post they'll need to take to properly conform the aspect.
 
Mike Kushner said:
Agree! Desperately need 16 x 9 aspect ratios in all the Epic Resolutions....or i guess i can continue to watch the producer's eyes glaze over when i have to explain the extra steps in post they'll need to take to properly conform the aspect.
Click to expand...

+1 on that.
 
There is no reason the the camera couldn't allow for user defined crops.
I've designed using numerous cameras for film scanner applications. I've always let the user decide what crop to use.
In a compression performance limited camera like the Scarlet, letting the user select a particular wide screen format would be a big benefit because it would allow the frame rate to be optimized for the fewer pixels being compressed.

The shading/black flat field would internally crop along with the set crop size.
So I should be able to choose an ultra wide 4096x800 size at a decent FPS.
I'm sure that RED will get to this eventually. They want to give the user the most flexible camera out there, after all.
 
+1 on a 5K 16:9!!

Please, for us DP's that don't do a lot of post and can't guarantee the crop is being handled correctly. (or just a hassle) Makes clients nervous on set as well!!

File sizes would be slightly smaller and I would be able to use a few PL lenses in the widest settings with no vignette issues. WIN WIN! C'mon RED Team!
 
Mike Kushner said:
Agree! Desperately need 16 x 9 aspect ratios in all the Epic Resolutions....or i guess i can continue to watch the producer's eyes glaze over when i have to explain the extra steps in post they'll need to take to properly conform the aspect.
Click to expand...

I don't care how it gets here. but having 16x9 output is desperately
Needed so I can use the pix 240 as intended for jobs that require easy workflow...its all about the options
 
Mike Kushner said:
Agree! Desperately need 16 x 9 aspect ratios in all the Epic Resolutions....or i guess i can continue to watch the producer's eyes glaze over when i have to explain the extra steps in post they'll need to take to properly conform the aspect.
Click to expand...

yep! exactly for sole this reason it would be worth it!
 
Mike Kushner said:
Agree! Desperately need 16 x 9 aspect ratios in all the Epic Resolutions....or i guess i can continue to watch the producer's eyes glaze over when i have to explain the extra steps in post they'll need to take to properly conform the aspect.
Click to expand...

...You have producers who's eyes glaze over when they're told they need to crop the sides a bit? Ouch.

Anyway, yeah, I agree with the sentiment of this thread. Really would like to see the 16:9 modes. 4800x2700 FTW!
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
...You have producers who's eyes glaze over when they're told they need to crop the sides a bit? Ouch.

Anyway, yeah, I agree with the sentiment of this thread. Really would like to see the 16:9 modes. 4800x2700 FTW!
Click to expand...

yep, actually when you say they have to convert in redcine x, they raise one eyebrow, and when you start explaining that what you shot has to be cropped to be 16:9 the shake their head, and stop listening and delegate the problem to someone else :)
 
Last edited:
Les Dittert said:
There is no reason the the camera couldn't allow for user defined crops.
I've designed using numerous cameras for film scanner applications. I've always let the user decide what crop to use.
In a compression performance limited camera like the Scarlet, letting the user select a particular wide screen format would be a big benefit because it would allow the frame rate to be optimized for the fewer pixels being compressed.

The shading/black flat field would internally crop along with the set crop size.
So I should be able to choose an ultra wide 4096x800 size at a decent FPS.
I'm sure that RED will get to this eventually. They want to give the user the most flexible camera out there, after all.
Click to expand...

Yess indeed :)

And likewise - for Scarlet users - crop towards 3:2 for those who need a sharp second hdrx stream, and also need the motion. In the print world which rarely needs wide formats, 3000x1500 is a bit too narrow hdrx for print purposes. Yes you can use Perfect resize and other enlargement software, but why not optimise in camera first and go further.

And yes, I think Red is listening, but please hurry friends :)

Thx Les.

Thommes
 
Just reviving this thread to remind our friends at RED to enable a 16x9 5k option. (4800 x 2700) or 4.8k for the picky ones..l ;)
 
please fix...exhausting explaining to clients and producers why there is a letterbox on the monitor and that the editors will have to conform the footage to 16 x 9.

why would red not want to make it simple for their users to conform the aspect ratio to the world standard for HD broadcast television?

can anyone answer that question?

one more step to conform aspect in post is no fun. transcoding takes long enough already. especially bothersome with multiple source resolutions due to different frame rates.
 
I know everyone is asking for 4800x2700 but I'd submit a vote for the S35 16:9 standard; 24mm x 13.5 or 4444x2500. No more mattebox or lens vignetting.

Cheers,
 
Sean Porter said:
I know everyone is asking for 4800x2700 but I'd submit a vote for the S35 16:9 standard; 24mm x 13.5 or 4444x2500. No more mattebox or lens vignetting.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

i think the common hope is for the largest pixel array in 16 x 9 - you can always crop down according to the limitations of your lenses and mattebox. try the Vocas 5" x 5" mattebox with 4 x 5 trays - no vignetting there at 5K even on an 11mm lens and no 6" x 6" mattebox required. just because some lenses don't cover 5K or 4.8K...other users shouldn't have to sacrifice maximum resolution or angle of view
 
Mike Kushner said:
please fix...exhausting explaining to clients and producers why there is a letterbox on the monitor and that the editors will have to conform the footage to 16 x 9.

why would red not want to make it simple for their users to conform the aspect ratio to the world standard for HD broadcast television?

can anyone answer that question?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yes, 16:9 please...

using as much as the sensor as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top