In camera resolutions closer to 4K DCI Scope AR

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Hey guys!

4K DCI Scope is 4096x1716 = 2.38694638695 AR

I think that it's strange there are not in camera RAW resolutions much closer to 4K DCI SCOPE AR like:

6144 x 2576

5120 x 2144

and so on...

(both rounded up to be divisible by 16 which helps tremendously with some codecs / systems for proxies and deliverables)

or if going ALL-IN using these perfect match (but probably I'd prefer the other approach described above)

6144 x 2574

5120 x 2145

and so on...

Am I the only one who would appreciate the inclusion of these formats??????

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Something like this ?

http://phfx.com/tools/REDFormatKey/REDFormatKey.cgi?camera=REDEpicW5KGemini&format=all

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Hey Hrvoje!

nice to hear from you!

He he I know Phil's tools well but I'm just asking to add more resolution options in camera to better adhere to the DCI standards (specifically 4K DCI Scope). ;-)

If you see on the link you posted all the WS resolutions (so called scope) which I often use daily, are NOT compliant with DCI Standards...

This causes 3 issues:

- resolution mismatch in multicam productions
- waste of space which is not free
- waste of processing power (in camera and in post, encoding and decoding) so time...

Make the problems 4 actually since I have an ongoing OCD condition he he !!!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Traditionally when shooting on 35mm film, the projection ratio was often not the same as the camera negative ratio. This had some advantage in making different distribution masters for broadcast and theatrical, plus allowed for some reframing for VFX and stabilization in post. For these reasons, like having to make a 16:9 full-frame broadcast master for some markets, I've shot most of my 2.40 : 1 movies in recording formats ranging from 2:1 to 16:9. I've only actually shot a 2.40 original when shooting with 2X anamorphic lenses on 4-perf 35mm.

If you shoot a framing chart, I'm not sure why it is hard to make your final 2.40 DCP output from an original that is not quite that shape - post houses do this all the time.

Also if multiple cameras are all the same type recording the same format, then why would there be resolution mismatches? If if they aren't all the same camera, wouldn't there often be resolution mismatches since many cameras record different resolutions with different sensors, different recording formats, etc. even if all were set to record a 2.40 : 1 sensor area?

 

[Bastian Meier]

If you shoot a framing chart, I'm not sure why it is hard to make your final 2.40 DCP output from an original that is not quite that shape - post houses do this all the time.

I think some people don't know what a framing chart is, and how to handle it in post production.

 

[Phil Holland]

The mischief here is RED's WS format is traditionally 2.37:1 while DCI Scope is 2.39:1. Which is fine, it just requires cropping vertically down.

A long time ago before formats we're so "canned" we'd shoot frame and focus charts ahead of films to figure out what we'd extract from our usually 4-perf Full Ap A35 frame.

What I'd advise is to utilize your framing guides in camera and when you export through say RCX you can utilized that guide when exporting your dailies, proxies, etc....

That's what I did for my 2.20:1 shoots, I'm sure Mindhunter did similar.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Traditionally when shooting on 35mm film, the projection ratio was often not the same as the camera negative ratio. This had some advantage in making different distribution masters for broadcast and theatrical, plus allowed for some reframing for VFX and stabilization in post. For these reasons, like having to make a 16:9 full-frame broadcast master for some markets, I've shot most of my 2.40 : 1 movies in recording formats ranging from 2:1 to 16:9. I've only actually shot a 2.40 original when shooting with 2X anamorphic lenses on 4-perf 35mm.

If you shoot a framing chart, I'm not sure why it is hard to make your final 2.40 DCP output from an original that is not quite that shape - post houses do this all the time.

Also if multiple cameras are all the same type recording the same format, then why would there be resolution mismatches? If if they aren't all the same camera, wouldn't there often be resolution mismatches since many cameras record different resolutions with different sensors, different recording formats, etc. even if all were set to record a 2.40 : 1 sensor area?

David, I know it well but that's exactly what I'd like to avoid...

Also in some productions additional cams can be from other brands and it would be great if every manufacturer would adopt the same established standard which already exist.
I'm talking about AR here, you're absolutely right that raster size would differ but at least AR would be the same and compliant, to have as a common denominator so to speak.

Current age make this possible if we push it and if we ask manufacturers to add this.
I don't understand why things have to remain messed up.

Want to shoot in Univisium like Vittorio? Wonderful why not, but if you want to shoot scope why wasting space and processing by using a non-standard formats???

I think some people don't know what a framing chart is, and how to handle it in post production.

I know it very well Bastian...BTW if you were referring to me, please read my post again...

Anyway it's not for making things easy for the less tech -savvy people you were referring to, it's for making good use of media and processing and to adhere to the official DCI standard...

The mischief here is RED's WS format is traditionally 2.37:1 while DCI Scope is 2.39:1. Which is fine, it just requires cropping vertically down.

A long time ago before formats we're so "canned" we'd shoot frame and focus charts ahead of films to figure out what we'd extract from our usually 4-perf Full Ap A35 frame.

What I'd advise is to utilize your framing guides in camera and when you export through say RCX you can utilized that guide when exporting your dailies, proxies, etc....

That's what I did for my 2.20:1 shoots, I'm sure Mindhunter did similar.

Phil, thanks but that's absolutely what I do and what everyone is doing, so things cannot be improved???

2.37 is not DCI compliant.

And by using it we're even wasting space + processing + a bit of top fps...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

As I said, that wasted space can be useful in post.

 

[Bastian Meier]

I know it very well Bastian...BTW if you were referring to me, please read my post again...

No I was actually not referring to you. But I recently experienced a couple of times, when I was talking to different people about shooting formats and workflow, that lot of them didn't know what frame guides are or how to use them in the workflow.

 

[Phil Holland]

As I said, that wasted space can be useful in post.

What David said.

Phil, thanks but that's absolutely what I do and what everyone is doing, so things cannot be improved???

2.37 is not DCI compliant.

And by using it we're even wasting space + processing + a bit of top fps...

Also, just to add some more ice into the cooler.

While 2.39:1 is DCI compliant, while not a popular topic (and likely one that shouldn't always be explored), people do sometimes finish at 2.35:1, 2.37:1, 2.39:1, and 2.4:1 even within DCI specifications.

There is no "perfect format" for WS, though there is one that's rather specific for one method of finishing to DCI Scope.