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 :)

Is it just me, or do other people prefer the 2:1 ratio, too?

Stephen Pruitt

Stephen Pruitt

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
40
Points
48
Website
www.thetreemotionpicture.com
Hi all. . .

I have to say, was initially disappointed that the RED One didn't offer a 16x9 format, and we initially intended to crop our film down to 16x9, but I've now gotten to the point that I prefer 2:1 over any other format. It's wide, but not too wide. It's deep, but not too deep. It's just, well, to me, perfect! I don't mind the tiny black-box bands at the top and bottom of my 16x9 screen at all. And I sure don't like the new 2.33 to 1 ratio of Build 21. I can see why some people would like it, and I thought I would, but I definitely prefer 2:1 over 2.33 to 1.

Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I the lone wolf crying in the wilderness, "2:1, 2:1"?

Stephen
 
here is my ranking

2,33
2:1
4:3---great with black and white
16x9---i hate this aspect ratio, it feels like half cinema, half Tv kind of hybrid.
 
2:1 wasnt just a happy accident.. We wanted it from the start. I don't think me nor Jim have ever shot 16:9 on our cameras once ( apart from tests )
 
rock build 21 and shot 4.5k rc42 and you will not want to shoot any other way.
 
So isn't 2:1 a non-deliverable. I like it but, how would it fit in to anything? 16:9 DVD has no lines, even it it's 1.85. I think most people's heads would explode if they saw black bars on their new plasma... unless it's 2.35. Would any broadcaster actually take a 2:1 in a 16:9 stream?

Chris
 
I shoot 4K HD mode all the time for projects destined for 1080p HD. Converts fast and full frame in 16:9 anamorphic.

Noah
 
2:1 aspect

2:1 aspect

Would any broadcaster actually take a 2:1 in a 16:9 stream?
Click to expand...

As long as people watch it (so they can sell their advertising slots) why would they care?

Maybe HBO or someone like that would step up to that new look.
 
Chris Pickle said:
So isn't 2:1 a non-deliverable. I like it but, how would it fit in to anything? 16:9 DVD has no lines, even it it's 1.85. I think most people's heads would explode if they saw black bars on their new plasma... unless it's 2.35. Would any broadcaster actually take a 2:1 in a 16:9 stream?

Chris
Click to expand...

Uhhh all 1.85 movies have letterboxes even in 16:9 DVDs.
 
Stuart English said:
As long as people watch it (so they can sell their advertising slots) why would they care?

Maybe HBO or someone like that would step up to that new look.
Click to expand...

Deliverables to broadcast TV are insane. You would be very surprised at how insane. Why else do you still see LOADS of hollywood titles cropped to 4:3. It's an abomination.

Chris
 
2:1 aspect

2:1 aspect

Deliverables to broadcast TV are insane. You would be very surprised at how insane.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the smart guys in the distribution business understand it's all about presenting fresh and interesting content..
 
When we make displays we are going to make them 2:1. :-)

Jim
 
Chris Pickle said:
Not all. Many many 1.85 movies get cropped / zoomed to 16:9. Actually many 1.85 Hollywood titles get cropped to 16:9. This saves from having a few lines of black on a 16:9 signal.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

Essentially all motion pictures today that are shot on film are shot on either 3 perf (which has a "native" 1.77:1, or 16x9 format) or 4 perf. In either case there is more picture area available than the 1.85 area. The DI is almost always rendered for 1.33 full frame (in the case of 4 perf origination) or 16x9 (in the case of 3 perf). Other formats - for instance, 1.85 - are created from those files. So for the HD video release (16x9), there is no cropping, even if the theatrical version is 1.85. The 1.85 version would be created when making both the DI negative and the digital cinema version. Pan/scan 1.33 versions are created electronically from the same original files, or indirectly from the HD video version.

None of this, of course, applies in the case of 2.40 material, in which case the theatrical version is an anamorphic film release, and the HD version is letterboxed.
 
I'm sorry 2:1 is a bastard format. It's an interesting one to be sure but not a standard anyone is going to adopt long term. IMO it's not wide enough for epic projects like scope and too skinny for regular content. Framing for it is very uncomfortable for large format presentation. The only thing I think it's really good at is short films that are trying to be more cinematic, without the pretension of 2:40. I chose it for the two shorts I've shot this year for that reason. For a feature I'd go 1:85 or 2:40, for TV/Web 16:9 (4KHD).

However there is a lot of sense in making a sensor and display in 2:1, as it gives almost equal screen area to both 16:9, 1.85 and 2.40.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top