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 :)

Maximum 4:3 for Monstro

B

Brian Caldwell

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Points
1
The maximum format size is 8192 x 4320 pixels, or 40.96mm x 21.6mm. Other than shooting full 8k and then cropping, is there any other way of getting full-height 4:3? (e.g., 5760 x 4320 pixels, or 28.8mm x 21.6mm)?
 
Please forgive my ignorance, I do not shoot on anamorphics... why not use 6:5 at 8K instead of 4:3 at 6K?
 
To shoot Anamorphic 6:5 is the best format, ratio wise when used with 2x anamorphic lenses. It gives a de-squeezed ration of 2.40:1.
 
6:5 is useful for proper 2.40:1.

4:3 is a bit more useful for 16x9 delivery potentially.

Just depends on your chosen workflow.
 
I don't understand why red is not fully opening up the format tab. Sure some presents are great to have like 6:5, 16:9 etc.

But why not let people plug in two numbers out of height, width and aspect ratio and choose their own. Just as for framerates it not like we can only shoot the most common ones, we are free to shoot 37,65fps if wanted. I think frame size should be the same.
 
Björn Benckert said:
I don't understand why red is not fully opening up the format tab. Sure some presents are great to have like 6:5, 16:9 etc.

But why not let people plug in two numbers out of height, width and aspect ratio and choose their own. Just as for framerates it not like we can only shoot the most common ones, we are free to shoot 37,65fps if wanted. I think frame size should be the same.
Click to expand...

It was a feature request a long while ago and I'm certain they are looking at how to do it.

At the same time, there's a lot of evil math related things you could get into that would go against "ideal industry standards" that I'm certain they are avoiding for good reason with their current resolutions and formats.
 
I am really happy red leave it nearly the way it is. Already I have seen people struggle with the sheer number of options.

Important additions perhaps would be some other ana extra squeeze settings? 1.8x 1.6x 1.5x are out there.

For me what would be great is if Red could maximise the frame rates for all the different resolutions. There are a few that don't seems to make sense. I understand that picture height defines Fps options and there are a few little inconsistencies in there.

Ps I would also love 2k to get dumped (2.5 can stay)
 
sreenivasa reddy s said:
To shoot Anamorphic 6:5 is the best format, ratio wise when used with 2x anamorphic lenses. It gives a de-squeezed ration of 2.40:1.
Click to expand...

When using 1.79x or 1.8x anamorphic lenses 4:3 is the best format, since it gives 2.39:1 and 2.40:1, respectively. Also, on every camera currently available, if you use the full format height 6:5 simply throws away pixels relative to 4:3. So, as a result, "8K" 6:5 (5184 x 4320) has significantly less resolution than 6K 4:3 (5760 x 4320).
 
Brian Caldwell said:
When using 1.79x or 1.8x anamorphic lenses 4:3 is the best format, since it gives 2.39:1 and 2.40:1, respectively. Also, on every camera currently available, if you use the full format height 6:5 simply throws away pixels relative to 4:3. So, as a result, "8K" 6:5 (5184 x 4320) has significantly less resolution than 6K 4:3 (5760 x 4320).
Click to expand...

May be in future if you get hold of 1.8x anamorphic lenses. As of now, the most common lenses in anamorphic are the 2x, atleast 95%. Atleast here in India, we use the Master Anamorphic lenses. I have also tested the Cooke Anamorphic lenses which are 2x as well and the Optimo Anamorphic Zoom which is also 2x. The Atlas Orion lenses are also 2x. Tell me one lens that is 1.8x. Even the Ultra Panavision Lenses are 1.6x, which is best suited to cover the full 8k Monstro Sensor. That is the best option if you are looking at 2.35:1 and best resolution capture, if you can rent it out from Panavision.

At 6K 4:3 sensor size (28.80x21.60mm - 36.00mm image circle), there will be a problem of present anamorphic lenses not covering the full sensor area because of the larger image circle and even at 8K6:5 (25.92x21.60mm - 33.74mm image circle), the wide Master anamorphic lenses, 35mm and 28mm, vignette hard.

Presently, like Phil mentioned, if your target is projection for Theatres screening 2.35:1 the world over, 8K 6:5 is the ideal ratio. As you said shooting with 1.8x anamorphic lenses (whenever they may be launched), 6K 4:3 will be ideal.

Personally I feel 7k6:5 is the ideal format (22.68x18.90mm - 29.52mm image circle) to shoot with all the 2x anamorphic lenses, old and new, since the image circle is almost the same as the 35mm film anamorphic coverage area (21.95mm wide by 18.6mm height = 1.18:1 Aspect ratio - 29.26mm image circle).

The image sensor sizes of 6K 4:3, 8K 6:5 and 7K 6:5 are from Phil's chart. Thanks Phil for the detailed work.
 
Last edited:
sreenivasa reddy s said:
May be in future if you get hold of 1.8x anamorphic lenses. As of now, the most common lenses in anamorphic are the 2x, atleast 95%. Atleast here in India, we use the Master Anamorphic lenses. I have also tested the Cooke Anamorphic lenses which are 2x as well and the Optimo Anamorphic Zoom which is also 2x. The Atlas Orion lenses are also 2x. Tell me one lens that is 1.8x. Even the Ultra Panavision Lenses are 1.6x, which is best suited to cover the full 8k Monstro Sensor. That is the best option if you are looking at 2.35:1 and best resolution capture, if you can rent it out from Panavision.

At 6K 4:3 sensor size, there will be a problem of present anamorphic lenses not covering the full sensor area because of the larger image circle and even at 8K6:5, the wide anamorphic lenses vignette hard.

Presently, like Phil mentioned, if your target is projection for Theatres screening 2.35:1 the world over, 8K 6:5 is the ideal ratio. As you said shooting with 1.8x anamorphic lenses (whenever they may be launched), 4:3 will be ideal. Personally I feel 7k6:5 is the ideal format to shoot with all the 2x anamorphic lenses, old and new, since the image circle is the almost the same as the 35mm film anamorphic coverage image circle.
Click to expand...


Cooke just announced a 1.8x series, and others are coming. 1.79x has the added advantage that you could shoot on 4k 1:1 and get nearly perfect 16x9 anamorphic output.

The 1.6x lenses from Panavision are a bit of a puzzle to me. To go from 8K FF to 2.39 aspect ratio you need a 1.26x anamorphic. Perhaps the 1.6x was developed with an eye to taller formats like the Alexa LF, although for the LF you'd ideally have 1.66x to get 2.39:1 output.
 
Hello,

with Phi tool it seems like 6K 4:3 is the larger way to shoot anamorphic... what do you feel with the new 5K 4:3 mode? seems nice for Atlas lenses who supposed to cover 7K 6:5.

thx,
 
Phil Holland said:
6:5 is useful for proper 2.40:1.

4:3 is a bit more useful for 16x9 delivery potentially.

Just depends on your chosen workflow.
Click to expand...

@Phil: Do you mind elaborating on that? The 4:3 should be even wider than the 6:5, no?
8K. 6:5 = 10368x4320, 6K 4:3 = 11520x4320. Aspect ratio would be 2.4:1 vs 2.666

Cheers,
Tim
 
Brian Caldwell said:
The 1.6x lenses from Panavision are a bit of a puzzle to me. To go from 8K FF to 2.39 aspect ratio you need a 1.26x anamorphic. Perhaps the 1.6x was developed with an eye to taller formats like the Alexa LF, although for the LF you'd ideally have 1.66x to get 2.39:1 output.
Click to expand...


Panavision's 1.6x anamorphics are designed for full sensor capture with the Alexa LF and Sony Venice. Their 1.25x anas are for the Alexa65.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top