ratio

[Lee Kelly]

what would this aspect ratio be? Looks like Inglourious Basterds kind of wide?
Is this a common kind ot aspect for today. I am not sure who shot it, or what camera/lens combo but would this be a 2x,1.3x or 1.5x 'anamorphic'
Its wider than Red WS setting alone so wondering if anyone knows the best way to get this aspect as its not often seen, or is it?

 

[Andy_Johnson]

Looks like 3.55:1 to me? I'll let the experts weigh in, but that's a rudimentary calculation.

 

[Aaron Lochert]

I measured in fullscreen on my 2560 x 1440 monitor. The image height was about 722 pixels tall. So 2560/722 = 3.55.

A 2x anamorphic on a 16:9 sensor would give you a 32:9 ratio, which = 3.56:1

Or you could do a 1.5x anamorphic on a 2.4:1 shooting mode, which would give you a 3.6:1 ratio.

But for the least amount of cropping on Red, you'd need to calculate it based on the full frame sensor aspect ratio, which differs from camera to camera* (see below).

For any other aspect ratio format, divide 3.55 by the width, and you'll get your needed anamorphic squeeze. For example, for a 2:1 shooting format, divide 3.55 by 2 to get 1.775x squeeze factor needed. If your shooting aspect ratio isn't "something-to-one", like 16:9 or something, then just multiply 3.55 by the reciprocal, that is, multiply 3.55 by 9/16 to get 1.997x squeeze factor.

Full frame readout aspect ratios:

Full frame 6K Dragon is a 1.94:1 ratio. To get to 3.55:1, you'd need a 1.83x anamorphic.
Full frame 5K Scarlet-W, 5K Epic MX, and 4K Scarlet MX are all a 1.9:1 ratio. To get to 3.55:1, you'd need a 1.87x anamorphic.
Full frame 4.5K on Raven is a 2.1:1 ratio. To get to 3.55:1, you'd need a 1.69x anamorphic.
Full frame Red One has a 1.94:1 ratio sensor area, but modes only let you shoot 4.5K @ 2.4:1 or 4K @ 16:9 (either 4096*2304 or 3840*2160). To get to 3.55:1, you'd need a 1.5x or 2x anamorphic accordingly.

 

[Lee Kelly]

I kind of dig this look. It can be annoying to view on a 16:9 screen with all the wasted space top and bottom but before we know it we will probably be using 21:9 screens, where 2.40:1 content will play 'full screen' without any letterboxing so this ultra wide option will be similar to what we see 2.40:1 content on our 16:9 screens. Numbers rattling around in my head!!!

If you shot for this kind of finish on current red sensors, you would essentially losing 'resolution' because you arent utilizing as much of your sensor right?
Like, with film and anamorphic, you were shooting on your full neg taking advantage of every bit of resolution and then dequeazing it to a 2.40:1 delivery which wasnt actually a crop of the neg.
Is it not kind of the same when we shoot 16:9 on the red (HD) still losing some width in the sensor but with a 1.33x lens stretching it to use as much as we get keeping the resolution as high as possible?
When we shoot WS mode, this is using less of the sensor and throwing on a 1.5 lens will give us a similar aspect to the video above? If we shot 1.5x lens on FF what would we get? 16:9 what would we get? I need to learn the math/camera settings!

 

[Aaron Lochert]

I edited my above post accordingly, but yeah, you're right. To lose the least amount of resolution you need to shoot in a full frame readout, and use the "ideal" squeeze factor anamorphic. That's why 1.33x exist for 16:9 sensors to get to a 2.35:1. The Reds aren't 16:9 sensors though, they're a bit wider.

 

[Lee Kelly]

I have a nice little 1.3x lens and an older gorgeous 1.5x attachment. It will be fun to play around with both to get the right vibe on the Dragon while maintaining as much sensor use as possible.