Shooting 2:35 >>> Any Limitations??

[Ryan Dean]

My DP wants to shoot 2:35. Do we have any limitations if we go this route? ( Frame rates, lens choices etc..)

Thanks!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

My DP wants to shoot 2:35. Do we have any limitations if we go this route? ( Frame rates, lens choices etc..)

Thanks!

If you mean he wants to frame for cropping spherical lens photography to 2.35 (actually 2.39) then no, there are no limitations, you can shoot & record either 2:1 or 16:9 -- with 2.35 framelines in the viewfinder and set monitor -- same limitations as anything else shot in 2:1 or 16:9 mode. You just have to decide whether you need dailies letterboxed to 2.35 or save that for the editing bay, etc.

You may need to create both a 2.35 letterboxed master for 16:9 HD broadcast / home video + a 16:9 full-frame version, so protect as much of the frame recorded outside of 2.35 as you can. If you record 2:1 mode, you'll be cropping the sides of the recording a little bit to create a 16:9 full-frame version, hopefully you protected the whole vertical area for use. If you record 16:9, it's more area to protect outside of 2.35 but it makes the 16:9 full-frame version easier to create. You may have a few more frame rate options at 2:1 instead of 16:9.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

To add to what David Mullen has said here, the RED One 4.5K mode is also very attractive for shooting 2.35:1. It's actually 4480x1920 and that's 2.33:1, so you just crop a couple lines off top/bottom in post. You can shoot REDCODE 42 (7:1) in this mode for the least amount of compression possible on the RED One, if that's important to you. RED One 4.5K is also 24.2mm wide on the sensor, 2mm wider than 4K, so it essentially gives you the full S35 frame width.

 

[Ryan Dean]

If you mean he wants to frame for cropping spherical lens photography to 2.35 (actually 2.39) then no, there are no limitations, you can shoot & record either 2:1 or 16:9 -- with 2.35 framelines

Thank you sir for your input. I kind of thought this was the answer, but it's always nice to get a second opinion.

 

[dean merrill]

Great info! I love the aesthetic of 2.35

If you mean he wants to frame for cropping spherical lens photography to 2.35 (actually 2.39) then no, there are no limitations, you can shoot & record either 2:1 or 16:9 -- with 2.35 framelines in the viewfinder and set monitor -- same limitations as anything else shot in 2:1 or 16:9 mode. You just have to decide whether you need dailies letterboxed to 2.35 or save that for the editing bay, etc.

You may need to create both a 2.35 letterboxed master for 16:9 HD broadcast / home video + a 16:9 full-frame version, so protect as much of the frame recorded outside of 2.35 as you can. If you record 2:1 mode, you'll be cropping the sides of the recording a little bit to create a 16:9 full-frame version, hopefully you protected the whole vertical area for use. If you record 16:9, it's more area to protect outside of 2.35 but it makes the 16:9 full-frame version easier to create. You may have a few more frame rate options at 2:1 instead of 16:9.

 

[Richard Foster]

I am shooting a 15 minute short on RED ONE MX right now in 4.5K and I love it. Great resolution and taking advantage of every mm of that sensor!

 

[Marc Wielage]

To add to what David Mullen has said here, the RED One 4.5K mode is also very attractive for shooting 2.35:1. It's actually 4480x1920 and that's 2.33:1, so you just crop a couple lines off top/bottom in post.

I think that David Mullen's advice above makes more sense. To me, it's wiser to shoot in 1.78 and then crop to 2.40. I have yet to work on a Super 35mm or digitally-originated project where we haven't had to recompose less than 100 shots, usually due to headroom issues. This is a particular problem for fast-moving handheld shots.

At least with a 1.78 image, you have some place to go in post when the operator accidentally cut off the top of the actor's head. If you're brave and extremely skilled, you can shoot in 2.35 and not worry about it. But bear in mind that most distributors still require three delivery formats: 4x3 pan/scan, 16x9 full frame, and 2.40 letterbox. If you shoot in 16x9 and compose for 2.40, you'll have less panning & scanning to worry about for home video.

 

[Shane Kelly]

I would shoot 16:9 with 2.40 framelines in the viewfinder. My favorite way to set this up is to use common-top framelines where the 2.40 is not a center extraction but is nearer the top of the frame. e.g.

This way, if you need to make a full frame 16x9 dvd version, then you are just opening up the bottom of the frame and your headroom stays the same.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I like what is called "raised 2.40" or "1/4 offset" sometimes, where the 2.40 frame is slightly lowered from common top. This looks the most natural when opened up to 16x9 because some 16x9 TV monitors still might trim a little off of the top, plus you still have a tiny bit of wiggle room. Panavision calls it the "Fincher Groundglass" because it was created for the 3-perf cameras used for "Panic Room".

But shooting 2:1 on the Red One for 2.40 isn't a bad idea either, it still gives you some top & bottom adjustability in post, and it just means losing a little bit of the sides for 16x9 Full-Frame.

As for shooting 2.40 4.5K, that's like shooting anamorphic... which is fine, because I love shooting in anamorphic and I don't have a problem with getting my compositions exactly correct, though I don't do a lot of work that needs visual efx. But I'd only do it if I were guaranteed a theatrical run where the extra bit of resolution of 4.5K over 4K might show up. Otherwise, if it were more likely that the movie would be dumped to home video and cable broadcast, I'd protect myself more for 16x9 full-frame display options because I'd know I'd have to deliver a version like that even if I preferred the 2.40 version. Which is why shooting in 16x9 or 2:1 mode gives you options either way.

But certainly if you manage to protect the full 16x9 recorded area, then using that for 2.40 will be the easiest to make the 16x9 version from, but again, I recommend near-common-top framing for 2.40, not center extraction, because that looks odd in 16x9 full-frame and you could end up zooming in slightly and adjusting the headroom for 16x9, defeating the purpose -- you might as well have recorded 2:1 then, where center extraction works fine for 2.40.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I think that David Mullen's advice above makes more sense. To me, it's wiser to shoot in 1.78 and then crop to 2.40. I have yet to work on a Super 35mm or digitally-originated project where we haven't had to recompose less than 100 shots, usually due to headroom issues. This is a particular problem for fast-moving handheld shots.

Horses for courses... Just pointing out another option that many of us have found to be quite viable with its own set of advantages. As David said, it's much like shooting anamorphic as your frame aspect and restrictions are more rigidly set.

All of your points are perfectly valid and I often shoot 4K 16:9 for the very reasons you state. But some advantages do come with the 4.5K mode. For example, you gain 384 pixels in width to your frame at the expense of 384 pixels in height in relation to shooting 4K 16:9. 4.5K offers a lower compression ratio and even if cropped to 1.85 or 1.78 in post (3414x1920), it's still plenty of resolution for a quality 2K finish.

Another advantage of shooting digital is instant playback. You can know immediately if the operator cut off someone's head or if a boom slipped into frame. I think most boom mic slips or similar errors I fix these days I do by roto rather than trying to re-frame.

Oddly enough, most all of my 4.5K shooting is for digital signage, motion graphics and still photo work. And I would say that 80% of it is shot in portrait mode with the camera turned on its side.