The NEW 4K standard...

[Andrew M.]

I've just downloaded Evin's music video and noticed it's 2:1 aspect ratio. I loved it; it seems more natural to the eyes than 16:9. Take a look and see for yourself; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4657

David.

David, this link points to first music video on RED?

I will not agree that 2:1 is more natural for our field of view.
We have about 120 deg horizontal field of view and since our nose is getting in the way we do not have 60 deg vertical view. Specially in the home theater situation the floor and sealing will limit the vertical field of view to about 40 to 50 deg so it is 2.4:1 to 3:1 is the most natural format filling the whole human field of view.
Looking on any screen from such a distance that it covers 120 deg field of view makes you feel like you are not watching the screen but you are actually there.
I love this feeling.
Well, with enough horizontal pixels and good lenses to give you good sharp image we can always crop to whatever we want. I rather vote for 3:1
I agree that going with the aspect ration less then 2:1 is the waste.
For those that need lower aspect ration they can crop the sides if they really have to.
I will be cropping top and bottom, 2.4:1 or 3:1 just presents the picture better to our eyes.

Andrew

 

[oldphart]

David, this link points to first music video on RED?

I will not agree that 2:1 is more natural for our field of view.
We have about 120 deg horizontal field of view and since our nose is getting in the way we do not have 60 deg vertical view. Specially in the home theater situation the floor and sealing will limit the vertical field of view to about 40 to 50 deg so it is 2.4:1 to 3:1 is the most natural format filling the whole human field of view.
Looking on any screen from such a distance that it covers 120 deg field of view makes you feel like you are not watching the screen but you are actually there.
I love this feeling.
...

Andrew

Yes! That is why I filled a wall in my den with a 240cm aluminium screen many years ago. For me, 2:1 always stood for the anamorpic ratio.

Watching a full 120° bright image will, however, clearly demonstrate the need for much higher frame rates. I hope the world will move to 75p as we get more bandwidth and storage space.

 

[Jim McKinney]

I'm actually not sure if you're kidding or not?

But, the tragic mutilation of that great piece by Rembrandt, ( which I believe was not tilted "Night Watch" until after Rembrandt's passing ) is considered a unfortunate loss in the art community.

And certainly not an example of how "Artists like having there work tampered with", anymore than it is a example of the viewing public being "Happy about it".

You know that darn "Guernica" by that slouch Picasso is just to big! Lets start by cropping that one and then every other masterpiece until all of them are destroyed.

BOT

Going with a wide aspect ratio gets my vote.

I never studied Art History, but I go to museums whenever possible. When I was in Amsterdam and saw the "Night Watch" (which is not actually titled "The Night Watch," but we all call it that), I gazed at it for quite some time. There's a lot to marvel at in the painting. I like large. (e.g. Richard Avedon). And it's an impressive painting. But it seemed to come up short; it just didn't seem THAT impressive. Slightly disappointed (oh well, not every great painting is going to "ring my bell," I thought), I turned away, only to see a painting of the original work in much smaller form. (I forget if it was by Rembrandt himself or some other talented artist.) This caught my eye, and I was wondering why it seemed more "right." Reading the blurb to the side I was absolutely shocked to read the news. They had panned and scanned the masterpeice some 300 years ago, and also cropped top and bottom, though approximating something similar to a "common top!" At least with the smaller painting, we have a document of his intentions.

It's a good idea to know what kind of room your art will live in.

 

[Michael Hastings]

16:9 still here - good! does 2:1 have technical advantages

16:9 still here - good! does 2:1 have technical advantages

Mr. Orange. We will deliver 4K 16:9 (4096 x 2304) so your suggestion is not relavant.

Jim

16:9 on the HD-SDI output is critical for us to shoot live and match with other non-red cameras. If that was slightly cropped from 2:1 and we had to use frame guides in the VF that's OK.

The big question is does a 2:1 format give you technical advantages? i.e. does the math work better so for instance maybe the FPGA could handle a higher frame rate than a non-integer ratio? If that were the case I would gladly shoot in 2:1 and frame/edit for whatever final aspect I wanted. (I like very wide for my own stuff so would actually like 2:1 artistically, but have to shoot for others as well to pay the mortgage.)

For example if we could record 40 or 50 FPS redcode raw at 4096x2048 or something close that would be a very welcome tradeoff for whatever post processing it would require to achieve our desired aspect. Again, as long as an HDTV industry compatible output was available at the HD-SDI out for live shooting.

 

[Sam Druckerman]

It's a good idea to know what kind of room your art will live in.

It's a better idea to respect the artists vision.

What happened to Rembrandt's painting was a crime.

As a society we can choose to fight crime or "give into it".

Now to bring this back to Red. Red is digital "Cinema" camera, first and foremost. I know that it can and will be used in other ways, which is awesome, but it's a "Cinema" camera first.

Wide screen formats at the "Cinema" help to create a "Bigger than life" movie experience that can help to take the audience out of there seats and "into" the out door vistas of the Old west, the African plains, deserts of Egypt, etc, etc.... It can add depth of space to a chase scene, offers the opportunity for interesting compositions, etc, etc.

But perhaps the most compelling thing about wide screen "Cinema" is it give's audiences a good reason to go to the movies. And even though I have a home theater with a 12 ft image, I still prefer to go to the "Cinema", and have the real experience.

The argument here of "know where your film will be viewed" implies that eventually it will be formatted for TV, so why not just make Red's aspect ratio for TV? If those pesky film makers would just give up on "Cinema" it would make everything so much easier.

I say let the artists choose the aspect ratio and let the audience choose to see it in the theater or latter on there TV.... But always in the original aspect ratio, what ever that may be.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

But I for one, will always choose fight crime.

 

[Jim McKinney]

I'm not sure we disagree, Sam. Everything you're saying makes sense.

Rembrandt painted his painting the way he saw fit as an artist. He had no other choice.

We have a 4K 16:9 chip, but with fairly modest letterboxing, we can shoot 1:85 or 2:1. Personally, I'm fine with that. I think we just need to constantly lobby the rest of the world on this issue so that some numbskull producer doesn't butcher our work in the name of "filling the screen."

If you're shooting for cinematic projection, then by all means, rock on with 2:35 ratio. But if your project is straight to DVD, you'll start to run the risk of some cropping or pan & scan in that "room."

 

[Steven Caesare]

Ok, since we're talking about home theaters.

How do we future proof for 4k. I am building a new house and was just talking to the electronics people about running a bundle from my office (editing) to the home theater room so that I could view in there sometimes.

I told him that I will be using 4k cameras and he kind of laughed. He didn't know what kind of cables would be needed. Now, I'm not sure I will be viewing 4k most of the time, but what kind of cable can handle this? HDMI can't do it can it?

thanks,
J.

Put in a large low-voltage conduit with a pull-string. The only (mostly) future proof method.

I have a 3" conduit between equipment rack and projector. Today HDMI, component, composite, VGA, and ethernet lives in it. Tomorrow: who knows... but I won't have to tear down drywall to change it.

 

[Sam Druckerman]

I think we just need to constantly lobby the rest of the world on this issue so that some numbskull producer doesn't butcher our work in the name of "filling the screen."

If you're shooting for cinematic projection, then by all means, rock on with 2:35 ratio. But if your project is straight to DVD, you'll start to run the risk of some cropping or pan & scan in that "room."

Good to see we're on the same page, after all...

Now if could only get rid of that "room".

 

[Peter McCully]

Mr. Orange. We will deliver 4K 16:9 (4096 x 2304) so your suggestion is not relavant.

Jim

Thanks Jim. I realise it may take a little time for all the options to be implemented but thanks for settling the issue about the intended spec for 4K.

 

[Roberto B]

I am still a bit confused. Are we going to be stuck with 2:1 from the Red? For personal projects it's not such an issue but for the most part, my projects already have a standard such as 16:9 tv or 1:85 for film that my work has to conform to. I thought that Red would be able to output to 1080p and 720p (initially it was) but now those have been dropped and 2:1 is the new standard? It means vertical cropping...not good.

We do not invent the mainstream. There's an establishment, period. A professional can discuss probabilities, improve options. Never ignoring the industry standards.

A professional simply accomplishes it. End of story.

4x3 will allow for full Imax framing, the use of anamorphic lenses and sensor cropping to 16:9 or 1:2.4 etc.

Yes, indeed. This is the real standard.

These are options. 1:2 not.

4096 x 2304 is higher than 4096 x 2048.

With 4096 x 2304 you can also have 4096 x 2048.

With 4096 x 2048 you have NO 4096 x 2304.

Thanks Jim. I realise it may take a little time for all the options to be implemented but thanks for settling the issue about the intended spec for 4K.

there hasn't been necessary a poll.. we all know.. or at least.. the most well informed know what we want.. we live in the web age after all.. there's no more room for misinformation.

 

[dvpixl]

i strangely like watching 2:35/2:40 letterboxed movies. gives it a feel. makes it look finished. having a sort of a matte helps draw your eyes in. 16:9 TV size is good. I dont mind having extra bars for 2:35 on 16:9 screens. It seems natural. So 4:3 should disappear forever. Make 16:9 standard. And 2:35 standard cinema- and add bars always- when going to TV or DVD.

 

[Roberto B]

AMEN

sigh

 

[Andrew M.]

AMEN it is.

 

[Emanuel A.]

However, 1:1.33 is the most interesting shooting format standard. As Peter said, it would allow for full Imax framing, the use of anamorphic lenses and sensor cropping to 16x9, 1:1.85 or 1:2.35/2.40.

Moreover, if RED could implement some sort of cropping choice since the shooting, we could have different frame rates, for instance. Even faster than 2K@100fps... It would be quite promising actually. But only in any way other than as from a 1:1.33 sensor size.

If not, the 16x9 standard as shooting format size will be the only way without any further castrations. The most use will be the 16x9 TV or DVD or even 1:1.85 though I'll shoot all my work on 1:2.35/2.40. But that's me. I can't think on just myself when we're speaking about industry standards.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think there is enough IMAX shooting to justify a 1.33 (4x3) sensor, although someday I'm sure that someone will build essentially an IMAX digital camera like that, maybe one that is 6K or 8K with a 1.33 (4x3) sensor.

As for anamorphic photography for 35mm scope release and/or digital release, I think a 4x3 sensor makes more sense for a 2K camera (like the Arri D20) so that anamorphic lenses can be used to maximize total number of pixels used. For a 4K sensor, there is enough overall resolution that cropping a 16x9 sensor to 2.35 isn't much of a resolution hit. And, of course, someone could develop 1.33X anamorphic lenses for 16x9 cameras. One could even, in theory, develop anamorphic lenses to squeeze 4x3 vertically onto 16x9 for IMAX...

 

[Warren Kommers]

I still don't get why everyone talks like there is some magic aspect ratio. It is a creative choice that should be fueled by the story just like your lighting and etc. The camera that allows the most possibilties and favors the most common ratios is the best. A 1.33 sensor allows the most options really, with anamorphic lenses to cover a 2.35 and everything else(1.85-1.78)to be cropped from 1.33. Just like 4 perf. To crop inside a 16:9 sensor to get a 1.33
leaves very little sensor. There has been some great work done with Big TV(1.33 super 35) in commercials and music videos. Granted that wider ratios are more representative of the human experience.

 

[Peter McCully]

I don't think there is enough IMAX shooting to justify a 1.33 (4x3) sensor, although someday I'm sure that someone will build essentially an IMAX digital camera like that, maybe one that is 6K or 8K with a 1.33 (4x3) sensor.
...

Yes, I agree, its a bit of a pipedream but I am sure it is a worthy goal.

 

[redhead]

I've always wondered why such a creative medium has veered away from the 'golden' ratio of 1.618...

Most recent computer monitors come in the 1.6:1 ratio, which is pretty close.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Theatrical projection is all widescreen, which leaves 4x3 for analog standard def broadcasting, hence the belief that 4x3 (1.33) is becoming obsolete.

For feature films, 4x3 (Academy 1.37) disappeared in the 1950's except in a few rare cases (One from the Heart, Elephant).

Even for TV work, 3-perf 35mm (16x9 native) is becoming the norm over 4-perf 35mm (4x3 native) except for commercials and some high-end TV shows with money to burn.

I think 4-perf 35mm will become less and less used for feature work as well, once D.I.'s are the norm, except for people who are shooting with anamorphic lenses. Digital TV will be 16x9 except for showing older 4x3 material. So eventually, the only uses for 4x3 origination will be anamorphic photography and IMAX, which is not a very high percentage of overall TV and theatrical production. Hence why the odds that future digital cameras will have 4x3 sensors are small.

And I don't see why wasting pixels to crop a 16x9 sensor to 4x3 is better or worse than cropping a 4x3 sensor to get 16x9 -- overall, the number of pixels could be the same depending on the sensor design.

And especially if you're talking about a 4.5K sensor -- cropping the width to 3.something K to get a 4x3 image is not the end of the world, especially if your only release format will be 4x3 NTSC... or side-matted 16x9 HD. It would only be for a 4x3 IMAX release that you'd want all the pixels you can get. Theatrical is all 1.85 or 2.40 anyway, so a 4x3 image would probably have to be reduced to fit within the 1.85 print projection area.

What we really need are modern 1.33X anamorphic lenses, which would be optically superior to 2X anamorphic lenses, probably smaller and lighter in general, and would allow maximum use of a 16x9 sensor for scope images.

 

[Alex Boothby]

although someday I'm sure that someone will build essentially an IMAX digital camera like that, maybe one that is 6K or 8K with a 1.33 (4x3) sensor.

Somebody is - IMAX. But it's a secret. Alpha camera's have been tested - something to watch out for.