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 :)

The NEW 4K standard...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Usually, the scope format is protected to 2:35 although a 2.40 aspect is more like what you see upon projection in a theater.
 
Yes, same method to the 16:9 shooting format. This would protect any cropped format, including the 2:1. The reverse is not possible though.
 
big lebowski said:
I smell a 2:1 sensor in the RED TWO! :)
Click to expand...
I hope not! An aspect ratio of 4:3 (approx. 4,520 x 3,390 pixel) would be much more versatile and allow for Academy framing as well, without cropping the width.
 
Michael Mann said:
I hope not! An aspect ratio of 4:3 (approx. 4,520 x 3,390 pixel) would be much more versatile and allow for Academy framing as well, without cropping the width.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I love Academy ratio. Of course, now that televisions and video/digital shooting formats are all widescreen, I'm waiting for a resurgence of movies shot and projected 4:3 "NOW! In Glorious TALLSCREEN!" :usd:

Yeah, I know I'll be waiting a long time...
 
2:35 scope is great but alot of movies are shot and released with a 1.85 aspect.

You can crop 1.85 out of a 1.78 image and still hold the 4k horizontal resolution but not out of a 2.0 image.

Recording 1.78 will give the most flexabilty for cropping out all other aspect ratios and maintaining the 4k horizontal resolution.

The extra vertical resolution at 4096x2304 as opposed to 4096x2048 will be important to many VFX heavy features.
 
CraigWB said:
As long as I can finish in scope I'm happy.
Click to expand...

You can't be happy when the most part is out of your range. The Red project is possible only because there's a good sales estimation. Otherwise, there wouldn't be 4K for this price. You probably wouldn't have your scope, you probably wouldn't have your Red. We all either.
 
At some point when the HDTV standards were being finalized by manufacturers and the broadcast networks, there was some momentum by the ASC to have the standard set at 2:1 for this very reason. I think Steve Poster was spearheading the issue? But of course Sony et al already had 16:9 in mind, and the notion of including cinematographers in the discussion was quickly shelved... :(
Can't wait to get my camera!
Harry Clark
 
I cannot know if I've lost you or not. What I know is what I've been reading over these pages. Some of you are used to be yes-men. This is not a healthy attitude. Anywhere.

This 1:2 ratio can be a silly proposal if it will be the sensor format. We all don't need a 1:2 format for nothing. Even a 16x9 wouldn't be better than a 4x3. Why should we prefer lower rather the highest?
 
Uh, Not as a standard... 2:1 is a cool idea in the hypothetical but there is not any real support for it. It invites further image butchery, pan and scan and shrink/stretch to fit on HDTV's. 16:9 is a good choice for a camera that has so many potential uses.

It would be way cool to be able to choose the recorded area of the sensor to fit the needs of a project ... I think this is planned ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
As a standard I'm not sure, but to me it's project dependent. Not all films warrant the look of 1:2.35 or vise versa. I do, however, like the idea of 1:2 as a matter of compromise and as for what's standard in the industry.....well, I think the industry is changing. :)
 
Preferred by cinematographers 2 to 1

Preferred by cinematographers 2 to 1

I love the 2:1 ratio and with proper planning for crop it should support virtually any deliverable other than a full 4K DI at 1.78 or 1.85. I hope to post some of my early projects in 2:1 with letterboxing (skinny black bars in 16:9 and big ones for 4:3).
 
Aspect

Aspect

There is no magic aspect ratio that solves all and there shouldnt be. The aspect ratio is part of the storytelling language of cinema just like your choices in contrast, color, exposure, DOF, focal length, shutter speed, frame rate, and of course lighting. Is it about faces? Is it about landscape? Are these characters trapped in their worlds? Etc.. Shit. I've seen a great movie shot in a diamond aspect ratio before. Beware of favorites and there ability to limit your creative choices to most effectively communicate the story or idea.
 
Matt Uhry said:
Uh, Not as a standard... 2:1 is a cool idea in the hypothetical but there is not any real support for it. It invites further image butchery, pan and scan and shrink/stretch to fit on HDTV's. 16:9 is a good choice for a camera that has so many potential uses.
Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
Click to expand...
Hi Matt,

Every movie shot at 2.35:1 (a very standard format) must be letterboxxed to fit on a 16:9 HDTV. 2:1 would be easy and no different.

I just hope that somehow the sensor hasn't changed from its original 16:9 design... but I don't know why they would only enable "most" of the sensor to begin with. I have to think there's a better reason than Jim just wanting to push a 2:1 ratio on the world.
 
As I recall, back when the HD broadcast standards were being bandied about by the FCC, Mr. Spielberg had lobbied for 2:1 aspect ratio as a reasonable comprimised between 1.85 and 2.35. However, TV broadcasters and electronics manufactures carried the day with their 16:9 nonsenses leaving us with the one size fits nobody.

I always liked the symmetry of 2:1, so count me in.
 
Häakon said:
Hi Matt,

Every movie shot at 2.35:1 (a very standard format) must be letterboxxed to fit on a 16:9 HDTV. 2:1 would be easy and no different.
Click to expand...

That's not my point at all. 16:9 ( aka 1.78 ) will fit current HD displays and fit OK onto 1.85 and 1.66 movie screens. It's also the format of super 16mm and 3 perf super 35mm. It's widely know, supported and used.

I'm all for widescreen movies -seriously look at my feature reel!, just not for 2:1 being the native 4k format of the camera. It's wasteful of "Image" for everybody. If you decide to shoot in 'scope crop away. You could do a common top line and protect for HD.

Maybe the 2:1 is being used because they have not yet achieved the processing or recording bandwidth to do on board RedCode 4096x2302 @ 24fps.

I'd love to see some higher framerates if they can pull off the 2k scaled raw. that would be plenty of resolution for anything that was not destined for the big screen.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
I don't see a 2:1 sensor as a bad idea if you are thinking in terms of theatrical feature shooting and presentation, since almost half of all releases as 2.35.

I've always thought that HD monitors should all be 2:1 so that letterboxed scope movies would not be much smaller in size compared to 1.85 movies.

But since 2:1 is not well-supported in general, it's much harder to get such a standard in place now, which is the main argument against it. The advantage of a 16x9 standard is that at least you have one format that matches HD broadcast and is nearly the same as 1.85. 2:1 would make more sense if it became the universal shooting and presentation format that Storaro envisions it could be, or at least a universal shooting and post format intended for multiple widescreen display formats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top