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.
Häakon said:
Hi Matt,
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.
Click to expand...

I'd guess it's not related to sensor, but to the performance of the on-board compression and/or the performance of currently available CF cards. Which means full 16:9 will probably come with a firmware update, or with new CF cards and/or with the other recording options.

Clarification from Red folks would, of course, be greatly appreciated....
 
storaro-07-tweak-787915.jpg

Vittorio Storaro said in FILMMAKER (Friday, June 8, 2007) interview with Jamie Stuart:

"Filmmaker: The 2:1...

Storaro: Yes, the 2:1. It's three-perforation. It's using the maximum negative space available. We're talking minimum 6000 x 3000 information or eighteen-million. With a video camera, any subject, the maximum information is roughly 2000 x 1000, which makes two-million. Whatever you've got in front of the camera, in one, you've got eighteen-million; in one, you've got two-million. In one, you've got at least 32-bits; the other one, normally you record at 10-bits. Film has already proven it can last a hundred years. The electronic system, or digital, has to improve its longevity -- particularly, it has a very short longevity. The systems are changing very fast, the material is not very strong. People are very ignorant in this area -- they still believe that digital is permanent. That's a major mistake. Major. So, in my opinion, the system should be used, because if you don't use the system the company doesn't have the chance to improve it. It should be improved till it reaches a much better level. But at the same time, I think we should be aware of the different levels, so you can use one or the other according to the kind of project that you're doing.

Digital intermediate is a dream for a cinematographer, in the sense that you're not only able to change the overall color and tonality, but you can change it during the shot. You can change a portion of the image itself. That's great. But you have to go back from your eighteen-million of information to two-million. This is not good. Most American films today probably go through a digital intermediate, that's a fact. So we have to just push the technology, particularly the digital effects companies, because everything is dictated by them. If they do their visual effects at 2k, you have to do the rest at 2k. Now we have a big hope that the technology is starting to improve. And my hope is DALSA."

LINK>>

RED should finally invite Storaro to test RED ONE.
 
Jannard said:
I think the new shooting standard for 4K should be 2:1.

It is easy to crop a 2.40 as well as a 1.85. Seems to me to be the best of both worlds. Just saying.
Click to expand...

As long as everyone knows going in that 2:1 is a production format, not a release format.

And although I'm sure Jim is quite aware of this, the idea of 2:1 as a 4K format is not "new." Dalsa has been using it for the last several years, ever since they came up with their camera (which happens to be the only other 4K camera currently available). And in the film world, Vittorio Storaro has been proposing - and shooting - 2:1 using his 3 perf "Univisium" format for a number of years. In his case, some of the distribution was done using "2:1 in 2.39:1 - " in other words, anamorphic prints with a bit of "pillar boxing" (i.e., black on the left and right sides). Distribution has format standards, as well it should for exhibition to work in a reliable way. In the case of digital cinema, the aspect ratio for DCI compliant projection is set at either 1.85:1 or 2.4:1, regardless of whether it's 2K or 4K. That is a standard that will remain, so if you want to show 2:1 images, you'll have to do it by either letterboxing 1.85 or pillarboxing 2.4 - both of which will mean that you're using less than the full available screen for projection. And, needless to say, HDTV is a 16:9 format and will remain so for many years to come.
 
What Storaro said and what he was proposing you just have to read at the post above of yours OR get a link to the interview once again at the link below!

Storaro>>LINK>>
 
I'd be very upset if we don't get our full 16:9 recording area out of the RED.

Right now, those shooting the 2:1 ratio have to side crop to get back to 16:9 and that ain't cool, IMO. I don't want to waste the wider FOV of my lenses to get my industry standard 16:9 ratio back in post.

Besides, what the heck is output over the HD-SDI? It's 16:9 native with built in letterbox down to 2:1, isn't it, and that won't match up with anything else in the industry as a live feed or without post manipulation.

I wonder if the reason 16:9 wasn't enabled in the first place was that little extra data rate impacts CF recording ability in some way.

Please, 16:9 is a great way to record, giving you the most flexible crop area if you want 2:1.

The best option would be to see a completely user definable horizontal and vertical sensor crop at some point in the RED firmware revisions...
 
I don't like 2:1 and here is why:

1) Less Vertical Wiggle Room(tm) for 2.39 crops.
2) Loss of horizontal resolution for 1.85 crops. (Now less than 4k unless you start using your 4.5k overscan)
3) Less recorded overscan for VFX tracking etc without cropping.

Personally I think 1.85:1 should be the minimum because if you're shooting to 16:9 you're almost undoubtably downrezzing so a crop doesn't really matter all that much.

I think 2:1 is a decent compromise for theatrical film destination formats however I would prefer a 1.85 or 1.77 chip if presented the choice.
 
Having different versions of firmware contingent upon a customer's needs is prob one of the best ideas I've ever heard. Never heard of a camera company doing that. Absolutely a great approach.
 
This would be horrible news - just terrible. Most films productions still shoot 4 perf instead of 3 perf - despite the sigificant cost increase. Why? Having the option to reframe in post is essential. C'mon, everybody on the planet is buying (or has bought) a 16x9 television.
 
mmost said:
As long as everyone knows going in that 2:1 is a production format, not a release format.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. A DVD, for example, is either 4:3 or 16:9 - there's no such thing as a 2.35:1 DVD. All 2.35:1 movies on DVD are actually just 16:9 DVDs with a small amount of black letterboxing on the top and bottom. A 2:1 release would behave in an identical manner.

I still think allowing for 16:9 shooting is better, as it gives the option for 16:9, 2:1, and 2.35:1 all at 4K - which will all be relevant formats. If the sensor is limited to 2:1, you can't get a 16:9 image without cropping the sides (and then your image is no longer 4K).
 
Would 2:1 using the 4520 px of the sensor do any good ?
At least we would get a wider FOV to start with.
And cropping the sides would still allow for true 4k as.
Or you could scale it down to 4k.
 
The Third Man said:
What Storaro said and what he was proposing you just have to read at the post above of yours OR get a link to the interview once again at the link below!
Click to expand...

I happen to know Vittorio and I have had numerous conversations with him on this subject. His objection to digital intermediate has always centered around the resolution, and the fact that any digital path is inevitably going to throw away information that's on the film negatave. His love of a 2:1 aspect ratio has a deep basis for him in art history; he will often point to "The Last Supper" as having a 2:1 aspect, which he feels is very good for storytelling. On the motion picture I worked with him on (I was visual effects supervisor), his request was that the visual effects be done in 4K and the negative assembled for a final film finish. Since then, he has done at least one picture with a DI finish (a 2K DI finish) and while he loved the process, he still feels that losing information that is on the production negative is not a good practice, especially when archival needs are considered. His admiration for Dalsa no doubt results from three facts: they're uncompressed, they're 4K, and they have a native 2:1 aspect ratio.
 
I did think of one other detail. If the RED does start using weird format crops (aka not 35mm/super 35mm width) it would be nice if the exact sensor crop dimensions were made available for 3D Tracks.

Every little bit helps.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
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.
Click to expand...

So... if it's not a standard, why bother with it? :rip_1:
 
Jim Arthurs said:
Right now, those shooting the 2:1 ratio have to side crop to get back to 16:9 and that ain't cool, IMO. I don't want to waste the wider FOV of my lenses to get my industry standard 16:9 ratio back in post.
Click to expand...

Was just wondering... if a lens loses a little clarity as it gets further away from the center, wouldn't it present a better overall picture by shooting at 2:1 and cropping out the lesser parts? Just asking.
 
Jim Arthurs said:
I'd be very upset if we don't get our full 16:9 recording area out of the RED.

Right now, those shooting the 2:1 ratio have to side crop to get back to 16:9 and that ain't cool, IMO. I don't want to waste the wider FOV of my lenses to get my industry standard 16:9 ratio back in post.

Besides, what the heck is output over the HD-SDI? It's 16:9 native with built in letterbox down to 2:1, isn't it, and that won't match up with anything else in the industry as a live feed or without post manipulation.

I wonder if the reason 16:9 wasn't enabled in the first place was that little extra data rate impacts CF recording ability in some way.

Please, 16:9 is a great way to record, giving you the most flexible crop area if you want 2:1.

The best option would be to see a completely user definable horizontal and vertical sensor crop at some point in the RED firmware revisions...
Click to expand...
Well said. Everything.
 
I really don't get it. How can 2:1 be a standard? No screen was never 2:1? Monitor, or cinema.

But then again we have two really weird standards, like why the heck we have 16x9 TVs and 1:85 movies? It's almost the same, while in fact it isn't! Hah, standard, that's a funny use of the word...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top