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.
Peter McCully said:
4x3 will allow for full Imax framing, the use of anamorphic lenses and sensor cropping to 16:9 or 1:2.4 etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. This is the real standard.
 
I'm putting in my vote for 4K 16:9 / 1.78:1 / 4096x2304 or whatever. Most of the best reasons have been covered, but this needs to be available. I hope it's not a format that will be dropped.
 
SMPTE (The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers)
and
EBU (European Broadcasting Union) met in Amstrdam at IBC 2007.

After a couple of nights spent together in
nifty bars and cool clubs of Amsterdam,
having some sex and taking a bit of drugs
they finally decided about
the brand new broadcast standard:

Format name: UNIVISIUM

Aspect ratio: 2:1

Acquisition/Playing Speed: 25 fps


Take It or Leave It

but that's coming up.
 
25 fps rules for the years.

It's in between all that 23,... and 29,...and>>>>>>

Again.

Just simply IT RULES.
 
I've always wondered why such a creative medium has veered away from the 'golden' ratio of 1.618... But that's another debate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio)

Stepping away from the technical, 2:1 and other 'severe' letterbox formats only work in the cinema, where your field of vision is wrapped with the image. While 16:9 is about as far as you want to go in the home, unless you tend to sit 2ft from the screen.

In this day and age, pan-&-scan is considered the poor solution - look at how many DVD re-releases now pride themselves on being the full theatrical ratio. I'd love to see a 2:1 on an iPod, or a 3G phone though.

It's frustrating to watch a film shot in >2:1 on anything but a large projected screen. On a TV, I can put up with the masking if it's a good immersive film, but as soon as you 'notice' the bars, you can't stop noticing them. Not to mention, it seriously annoys everyone I know (I don't know anybody that's said that a letterbox image on a 16:9 display is welcome). And given that LCD and Plasmas are backlit, they're not even black bars; they're backlit dark, dark blue.

It does feel like two fingers to the 'viewers' (those pesky bastards who pay to watch our work), when they're subjected to what constitutes poor viewing quality. If it's purely for cinematic viewing, then go > 16:9, but if it's for TV, DVD or will end up on a consumer device, then stick to 16:9 (which then only annoys the millions of folks with 4:3 screens).
 
IMHO, I like 2:1 viewing best. Just because no one ever set it as a standard doesn't mean it can't be. Who made the rules, anyway?

I think, therefore I am.

Jim
 
heh heh
 
Jannard said:
IMHO, I like 2:1 viewing best. Just because no one ever set it as a standard doesn't mean it can't be. Who made the rules, anyway?

I think, therefore I am.

Jim
Click to expand...

It's probably easier to record to CF too, right? :ph34r:
 
2:1 is really beautifull no doubt, I come to really like it with all the footage that has been posted lately.
Yeah call me a yes boy if you like I don't care…:innocent:
 
I love wide screen cinema.

Wide -r screen options than 16x9 is one way how film makers will make the "cinema experience" stand out from TV content.

If people do Not enjoy viewing cinema on a TV with black bars.... maybe they should consider how much interest they have in cinema? Film makers are visual artists, and as a rule a visual artist doesn't want there image / frame violated.

The logic of cropping a movie to fit a TV screen is like cropping all the great paintings to fit a standard size book. It's ridiculous.

BTW, I saw Lawrence Of Arabia last night in all it's 70-mm Wide Screen glory.... That's cinema.

Wide rules.
 
Jannard said:
IMHO, I like 2:1 viewing best. Just because no one ever set it as a standard doesn't mean it can't be. Who made the rules, anyway?

I think, therefore I am.

Jim
Click to expand...

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.
 
Everyone (practically) sits too far away from the TV screen. If you're more than 3 screen heights away, you need to move closer or get a bigger TV. And if you're sitting the more typical eight or more screen heights away from the TV then you would have trouble resolving the difference between 1080p and 720p let alone the >2000p of Red's forthcoming 4K projectors and monitors.

At three screen heights you are immersed in the 2:1 image and can actually appreciate the 960p image that is letterboxed onto today's HDTVs.

I'm guessing that Jim will be leaning towards 4096x2048 resolution for Red's projectors and monitors... ohhh but that sounds sweet. It seems like only yesterday that 1080p was the gold standard and now I'm daydreaming about 2048p displays.
 
Clint Johnson said:
Everyone (practically) sits too far away from the TV screen. If you're more than 3 screen heights away, you need to move closer or get a bigger TV...
Click to expand...

This is a question of resolution, not of screen size. I prefer to sit 1 screen height away from my monitor if the material I watch is good enough.

Much of the stuff some satellite channels transmit is not good enough to be unobtrusive at 5 screen heights, though. It will not help to get documentaries shot with RED if we get compression artifacts because somebody wants to cram too many channels into one transponder.

Personally I would prefer 2.66:1 on a slightly curved screen, but seeing that I will only have a 2k display in the near future I guess 2:1 will do fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top