The NEW 4K standard...

[Peter McCully]

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.

Spot on. Aren't these type of lenses existing - but just as add-ons for more consumer grade use and for home theatre projectors?

 

[Warren Kommers]

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

Yes this is true. It's presence will diminish but hopefully not entirely.

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

But how good did some of Savides's work look and the unique individual framing using the 1.33! Don't forget Eyes Wide Shut as well. Aspect ratios should be infinitely configurable. Why limit ourselves. Maybe we should explore them more? I mentioned earlier I had seen a very good short movie in a diamond ratio once. Have you seen the customm frame lines in the F23?

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.

I'm not sure this is true. The 16:9 in the 4:3 allows for the two to have the same width. The 4:3 in the 16:9 limits the the 4:3's width by 16:9's height. More pixels. Plus we already have anamorphic for this.

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.

I'm down with this for sure. Let's hope it happens soon. Will Red's success be enough for Cooke and Zeiss to whip up a batch?

 

[Patrick]

like mister storaro

Yeah, sorry to say it, but Storaro already talked about 2:1 years ago.

 

[liquidigital]

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.

I'll bet the house Jim will end up making these.

 

[Emanuel A.]

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.

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.

(...)

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.

I love options. The use of cheap 2:1 anamorphic lenses would be possible from a 1:1.33 sensor format size even if it's consensual that 16x9 will be (if not already is) an industry standard.

What I'd like to ask to the RED company (as their customer) would be the possibility to use what I'd like to spend on shooting. In the sense that I woudn't waste the pixels that I don't want to take advantage. Taking advantage of further frame rates or still more data available, if possible.

For instance, since I will go on the 1:2.35/2.40 cropping via, I could save the sensor part that I wouldn't go to use. Nevertheless, the other ones could use the full sensor. Or for those on the 1.2.35/2.40 via, it would be possible to choose both options. Cropping or anamorphic (including with use of old good anamorphic glass) in order to have the unique anamorphic-style (bokeh, flare, perspective, etc.). Including without losing the possible to mix up both. Choices... I love them!

 

[oldphart]

Quote:Originally Posted by David Mullen ASC

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

Spot on. Aren't these type of lenses existing - but just as add-ons for more consumer grade use and for home theatre projectors?

I really do not see why you would want to use an anamorphic with Red. With 4.5k you have a wider image than a 4k projector will handle. You can use that to make your 2.35-ratio 4520x1923 image. After digital horizontal compression you end up with a better 4k anamorphic result than even the best anamorphic lens could make.

Computer geek that I am, I cannot help thinking this would be a neat future firmware hack to do in camera.

The iffy question is: would anybody really bother to get anamorphic lenses for their 4k projectors?

 

[Jack Lafrost]

The NEW 4K standard...
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.

Jim

I hate the idea of 2:1.

To be curt and tactless, it just pisses me off.

It should be 2.35 or 2.4, or possibly something even larger.

Isn't cinema the "ultimate" viewing experience?
The wider aspect ratios help make the movie experience special, right? Otherwise, we'd all be shooting thrilling 1.33:1. Am i right, or am i right?!

So, why should the "special" experience be "cheapened" by having to crop some of the captured image, so when 2.35 movies are projected at 4k (its coming), they will have "less" detail than "ordinary" 1.78 or 1.85???

For God's sake, why subject digital filmmakers to one of the same compromises that celluloid filmmakers endure?

Every time i see a movie with a smaller aspect ratio, it disappoints me. To be honest, i feel cheated right from the first frame.

You have the opportunity to build the "ideal" sensor size from scratch. Don't chintz out on the opportunity. You've come this far, so you might as well go all the way!

Build the capturing device around the wider, "more cinematic" aspect ratio. All the smaller ratios can be derived without compromising any of their image quality.

Cropping & conforming issues can all be worked out via computer...

Cable & television should broadcast movies and such at their original aspect ratios and simply letterbox them if they are not exactly 1.78:1 or 16:9. Viewers can manipulate their screens (pan, stretch, zoom, whatever) if for some reason that is their preference. I like viewing films & broadcasts in their native aspect ratios. Stretched and compressed images make me uneasy; i refuse to watch anything stretched and/or compressed - it makes me quite uneasy. Cropped broadcasts are just as bad. It's like cropping a Van Gogh or breaking the legs off Michelangelo's David. Films and such should be shown how their creators meant them to be seen.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

Build the capturing device around the wider, "more cinematic" aspect ratio. All the smaller ratios can be derived without compromising any of their image quality.

You have this completely the wrong way around. RED can only (so far) do one horizontal resolution to REDCODE (excluding 2K). This is 4096 pixels, You can get wider out the RAW port, but the fact still stands: it is much better to have as much vertical resolution possible (ie. a taller sensor). That way, you have a lot more flexibility to recrop the image to a wider aspect ratio. It also means you can use anamorphic lenses more effectively.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Isn't cinema the "ultimate" viewing experience?
The wider aspect ratios help make the movie experience special, right? Otherwise, we'd all be shooting thrilling 1.33:1. Am i right, or am i right?!

The wider aspect ratios might help in some contexts, but I gotta say that it's one of the least important elements involved in making a movie thrilling, or the viewing experience special. I've had a good many of my best moviegoing experiences while watching 1.33:1 in a repertory theater.