1.85:1 or 2.35:1

[Eric Edwards]

Just wondering what this camera natively shoots, is it a 1.85:1 ratio or 16:9? and if we wanted to shoot a film for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, would we just crop the image for that?

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

RED records 4520x2540 pixels then you crop to whatever aspect ratio you want to deliver in. I think the evf/lcd can display aspect ratio guide lines.
With RED you basically need to think: Digital SLR

[Seth Larney]

Hi Eric,

Sensor aspect ratio is 16:9, crop from there.

Cheers,
Seth.

[Adrian T.]

Jarred hinted here (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=69880&postcount=44) that it's also possible to crop right in camera to save on bandwidth.

[David Mullen ASC]

Considering that recording a 16x9 full-sensor image is useful in post for reframing, if necessary, and for making all of the 4x3 and 16x9 home video masters (pan & scan/full-frame & letterbox), it makes more sense not to crop to 2.35 in-camera even if it saves you on bandwidth.

[Martin Drew]

Considering that recording a 16x9 full-sensor image is useful in post for reframing, if necessary, and for making all of the 4x3 and 16x9 home video masters (pan & scan/full-frame & letterbox), it makes more sense not to crop to 2.35 in-camera even if it saves you on bandwidth.

There may sometimes be some justification if it allows you to use more of the full 4520 pixel sensor width or the reduction on bandwidth allows higher frame rates at a particular resolution.

M

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I can see cropping a shot in-camera if it allows you to do a faster frame rate, since that would only be occasional.

[Siva Kollipara]

Here is a Dumb Question..

Is Anamorphic format a lens choice ..? OR a post-production Choice..?
Assuming that I use Nikkor lens route, can I still get the Anamorphic print using post-prod techniques?

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, you can record out a digital file to the 35mm 2.35 anamorphic format (2X optical squeeze) just by cropping & stretching spherical-lensed photography in post (usually at the film-out stage in the recorder). It works the same whether you shoot 16x9 film (3-perf 35mm or Super-16) or 4x3 film (4-perf 35mm) or 16x9 digital with spherical lenses.

35mm anamorphic camera lenses have a traditional 2X squeeze, which is too much for a 16x9 native camera because that gives you a 3.56 : 1 aspect ratio (1.78 x 2) when unsqueezed. You'd need a lens with a 1.33X squeeze if you wanted to fill a 16x9 sensor with a 2.35 image.

The Viper camera uses an arrangement of subpixels in order to shoot and record a 2.35 image, which has a defacto 1.33X squeeze in 16x9 full-frame HD recording. So the film recorder has to convert that 1.33X squeeze to a 2X squeeze onto 4-perf 35mm for output to scope.

[red1225]

Here is a Dumb Question..

Is Anamorphic format a lens choice ..? OR a post-production Choice..?
Assuming that I use Nikkor lens route, can I still get the Anamorphic print using post-prod techniques?

I'm sure I'll be corrected on this by many but....here's how I see it.

Anamorphic (2;35:1) in film requires that you use anamorphic lenses to squeeze the image onto the film then subsequently you would need anamorphic lenses on the projector to unsqueeze the image at the theater. Remember the old westerns on tv...when the credidts came on the cowboys would get all tall and skinny? Thats true anamorphic.

Now you can still shoot 2:35;1 in super 35, for broadcast...its just a masking thing in post (be sure to shoot a framing chart first) but you would probablly need to take additional steps for a film print.

With RED I would imagine that it's entirely a post decision because I'm not sure digital formats are smart enough to understand the squeeze and unsqueeze concept.

I hope I didn't just embarrass myself.:wacko:

This would be a very good question for you to post on the "Ask David Mullen Anything" thread.

p.s. I'm glad you asked that question. 2;35;1 is my favorite format and plan to shoot it often. I'm sure we'll both get some valuable info.

[David Mullen ASC]

With Super-35, you'd scan the negative into a digital format, at which point it's the same process as working with something shot digitally.

If you shot with spherical (normal) lenses and wanted a 2.35 image, you create letterboxed versions for video and record it out to 35mm anamorphic for film prints, having the recorder do the crop & squeeze. You hopefully have a digital master where the cropping needed is consistent, otherwise you may have to reposition some shots and cut them back in, in order to end up with a digital master with consistent cropping possible for the film-out.

You could letterbox (mask) the digital master to 2.35 that you planned on cropping & squeezing for the film-out, if you are worried that the company doing the recording is going to get the framing wrong. Either way, you should put a framing chart at the head of the edited master.

[Jason Murphy]

With RED I would imagine that it's entirely a post decision because I'm not sure digital formats are smart enough to understand the squeeze and unsqueeze concept.

Digital formats certainly do squeeze and unsqueeze. That's how 16:9 anamorphic transfers of DVDs are done, unsqueezing a 4:3 image to 16:9 ratio. Also, as mentioned above, scope on the Viper is done in a similar way.

Some people really like the look of anamorphic lenses, and I'm sure that some people will eventually shoot with them on a RED camera. The question becomes, with 4K worth of info, is that the best way to get a scope image? My guess is that most people will just crop down and take the vertical resolution hit.

[Zack Birlew]

Ah, but the real problem is actually getting anamorphic lenses to begin with! I think the only option in town is Dalsa's 4K digital cinema 1.33x anamorphic lenses, that is until other lense makers start coming up with their own 1.33x lenses for 4K. One funny option I've toyed with is using still lenses with the Panasonic anamorphic adapter just to see if that works! Would be funny if it actually did.

As far as cropping goes, I definitely would try to avoid cropping in my projects simply because I can reframe something a little if it doesn't look right and then there's always post camera shake too if I need it.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

As far as cropping goes, I definitely would try to avoid cropping in my projects simply because I can reframe something a little if it doesn't look right and then there's always post camera shake too if I need it.


well yah.. you wouldnt crop in camera.. just use the grid lines for your own composition then crop in post

[David Mullen ASC]

Since the Dalsa has a 1.9-ish : 1 sensor, the anamorphic lenses they are making for scope only have an odd 1.22X squeeze, not the 1.33X needed to put 2.35 onto 16x9. The prototype lens I saw is excellent (it should be, only needing to squeeze so little) but of all the cameras that probably could get away with simply cropping to achieve 2.35, it would be the Dalsa since its sensor is nearly 2.00:1. Actually, a little like Storaro's 2:1 Univisium concept, a 2:1 sensor isn't a bad idea since you crop a little on the sides to get 1.78 or 1.85, and crop a little top & bottom to get 2.35, so it seems like a good compromise. I always thought that HD monitors and digital projection chips should use 2:1 for that reason, it's sort of halfway between 2.35 and 1.85.

There have been rumors for years that Panavision and JDC are making a set of 1.33X anamorphic lenses, but nothing has been released yet. After two years, I sort of gave up on asking when Panavision would finish their set.

I'd probably only use anamorphic lenses on the RED camera in 4K mode if I wanted anamorphic lens artifacts; otherwise, there's not really a loss from using less vertical height on a 4K data file for 2.35 since that's what would normally happen for 4K projection or a 4K film-out of Super-35 material that went through a 4K D.I. Using all the vertical info may matter more, though, for a blow-up to IMAX or something like that.

[Anders Holck]

My guess is that most people will just crop down and take the vertical resolution hit.

In DCI digital projection, your DCI projection format is 4096x1716 and 2048x858, if you are aiming for 2.39:1.
So there is no resolution hit by cropping even when projecting at 4k.

If you are aiming for film based output, you will be hard pressed to find a projection film base+projector setup that resolves even close to 1716 vertically in real life....

Anamorphic lenses are more about boke feel than net projection resolution.

[David Mullen ASC]

Anamorphic lenses also make a lot more sense for the 4x3 35mm 4-perf format where you get much less grain compared to cropping Super-35 to 2.35 since you're using almost twice as much negative area. Grain reduction is less of an issue in a digital camera, though less cropping means less magnification, less subtle artifacts showing up.

[JohnF]

What about just if one wants the actual wider horizontal shot that anamorphic can provide? (whilst not distorting the image perspective like a cropped wide would)

Could one shoot with (2:1) anamorphic glass with RED and just resize in post to 2.35:1 loosing some of the sides?

What do you guy's foresee as the downsides of working this way? (yes I know we loose some horizontal resolution)

I'd like to make it clear I'm looking for a nice horizontal wide shot with the perspective of a 35mm or 50mm, if you get what I mean.

Are there any high quality 1.33 anamorphic adapters or lenses heading our way?

JohnF

[Dominic Jones]

Could one shoot with (2:1) anamorphic glass with RED and just resize in post to 2.35:1 loosing some of the sides?

What do you guy's foresee as the downsides of working this way? (yes I know we loose some horizontal resolution)

Yes, you could certainly do that - it's something I and others have suggested before on this forum, so do a search and there'll be more threads on it, but essentially the only downsides are:

1) Slightly lower resolution overall - remember you'd need to crop vertically with sphericals, so you're only losing the difference between the crop from 1.78:1 -> 2.35:1 and the crop from 1.78:1 -> 1.33:1. You lose 25% of your vertical resolution the first way, and 33% of your horizontal resolution the other way, so it's not that much of a resolution hit unless you (mistakenly) compare it to an un-cropped 16:9 image's resolution.

2) Less ability to re-frame, and less desirable axis for re-framing. Cropping vertically using spherical lenses allows you to use the whole image (and therefore re-frame quite radically in the vertical axis), whereas using anamorphic glass the image will start to degrade as the lens is not designed to cover the extra sensor area. You'll also find that re-framing vertically is far more useful in most cases (as often you're adjusting for headroom etc).

Other than that, no worries - go for your life! Of the two downsides, I don't think either are massive problems, as movies have been shot without the ability to re-frame radically for decades and the resolution hit (for such a massive starting resolution) is negligible. If you really want the ability to re-frame, then you could always finish at 2K (as many movies that go through DI do today), and then you've got re-frame potential to burn in both axes.

I'm not sure whether Red are planning on allowing horizontal cropping in-camera to allow for lower data-rate (hopefully they will), and therefore presumably higher framerates, so that could go either way - if not, you get the disadvantage of not having quite as high a possible framerate, if so then you get slightly higher max fps due to the greater reduction in resolution...

[laguun]

a little bit of topic, but,

we recently finished a new-days cinerama, with 3 * sony hdcam 1920*1080 side by side. It was a ballet.

so, from the 5760*1080, we removed the overlaps and lens distorstions using of the shelf still-photo stiching software. we shot slightly overlapping for the digital postprocessing.

we got ~5600*1040 effective resolution. looks cool. We are using 3* projection/lcd side by side to display it (its a static display at large opera houses).

with red, the same setup would have been ~13.000*2400.
That btw would have killed our discreet vfx systems - they stop at 8k.

[ChrisLyon]

Okay, so if I were to shoot 16x9 but knew I was going to 2.35 in post, is there an option on the camera to change the aspect ratio of the viewing area in order to reflect the end product?

What I mean is, can the monitor "crop" the image to a 2.35:1 ratio while still recording all the extra pixel data for monitoring purposes?

[David Mullen ASC]

I believe the camera has a variety of onscreen frameline displays. Some production monitors also can generate their own framelines for different commonly-used aspect ratios (usually 4x3, 16x9, 1.85, and 2.40-ish.)

[Peter McCully]

a little bit of topic, but,

we recently finished a new-days cinerama, with 3 * sony hdcam 1920*1080 side by side. It was a ballet.

so, from the 5760*1080, we removed the overlaps and lens distorstions using of the shelf still-photo stiching software. we shot slightly overlapping for the digital postprocessing.

we got ~5600*1040 effective resolution. looks cool. We are using 3* projection/lcd side by side to display it (its a static display at large opera houses).

with red, the same setup would have been ~13.000*2400.
That btw would have killed our discreet vfx systems - they stop at 8k.
Sounds like fun. I would love to talk to you further regarding your experiences with this.

[ChrisLyon]

Are there any screenshots (or photos) of the Red LCD up close and head on? I'm dying to see the layout of the screen better than some of these angled/distant views.

[Häakon]

What I mean is, can the monitor "crop" the image to a 2.35:1 ratio while still recording all the extra pixel data for monitoring purposes?
Yes, you can certainly have a 2.35:1 overlay, and last we were told, you are able to adjust the opacity of the area "outside" your 2.35:1 frame from completely solid to varying levels of transparency. This of course is just in your monitor view; the camera still records the entire 16:9 frame for your use in post.

[ChrisLyon]

Sweet Action. Red Team, I love you this much.

*Big arms*

[Brook Willard]

Sweet Action.

Swaction?

[ChrisLyon]

I love you.

[ChristopherKenworthy]

Having spent some time digesting the DCI-compliant details, I gather that anybody wanting a 2.35:1 film print should actually shoot at 2.39:1, because the digital print will be 4096x1716 or 2048x858. Presumably when you film-out to 2.35 you lose a bit off the edges?

[ChrisLyon]

I've heard 2.40:1 but that's a .01 difference from what you say. Is there a 2.40:1 setting on the Red?

[Jannard]

16:9 is 4096x2304
2:1 is 4096x2048
There is "look-around" in both these configurations. You can shoot 2.40:1 inside either of the above. But you will shoot more time on a card (less waste) with 2:1.

Jim

[ChrisLyon]

Gracias, Señor Jannard

[Häakon]

16:9 is 4096x2304
2:1 is 4096x2048
There is "look-around" in both these configurations.

Jim
Jim,

I am curious (I mentioned this previously but got no response); pictures I have seen using the HDMI output to an external monitor show that the image itself uses the entire width of the display (as expected), with black bars on the top and bottom to frame around the aspect ratio of the chip as seen here:

http://www.digitalcinemasociety.org/images/pics/upload/Monitor.jpg

You can clearly see the overscanned area, the outline of the aspect ratio currently being shot, and some safety/guide markers.

However, every shot I've seen of the LCD in use (and on the units I got to see in person), the "live area" of the image is significantly reduced compared to the total area of the display, as seen here:

http://www.tonaci.com/tonyfountain.jpg

Is the live image being shrunk down to preserve the space for information display? In other words, if the chip is 16:9 and the monitor is 16:9, but you want extra room on the top and the bottom for more information, are you having to squish the entire picture smaller to fit that information in? I appreciate that the information is kept OFF of the live frame, but I fear it's having a negative side-effect as a result. This is one reason why Panasonic chose to go with a 4:3 screen on the HVX - they are able to show pertinent information above and below the active image while ensuring that the image maintains the full width of the display at all times.

It's nice having a small monitor for light work that's both easy to carry and bright in the sunlight, but the image is quite small on the screen - especially when you lose that much "real estate" on the display itself. I'm thinking of buying one of Panasonic's 8" monitors because I would like a larger image - but I do like the clarity that I have seen from yours. Is there a way through the firmware to use the entire area (or at least the entire width) of the display in the future, or can you explain to me in better terms why it has to be scaled down so much on RED's particular LCD?

Thanks.

P.S. - I am aware that the Dell monitor is a 16:10 display, however the camera is still only shooting 2:1 (at least in these two reference pictures), so that should actually help the scenario. What happens when true 16:9 is made available for us?

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

2:35:1 2:20:1 and 2:39:1 are all the same thing their just rounded different or something.

[ChrisLyon]

They are but they are used for different purposes in post production. Academy standard in projection is 2.35. That's the ultimate desired endgame.

[David Mullen ASC]

2.20 : 1 is 5-perf 70mm projection.

Actually, 35mm scope projection hasn't been 2.35 since the early 1970's, except for those projection houses that never updated their anamorphic gate.

It has been updated twice since then. The current ANSI/SMPTE standards for the anamorphic projector gate give you an image around 2.39 : 1 when unsqueezed by the 2X anamorphic lens, but still people persist in using the outdated 2.35 : 1 figure. Other people round 2.39 up to 2.40 in literature, etc.

The reason why 2.35 was replaced in the early 1970's was complaints about seeing frameline flashes during print projection from poor splicing of the negative. So the gate was reduced in height slightly to hide that better, which had the effect of making the aspect ratio wider.

[ChrisLyon]

Huh, interesting. But you would still want a 2.35 for your master, right?

[David Mullen ASC]

Techinically, you'd crop your 16x9 or 2:1 RED master to whatever the laser recorder's specs are for the anamorphic negative aperture, which is slightly oversized compared to the anamorphic projector gate. I don't have the specs in front of me right now.

Anyway, despite the fact that the projector gate is 2.39 once the image is unsqueezed (it's actually a 1.19-ish gate but the image has a 2X squeeze), some theaters still have old 2.35 gates and all theaters crop the image with screen masking and curtains, so it's never exactly 2.39 anyway.

Besides cropping your full-frame master when making the film-out to 35mm anamorphic, you'd also create a letterboxed master for home video, and probably a digital cinema master in the pixel ratio for scope, whatever that is. As for whether you letterbox to 2.35, 2.39, 2.40, that's up to you, it's a bit up in the air these days in the DVD market. As for the DCI specs for digital projection, I'm not sure what they specify.

[ChrisLyon]

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge. It really is helpful.

[Häakon]

Or you could just pick whatever ratio you think best serves your story and let the audience deal with some slight letterboxing. :-)

Really, in the digital age, I think "standards" for aspect ratios are going to mean less and less. We have technology that allows us to display and picture size we like, and we don't have to conform to limitations created by a physical film plane or gate. Do you think Michaelangelo would have settled for someone telling him that all of his paintings must be in 2.35?

[ChrisLyon]

The problem is presentation. Most heater houses will only have scope and flat lenses and corresponding masking to cover the empty sections of the screen and are usually pre-programmed and not easily overridden. If you were to create a ratio that wasn't close to the existing film standards, you will have a problem projecting in any conventional cinema since automation controls masking, aperture, lens as presets.

Even if you touted digital projection that will display in any format without the need for another lens or aperture, you still have the masking (and therefore showmanship) aspect to worry about.

So unless Hollywood goes to aspect ratio independence, you should stick close to the existing ratios.

[David Mullen ASC]

Theatrical distribution is the most rigid in terms of having to work with fixed aspect ratios -- you can of course, letterbox or side-border within these (some of Storaro's 2:1 movies were released in scope prints with side borders) but you have to get past the distributors and exhibitors who don't like the oddball aspect ratios and will put up roadblocks all along the way. I've had to beg production companies to let me shoot a movie in scope because they thought all theatrical movies were 1.85. So you have a certain level of ignorance to cut through. I've heard some distributors don't like prints with mattes in the projected area.

Same goes for home video distribution -- they often release movies in ratios they prefer, not the ones the filmmakers prefer or even shot the movie in. I tried to get the home video transfer of "Twin Falls Idaho" released in 1.78, not 1.85 (the theatrical ratio) because tiny letterboxing in the 16x9 version just to turn 1.78 to 1.85 seemed a bit silly to me. But the home video distributor told me that it had to be 1.85 because (1) that's what all the pre-printed boxes already said, and (2) they wanted to "respect the artistic rights of the filmmakers by using the theatrical ratio", when I'm the guy who composed the movie and wanted to show it in 1.78. But it wasn't worth fighting over, the difference between 1.78 and 1.85, only a couple of scan lines on a TV monitor (and usually not visible on most 16x9 monitors).

My point being that whenever you work outside the standard aspect ratios, you are taking a risk if you hope for regular distribution. Of course, it's a little easier in an indie or self-financed movie where you made the decision without interference and hand it off as a fait accompli to the distributor to accept (or reject or alter...)

I remember on the art film "Northfork" that I couldn't convince the distributor to make the flat 35mm trailers letterboxed to preserve the scope framing -- it seemed to me that if you are selling a movie as a work of art, you should treat it as such in the advertizing by retaining the compositions.

Even look at Storaro's film shot in the 3-perf 2:1 Univisium format -- half of them were never released properly in 2:1. The Dune miniseries is all cropped from 2:1 to 1.78 (16x9 full-frame), Exorcist the Beginning was released in normal 2.39 scope prints, the other version by Schrader (Dominion) was released in 1.85 prints I recall, even the Carlos Saura Univisium movies on DVD aren't all the same in terms of aspect ratio.

[ChrisLyon]

So the secret is stick to close to commonly accepted ratios. I'd be willing to accept a 1.78 to 1.85 crop because I have some old DVDs that were 1.75 that weren't scaled up and it's noticeable on my HDTV. It's annoying, in point of fact. So, as a filmmaker, I'd sacrifice those couple of lines too.

Of course, my preferred aspect ratio is scope. Even if it's actually less resolution, the space feels bigger to me and to my co-workers because you are forced (generally) to shoot wider and this extra space above and below allows me room for playing with framing in post. And hell, with 4k... who cares!? It's all preference.

[dylancarter]

<snip>This extra space above and below allows me room for playing with framing in post.

You are talking about shooting flat 35mm for 2.35 anamorphic filmout, not talking about shooting anamorphic?
Because if you shoot anamorphic, you have very little, if any room for repo's. If you shot flat, then I guess you would gain the extra room vertically, plus a bit left to right if you shot picture all the way to the left ( covering the sound area with picture, knowing you were going to lose it later, or repo)

Just trying to make sure I am keeping up with all this :)

[Häakon]

Even if you touted digital projection that will display in any format without the need for another lens or aperture, you still have the masking (and therefore showmanship) aspect to worry about.
Can you elaborate on this? I've never had a problem projecting digitally in "non-standard" aspect ratios before. Yes, I was assuming that most people who shoot with RED would rather project digitally. Also, keep in mind that the majority of productions don't end up on the big screen, so again, the aspect ratio "situation" is moot.

[ChrisLyon]

Not everyone that shoots for anamorphic actually shoots "true anamorphic" with wide lenses and whatnot. Plenty of productions shoot 1.85 or 1.76 and crop in post and then with filmout stretching to fit the anamorphic image onto 35 as if it were shot scope to begin with. This is especially true with digital content where many sensors are 16x9 and not many people have access to anamorphic lenses.

As for Haakon's questions, there's no problem with showing digital in a non-standard aspect. I'm talking about DCI standards for D Cinema projection. Even if you don't have distribution, you should always have your masking cover the areas that don't have picture as a mark of good showmanship. The idea here is that the screen is the same aspect as your film so you don't end up with bars for a big screen presentation. The reason odd aspect ratios would be a problem if you showed them in theaters (say for a premiere or a set of screenings) is because most theaters only have masking presets for 2.35 (or 2.40 whatever you want to refer to it as) and 1.76. This is because every major film released in the last 40 years (roughly) has been 2.40 or 1.76. The masking (curtains on the sides of the screens) move in and out (or up and down) to create the correct viewing aspect ratio for a film. The masking is almost always controlled by preset automation that is flipped from flat to scope depending on the needs of the film.

If you showed a scope film with flat masking then you would have parts of the screen with no image that would appear dark grey which could capture light and distract the audience.

So if you ever plan on showing your film in a theater house that has good showmanship, plan for flat or scope. I'm not understanding why someone would want to shoot any other aspect ratio. Anything in between these two standards just seems silly to want to do. I mean, you have to pay attention to these things in a professional market. If you ever get distributed, they will force the film to become one aspect ratio or the other because they are concerned with uniformality like Mr. Mullen stated. This happens to foreign films all the time when they get distributed in America.

So, again, the lesson is to shoot for one of these aspect ratios in order to avoid confusion later on. What I mean by "shoot for" is record in whatever format you want and just make sure that your end result is compliant with the standards that are about to be approved by the committee at SMTPE. If you are just making a film for disc or internet distribution, then have at thee with other aspect ratios.

It's just that these two aspects are the standards and if you want hope of being distributed or just being a good showman in a theater with masking (and lenses if you have a filmout print).

This might better illustrate what I'm saying.
http://www.perennialmedia.com/outgoing/scope.jpg

You can see that with improper masking, a presentation can be REALLY bad. Of course, this theater had the ability to mask off the sides (or unmask the top) and make the screen the correct aspect ratio for this projector.

But if you had an odd ratio that a theater didn't have masking for, you would end up with these grey bars that are distracting to the presentation.

As for the moot comment. I'm down with that. Except my intentions are to be on the big screen whether in distribution or for screenings, film festivals, etc which all have the masking for these two standards. If you don't ever have intentions of showing your film (properly) on the big screen then do whatever you want to the aspect ratio.

I'm not trying to bash, I'm just saying that standards are standards for a reason and not adhering to them could possibly limit the quality of your end presentation.

[ChrisLyon]

you still around haakon?