The NEW 4K standard...

[Jannard]

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

[Benjamin Epps]

I agree. I actually like 2:1 as the final frame. My next project is meant to be viewed in 2:1 since half of the movie is in shot in split screen, which obviously divides into two neat little squares.

[Manolo S. Navazo]

like mister storaro

[marsRover]

I think VFX people will want to hold on to the whole 4K at 1.78 aspect until the final comp.

[Evin Grant]

Long live Univision!

[Justin Kirchhoff]

I've always liked the 2:1 aspect ratio.....hopefully more people will adopt it.

[Álex Montoya]

I recall an artricle by storaro stating the same thing

[Martin Ludwig]

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 can´t remember - are there framelines in the viewfinder - we can adjust ?

[Gunleik Groven]

Ludmux:

Yes

Gunleik

[Martin Ludwig]

Ludmux:

Yes

Gunleik

then 2:1 is a very good choice !

[Darwin]

Could we still get a full 4k worth of sensor from a 2.1 aspect ratio? If so hell yeah! I take it!

[Häakon]

2:1 has always been my favorite aspect ratio, and I had planned to shoot many films this way long before RED. I am hoping that the 16x9 full sensor will be available someday, however, as even though I will compose for 2:1, it gives some helpful cropping room in post. Even a little bit can be beneficial.

[Häakon]

Could we still get a full 4k worth of sensor from a 2.1 aspect ratio? If so hell yeah! I take it!
Hi Darwin,

Yes - 4K refers to the number of horizontal pixels (4096) in a frame. The number of vertical pixels changes with the aspect ratio. As long as the width is 4096, it's considered 4K.

[Roberto B]

I am hoping that the 16x9 full sensor will be available someday:) :)

[Roberto B]

Hi Darwin,

Yes - 4K refers to the number of horizontal pixels (4096) in a frame. The number of vertical pixels changes with the aspect ratio. As long as the width is 4096, it's considered 4K.yeah?.. then, how do you get the 4K (4096) 16x9 ratio (THE REAL SHOOTING STANDARD NOT UTOPIA BULLSHIT FOR FOOLS) from a 4096x2048 sensor?.. :)

[Darwin]

Hi Darwin,

Yes - 4K refers to the number of horizontal pixels (4096) in a frame. The number of vertical pixels changes with the aspect ratio. As long as the width is 4096, it's considered 4K.

Häakon,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I had a fundamental misunderstanding on how that worked:unsure:

[Roberto B]

:unsure:you bet.. :)

[Roberto B]

i meant: you bet! :) :)

[Adrian T.]

I smell a 2:1 sensor in the RED TWO! :)

[ChristopherKenworthy]

Thanks for the 2:1 heads up Jim. Forgive me, but I've chosen to shoot 1:2.35 on my first Red feature. Except that I gather from various sources that 1:2.35 doesn't really exists, and is just an old fashioned term we use for 1.2.39 or 1.2.40. I've talked to several DPs about this, and confusion reigns. If I'm producing a DI, to hand over to a lab to make a 35mm print, what should the exact dimensions of the frame be in Final Cut Pro? (Assume I'm finishing in 2K, and want the look of a traditional 1:2.35 frame.) If I've gone off topic, I'll repost elsewhere, but hopefully this thread is about Red aspect ratios and how to cope.

[marsRover]

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.

[Simon Smith]

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.

[Michael Mann]

I smell a 2:1 sensor in the RED TWO! :)
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.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

As long as I can finish in scope I'm happy.

[Jason Murphy]

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.

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...

[marsRover]

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.

[Don King]

As long as I can finish in scope I'm happy.

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.

[Harry Clark]

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

[Sean Michael Johnston]

Has anyone tried animorphic lenses with RED yet?

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

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.

You've lost me.

[Don King]

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?

[Matt Uhry]

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

[KETCH ROSSi]

Jim,

2.35:1 and the original 2:1 of Warner Brothers 65mm VITASCOPE are my favorite formats?

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

[Jason Francois]

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. :)

[Blair S. Paulsen]

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).

[Warren Kommers]

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.

[Häakon]

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
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.

[EchoDelta]

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.

[Matt Uhry]

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.



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

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

[Chris Kenny]

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.

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....

[Sanjin Jukic]

http://filmmakermagazine.com/webexclusives/uploaded_images/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>> (http://filmmakermagazine.com/webexclusives/2007/06/storaro-talks-shop-by-jamie-stuart.php)

RED should finally invite Storaro to test RED ONE.

[M Most]

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.


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.

[Sanjin Jukic]

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>> (http://filmmakermagazine.com/webexclusives/2007/06/storaro-talks-shop-by-jamie-stuart.php)

[Jim Arthurs]

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...

[Gavin Greenwalt]

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.

[liquidigital]

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.

[Alex Boothby]

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.

[overlandfilms]

2:35 was the area left after the optical soundtrack was added to 2.55:1 CinemaScope.

[Häakon]

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

[Emmanuel Cambier]

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.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Relax folks. The Mysterium sensor has plenty of pixels to work with and I'll eat my hat if there isn't a 1.78 option a little ways down the road. This camera is still in development, stop obsessing.

[albert rudnicki]

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 am squinting my eyes:shiftyph34r:
Is Jim up to something?

[M Most]

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!


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.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

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.

[Mr. Paul White]

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.

So... if it's not a standard, why bother with it? :rip_1:

[number6]

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.



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.

[Don King]

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...Well said. Everything.

[Júlio Taubkin]

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...

[Peter McCully]

4x3 will allow for full Imax framing, the use of anamorphic lenses and sensor cropping to 16:9 or 1:2.4 etc.

[Clint Johnson]

Hmmm... 4520x2260 24fps to the compact flash would be some interesting 2:1. hey, a man has a right to dream doesn't he?

[Emanuel A.]

4x3 will allow for full Imax framing, the use of anamorphic lenses and sensor cropping to 16:9 or 1:2.4 etc.Yes, indeed. This is the real standard.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

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.

[Sanjin Jukic]

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.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

25fps? Thumbs down!

[albert rudnicki]

25fps? Thumbs down!

and why is that?

[Sanjin Jukic]

25 fps rules for the years.

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

Again.

Just simply IT RULES.

[Jon McCoy]

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).

[Sanjin Jukic]

16:9 letter box in 2:1 frame.

Looks good for the beginning!!!

[Jannard]

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

[Hrvoje Simic]

heh heh

[Evan Owen]

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

It's probably easier to record to CF too, right? :ph34r:

[Emmanuel Cambier]

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:

[Sam Druckerman]

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.

[Don King]

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

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.

[Sanjin Jukic]

So PEOPLE,

Jim has got it.

We should follow too.

I'm one of them.

[Clint Johnson]

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.

[Mr. Paul White]

4x3 will allow for full Imax framing, the use of anamorphic lenses and sensor cropping to 16:9 or 1:2.4 etc.

These are options. 1:2 not.

[Gordon Prince]

It's probably easier to record to CF too, right? :ph34r:

Right. Let's clear up a couple of things. :shiftyph34r:

[oldphart]

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...

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.

[Roberto B]

:innocent:

[Jon McCoy]

Cinema is an experience. Letterbox presentation on 16:9 or 4:3 displays has a negative affect on the impact of the cinematic experience.

The shape is irrelevant - accessibility is key.

I love letterbox formats don't me wrong, but everything has it's place, and for TV playback it's not appropriate.



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.


Wow. That's possibly the worst thing I've heard in a long time. So, my friend who spent $30,000 on his home cinema, buying the best audio, the best 16:9 HD projector with the widest colour gamut he could for his budget, has no interest in cinema? Unless he buys a $70K projector, he has to loose vertical resolution in order to view films he loves?

Who exactly is benefiting out of this 2:1 resolution? The editor, the director and the producers.



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.

Surely it's a mark of a poor artist, to be incapable of creating a work of art with the tools he has to hand?

Let's put it this way; are you still a great engineer, if your beautifully designed work of mechanics is 6" too wide, and draws 2amp more than the PSU can supply?

*whatever*

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Pan_scan should be punished by death… or something close.

no arguing possible :angry02:

[Tom Lowe]

Storaro is a God, but his 2:1 crusade has too much going against it -- namely hundreds of millions of TVs and computer LCDs at 16:9 already in place, effectively settling the "format war" if there even was one.

Some projects call for 1.85, some for 2.35, etc. It all depends on things like how much sky you might want to have the picture, for example.

The idea I like better from Storaro is everyone moving go 25p. This whole idea that we cling to a framerate as absurd as 23.976fps is clear insanity.

[Teague Kennedy]

I think the screen should be an oval.

[Bill Goehring]

Trapezoid.

[Jason Murphy]

Cinema is an experience. Letterbox presentation on 16:9 or 4:3 displays has a negative affect on the impact of the cinematic experience.

The shape is irrelevant - accessibility is key.

I love letterbox formats don't me wrong, but everything has it's place, and for TV playback it's not appropriate.

Actually, the shape is not at all irrelevant, and quite frankly, TV is the only place where letterboxing/pillarboxing is appropriate. Where else would it be appropriate? Certainly not in a theater, where one can adjust the screen shape to the proper aspect ratio of the image being projected.

It may "draw you out of the experience" to have black bars at the top or bottom of the screen, but quite frankly, the composition of the image, which is in a large part determined by the shape of the frame, is far more important to the experience of watching a movie for anyone with any respect for the artistry of filmmaking than the fact that there are black bars on the screen. A few filmmakers, like Kubrick on some of his movies, have tried to get around this by trying to compose a frame that would work both at 1.85:1 and 4:3, but this is an exception rather than the rule.


Wow. That's possibly the worst thing I've heard in a long time. So, my friend who spent $30,000 on his home cinema, buying the best audio, the best 16:9 HD projector with the widest colour gamut he could for his budget, has no interest in cinema? Unless he buys a $70K projector, he has to loose vertical resolution in order to view films he loves?

Who exactly is benefiting out of this 2:1 resolution? The editor, the director and the producers.

I'm not going to say that your friend has no interest in cinema, but really, if he's more worried about losing vertical resolution than butchering a movie's framing while watching on his $30,000 system, or, God forbid, losing horizontal framing when watching a movie that was shot 1.66:1 or Academy ratio, then I'd say he may have an interest in the technology, but little respect for the artistry of cinema. Which I think many people would feel pretty comfortable labeling a "lack of interest in cinema."

Also, if this is the really worst thing you've heard in a long time, you should read the news more often. :sarcasm:

[Darwin]

OH' give me a brak..If the output is for home TV crop to 16x9! you still have all the resolution you need.

[David Battistella]

The whole answer might be in this drawing....

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Wow. That's possibly the worst thing I've heard in a long time. So, my friend who spent $30,000 on his home cinema, buying the best audio, the best 16:9 HD projector with the widest colour gamut he could for his budget, has no interest in cinema? Unless he buys a $70K projector, he has to loose vertical resolution in order to view films he loves?

Surely it's a mark of a poor artist, to be incapable of creating a work of art with the tools he has to hand?


Congradulations... you completely missed the point!

If your friend with the $30,000 home theater crops all of his movies to 16:9. Yes he doesn't deserve to claim to have a true interest in cinema. It's not a question of "losing resolution". It's a question of whether or not you 'edit' the film to fit your television aka... pan and scan. Pan and scan is a form of editorializing art work. Same as reading abridged books. Or seeing the TV-Edit.

16:9 is an acceptable delivery format as long as the true aspect ratio is maintained. Nobody is saying your friend needs to run out and buy a 1.85 $70k projector they're saying your friend doesn't get to buy pan and scan movies.

[Jon McCoy]

Disc-shaped. It's gonna catch on...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/1908_1189975292.jpg

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Wow. That's possibly the worst thing I've heard in a long time. So, my friend who spent $30,000 on his home cinema, buying the best audio, the best 16:9 HD projector with the widest colour gamut he could for his budget, has no interest in cinema? Unless he buys a $70K projector, ...

*whatever*

Adthrawn, I think you misunderstood the poster's point... He was referring to PAN and SCAN...
Pan and Scan is a technique where they chop about 45 procent away from the image (if the original aspect ratio is 2.35) so people could see the movie without black bars on their 4:3 television set.
So they really distroy the vision of the director and cinematographer.
Look at this links for more information (ps one of them is in Dutch, but just look at the pictures!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_and_scan

http://www.dvd.nl/achtergrond.php?id=15&page=2



It's not about watching the footage in letterbox or 16/9, it's about keeping the original aspect ratio (well, that was what the poster you replied too, was talking about)

[Jon McCoy]

Congradulations... you completely missed the point!

If your friend with the $30,000 home theater crops all of his movies to 16:9. Yes he doesn't deserve to claim to have a true interest in cinema. It's not a question of "losing resolution". It's a question of whether or not you 'edit' the film to fit your television aka... pan and scan. Pan and scan is a form of editorializing art work. Same as reading abridged books. Or seeing the TV-Edit.

16:9 is an acceptable delivery format as long as the true aspect ratio is maintained. Nobody is saying your friend needs to run out and buy a 1.85 $70k projector they're saying your friend doesn't get to buy pan and scan movies.

No, I think you've actually missed the point. My retort, was to the statement that anybody who dislikes the "black bars" has no interest in cinema.

Pan & Scan is a crap-fest, and pandoras box for fan websites (like Luke Skywalkers Lightsabre disappearing then reappearing courtesy of cropping).

My point, is that if your target audience is 16:9, then it's your fault that there are black bars on their screens. Sure, it's nice to shoot 2:1, but if nobody can see your art in the same way you see it in the edit suite, and they have to see it with a lower resolution (and yes it is lower, cos' you've stuffed two black bars in the image) - then something's gone wrong along the way...

[Sam Druckerman]

Cinema is an experience. Letterbox presentation on 16:9 or 4:3 displays has a negative affect on the impact of the cinematic experience.

The shape is irrelevant - accessibility is key.


I don't want to be argumentative, but your couldn't be more wrong. Cinema is a visual art form, and big part of that is the composition of the frame. Shape is relevant to the artist who created the image and the audience who cares for the medium.


I love letterbox formats don't me wrong, but everything has it's place, and for TV playback it's not appropriate.


Again, you seem to be confused. If you are creating content for TV, then you should frame for TV. If your watching cinema on a TV, why not respect the film makers and watch the film in it's intended aspect ratio?


So, my friend who spent $30,000 on his home cinema, buying the best audio, the best 16:9 HD projector with the widest colour gamut he could for his budget, has no interest in cinema? Unless he buys a $70K projector, he has to loose vertical resolution in order to view films he loves?


Tell your friend that if he wants to get the most out of his home theater experience he should consider buying a anamorphic lens for his projector.

Anamorphic lens on a projector is a very common solution to using all the resolution available, and keeping the aspect ratio of the film intact.


Surely it's a mark of a poor artist, to be incapable of creating a work of art with the tools he has to hand?


What does that have to do with a film maker choosing to work in a aspect ratio wider than TV? Again, would you limit the frame size of a painter to something convenient for shipping?


Let's put it this way; are you still a great engineer, if your beautifully designed work of mechanics is 6" too wide, and draws 2amp more than the PSU can supply?

It seems that you would be happy in a world of conformists. Artists tend to chose there own path.



*whatever*

LOL Ahhhhhhh, at last..... something we can both agree on.

[Jason Murphy]

My point, is that if your target audience is 16:9, then it's your fault that there are black bars on their screens. Sure, it's nice to shoot 2:1, but if nobody can see your art in the same way you see it in the edit suite, and they have to see it with a lower resolution (and yes it is lower, cos' you've stuffed two black bars in the image) - then something's gone wrong along the way...

Well, this is assuming that the target audience is television/home viewing, and not a theater. And quite frankly, many people shooting features still shoot for theaters, not TV, (though, granted, TV's certainly had a major influence on how movies are made and framed).

Of course, outside of shooting anamorphic and using an optical anamorphic projector, you'll still be losing vertical resolution, since 4K spec crops down to 'scope, while retaining a 4K horizontal resolution.

More resolution is fine, but it's not the most important thing. Composition and framing are still far more critical than resolution.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Hey Adthrawn
What is it exactly that you propose?
Shall we all shoot 16/9 because consumer tv are 16/9?
By the way I'm still to find a modern non crt tv that is able to display a movie properly in terms of image quality aka respect of the original colors and saturation, proper contrast, and resolution.
No way I'm gonna frame my pictures for their crapy displays.

[Bill Goehring]

...I'm still to find a modern non crt tv that is able to display a movie properly in terms of image quality aka respect of the original colors and saturation, proper contrast, and resolution....


Word.

I managed to find and buy a 16x9 31" Sanyo CRT with 1080i resolution and HDMI connection at Walmart two years ago for $600 for this very reason, and, while it's no production monitor, I'm still happy with that purchase, even though some SD content looks like complete crap on it.

CRT HDTVs now seem to be totally absent in the line-ups at local retailers, even though, in my opinion, CRT quality still trumps LCD technology.

Hopefully, I can hang on with the Sanyo until the next best thing comes along at a reasonable price and 1080P resolution. TDELs, anyone?

http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/electroluminescent-ifire-imaging-20060620/

[Jon McCoy]

Look, I may be playing devils' advocate here, but this is something that constantly frustrates me.

I've come from an industry where your skills and talent mean jack, if your consumers can't properly experience your product.

My point throughout this has been to identify that the viewing needs are greater than the artistic needs. Or should I paraphrase that - the delivery medium should be appropriate for the audience (and not the other way around).

A good example; I adore the series Rome - filmed for 16:9 HD playback, beautiful images, completely immersive. Last week, I watched the Russell Crowe epic Gladiator, and was surprised how easy it was to loose concentration - it feels disconnected, in it's little slither wrapped top and bottom in black packaging. In reality 99% of that, is the quality of the writing, acting, directing, editing and the cinematography, but still, it's not doing the experience any good.

Is filming in >2:1 genuinely an artistic choice, or just the usual "I'm bigger than you, and can afford to shoot letterbox" arrogance? I find the "artistic" and "being different" excuses somewhat lacking.

And anyway, technology is the means, and not the end.

Again, *whatever*, flame me, burn me, at least I'm being different :P

[Jon McCoy]

A final thought before I pass out...

I don't fear the competition of another Red user, but I do of the teenager with a $300 HDV camera, and a *vision*.

The camera is the tool, don't let it get in your way, or cramp your vision.

[Drew Mylrea]

Give us the most resolution possible that can be recorded out of the sensor then let everyone do what they will. I don't think a soul would disagree with that... but I could be wrong?

[Michael Schrengohst]

Make us 2:1 4K (affordable) home theater system and it's a deal.

[Jason Francois]

Ok, since we're talking about home theaters.

How do we future proof for 4k. I am building a new house and was just talking to the electronics people about running a bundle from my office (editing) to the home theater room so that I could view in there sometimes.

I told him that I will be using 4k cameras and he kind of laughed. He didn't know what kind of cables would be needed. Now, I'm not sure I will be viewing 4k most of the time, but what kind of cable can handle this? HDMI can't do it can it?

thanks,
J.

[Chris Kenny]

Ok, since we're talking about home theaters.
I told him that I will be using 4k cameras and he kind of laughed. He didn't know what kind of cables would be needed. Now, I'm not sure I will be viewing 4k most of the time, but what kind of cable can handle this? HDMI can't do it can it?

There aren't any consumer standards related to 4K at the moment. Sony's 4K projectors are fed with four DVI cables, each carrying a quarter of the image.

[Chris Kenny]

I'm not sure I understand all the hand wringing about letterboxing for 2:1. I have no huge desire to use 2:1 as a deliverable format (though it does have a nice feel to it), and I'm sure Red will get 16:9 working (probably via firmware update), but the difference between 2:1 (or 16:8) and 16:9 is not all that big.

The letterboxing required is quite mild and, at least to my eye, completely unobjectionable:

http://www.chriskenny.com/files/21.gif

[Emmanuel Cambier]

You don't say…
I'm with you.

[Jason Francois]

I agree that it's negligible at best.

And thanks Chris for the feedback. I'm thinking that I'll just run a big conduit to my media closet. Better safe than sorry.

[Clint Johnson]

It looks like it comes down to our sensitivity to those black bars that letterbox or pillarbox what we are watching on the TV. It seems that while I see the movie, others can't see past the black spaces.

I honestly don't notice that I am giving up a few lines of resolution to keep from losing the image itself. I won't bother to watch a panned and scanned movie where they have given up image area to keep from giving up a few square centimeters of real estate on the television.

There are some that it really preys on though, and for them I could suggest curtains to cover up the offending area... or just pretend it is a really thick bezel maybe?

And Mr. oldphart, the three screen height distance from the display is what I would consider the furthest I would want to sit from the screen based on the field of view. It would be three meters away from one meter tall screen that was 720p and it would be three meters away from a one meter tall screen that showed 1080p. At that distance I can just tell the difference between the two resolutions when I am looking for it... if I am looking for it then the story has lost me and I can go find something else to do or watch.

Like you, I will move in if the source and the display warrants it- Serenity HD-DVD on my 17" laptop looks pretty damn good and I end up leaning in to that one screen height range. And not noticing that movie is letterboxed to fit the 16:10 - 1920x1200 screen.

And I am right there with you on the pain of watching a lot of the stuff coming off the satellites. The compression is often very intrusive and yanks me out of the film no matter how good it is.

[Dominic Jones]

I'm not sure I understand all the hand wringing about letterboxing for 2:1. I have no huge desire to use 2:1 as a deliverable format (though it does have a nice feel to it), and I'm sure Red will get 16:9 working (probably via firmware update), but the difference between 2:1 (or 16:8) and 16:9 is not all that big.

The letterboxing required is quite mild and, at least to my eye, completely unobjectionable.
OK, I've kind of stayed out of this one, as it's been a bit hairy, but here's my 0.02:

I'm not overly fussed about letterboxing at all, and I think these days most of the viewing public is happy enough with it too, as evidenced by the lack of pan'n'scan releases on DVD (thank the lord!).

However, I would like to be able to deliver 1.85:1 for theatrical without horizontally cropping the frame - if your sensor is 16:9 then you've got a (very) mild vertical crop, but with the proposed 2:1 recording method, you're essentially cropping vertically by more than required, and then cropping horizontally to get back to your required ratio, which seems counter-intuitive and a little silly.

It'll also result in significantly less resolution for those who want to shoot for 2.4:1 anamorphically, as again you'll be cropping vertically and horizontally, compared to what the chip can offer.

Seems foolish to artificially limit the options, if that is what is being proposed. After all, what's wrong with shooting 16:9 and cropping to 2:1, if that's what you're after? That way you literally loose nothing and have all the options.

Just to re-iterate, I'm not talking in the slightest about delivery to home systems, be they TV's or projectors - I'm talking about shooting for theatrical release, where every pixel absolutely can be of use...

As I wrote in another thread, if this discussion were happening before the chip had been designed, then I could see the sense in it, but now that the camera has a 16:9 chip in it, not using all of that available resolution seems foolish, unless there are technical limitations that have not been expressed...

[Peter McCully]

I am still a bit confused. Are we going to be stuck with 2:1 from the Red? For personal projects it's not such an issue but for the most part, my projects already have a standard such as 16:9 tv or 1:85 for film that my work has to conform to. I thought that Red would be able to output to 1080p and 720p (initially it was) but now those have been dropped and 2:1 is the new standard? It means vertical cropping...not good.

[Jim McKinney]

Trapezoid.

Actually, I've had to operate for a trapezoid frame before (for the onstage bigscreen at a national Coors convention. The trapezoid on the left was skewed one way, the trapezoid on the right was skewed the other. And the engineer in the back room, (who couldn't see the trapezoidal frames onstage), was screaming in our ears the whole time about head room!

Trapezoid is not my favorite flavor.

[Jim McKinney]

I love wide screen cinema.

. . . 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.


Wide rules.

But then again, they cropped Rembrandt's Night Watch and it's still considered a great painting. Or is it?

[Simon Smith]

I am still a bit confused. Are we going to be stuck with 2:1 from the Red? For personal projects it's not such an issue but for the most part, my projects already have a standard such as 16:9 tv or 1:85 for film that my work has to conform to. I thought that Red would be able to output to 1080p and 720p (initially it was) but now those have been dropped and 2:1 is the new standard? It means vertical cropping...not good.

Although it's not difficult to guess why this proposal, we all hope this won't be another stupid standard. Because, it'll never be a standard... Only an attempt to cover a CF recording limitation perhaps?

[Sam Druckerman]

But then again, they cropped Rembrandt's Night Watch and it's still considered a great painting. Or is it?

I'm actually not sure if you're kidding or not?

But, the tragic mutilation of that great piece by Rembrandt, ( which I believe was not tilted "Night Watch" until after Rembrandt's passing ) is considered a unfortunate loss in the art community.

And certainly not an example of how "Artists like having there work tampered with", anymore than it is a example of the viewing public being "Happy about it".

You know that darn "Guernica" by that slouch Picasso is just to big! Lets start by cropping that one and then every other masterpiece until all of them are destroyed.

BOT

Going with a wide aspect ratio gets my vote.

[Jannard]

Although it's not difficult to guess why this proposal, we all hope this won't be another stupid standard. Because, it'll never be a standard... Only an attempt to cover a CF recording limitation perhaps?

Mr. Orange. We will deliver 4K 16:9 (4096 x 2304) so your suggestion is not relavant.

Jim

[Steve Sherrick]

Mr. Orange. We will deliver 4K 16:9 (4096 x 2304) so your suggestion is not relavant.

Jim

That is what I expected all along.

By the way, from a cinematic point of view I love 2.1.

Steve

[Gordon Prince]

Mr. Orange. We will deliver 4K 16:9 (4096 x 2304) so your suggestion is not relavant.

Jim

Thank you for the update. It's a relief. Sigh. However, this suggestion hasn't just been from Mr. Orange. There are other people thinking the same.

[Antoine Baumann]

Personally I will shoot 16/9, and then crop if it needs to be in an other format ratio.


BTW: I don't know what EBU said during the "Amsterdam night party" but during the day they clearly stand that today standard is 720p@50fps and tomorrow will be 1080p@50fps.

antoine.

[David Cubbage]

I've just downloaded Evin's music video and noticed it's 2:1 aspect ratio. I loved it; it seems more natural to the eyes than 16:9. Take a look and see for yourself; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4657

David.

[Gordon Prince]

My dear Lord. It's funny that you can't get the point.

4096 x 2304 is higher than 4096 x 2048.

With 4096 x 2304 you can also have 4096 x 2048.

With 4096 x 2048 you have NO 4096 x 2304.

Got it?

[Don King]

Thank you for the update. It's a relief. Sigh. However, this suggestion hasn't just been from Mr. Orange. There are other people thinking the same.


There are other people saying... it. ;)

[Andrew M.]

I've just downloaded Evin's music video and noticed it's 2:1 aspect ratio. I loved it; it seems more natural to the eyes than 16:9. Take a look and see for yourself; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4657

David.

David, this link points to first music video on RED?

I will not agree that 2:1 is more natural for our field of view.
We have about 120 deg horizontal field of view and since our nose is getting in the way we do not have 60 deg vertical view. Specially in the home theater situation the floor and sealing will limit the vertical field of view to about 40 to 50 deg so it is 2.4:1 to 3:1 is the most natural format filling the whole human field of view.
Looking on any screen from such a distance that it covers 120 deg field of view makes you feel like you are not watching the screen but you are actually there.
I love this feeling.
Well, with enough horizontal pixels and good lenses to give you good sharp image we can always crop to whatever we want. I rather vote for 3:1
I agree that going with the aspect ration less then 2:1 is the waste.
For those that need lower aspect ration they can crop the sides if they really have to.
I will be cropping top and bottom, 2.4:1 or 3:1 just presents the picture better to our eyes.

Andrew

[oldphart]

David, this link points to first music video on RED?

I will not agree that 2:1 is more natural for our field of view.
We have about 120 deg horizontal field of view and since our nose is getting in the way we do not have 60 deg vertical view. Specially in the home theater situation the floor and sealing will limit the vertical field of view to about 40 to 50 deg so it is 2.4:1 to 3:1 is the most natural format filling the whole human field of view.
Looking on any screen from such a distance that it covers 120 deg field of view makes you feel like you are not watching the screen but you are actually there.
I love this feeling.
...

Andrew

Yes! That is why I filled a wall in my den with a 240cm aluminium screen many years ago. For me, 2:1 always stood for the anamorpic ratio.

Watching a full 120° bright image will, however, clearly demonstrate the need for much higher frame rates. I hope the world will move to 75p as we get more bandwidth and storage space.

[Jim McKinney]

I'm actually not sure if you're kidding or not?

But, the tragic mutilation of that great piece by Rembrandt, ( which I believe was not tilted "Night Watch" until after Rembrandt's passing ) is considered a unfortunate loss in the art community.

And certainly not an example of how "Artists like having there work tampered with", anymore than it is a example of the viewing public being "Happy about it".

You know that darn "Guernica" by that slouch Picasso is just to big! Lets start by cropping that one and then every other masterpiece until all of them are destroyed.

BOT

Going with a wide aspect ratio gets my vote.

I never studied Art History, but I go to museums whenever possible. When I was in Amsterdam and saw the "Night Watch" (which is not actually titled "The Night Watch," but we all call it that), I gazed at it for quite some time. There's a lot to marvel at in the painting. I like large. (e.g. Richard Avedon). And it's an impressive painting. But it seemed to come up short; it just didn't seem THAT impressive. Slightly disappointed (oh well, not every great painting is going to "ring my bell," I thought), I turned away, only to see a painting of the original work in much smaller form. (I forget if it was by Rembrandt himself or some other talented artist.) This caught my eye, and I was wondering why it seemed more "right." Reading the blurb to the side I was absolutely shocked to read the news. They had panned and scanned the masterpeice some 300 years ago, and also cropped top and bottom, though approximating something similar to a "common top!" At least with the smaller painting, we have a document of his intentions.

It's a good idea to know what kind of room your art will live in.

[Michael Hastings]

Mr. Orange. We will deliver 4K 16:9 (4096 x 2304) so your suggestion is not relavant.

Jim

16:9 on the HD-SDI output is critical for us to shoot live and match with other non-red cameras. If that was slightly cropped from 2:1 and we had to use frame guides in the VF that's OK.

The big question is does a 2:1 format give you technical advantages? i.e. does the math work better so for instance maybe the FPGA could handle a higher frame rate than a non-integer ratio? If that were the case I would gladly shoot in 2:1 and frame/edit for whatever final aspect I wanted. (I like very wide for my own stuff so would actually like 2:1 artistically, but have to shoot for others as well to pay the mortgage.)

For example if we could record 40 or 50 FPS redcode raw at 4096x2048 or something close that would be a very welcome tradeoff for whatever post processing it would require to achieve our desired aspect. Again, as long as an HDTV industry compatible output was available at the HD-SDI out for live shooting.

[Sam Druckerman]

It's a good idea to know what kind of room your art will live in.

It's a better idea to respect the artists vision.

What happened to Rembrandt's painting was a crime.

As a society we can choose to fight crime or "give into it".

Now to bring this back to Red. Red is digital "Cinema" camera, first and foremost. I know that it can and will be used in other ways, which is awesome, but it's a "Cinema" camera first.

Wide screen formats at the "Cinema" help to create a "Bigger than life" movie experience that can help to take the audience out of there seats and "into" the out door vistas of the Old west, the African plains, deserts of Egypt, etc, etc.... It can add depth of space to a chase scene, offers the opportunity for interesting compositions, etc, etc.

But perhaps the most compelling thing about wide screen "Cinema" is it give's audiences a good reason to go to the movies. And even though I have a home theater with a 12 ft image, I still prefer to go to the "Cinema", and have the real experience.

The argument here of "know where your film will be viewed" implies that eventually it will be formatted for TV, so why not just make Red's aspect ratio for TV? If those pesky film makers would just give up on "Cinema" it would make everything so much easier.

I say let the artists choose the aspect ratio and let the audience choose to see it in the theater or latter on there TV.... But always in the original aspect ratio, what ever that may be.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

But I for one, will always choose fight crime.

[Jim McKinney]

I'm not sure we disagree, Sam. Everything you're saying makes sense.

Rembrandt painted his painting the way he saw fit as an artist. He had no other choice.

We have a 4K 16:9 chip, but with fairly modest letterboxing, we can shoot 1:85 or 2:1. Personally, I'm fine with that. I think we just need to constantly lobby the rest of the world on this issue so that some numbskull producer doesn't butcher our work in the name of "filling the screen."

If you're shooting for cinematic projection, then by all means, rock on with 2:35 ratio. But if your project is straight to DVD, you'll start to run the risk of some cropping or pan & scan in that "room."

[Steven Caesare]

Ok, since we're talking about home theaters.

How do we future proof for 4k. I am building a new house and was just talking to the electronics people about running a bundle from my office (editing) to the home theater room so that I could view in there sometimes.

I told him that I will be using 4k cameras and he kind of laughed. He didn't know what kind of cables would be needed. Now, I'm not sure I will be viewing 4k most of the time, but what kind of cable can handle this? HDMI can't do it can it?

thanks,
J.

Put in a large low-voltage conduit with a pull-string. The only (mostly) future proof method.

I have a 3" conduit between equipment rack and projector. Today HDMI, component, composite, VGA, and ethernet lives in it. Tomorrow: who knows... but I won't have to tear down drywall to change it.

[Sam Druckerman]

I think we just need to constantly lobby the rest of the world on this issue so that some numbskull producer doesn't butcher our work in the name of "filling the screen."

If you're shooting for cinematic projection, then by all means, rock on with 2:35 ratio. But if your project is straight to DVD, you'll start to run the risk of some cropping or pan & scan in that "room."

Good to see we're on the same page, after all...

Now if could only get rid of that "room".

[Peter McCully]

Mr. Orange. We will deliver 4K 16:9 (4096 x 2304) so your suggestion is not relavant.

Jim
Thanks Jim. I realise it may take a little time for all the options to be implemented but thanks for settling the issue about the intended spec for 4K.

[Roberto B]

I am still a bit confused. Are we going to be stuck with 2:1 from the Red? For personal projects it's not such an issue but for the most part, my projects already have a standard such as 16:9 tv or 1:85 for film that my work has to conform to. I thought that Red would be able to output to 1080p and 720p (initially it was) but now those have been dropped and 2:1 is the new standard? It means vertical cropping...not good.


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.


4x3 will allow for full Imax framing, the use of anamorphic lenses and sensor cropping to 16:9 or 1:2.4 etc.


Yes, indeed. This is the real standard.


These are options. 1:2 not.



4096 x 2304 is higher than 4096 x 2048.

With 4096 x 2304 you can also have 4096 x 2048.

With 4096 x 2048 you have NO 4096 x 2304.


Thanks Jim. I realise it may take a little time for all the options to be implemented but thanks for settling the issue about the intended spec for 4K.


there hasn't been necessary a poll.. we all know.. or at least.. the most well informed know what we want.. we live in the web age after all.. there's no more room for misinformation.




:-)

[dvpixl]

i strangely like watching 2:35/2:40 letterboxed movies. gives it a feel. makes it look finished. having a sort of a matte helps draw your eyes in. 16:9 TV size is good. I dont mind having extra bars for 2:35 on 16:9 screens. It seems natural. So 4:3 should disappear forever. Make 16:9 standard. And 2:35 standard cinema- and add bars always- when going to TV or DVD.

[Roberto B]

AMEN

sigh :)

[Andrew M.]

AMEN it is.

[Emanuel A.]

However, 1:1.33 is the most interesting shooting format standard. As Peter said, it would allow for full Imax framing, the use of anamorphic lenses and sensor cropping to 16x9, 1:1.85 or 1:2.35/2.40.

Moreover, if RED could implement some sort of cropping choice since the shooting, we could have different frame rates, for instance. Even faster than 2K@100fps... It would be quite promising actually. But only in any way other than as from a 1:1.33 sensor size.

If not, the 16x9 standard as shooting format size will be the only way without any further castrations. The most use will be the 16x9 TV or DVD or even 1:1.85 though I'll shoot all my work on 1:2.35/2.40. But that's me. I can't think on just myself when we're speaking about industry standards.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think there is enough IMAX shooting to justify a 1.33 (4x3) sensor, although someday I'm sure that someone will build essentially an IMAX digital camera like that, maybe one that is 6K or 8K with a 1.33 (4x3) sensor.

As for anamorphic photography for 35mm scope release and/or digital release, I think a 4x3 sensor makes more sense for a 2K camera (like the Arri D20) so that anamorphic lenses can be used to maximize total number of pixels used. For a 4K sensor, there is enough overall resolution that cropping a 16x9 sensor to 2.35 isn't much of a resolution hit. And, of course, someone could develop 1.33X anamorphic lenses for 16x9 cameras. One could even, in theory, develop anamorphic lenses to squeeze 4x3 vertically onto 16x9 for IMAX...

[Warren Kommers]

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. To crop inside a 16:9 sensor to get a 1.33
leaves very little sensor. There has been some great work done with Big TV(1.33 super 35) in commercials and music videos. Granted that wider ratios are more representative of the human experience.

[Peter McCully]

I don't think there is enough IMAX shooting to justify a 1.33 (4x3) sensor, although someday I'm sure that someone will build essentially an IMAX digital camera like that, maybe one that is 6K or 8K with a 1.33 (4x3) sensor.
...
Yes, I agree, its a bit of a pipedream but I am sure it is a worthy goal.

[redhead]

I've always wondered why such a creative medium has veered away from the 'golden' ratio of 1.618...
Most recent computer monitors come in the 1.6:1 ratio, which is pretty close.

[David Mullen ASC]

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. Digital TV will be 16x9 except for showing older 4x3 material. So eventually, the only uses for 4x3 origination will be anamorphic photography and IMAX, which is not a very high percentage of overall TV and theatrical production. Hence why the odds that future digital cameras will have 4x3 sensors are small.

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.

And especially if you're talking about a 4.5K sensor -- cropping the width to 3.something K to get a 4x3 image is not the end of the world, especially if your only release format will be 4x3 NTSC... or side-matted 16x9 HD. It would only be for a 4x3 IMAX release that you'd want all the pixels you can get. Theatrical is all 1.85 or 2.40 anyway, so a 4x3 image would probably have to be reduced to fit within the 1.85 print projection area.

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.

[Alex Boothby]

although someday I'm sure that someone will build essentially an IMAX digital camera like that, maybe one that is 6K or 8K with a 1.33 (4x3) sensor.

Somebody is - IMAX. But it's a secret. Alpha camera's have been tested - something to watch out for.

[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.