4K 2:1...

[Jannard]

We believe this should be the future standard.

Jim

[michael zaletel]

We believe this should be the future standard.

Jim

Fully agree on the 4K part...and you would know.

Curious why you prefer 2:1 over 4K HD or 16x9 in terms of devices like 40-50" flat panels, iPad HD, etc. that might seem odd at that aspect ratio?

-michael zaletel

[PatrickW]

Sounds good. When can we see it?

[Rick Darge]

amen

[Shawn Nelson]

I LOVE 4k 2:1. But I am a little confused...standard for what exactly? In home deliverable (i.e. the replacement for bluray), theatrical DCPs...?

Can you somehow influence TV makers to start making 2:1 panels?

[Alexander Ibrahim]

4K ... OK. I'm not starting that debate back up.

2:1 though ... interesting.

What are your reasons? There is an awful lot of 2.4:1, 2.35:1, 16:9, 14:9 and 4:3 material out there ... not a whole lot of 2:1.

[Jannard]

2:1 makes a great presentation. Better than 16:9 in our estimation. Acquiring in 2:1 and extracting 2.40:1 is also a viable option.

Jim

[AnthonyFlores]

Interesting Jim, you never make statements without really good reasons -- what exactly about 2:1 do you think is better than 16:9 or another?

[Sam Eilertsen]

2:1 is a nice compromise, you could view both 2.4:1 and 16:9 without too much letterboxing (although all the old 4:3 stuff would be very letterboxed).

I think that aspect ratio should be an artistic choice and films should always be viewed in the original ratio, but TV manufacturers and distributors seem to think we would prefer a chopped-off (or worse, stretched) picture just to use all the pixels.

[Nathan L Collett]

Interesting. Noted. I like that you can extract a 2:40 image... how much extracting 2:40 impact the image over shooting anamorphic?