2:1 or not 2:1, That is the question.

[Rogelio Salinas]

Just looking for some feedback. I shot a short mostly in 2:1 ratio in 4K, 3K, and 2K that I am looking at submitting to numerous film festivals. Do you guys think it would be good just to leave it in 2:1 or crop it to 16x9? Your humble opinions would be appreciated. Gracias.

[KETCH ROSSi]

I dislike 16:9 and I dislike even more the IMAX format, so for me if I did had my way would be 2:1 all the way, but no surprise here, as every one that knows me knows this, and was one of the main reasons I disliked most Medium Format sensors, apart form the one form Leaf, and most recently Leica S2.

In fact I don't think I will release my movie ion 16:9 not even in its Blue-Ray format... ;)

[Scott Crawley]

If you made full use of the format, cropping it down to 16:9 would be problematic at best and completely screw the pooch at worst, but how could someone who has never seen a frame of your film possibly help answer that question? It's a visual aesthetic choice that the core production team should be able to answer based upon the material in hand.

[Kwan Khan]

Basically, it all depends on how you're going to finish the picture.

[PatrickFaith]

I started off shooting QHD, but I've noticed very little difference in speed with the new computers and nvidea boards using 5k 2:1. Also with the 3 terabyte drives and the new 12 terabyte shuttle arrays, I'm finding I have plenty of disk space. I also am doing a lot of vfx, and having the max size allows real easy matte's & cropping when I need that. For DI work i'm often going to 2k 2:1, but I find shooting at max "everything" super useful with about no workflow delay(assuming my DI is 2k 2:1, which is often cropped in the late stages to 1080p).

[Patrick Tresch]

Why don't you master in 1:1,85?

Patrick

[Phil Holland]

I'm not a fan of 16:9 for cinema work personally. Something about the effect of sitting center seat and how it looks. I do like 2.40:1, 1.85:1, and 2:1 a whole lot though.

On IMAX however..... 16:9 and even 3:2 are pretty interesting to me.

[Scott Crawley]

I'm not a fan of 16:9 for cinema work personally. Something about the effect of sitting center seat and how it looks. I do like 2.40:1, 1.85:1, and 2:1 a whole lot though.

On IMAX however..... 16:9 and even 3:2 are pretty interesting to me.

I wonder how much of that has to do with familiarity v. novelty and is not purely aesthetically driven. We're pretty used to 16:9 on our home sets nowadays, so in the theater it isn't grand enough... Unless it is IMAX size, then it's all good!

[Rogelio Salinas]

Thank you for all the input. I decided to go with 2:1. It is such a great ratio. Not too thick, not too thin, just right. Hopefully it will take off one day as a standard format for Film and TV.