2.40:1 protecting for 16:9

[Ben Richardson]

I'm about to shoot a project on the Scarlet.

We are leaning towards a theatrical presentation and shoot at 2.40:1, but rather than do a full pan-and-scan from the 2.40:1 frame for 16:9 deliverables, would rather use a little more top and bottom.

What would be a way to set the Scarlet up to show me and the director a 2.40:1 frame, with the 16:9 (not quite common top) visible?

And what would be the best way to shoot this at 4K? 4K HD?

Attached is an image showing what I'm thinking about.

Thanks, Ben

[Matt Ryan]

You will be able to achieve 2:35 within the 16x9 area. Shoot in 4KHD and enable the 2:35 guides. Frame for your 2:35 and then in post you have both the full 16x9 image and if needed you can crop or drop on black bars to create the 2:35 output. Done this on two shorts now. Hope this helps.

The reasoning for shooting in 4KHD is that it is a 16x9 image that downscales perfectly to 1920x1080 without any difficult math, and can also be cropped to create the 2:35/2:40 finish as long as you framed for the 2:35/2:40 to begin with.

[David Mullen ASC]

If you can move up the 2.40 frame lines inside 16x9 for a near common top effect, that would be best because then you won't have excessive headroom in the 16x9 version and the boom man will thank you as well.

However, on my three Red features shot for 2.40, I recorded 2:1, which you can get away with center extraction, and 2:1 is a nice compromise, you don't have to protect as much of the frame as when recording 16x9, and you just lose a little on the sides and gain a little top & bottom (compared to the 2.40 version) when making the 16x9 version... so I think it's almost easier to get a decent 16x9 frame when you've composed for 2.40, because 2:1 is right in the middle of the two aspect ratios. However, it does mean spending more time making the 16x9 version from 2:1 compared to just recording 16x9 in the first place and using that for the 16x9 version, but that's assuming you won't need to do any reframing -- and the truth is that you often do if you composed well for 2.40.

I once asked a DP who shot in 35mm anamorphic if he made any framing compromises so that it would be easier to make the later 4x3 TV version and I loved his response: "I figure that the worse it looks in 4x3 the better I must have composed it for 2.40."

[Mick van Rossum, NSC]

I also completed a movie for both 1:2.39 and 16:9. I recorded in 4K 2:1 and had two frameguides; 16:9 and 2:39 (with the 2:39 on 75% in the frame (so more to the top) I was able to reframe later in post; the 2:39 vertically and the 16:9 horizontally thanks to the 2:1 ratio. The other good thing was that I had exactly twice the resolution for 16 :9 in HD (3840x2160) and at the same time exactly double the resolution for the 2K DCP in 2 :39 : 4096x1716 . Before I had shot a movie with the Alexa with 2:39 extraction from the 16:9 which was more complex to frame somehow.