Windowed-4K for 2:35
- Thread starter kampfpudel
- Start date
taubkin
Veteran
IN my ASC Manual, we can find aspects of 2.21:1 and 2.35:1, nothing else. But we are probably talkinga bout cinemascope, and that is a camera aperture plate of 0.868" x 0.715" .The GG markings measure 0.839" x 0.715". that is a squeezed 1.175:1 image. The lens squeeze ratio is 2:1, and multiplying the two we get the 2.35:1 aspect. I grant my ASC manual is a 2nd edition, that I bought in a used bookstore in dowtown london from a chinese guy that probably had gremlings on sale... But I still take it as accurate!
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
lolHans Nystroem said:
as i said, welcome to the party..
Last edited:
kampfpudel
Active member
There could be a explanation for me. I seems that we still get 2.35:1 prints in Sweden (were I am from) and that format is still in use in many European countries. In the US the format seems to actually be 2.39:1 nowadays.
...and the popcorn they serve here is probably smaller too. :-(
...and the popcorn they serve here is probably smaller too. :-(
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
i love that particular detail..taubkin said:
tonight, this board rocks.. (3)
what have you been smoking? (2)
last but not least, where's the most important.. where are the babies? (1)
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
but seriously speaking.. again:
Hans i know that's not a question of pixels..
what i wanted to mean it was if we have 2.35:1, for instance we have 1920 x 816 (as Stuart English said)
but if it is 2:40:1 it just can be 1920 x 800 (to the 1920 format, of course)
so, i don't understand how will it be possible to handle with this at the post?
2 different versions according EU and US way-outs?
Hans i know that's not a question of pixels..
what i wanted to mean it was if we have 2.35:1, for instance we have 1920 x 816 (as Stuart English said)
but if it is 2:40:1 it just can be 1920 x 800 (to the 1920 format, of course)
so, i don't understand how will it be possible to handle with this at the post?
2 different versions according EU and US way-outs?
kampfpudel
Active member
"IN my ASC Manual, we can find aspects of 2.21:1 and 2.35:1, nothing else. But we are probably talkinga bout cinemascope, and that is a camera aperture plate of 0.868" x 0.715" .The GG markings measure 0.839" x 0.715". that is a squeezed 1.175:1 image. The lens squeeze ratio is 2:1, and multiplying the two we get the 2.35:1 aspect. I grant my ASC manual is a 2nd edition, that I bought in a used bookstore in dowtown london from a chinese guy that probably had gremlings on sale... But I still take it as accurate!"
Well...I would trust the ACS more than Wikipedia for sure...
And the math is correct.
Well...I would trust the ACS more than Wikipedia for sure...
And the math is correct.
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
and to taubkin's motherland (Brazil or Brasil?), how will it be?
edit
hey kholi is american and he's speaking about 2.35:1, so?
wait.. it's not fair to 10s, at amazon all the technical DVDs specifications are talking about 2.35:1 widescreen..
I re-ask: 10s, what have you been smoking dude?
..but for fairness, i must put the question equally to the other dudes.. my idol, jarRED..yep, including you!
edit
hey kholi is american and he's speaking about 2.35:1, so?
wait.. it's not fair to 10s, at amazon all the technical DVDs specifications are talking about 2.35:1 widescreen..
I re-ask: 10s, what have you been smoking dude?
..but for fairness, i must put the question equally to the other dudes.. my idol, jarRED..yep, including you!
Last edited:
kampfpudel
Active member
Found this: Standard SMPTE 195 recognizes 2.39:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 as current 35mm aspect ratios for theatrical exhibition
And: The current "scope" ratio is actually (0.825/0.690)X2 = 2.39:1
There we go. SMPTE 195.
And: The current "scope" ratio is actually (0.825/0.690)X2 = 2.39:1
There we go. SMPTE 195.
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
where's? at the wikipedia?..
kampfpudel
Active member
"Hans i know that's not a question of pixels..
what i wanted to mean it was if we have 2.35:1, for instance we have 1920 x 816 (as Stuart English said)
but if it is 2:40:1 it just can be 1920 x 800 (to the 1920 format, of course)
so, i don't understand how will it be possible to handle with this at the post?
2 different versions according EU and US way-outs?"
Well...I start to think perhaps the 4:3 format is not such bad format after all...at least I know what it is...or (drum roll) DO I!? ;-)
As for EU...all I can say is that in Sweden we seem to have sub-standard popcorn. For that I KNOW. ;-)
Hans -signing out 04:57 CET-
what i wanted to mean it was if we have 2.35:1, for instance we have 1920 x 816 (as Stuart English said)
but if it is 2:40:1 it just can be 1920 x 800 (to the 1920 format, of course)
so, i don't understand how will it be possible to handle with this at the post?
2 different versions according EU and US way-outs?"
Well...I start to think perhaps the 4:3 format is not such bad format after all...at least I know what it is...or (drum roll) DO I!? ;-)
As for EU...all I can say is that in Sweden we seem to have sub-standard popcorn. For that I KNOW. ;-)
Hans -signing out 04:57 CET-
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
lol
amen
amen
10s
Veteran
Hans on small screens the difference is very little, but on a huge screen that would be something noticeable so it's worth talking about. Kodak offers both 2.35 & 3.29 for their color correction software for DPs & Directors. Read ASC manual & mag, website etc... 1.85 is around 55% of USA releases and 2.39 aka 2.40 is the other remainder. Theatres use an thumb sized plate with the aspect carved out of it to define the projected ratio size. If this device wasn't in the projector the picture would be on the ceiling, floor and walls.
Back to the subject, yes having a proper cropping feature would be helpful for saving memory and processing tasks but it would eliminate the option of shifting the image in the edit. This can be a helpful option. Normally shots are framed for 1.85 or 2.40 but actually captured in a 1.33 format with the proper framing to be done at exhibition. Sometimes a hard matte is employed in production so no one goofs up and ruins the picture downstream.
Back to the subject, yes having a proper cropping feature would be helpful for saving memory and processing tasks but it would eliminate the option of shifting the image in the edit. This can be a helpful option. Normally shots are framed for 1.85 or 2.40 but actually captured in a 1.33 format with the proper framing to be done at exhibition. Sometimes a hard matte is employed in production so no one goofs up and ruins the picture downstream.
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
3.29? another format? a new one? i caught you.. smoking hein? 
maybe you want to say..
2.39?
so:
A) why DVDs releases are 2.35 widescreen? in US too!
B) why 2.35:1 in Europe if 2.39/2.40:1 in US? (is that so? is it cropped from the supposed american 2.40:1 format?)
if the answer was so simple as your signature is, 10s -- we would be glad..
maybe you want to say.. 2.39?
so:
A) why DVDs releases are 2.35 widescreen? in US too!
B) why 2.35:1 in Europe if 2.39/2.40:1 in US? (is that so? is it cropped from the supposed american 2.40:1 format?)
if the answer was so simple as your signature is, 10s -- we would be glad..
Last edited:
taubkin
Veteran
I really can't uderstand anything else at this point. You know what, let's see what we can get out of RED, and use it. I don't care if my film ends up projected in the ceiling... But I won't pay the audience's Chiropractor's Bill...
I'm from Brazil. Here we spell it "Brasil". But My ASC manual is a proud american edition (well... duh!), from 1963. Whatever that aspect is today I'll keep calling it 2:35. In Portuguese. Dois-trinta e cinco. The rest of this mess I leave to the Red guys. Heck, they are gong to get our money, they better earn it...
I'm from Brazil. Here we spell it "Brasil". But My ASC manual is a proud american edition (well... duh!), from 1963. Whatever that aspect is today I'll keep calling it 2:35. In Portuguese. Dois-trinta e cinco. The rest of this mess I leave to the Red guys. Heck, they are gong to get our money, they better earn it...
Last edited:
kampfpudel
Active member
Never mind 2.35, 2.39 or 2,40. For the moment anyway.
The idea is to be able to shoot scope with the RED.
It could be done for example with 4520 x 1950 it would give us a ratio of: aprox 2.32. We would get headroom to tweak the picture and save a lot of data when recording. Then we can crop it to 2.35, 2.39 and 2.40
Just an example. If it´s 4520 X 1950 or 2000 or something else is not the point. The point is: does it help us shoot scope and save disk space and lower the need for disk speed? If it doesn´t well...
If it does, I am assured the RED-team will come up with the optimal solution and ratio.
Just as long we don´t need anamorphic lenses for scope I am happy.
I want to rent spherical ARRI Ultra Primes for it.
The idea is to be able to shoot scope with the RED.
It could be done for example with 4520 x 1950 it would give us a ratio of: aprox 2.32. We would get headroom to tweak the picture and save a lot of data when recording. Then we can crop it to 2.35, 2.39 and 2.40
Just an example. If it´s 4520 X 1950 or 2000 or something else is not the point. The point is: does it help us shoot scope and save disk space and lower the need for disk speed? If it doesn´t well...
If it does, I am assured the RED-team will come up with the optimal solution and ratio.
Just as long we don´t need anamorphic lenses for scope I am happy.
I want to rent spherical ARRI Ultra Primes for it.
kampfpudel
Active member
The idea was actually taubkin´s.
Graeme Nattress who is a member of the RED-team (among other things, see: www.nattress.com) said earlier in this thread that they was planning to incorporate that feature in the camera.
Regards
Graeme Nattress who is a member of the RED-team (among other things, see: www.nattress.com) said earlier in this thread that they was planning to incorporate that feature in the camera.
Regards
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
Hans, better than windowed-4k, it would be what occurs with the Canon ACV-235 or even with the ERG ventures monitors.. like Mathieu Kassovitz had been posting..
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=67447
if they are getting from 1920 (1440) x 1080, why not RED?
non-square pixels right?
eventually, at 4k.. even without cropping but scaled.. c'mon any photoshop software re-size, re-squash how many times it is necessary.. why not the RED codec?
or if you prefer if Viper is handling with the widescreen ratio (2.35:1 or 2.39:1 it doesn't matter as you said..).. CHECK this.. and you too RED TEAM, please, if you are listening us as you are posting:
http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/2.351AspectRatioHD.htm
«The Viper uses an oversampling CCD and line interpolation to allow it to record an anamorphic 2.35:1 image, so it yields a true 1920x1080 resolution on that image. This ability to do 'scope format without sacrificing resolution is one of the biggest advantages of the camera."
I checked with a Thomson Camera Development Engineer, as line interpolation is not part of the Dynamic Pixel Management process. His description follows:
Oversampling and interpolation suggests you are recalculating a pixel out of several others. This is indeed not the case. The sensor makes use of sub-pixels. For 2.37 you use another set of subpixels as for 1080 or 720. By using these subpixels, you can switch to a native format in the sensor. This is the DynamicPixelManagement principle.
GEORGE C. PALMER
HDPIX, INC.
HD and Digital Imaging Services
www.hdpix.com »
so, the engineer in me asks: why not RED?
Scaled-4k for 2.35 or 2.39!
..2.35, 2.39 or 2.40, by now, it doesn't matter.. but 4k (or similar than that) matters.. why less if it's possible more..
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=67447
if they are getting from 1920 (1440) x 1080, why not RED?
non-square pixels right?
eventually, at 4k.. even without cropping but scaled.. c'mon any photoshop software re-size, re-squash how many times it is necessary.. why not the RED codec?
or if you prefer if Viper is handling with the widescreen ratio (2.35:1 or 2.39:1 it doesn't matter as you said..).. CHECK this.. and you too RED TEAM, please, if you are listening us as you are posting:
http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/2.351AspectRatioHD.htm
«The Viper uses an oversampling CCD and line interpolation to allow it to record an anamorphic 2.35:1 image, so it yields a true 1920x1080 resolution on that image. This ability to do 'scope format without sacrificing resolution is one of the biggest advantages of the camera."
I checked with a Thomson Camera Development Engineer, as line interpolation is not part of the Dynamic Pixel Management process. His description follows:
Oversampling and interpolation suggests you are recalculating a pixel out of several others. This is indeed not the case. The sensor makes use of sub-pixels. For 2.37 you use another set of subpixels as for 1080 or 720. By using these subpixels, you can switch to a native format in the sensor. This is the DynamicPixelManagement principle.
GEORGE C. PALMER
HDPIX, INC.
HD and Digital Imaging Services
www.hdpix.com »
so, the engineer in me asks: why not RED?
Scaled-4k for 2.35 or 2.39!
..2.35, 2.39 or 2.40, by now, it doesn't matter.. but 4k (or similar than that) matters.. why less if it's possible more..
Last edited:
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
We can't get a higher resolution out of the camera than the native pixel count of the camera. To try to do so is cheating, it's called "subsampling" and really doesn't work.
The best we can give you is the full sensor. You can choose how you crop it or scale it in post. We can probably crop the sensor in camera so you can get longer record times too.
Cropping the 4k to a 2.35:1 aspect will give a higher resolution picture than in camera scaling or using non-square pixels.
Graeme
The best we can give you is the full sensor. You can choose how you crop it or scale it in post. We can probably crop the sensor in camera so you can get longer record times too.
Cropping the 4k to a 2.35:1 aspect will give a higher resolution picture than in camera scaling or using non-square pixels.
Graeme