2.39 for 16:9

[Dmitry Savinov_38080]

Hi everyone!

I'm starting a prep for a TV series thriller and I decided to shoot anamorphic

Creative producer is absolutely agreed with my decision and everybody liked the idea but general producer tells that he is not able to convince the TV company to leave aspect ratio as it is (2.39:1 at 16:9 TV aspect so it will have black bars at top and bottom)

So we are disscussing now framing at "2.39 safe for 16:9" and zooming it during post for about 40 % to fit 16:9 without black bars (such a pity!!!).We are going to use Alexa XT so ProRes 2K will not fit the task for its resolution and compression and we will do it with ARRIRAW but producers actually don't like the idea of RAW for it is more than 10 Gb/min and they would have much more storage and delivering problems than using ProRes

Does anybody have another experience with the same problem-putting 2.39 into 16:9 aspect without disgusting pan and scan,zooming etc? Or if it is not possible,how could we get it at minimum negative impact to image quality?

Thanx a lot)

[Dmitry Savinov_38080]

UPD

Lenses with x1.3 are not available in our country,x2 only...

[Stuart Brereton]

Another option would be to shoot spherical 16:9 and crop to 2.40:1. If you use something like the 'Fincher' ground glass or 1/4 offset frame lines, you can accommodate both ARs

 

David Mullen talks about this here:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=66243

[Dmitry Savinov_38080]

Not exactly what I asked indeed)

I do not want to simulate anamorphic look,I want to shoot true anamorphic for its shallow depth,flares etc,not spherical,the problem is that TV studio wants 16:9 without top and bottom black bars

Any other ideas?)

Edited June 1, 2015 by Dmitry Savinov_38080

[David Mullen ASC]

If you get a 4:3 Alexa, you would be recording 2048 x 1536 pixels for anamorphic in 2K ProRes. So you'd basically be cropping this to 1365 x 1536 and then unsqueezing and resampling that to 1920 x 1080 -- a loss of horizontal resolution but a gain in vertical, so I think it would be a wash and be OK for TV, assuming the network wants to pay for this step, but it's inevitable since the image has a squeeze to it anyway.

 

Your only other choice would be to shoot on an Amira or Alexa Mini, which I think can do 3.2K and up-sampled 3.8K (UHD) ProRes but I don't know if there is a 4:3 Amira. 16:9 3.2K would be something like 3200 x 1800, if it exists on the Amira, so that would be 1600 x 1800 for a 16x9 extraction of an image with a 2X squeeze, again then unsqueezed and resampled to 1920 x 1080. But if the Amira doesn't have an anamorphic mode, then you have to watch everything on set with a 2X squeeze, which you may not like.

[Mark Kenfield]

Have you look into renting 1.3x from another country? Particularly with long-form projects like a series that can be an option. Shoot Alexa 4:3 with 1.3x squeeze for a 16:9 image with anamorphic characteristics and the full resolution of the sensor. There'd be no awkward cropping and reframing you'd have to do then. I imagine it'd save you quite a lot of fuss and bother.

[Phil Connolly]

As David said, Its probably worth testing the 4:3 Alexa 2k with a crop - you never know it might hold up. Back in the day lots of "HD" cameras weren't full HD e.g the F900 (1440 x 1080) and they would look fine. So if the footage was well shot, you might get away with the softness of the post crop.

 

I think the Amira is 16:9 only. Or you could look at a RED - the crop on a 16:9 sensor would be a bit fearsome, so getting a wide enough lens might be an issue - but you'd probably have ample resolution for HD broadcast.

 

The recent TV series "Vikings" did some sequences with anamorphic lens's composed for 16:9 - looked pretty good, but the effect seemed more subtle without the normal widescreen frame. I believe they shot ArriRAW though and Panavision glass

[Dmitry Savinov_38080]

Thanks a lot,I will test 2K ProRes for sure but I am sure it will not fit because of compression impact

I wonder which way they had walked shooting american version of The Bridge TV series?

[Phil Rhodes]

One crazy notion.

 

The GH4 stills camera now has a 4:3 mode, so you can shoot 2:1 anamorphic on it at 3328 by 2496 and end up with more or less the same resolution as Alexa, for cropping back to 16:9.

 

On the other hand, well, it's a DSLR. Probably not what you're really after, but I thought I'd mention it for completeness.

 

P

[Miguel Angel]

We shot Vikings on spherical Panavision lenses and prores, using Arriraw for some green screen and vfx work and anamorphic for 16:9 in some sequences.

 

I recently worked on a commercial where we were shooting with anamorphic lenses for 16:9 and although it was shot on Epic Dragon you can do the same on the Alexa.

 

Have a good day.

[Dmitry Savinov_38080]

Just qiut watching an episode of BBC's Outcasts shot with the same "crop crap"

It was shot nativlely anamorphic with Kowa/D21 and cropped to 16:9 later

Looks amazing even being cropped! Flares,shallow depth,bokeh and all that stuff saved despite of the crop so I think that is my choice(replacing D21 to Alexa XT 4:3 mode of course)))

So the point is to test ProRes vs RAW and to solve framing problems

One more question to all the community:

What would be the framing workflow?select anamorphic 2.39 frameline and anamorphic 1.78 frameline and than desqeeze and tape all the area outside 16:9 on my monitors?am I right?

Edited June 2, 2015 by Dmitry Savinov_38080

[cole t parzenn]

a loss of horizontal resolution but a gain in vertical, so I think it would be a wash and be OK for TV

 

The Alexa is already over sampled - are you really gaining anything?

[David Mullen ASC]

 

The Alexa is already over sampled - are you really gaining anything?

 

I was trying to answer the question about resolution loss from cropping a 2K 4:3 anamorphic 2.40 recording to get a 16:9 HD full-frame image. My point was that the resolution loss was only in the horizontal (you end up having to uprez 1365 to 1920 pixels) but that might be visually offset from the fact that the vertical resolution was a downsample from 1536 to 1080 pixels. So I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, a 4:3 anamorphic 2.40 ARRIRAW recording might give you enough resolution to oversample, but he was asking about a 2K ProRes recording and knowing that he would be cropping 2048 to something less than 1920.

[Dmitry Savinov_38080]

I will do test in both formats anyway,that is for sure)

My next point is how to organize proper framing on set

Any ideas?)

[Dmitry Savinov_38080]

Right now I've two shots reframed,graded and output at ProRes4444 1080p

One of shots is 2K ProRes4444,other one is ARRIRAW,both shot anamorphic with Alexa and Hawk 45-90

ProRes clip shows much more of "pixel granity" and a bit more loss of sharpness than the Raw one but still it is suitable for network applications

Resuming that I will do my best to convince the production to use ARRIRAW to have some extra quality but if not,it will not be a complete disaster)))

Still looking for advices of the way to fast and easy framing while shooting...

Edited June 4, 2015 by Dmitry Savinov_38080

[Dmitry Savinov_38080]

It still looks much more better than 35 mm print of optical blown-up 16mm negative))))))

[Phil Connolly]

Some small field monitors have a custom guide feature. Something like the Small HD DP7-Pro should be able to do the job as it has an anamorphic de-squeeze and custom guides. Pretty sure it can do both at the same time:

 

 

http://www.eoshd.com/2011/02/anamorphic-monitoring-on-the-smallhd-dp6/

[James Martin]

If it helps, or to clarify, the Amira, despite having the 4:3 sensor, does not have a 4:3 mode and probably never will.

 

What Phil says about HD cameras is partly true - the F900 was a full 1080P camera, but the tape deck sub-sampled.

 

The problem is shooting on anamorphic with the alexa, then cropping the middle, you're using a very small sliver of a sensor and the resulting picture might not be up to standard... but I don't know what standards you need to meet.

 

Personally I would as others have suggested shoot spherical, however it seems that is not an option for you.

[Miguel Angel]

So, let me recap because I might not understand the conversation.

You want to shoot on anamorphic but with a 16:9 output, is that right? What's the problem?

 

I personally think that using an Alexa for 16:9 on anamorphic mode with either Prores or ARRIRAW is more than enough, even for theatrical distribution if needed (and of course if the network is happy with it) let's remember that not to long ago people shot Tv series and movies on the F900 and looked great!

 

It is being used on Vikings for some sequences and the show goes through quite a bit of grading and etc and it looks really good.

 

As to how to frame, you can create your own frame set in the Alexa so it is just a matter of creating a 16:9 framing for anamorphic and then you can send that framing to the video village, that easy.

 

Even if you go to the Alexa FrameLine Composer on the Arri Website (http://www.arri.com/ES/camera/alexa/tools/alexa_frameline_composer/) you can see that the anamorphic mode has a 1.77:1 / 1.78:1 mode already enabled (which is very very close to 16:9 if I remember correctly right?)

 

Maybe I am missing something in the conversation? If so, my apologies!

 

Have a good day.

[Dmitry Savinov_38080]

Yes that was my question-do I have to use both 2.39 and 1.78 anamorphic framelines and than desqeeze and tape my monitirs fo 1.78 or I have to somehow make 1.78 framelines AFTER desqueeze?

[James Martin]

You can create custom framelines for the ALEXA on the ARRI website.

 

 

Like...

 

http://www.arri.com/fileadmin/adapps/frameline_v3/index.php?camera=ALEXA&sensorMode=4_3&aspectA=2.39a&ownAspectA=&markerStyleA=1&outsideShadingA=0&shrink_A=100&formatNameA=2.39:1anamorphic2x_scaling100%&aspectB=1.85a&ownAspectB=&markerStyleB=1&outsideShadingB=0&shrink_B=100&formatNameB=1.85:1anamorphic2x_scaling100%&aspectC=0&ownAspectC=&markerStyleC=1&shrink_C=100&formatNameC=Format C&position=undefined&centerMarker=off&lineWidth=4&shrink=100&aPosH=0&bPosH=0&cPosH=0

[James Martin]

Just remember you will only be getting a resolution of 1365 x 1536 for the 16x9 extraction. Someone correct my maths if I am wrong.

 

Before anyone rushes to mention the F900 again, it is worth pointing out the F900 had three sensors. So an F900 centre crop had three times 1920 x 800 - or approx 4.5MP - versus approximately 2MP for a 16:9 extraction from the ALEXA 4:3 sensor.

 

I wouldn't even want to do the maths if you were cropping from a 16x9 sensor... it wouldn't be good!

[cole t parzenn]

 

I was trying to answer the question about resolution loss from cropping a 2K 4:3 anamorphic 2.40 recording to get a 16:9 HD full-frame image. My point was that the resolution loss was only in the horizontal (you end up having to uprez 1365 to 1920 pixels) but that might be visually offset from the fact that the vertical resolution was a downsample from 1536 to 1080 pixels. So I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, a 4:3 anamorphic 2.40 ARRIRAW recording might give you enough resolution to oversample, but he was asking about a 2K ProRes recording and knowing that he would be cropping 2048 to something less than 1920.

 

I was just noting that the 2K full color image is already downsampled from the 2.8K Bayer.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, 2K is downsampled from 2.8K, but once it's a 2K file, it no longer has 2.8K resolution so he'd be upscaling horizontally once he's cropped a 2K file from 2.40 to 1.78 to get to 1920.

[James Martin]

I suppose the important thing is he should shoot something and see if it is good enough for him - numbers rarely give us a true indication of subjective picture quality. It might look alright. It might not.

 

With anamorphic too I guess the picture you begin with may not be using the full resolution of the sensor anyway, which will hurt you too.