Jump to content


Photo

Alexa 2x Anamorphic - to squeeze down or stretch out?


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Australia/Wherever The Wind Takes Me

Posted 09 February 2017 - 03:27 AM

Hi guys,

 

Just wondering if there's any particular standard that people tend to go with for a 2x anamorphic workflow with ProRes from the Alexa - are you generally squeezing the 4:3 2048x1556 image down and cropping the sides for a 2k 2.39:1 image (2048x858)?

 

Or stretching the picture horizontally (to get a 4k 4096x1556 Cinemascope image) and then cropping the sides down to a 2.39:1 3719x1556 picture? (or 5162x2160 when recording 2.8k Arriraw)

 

I'm wondering what people's go-to recipes are.

 

Cheers,

Mark


  • 0


Support Cinematography.com and buy gear using our Amazon links!
PANASONIC LUMIX GH5 Body 4K Mirrorless Camera, 20.3 Megapixels, Dual I.S. 2.0, 4K 422 10-bit, Full Size HDMI Out, 3 Inch Touch LCD, DC-GH5KBODY (USA Black)

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11774 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 February 2017 - 04:41 AM

Depends what your deliverable is, I guess.

 

When I recently shot some 1.3:1 stuff on an Ursa I letterboxed it into a 1080p frame, but it's only for Vimeo.

 

Does the Alexa not support marking the pixel aspect ratio in the file? Even if it doesn't, which would astonish me but I must admit I don't know, you could remux it with a software tool and mark it as 2:1, then you could work on it on a flat timeline without much care as to the actual resolution.

 

P


  • 0

#3 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Australia/Wherever The Wind Takes Me

Posted 09 February 2017 - 08:32 AM

Thanks Phil, it's pretty simple and painless to do it either way in Resolve (you just tell it the clips are cinemascope in the clip attributes) and then set the output scaling to clip off the sides of the 2.67:1 image to just give you 2.39:1 instead.

 

I can see some distinct advantages to working with 3719x1556 (which could be downsampled to a nice sharp 2k afterwards, or kept in near-UHD for a broader range of options. I guess mostly I'm just wondering whether anyone's likely to have issues with, or complain about a non-standard resolution like 3719x1556.


  • 0



The Slider

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

CineLab

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport