Framing for 1.85 in prores 2k

Hi,

I'm going to be filming a short soon on my mini 4.6- I really wanted to shoot prores 2k to keep things simple- does anyone know a trick to get accurate 1.85 frame lines in 2k mode- the 1.85 frame guides that I can find assume a full (2048) width- but I only want 1998 wide - setting the safe guides to 95% makes it a smidge to small and keeping at 2048 means a scale down to 1998 which is rather not do

Thanks in advance!

well the safe area wont crop the video, and having a little bit of border around 5% will give you a little room for reframing or stabilization, so Id frame for the 95% safe guide and then revisit it in post. You can find a scale factor that works perfectly for you and apply it to every clip, and then reframe if you feel you clipped something or want more headroom.

I'd not rely on the safe area at 95% because your desired horizontal dimension is only 2.5% smaller than the 2K width. If you shoot 2K 16:9, then the desired vertical is 6.67% smaller than the recorded frame. So the 95% safe area would be helpful. Remember to keep your horizontal image just inside the 2K frame and just inside the 95% safe area on the vertical.

Having those extra pixels recorded is not a waste as you can define a 1998x1080 timeline with no scaling and then stabilize or reframe in post. I'm not a fan of shooting in your deliverable frame size. It's not film where you need to be so careful and get it perfect in camera. It's digital. It's to your advantage to go big and perfect your frame in post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Rick and Kyle

I didn't want to scale if possible, but disappointing there isn't a way to do it in camera...

I guess we'll have to flip between scaling from 2048 to 1998, from 1920 up to 1998 or shoot raw and scale down. Or just shoot scope

Thanks anyway

Gavin, why scale down a few percent? If you are doing the post processing, compose your shots a little within the boundaries of a frame that is somewhat larger than your deliverable and use the extra pixels to stabilize or reframe to perfection in post. Your results will likely be sharper without the small downscale. Up to you and forgive my repetition of my recommendation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

scaling up is problematic, but scaling down often increases apparent resolution and if you scale down enough (like 4k to HD) there are even noise reduction benefits.

Or you can just crop 1:1 and not worry about scaling, but still have the headroom to recompose the shot if you like.

Also, the margins allow for stabilization without losing your composed frame.

Thanks again guys,

I wanted to be really precise with my composition on this one hence the somewhat anal questioning!

The tiny up or down scales from 2k or hd would most likely harm the picture so I think it'll have to be raw then a downscale to 1998*1080

I was hoping there would be a way to precisely frame for 1.85 in the 2k prores modes for a flat delivery because I love popping the cards in and cutting straight away with an adjustment layer Lut! But it seems like the camera doesn't support this delivery format straight off (although I think that's an opportunity blackmagic)

Anyway good job my titan x doesn't have a problem with raw at 24fps!

Cheers

Gavin- I confuse easily so if I've got this wrong please don't take offense but I think if you'll go back and read the second paragraph of Rick's first response and then give it a little thought you'll realize that you wouldn't be scaling anything with this approach.

Thanks, David.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi David,

I totally get it- Ricks idea would be a good workaround- it just so happens that I've decided to go 4K - it's not that scary anymore and raw makes a lot of sense over prores at 4K if you're systems can handle it...

I bought a 4K blu ray over the weekend and I'm fairly shocked by the lack of native 4K discs... so it may add value later on

Thanks

Gavin

why dont you just crop instead of resizing? then you can use the safe area to frame the picture.

Gavin, don't take offense but I'm confused by your responses. David, Kyle, and Rick's advice are spot on to how you'd handle the re-framing. Just crop it in post is what I would advice as well. Good luck.

Gavin, what I was suggesting applies equally to 4K. To reiterate now you're shooting 4K, and if you mean you are actually planning to record 3840x2160, then I would recommend you record at least 4K 16:9 4096x2304 within a 95% Safe Area. It's the same thinking as applies to the 2K suggestion.

If you are delivering UHD, you have another interesting option which will possibly improve your raw debayer. You could record in 4.6K 4608x2592 and use Resolve to downscale that to 4096x2304 to improve your colour, increase your detail, and reduce your image noise somewhat. Then bring that 4096x2304 footage centred onto an UHD 3840x2160 timeline so you have some wiggle room for precise reframing or image stabilization. It's another step, but your results may justify the extra work.

No wonder John Brawley says I overthink this stuff!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kyle, Ellory- sorry maybe I didn't make myself clear- I'll be using Ricks advice in a 4K version!

Rick, thank you- that's a lot of thought!

My big issue is that bm's support for 1.85 seems to be a bit haphazard-

In the attached photo, the 1.85 frame lines lie outside of the actual recorded frame and seem to do so on any of the dci modes- which is a strange behaviour! I would have thought within a dci mode, the frame lines would just sit vertically at the 1998 or 3996 edges... or at least within the recorded frame

There are workarounds- I just think as a digital cinema camera it should have robust inbuilt support for both of two standard dcp formats...

Or maybe it's just me!

Gavin, in that 4K DCI resolution, the 1.85:1 frame guide is showing you approximately what the aspect ratio will look like if applied in post to the 4K DCI frame. 4K DCI has an aspect ratio if 1.896:1 as compared to the 1.85:1 aspect ratio in the frame; the 4.6K sensor will use 4096 pixel width.

Edit
Thinking about it, I see what you mean. Looks like a bug as the guide should have vertical borders to delineate a width of 3996 photosites and the height of 2160 photosites! The guide could be thought of as incorrect but you could argue either approach is fine. Shooting 4K 16:9 will give you extra vertical room to reframe down to 4096x2214 or 3996x2160.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk