PYXIS// 6K 16:9 aspect ratio

Hello everyone,
First time poster, so be easy on me
I searched the forums here and I have not immediately seen it being mentioned anywhere.

My question is: Is there a reason why on PYXIS the setting for 6K 16:9 crop is not actually exactly 16:9? By my testing and calculations it's off by 6 vertical pixels.

On Pocket 6K (non-FF) 6K = 6144x3456 = 1.77777778
On PYXIS 6K 16:9 = 6048x3408 = 1.77464788
Why not, for example: 6048x3402 = 1.77777778

Is there a reason why 3408 vertical is significant? Could there be a change in the update, that would bring the 6K 16:9 setting to represent the correct 16:9 ratio?

Background: We have started integrating PYXIS cameras into our workflow along with 6K Pockets Pro for some projects, and our editor mentioned that the aspect ratios don't match, which started the conversation. In Resolve he is using Fill setting in Scaling for the PYXIS footage to get rid of the "edge bleed" if Pocket is below in the timeline. It's annoying at best, would be amazing if it could be addressed in the update if possible.

Thank you for reading.
JaSem.

The resolution of the sensor must be evenly divisible by 8. In post you can define the resolution to 3402 so you’re using an aspect ratio of 16:9. But set the Project Settings / Image Scaling to ‘Centre crop with no resizing’. So you can shift the image in the frame +/- 3 lines to reframe the image if you like.

Thank you for your reply Rick.

Yeah I get what you're saying about project settings, it might just be a better workaround than what we've been using, a workaround nevertheless. It would not be an issue at all, pretty much, if only the discrepancy wasn't so minute and tiny that it can be easily overlooked.

Regarding the reasons and the divisibility by 8. I was not aware that such requirement exists, so thank you for bringing that up. I'm not knowledgable enough with intricacies of the internal image processing, it just seems bizzare that a crop settings are affected in such manner with sensor readout. I guess we are stuck with the workarounds with this one.

Thanks again for clearing all that up for me.