drokeby

The other thing that these aspect ratios offer that I haven't heard much talk about is that you have a completely different set of reframing options for 1080p. I often produce video for portrait orientation, and the 1:1 gives the option of copping to 1080p in either orientation, with plenty of reframing room on top.

It would be a nice addition for Panasonic to implement a Cinemascope aspect ratio right in camera using as much of the width of the sensor as possible. It is nice to have 2880 vertical resolution for anamorphic but the horizontal resolution suffers. (Not to deny the value of the special look of anamorphic lenses)
 
The sensor is 4608 pixels wide. 4608 / 2.35 is just over 1960. 4608 x 1960 is a few more pixels than 3840 x 2160 (9,031,680 versus 8,294,400) and just a bit larger than 4096x2160 (8,847,360 total pixels). 
 
One would assume that they could do 4608 x 1960 at 24 fps at least. I would love to have that frame width!
 
Or they could do 4512 x 1920 (8,663,040) or stick to their current pixel count at 4414 × 1878 (8,289,492) for 30 fps.
 
David

It would be a nice addition for Panasonic to implement a Cinemascope aspect ratio right in camera using as much of the width of the sensor as possible. It is nice to have 2880 vertical resolution for anamorphic but the horizontal resolution suffers. (Not to deny the value of the special look of anamorphic lenses)
 
The sensor is 4608 pixels wide. 4608 / 2.35 is just over 1960. 4608 x 1960 is a few more pixels than 3840 x 2160 (9,031,680 versus 8,294,400) and just a bit larger than 4096x2160 (8,847,360 total pixels). 
 
One would assume that they could do 4608 x 1960 at 24 fps at least. I would love to have that frame width!
 
Or they could do 4512 x 1920 (8,663,040) or stick to their current pixel count at 4414 × 1878 (8,289,492) for 30 fps.
 
David

It would be a nice addition for Panasonic to implement a Cinemascope aspect ratio right in camera using as much of the width of the sensor as possible. It is nice to have 2880 vertical resolution for anamorphic but the horizontal resolution suffers. (Not to deny the value of the special look of anamorphic lenses)
 
The sensor is 4608 pixels wide. 4608 / 2.35 is just over 1960. 4608 x 1960 is a few more pixels than 3840 x 2160 (9,031,680 versus 8,294,400) and just a bit larger than 4096x2160 (8,847,360 total pixels). 
 
One would assume that they could do 4608 x 1960 at 24 fps at least. I would love to have that frame width!
 
Or they could do 4512 x 1920 (8,663,040) or stick to their current pixel count at 4414 × 1878 (8,289,492) for 30 fps.
 
David

It would be a nice addition for Panasonic to implement a Cinemascope aspect ratio right in camera using as much of the width of the sensor as possible. It is nice to have 2880 vertical resolution for anamorphic but the horizontal resolution suffers. (Not to deny the value of the special look of anamorphic lenses)
 
The sensor is 4608 pixels wide. 4608 / 2.35 is just over 1960. 4608 x 1960 is a few more pixels than 3840 x 2160 (9,031,680 versus 8,294,400) and just a bit larger than 4096x2160 (8,847,360 total pixels). 
 
One would assume that they could do 4608 x 1960 at 24 fps at least. I would love to have that frame width!
 
Or they could do 4512 x 1920 (8,663,040) or stick to their current pixel count at 4414 × 1878 (8,289,492) for 30 fps.
 
David