Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

"Our" 2k is for delivery to DI for episodic - personally I don't think they are bothering to do an 1080 HD extraction for broadcast - more likely a straight resize to HD unless they want some bs repo in colour (yes "colour" people - not color, smileyface, emoticon, blah blah blah). --- Andrew

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

I'm sure all is correct, but I have to admit that lately a lot of formats popped up, and it is harder to assume stuff cause everyone has slightly different needs/specs. Am 30.11.2016 um 12:55 schrieb Howard Jones: I’m realiably told by the production company that are supplying the final image

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

I’m realiably told by the production company that are supplying the final image that this is the actual projection size… We are providing 1998*1124 for a 1. apect with a 1:85 to be extracted at 1080 as Ron says. Howard Jones Visual Effects Supervisor m: 07973 265624 | e: how...@axis-vfx.com

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

I used 1998 several times as well, but with a 1080 height for a 1.85 ratio. R Ron Ganbar email: ron...@gmail.com tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK] +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel] url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/ On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Igor Majdandzic wrote: > Well thats a weird

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

Well thats a weird number Am 30.11.2016 um 10:08 schrieb Howard Jones: Out of interest the theatrical presentation we have to deliver is 1998 not 2048 Howard On 29 Nov 2016, at 10:28 pm, Andrew Mumford > wrote: Actually 2K_1.77 that would have been my next choice

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

Out of interest the theatrical presentation we have to deliver is 1998 not 2048 Howard > On 29 Nov 2016, at 10:28 pm, Andrew Mumford wrote: > > Actually 2K_1.77 that would have been my next choice given that it is a > bona-fide theatrical presentation aspect - I dont care what you "Yanks" say,

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

Actually 2K_1.77 that would have been my next choice given that it is a bona-fide theatrical presentation aspect - I dont care what you "Yanks" say, smiley face, emoticon, internet cat's, LOL etc etc ad nauseam, BTW - as far as I'm aware these are sony originated dpx's so I dont think it's lim

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

2K_1.777 ha ha ha On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Deke Kincaid wrote: > 2K_1.77 > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Mumford wrote: > >> Is there a standard term for 2048x1152 yet people are using ? >> >> 2K_HD / HD_2K ? >> >> --- >> Andrew Mumford >> >> >>

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

2K_1.77 On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Mumford wrote: > Is there a standard term for 2048x1152 yet people are using ? > > 2K_HD / HD_2K ? > > --- > Andrew Mumford > > > ___ > Nuke-users mailing list > Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http:

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

It's not a delivery format so it doesn't need a SPEC Name. But just call it RED 2k. Randy S. Little http://www.rslittle.com/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Joseph Goldstone wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2016, at 9:53 PM, Ian Northrop wrote: > > I think I’ve se

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

On Nov 28, 2016, at 9:53 PM, Ian Northrop mailto:jblsur...@yahoo.com>> wrote: I think I’ve seen UHD used to describe this format. Then someone is really confused. UHD [technically UHDTV-1] is 3840 x 2160. Note that ITU and SMPTE terminology NEVER use the term “4K” for this; unfortunately both

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

I think I've seen UHD used to describe this format. > El nov 28, 2016, a las 4:52 PM, Andrew Mumford escribió: > > Is there a standard term for 2048x1152 yet people are using ? > > 2K_HD / HD_2K ? > --- > Andrew Mumford > ___ > Nuke-users mailing li

Re: [Nuke-users] The "New" 2k

I don't know if HD would be appropriate in this case, since that's probably best reserved for 1080. Maybe 2k_1.78? On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Mumford wrote: > Is there a standard term for 2048x1152 yet people are using ? > > 2K_HD / HD_2K ? > > --- > Andrew Mumford > > > _