If you're interested in more cinematic aspect ratios resolutions, you might want to consider the 2:1 aspect ratio (one of the best aspect ratios for RUclips videos): ruclips.net/video/B7HaMN_mcKk/видео.html
@UnduMedia, it's me again lol. I would like to leave a tip for filmmakers: Some people say that this Scope (2.39) ratio is overused these days, others love it and want movies in it anyway. I love this ratio, and when framed well, it looks very beautiful in many films. Now the best use of it may be when you want something that sounds very "epic", such as focusing on large environments or extensive landscapes in general, that is, if you are going to work with predominantly very horizontally elements, due to the gigantic natural width of this frame, because....... 👉depending on the context of the story and the scenes, in cases other than those described above, it may be better to use another ratio, such as 1.85 for example or even consider, in other cases, a middle-ground, such as 2:1. You must evaluate what most appropriately frames your movie. That's it😊😆😀☺👍👏
Thank you for this. I do see that end card issue with RUclips and "unsupported formats". That said, your video now supports those end screen videos after all. They need to update this for sure.
Might be a silly question, but is there any loss of image quality when using these resolutions? For instance, if I have 4K files and edit in a 3840*1608 timeline?
You won't lose any quality unless you resize the original footage... which you shouldn't need to do. If your footage is 3840x2160, you don't need to resize (scale up or down). You're leaving the width exactly the same... just cropping the height to 1608, in this case. Frankly, even if you did resize your footage (within reason) you probably wouldn't see a ton of image quality loss with 4K footage (assuming decent bitrate). For what it's worth (and I'm not sure what editor you use) for my workflow I usually edit in the ORIGINAL shot resolution, with an adjustment layer cropped to 2.39 resolution (so I can see what it will look like at that aspect ratio). Then, when I'm done, I hide the adjustment layer and crop the video in the export options. This way, I export 2.39 aspect ratio... but I always have my original resolution in the working file. In theory, I could use the same file and process to export at any other aspect ratio as well.
They are the same. Some people round up 2.39:1 and refer to it as 2.40:1. But that's more of a naming convention issue than a math one. The correct mathematical ratio is 2.39:1.
Thank you so much. I tried it on my last video, but noticed it has bars showing on the left and right side of it. I am unsure what I did wrong 😐May you please help me? Thank you.
A couple questions... you say it has black bars on left and right: 1. Do you mean the exported video (i.e. when you watch it in QuickTime or some other video player)? Or the video uploaded to RUclips? 2. What editing software are you using? And how are you exporting?
You are 100% correct about the math. But editing/production/mastering houses will usually round to the nearest even number (and preferably a number divisible by 4 or even 8... if it's close enough). It has something to do with being able to downscale digital prints without losing pixels. More importantly, though... for some formats (DCP 4K being one of them) there are just commonly accepted resolutions. And people go by those even if they're slightly off the actual math. Conversely, some sizes (3K for example) don't really have an industry "standard"... cause studios generally aren't filming at that size-ratio combination. So in some cases I'm providing the "commonly accepted industry standard" values (and I put that in quotes cause it can depend who you ask). And in other cases... where there really isn't a standard... I go by the math. Kinda make sense?
Nope. 21:9 is a commercial screen/display/monitor resolution (as opposed to a film shooting or distribution resolution). IE a device aspect ratio rather than a common film/video aspect ratio. But... 21:9 is VERY close to Cinemascope 2.35:1 (see ruclips.net/video/Ghr7LhKLaaE/видео.html).
How do you export on premiere pro like your video is when the iPhone is flipped so that the WHOLE horizontal fills up the entire screen up to the selfie camera?
Unfortunately there's no one answer. Depends on iPhone version. 11 and 12, for example, are 19.5:9 aspect ratio. Earlier versions (8 on down, I think) were 16:9. So... if you wanted to use iPhone Version 12, you'd divide 19.5 by 9 (19.5/9 = 2.16667). Then you'd multiply your target height by that number to get your width. Buuuuuut... frankly, I'd just go with 2:1 ratio. Particularly if you're doing this for RUclips. I have a 2:1 aspect ratio cheat sheet here: ruclips.net/video/B7HaMN_mcKk/видео.html
Ok so I did that but with your video, it automatically fills the whole screen from left to right where as with other videos, I have to actually zoom in order to fit video. I am in 2:1 testing on my 11 pro max. I exported 3840 x 1920. Also I tested out 19.5:9 but it still doesn’t fill the screen automatically unless I pinch 🤏 in on my iPhone. Is there a way to automatically get it to do it cause your video, I don’t need to pinch in and it’s really convenient. Any thoughts? Thanks 🙏
I really didn't change anything in the Premiere Pro export settings other than the resolution. No idea why mine would work and yours wouldn't. I'd be more inclined to think it's a RUclips or browser thing than an export settings thing.
You have to export your project at the 2.39:1 resolution you choose (3840x1608 for example). Which means you have to use Resolution > Custom when exporting (In DaVinci). If you use a preset like 3840x2180... to export a timeline set to 3840x1608... of course you'll get black bars above and below.
A lot of people do. If it's a video for RUclips, it really all just comes down to personal preference. Just be aware that you can't add end cards to videos uploaded in 2:35 or 2:39 resolution (at least not right now).
What about 2560x1072? When I do a './yt-dlp -F' on this video that is the resolution listed as the 1440p tier. Obviously you uploaded a 4K video and RUclips automatically scaled it down to that size for the 1440p tier. But I'm wondering what would happen if I uploaded: 3072x1286 (3K) 2880x1206 (3K UHD) 2048x858 (2K) Would RUclips scale those resolutions (up or down) to something else? Would it take them as-is and label the max as 1440p under the Settings gear icon? My source video resolutions are between 1080p and 1440p before editing and I'd rather not scale all the way up to 4K before uploading, even though it's not the end of the world if I do.
Hey Matt. One, you are correct, I uploaded this video at 4K container size (3840x1608). As for the resolutions you listed... I don't think (and I could be wrong) that YT will EVER upscale an uploaded video. I believe it will use the nearest container that doesn't require an upsize and then generate any sizes below that. So I SUSPECT that 2880x1206 (for example) would be sized down to 2560x1072 (the 1440p tier), but 2048x858 would be sized down to 1920x804 (the 1080p tier). If your sole (or primary) focus is RUclips for your videos, I would literally test uploading an upscaled version vs. an original version (let's say 1080p for example). I have found that... if my source footage has sufficient bit depth / bitrate... I tend to get better results by upscaling in software prior to uploading. Any loss in detail seems to be minor and more than mitigated by better YT compression results. I've tested this in the past, and several of my tutorials (all of which are 4K) have clips that were originally 1080p. And you'd be hard-pressed to tell which ones. A caveat... I really prefer to upload 4K vids whenever possible. But if you don't care about 4K, just upload your video at original size for best results.
@@UnduMedia It sounds like you accidentally discovered the VP9 trick that I found a long time ago. If you upload 1440p or higher you get a better codec and bitrate and it looks better. That's why I upload 1440p, but I've been doing it in only 16:9 aspect ratio. I have the VMAF test suite, but it's a LOT of work to encode, upload, download and then VMAF just to see what works. I did it so much I'm burnt out, but this was before I decided to go 2.39:1 aspect ratio. *sigh* I guess I'll just have to do some more testing to see what gets considered as the 1440p tier *OR* finally test upscaling all the way to 4K. At least if I upload 4K (3840x1608) I'm guaranteed to get the 1440p downscale below it automatically. Grr.....
LOL... oh, no... I knew about the VP9 trick years ago. But at a certain number of views/subs (I don't know what the magic number is) RUclips starts giving all your vids VP9 compression, regardless of original resolution. So I've tested the same video upsized from 1080p to 4K versus not upsized and uploaded as 1080p... both getting VP9 compression... and found that the 4K video looks better than the 1080p, despite the upsize. Only ONE thing... the 1080p upload looks better when viewed AT 1080p than the upsized video viewed AT 1080p. In all other sizes, the upsized video seems to have compressed better.
@@UnduMedia Thanks for the info. I'm playing with all my export tests right now. You are pushing me over the edge to probably just upscale to 4K for now on, even though none of my sources come close to that. Apparently Davinci Resolve (which I use) is pretty good at upscaling and has some fancy AI option to do it (which probably isn't even necessary). Maybe the lanczos filter will make me happy.
Lemme know how it goes for you, Matt. Without a doubt, if you're only getting the AVC codec with your 1080p uploads then you're better off upscaling to at least 1440 to get the VP9. Even with equivalent codecs (and, again, provided the original footage has high bit depth) I find that upscaled 4K ends up crisper on RUclips... but that assessment really is just me eyeballing it... it's not really objective or quantifiable in any way. My experience with Resolve is far more limited. I keep wanting to switch... I'm a Mac guy, and even with a couple pretty spec'd out setups Premiere just seems to get worse and worse every year since about 2018. BUT... if you have access to After Effects, there's an effect called "Detail Preserving Upsize" that I've used selectively and that works very well (may be similar to what's available in Resolve). I will sometimes use that to upsize the odd lower res clip in an otherwise 4K project. And I've never researched to find out why, but I find that exporting (rendering) a 1080p project to 4K yields significantly better results than scaling it in the project/timeline and then exporting it. And yeah... I'm the dingbat that spends countless (unbillable) hours testing these kinds of things cause I just can't stand not knowing.
If you're interested in more cinematic aspect ratios resolutions, you might want to consider the 2:1 aspect ratio (one of the best aspect ratios for RUclips videos): ruclips.net/video/B7HaMN_mcKk/видео.html
@UnduMedia, it's me again lol. I would like to leave a tip for filmmakers:
Some people say that this Scope (2.39) ratio is overused these days, others love it and want movies in it anyway.
I love this ratio, and when framed well, it looks very beautiful in many films. Now the best use of it may be when you want something that sounds very "epic", such as focusing on large environments or extensive landscapes in general, that is, if you are going to work with predominantly very horizontally elements, due to the gigantic natural width of this frame, because.......
👉depending on the context of the story and the scenes, in cases other than those described above, it may be better to use another ratio, such as 1.85 for example or even consider, in other cases, a middle-ground, such as 2:1. You must evaluate what most appropriately frames your movie.
That's it😊😆😀☺👍👏
Very helpful. Thanks for posting!
Glad it was helpful. Thanks for commenting!
Thank you! Works like a charm!!!
You're welcome!
2 frame sizes ranging from 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 only from cinema movies
This is incredible and helpful, thank you!
Thanks so much! Glad you enjoyed it.
Thank you for this. I do see that end card issue with RUclips and "unsupported formats". That said, your video now supports those end screen videos after all. They need to update this for sure.
What is the exact pixel resolution of this video uploaded on RUclips? It looks very cinematic on a smartphone and on an ultrawide computer monitor🤩
3840x1608
tysm, you're a real one
You're very welcome. Thank you!
Might be a silly question, but is there any loss of image quality when using these resolutions? For instance, if I have 4K files and edit in a 3840*1608 timeline?
You won't lose any quality unless you resize the original footage... which you shouldn't need to do. If your footage is 3840x2160, you don't need to resize (scale up or down). You're leaving the width exactly the same... just cropping the height to 1608, in this case.
Frankly, even if you did resize your footage (within reason) you probably wouldn't see a ton of image quality loss with 4K footage (assuming decent bitrate).
For what it's worth (and I'm not sure what editor you use) for my workflow I usually edit in the ORIGINAL shot resolution, with an adjustment layer cropped to 2.39 resolution (so I can see what it will look like at that aspect ratio). Then, when I'm done, I hide the adjustment layer and crop the video in the export options. This way, I export 2.39 aspect ratio... but I always have my original resolution in the working file. In theory, I could use the same file and process to export at any other aspect ratio as well.
@@UnduMedia many thanks!
I've seen both 2.39:1 and 2.40:1 as listed ratios. Are they the same? I've heard it's because of a rounding error but I'm not 100% certain.
They are the same. Some people round up 2.39:1 and refer to it as 2.40:1. But that's more of a naming convention issue than a math one. The correct mathematical ratio is 2.39:1.
@@UnduMedia that's what I thought. Thank you so much
No problemo!
This is how it's done. 🙏🤜🤛
Thanks!
how about 2.20:1 (todd ao)
Thank you so much. I tried it on my last video, but noticed it has bars showing on the left and right side of it. I am unsure what I did wrong 😐May you please help me? Thank you.
A couple questions... you say it has black bars on left and right:
1. Do you mean the exported video (i.e. when you watch it in QuickTime or some other video player)? Or the video uploaded to RUclips?
2. What editing software are you using? And how are you exporting?
Super helpful, thanks!😊
Glad it was helpful! You're very welcome!
But when calculated, in DCP 4K, the height is 1713 and not 1716. Am I missing something?
You are 100% correct about the math.
But editing/production/mastering houses will usually round to the nearest even number (and preferably a number divisible by 4 or even 8... if it's close enough). It has something to do with being able to downscale digital prints without losing pixels.
More importantly, though... for some formats (DCP 4K being one of them) there are just commonly accepted resolutions. And people go by those even if they're slightly off the actual math.
Conversely, some sizes (3K for example) don't really have an industry "standard"... cause studios generally aren't filming at that size-ratio combination.
So in some cases I'm providing the "commonly accepted industry standard" values (and I put that in quotes cause it can depend who you ask). And in other cases... where there really isn't a standard... I go by the math.
Kinda make sense?
@@UnduMedia Thanks a ton. My doubts are cleared. :-)
so 2.39:1 is 21:9…right ？
Nope. 21:9 is a commercial screen/display/monitor resolution (as opposed to a film shooting or distribution resolution). IE a device aspect ratio rather than a common film/video aspect ratio.
But... 21:9 is VERY close to Cinemascope 2.35:1 (see ruclips.net/video/Ghr7LhKLaaE/видео.html).
@@UnduMedia ok thanks bro！
@@UnduMediais the difference between 21x9 & 2.35:1 perceptible with the naked eye?
@@Eyeofkamau I doubt anyone... even a seasoned editor... could honestly tell you if a video was 21:9 or 2.35:1 just by looking at it.
@@UnduMedia thank you 🙏🏽!
Do you have something for 2.35:1?
LOL... why yes. I just happen to have one for 2.25:1.
It's pretty simple. Divide whatever WIDTH you want to use by 2.35 or = your HIGH resolution for your video. Sample 4k 3840%2.35= 1634. (4k 3840x1634).
Thank you
You're welcome!
How do you export on premiere pro like your video is when the iPhone is flipped so that the WHOLE horizontal fills up the entire screen up to the selfie camera?
Unfortunately there's no one answer. Depends on iPhone version. 11 and 12, for example, are 19.5:9 aspect ratio. Earlier versions (8 on down, I think) were 16:9. So... if you wanted to use iPhone Version 12, you'd divide 19.5 by 9 (19.5/9 = 2.16667). Then you'd multiply your target height by that number to get your width. Buuuuuut... frankly, I'd just go with 2:1 ratio. Particularly if you're doing this for RUclips. I have a 2:1 aspect ratio cheat sheet here: ruclips.net/video/B7HaMN_mcKk/видео.html
Ok so I did that but with your video, it automatically fills the whole screen from left to right where as with other videos, I have to actually zoom in order to fit video. I am in 2:1 testing on my 11 pro max. I exported 3840 x 1920. Also I tested out 19.5:9 but it still doesn’t fill the screen automatically unless I pinch 🤏 in on my iPhone. Is there a way to automatically get it to do it cause your video, I don’t need to pinch in and it’s really convenient. Any thoughts? Thanks 🙏
Does it fill the screen if you click the little square at the bottom-right of the video?
I really didn't change anything in the Premiere Pro export settings other than the resolution. No idea why mine would work and yours wouldn't. I'd be more inclined to think it's a RUclips or browser thing than an export settings thing.
just crop it in premiere pro post prod lol, just make sure your shots have enough space.. so when u crop it u don't lose the important stuff in framr
thank you my man
You're welcome, sir!
Super helpful but there is slight bars
Where?
Up and down. But guess you can zoom in in davinci to fix. It
You have to export your project at the 2.39:1 resolution you choose (3840x1608 for example). Which means you have to use Resolution > Custom when exporting (In DaVinci).
If you use a preset like 3840x2180... to export a timeline set to 3840x1608... of course you'll get black bars above and below.
What’s this aspect ratio in whole numbers?
Well, 239 is a prime number. So the best answer you'll get is 239:100. But 2.40:1 (which is practically the same) would be 12:5.
Very slick. Thanks.
You bet!
Merci beaucoup
Avec plaisir.
This is just for movie screen
Isn't this nice?
Awesome
thank you!!
You're welcome!
wendigoon
Yo subo mis videos en ese formato 2.35:1
A lot of people do. If it's a video for RUclips, it really all just comes down to personal preference. Just be aware that you can't add end cards to videos uploaded in 2:35 or 2:39 resolution (at least not right now).
What about 2560x1072?
When I do a './yt-dlp -F' on this video that is the resolution listed as the 1440p tier. Obviously you uploaded a 4K video and RUclips automatically scaled it down to that size for the 1440p tier.
But I'm wondering what would happen if I uploaded:
3072x1286 (3K)
2880x1206 (3K UHD)
2048x858 (2K)
Would RUclips scale those resolutions (up or down) to something else? Would it take them as-is and label the max as 1440p under the Settings gear icon?
My source video resolutions are between 1080p and 1440p before editing and I'd rather not scale all the way up to 4K before uploading, even though it's not the end of the world if I do.
Hey Matt. One, you are correct, I uploaded this video at 4K container size (3840x1608).
As for the resolutions you listed... I don't think (and I could be wrong) that YT will EVER upscale an uploaded video. I believe it will use the nearest container that doesn't require an upsize and then generate any sizes below that. So I SUSPECT that 2880x1206 (for example) would be sized down to 2560x1072 (the 1440p tier), but 2048x858 would be sized down to 1920x804 (the 1080p tier).
If your sole (or primary) focus is RUclips for your videos, I would literally test uploading an upscaled version vs. an original version (let's say 1080p for example). I have found that... if my source footage has sufficient bit depth / bitrate... I tend to get better results by upscaling in software prior to uploading. Any loss in detail seems to be minor and more than mitigated by better YT compression results. I've tested this in the past, and several of my tutorials (all of which are 4K) have clips that were originally 1080p. And you'd be hard-pressed to tell which ones.
A caveat... I really prefer to upload 4K vids whenever possible. But if you don't care about 4K, just upload your video at original size for best results.
@@UnduMedia It sounds like you accidentally discovered the VP9 trick that I found a long time ago. If you upload 1440p or higher you get a better codec and bitrate and it looks better. That's why I upload 1440p, but I've been doing it in only 16:9 aspect ratio.
I have the VMAF test suite, but it's a LOT of work to encode, upload, download and then VMAF just to see what works. I did it so much I'm burnt out, but this was before I decided to go 2.39:1 aspect ratio. *sigh* I guess I'll just have to do some more testing to see what gets considered as the 1440p tier *OR* finally test upscaling all the way to 4K. At least if I upload 4K (3840x1608) I'm guaranteed to get the 1440p downscale below it automatically. Grr.....
LOL... oh, no... I knew about the VP9 trick years ago. But at a certain number of views/subs (I don't know what the magic number is) RUclips starts giving all your vids VP9 compression, regardless of original resolution. So I've tested the same video upsized from 1080p to 4K versus not upsized and uploaded as 1080p... both getting VP9 compression... and found that the 4K video looks better than the 1080p, despite the upsize. Only ONE thing... the 1080p upload looks better when viewed AT 1080p than the upsized video viewed AT 1080p. In all other sizes, the upsized video seems to have compressed better.
@@UnduMedia Thanks for the info. I'm playing with all my export tests right now. You are pushing me over the edge to probably just upscale to 4K for now on, even though none of my sources come close to that. Apparently Davinci Resolve (which I use) is pretty good at upscaling and has some fancy AI option to do it (which probably isn't even necessary). Maybe the lanczos filter will make me happy.
Lemme know how it goes for you, Matt. Without a doubt, if you're only getting the AVC codec with your 1080p uploads then you're better off upscaling to at least 1440 to get the VP9. Even with equivalent codecs (and, again, provided the original footage has high bit depth) I find that upscaled 4K ends up crisper on RUclips... but that assessment really is just me eyeballing it... it's not really objective or quantifiable in any way.
My experience with Resolve is far more limited. I keep wanting to switch... I'm a Mac guy, and even with a couple pretty spec'd out setups Premiere just seems to get worse and worse every year since about 2018.
BUT... if you have access to After Effects, there's an effect called "Detail Preserving Upsize" that I've used selectively and that works very well (may be similar to what's available in Resolve). I will sometimes use that to upsize the odd lower res clip in an otherwise 4K project. And I've never researched to find out why, but I find that exporting (rendering) a 1080p project to 4K yields significantly better results than scaling it in the project/timeline and then exporting it.
And yeah... I'm the dingbat that spends countless (unbillable) hours testing these kinds of things cause I just can't stand not knowing.