4K to 2K (or HD) resolution?

17:9 or 16:9? Does 17:9 potentially scare off some buyers? Keep them from finding the 4K sourced downsize footage since it is "multimedia" rather than "HD" in advance search?

This to consider when rendering 17:9 (ish) footage 4096x2160 in and of itself, but also when downsizing to HD (or, if maintaining the same AR, 2048x1080 "2K") which might be better for some editors, and really, is very easily made into "normal" 16:9 1920x1080 HD, but at least one agency I can think of does not accept 2K, and having the resolution/aspect ratio fall into the Pond5 "Multimedia" category rather than "HD" which is by far a better seller ...

Thoughts?

Bueller ... ?

My guess would be stick with 16:9 UHD. I think there are many buyers that could be scared off by having to figure out how to work with different aspect ratios (even though it isn't hard). Of course, this is purely speculation.

Thanks ...

That's what my tendency would be to do - I know some editors would appreciate the potential to fit the wider aspect ratio into either their project or have a bit more resolution to work with, but I'm loathe to render two versions and clog up the database, too. You're right ... sure isn't hard to fit a bigger resolution into a smaller project. When considering downsizing, obviously P5 does that (to h.264) but having a higher quality downsize I think is not a bad thing. I just don't want that "multimedia" label to curb sales.... I even have it ... the term "multimedia" to me means "low quality", even though I know it' isn't necessarily so.

I believe 16:9 also. The HD and 4K TV sets are at that ration and that is where most of the use will be.

If you are going to stay with the full 4096x2160 then render it out as 4K Cine or simply put 4K 24p. 1.90:1 (256:135) is the ratio, not 17:9

What if it's not 24? I also shoot 30 and 60. Are you saying to put the "Cine" moniker on it to communicate that it's cool, or is there actual info being expressed?

Yes, that is an actual term and is really used.