I don’t wanna bag on these charts because clearly a lot of energy went in to making them but there are a few things that really stick out to me.

1st is that if you’re still working in standard definition then you’re not working with square pixels. The pixel aspect ratio is going to be different depending on whether or not you’re mastering for NTSC or PAL, and also anamorphic widescreen or 1.33:1. Kind of a nitpick because I doubt anyone is really setting up their main timeline in standard definition anymore, but worth keeping in mind.

2nd, I would say is that it seems unwise to use a chart like this to dictate your project’s resolution instead of basing it off of your acquisition specs. As an example, let’s say I’m shooting with an Ursa 12K and I want to frame for and generate a 4:3/1.33:1 master. Using this chart, I would want to set my project’s resolution to 12288 x 9216, right? Well, the problem there is that the Ursa 12K’s sensor isn’t able to acquire in that resolution. Its full frame acquisition format is 12288 x 6480, so if I set the project’s resolution to 12288 x 9216 then I would have to crop and scale the 4:3 centre of the Ursa’s sensor to fit that resolution. That doesn’t really add detail though, and it would add a ton of computational overhead and storage bloat, so it would make a lot more sense for the “12K 1.33:1” preset to be something around 8618×6480—the 1.33:1 crop from the 12288×6480 sensor.

I guess what I’m saying is that this chart is nice but it’s also kind of divorced from some best practices that could save a lot of time and aggravation over the course of a project. Also—as other folks have said—there are a lot of aspect ratios included here that I can’t imagine working with, but I will definitely concede that aspect ratio is more of a creative decision. Still, I can’t imagine working in 2.35, 2.37, 2.40, or 2.44 when 2.39:1 is the cinematic standard and yields functionally the same frame as those other aspect ratios.