Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Feature film memory space

Tim Hole

Tim Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
1,327
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
United Kingdom
I realise it is not exact in any way but for those working with r3D's and RED workflow I was wondering what would be a guesstimate on memory space of a 90min feature at maybe 8:1 shooting ratio at 2K.

Having never dealt personally with workflow beyond HD (though have shot on most formats just not post flow) I am trying to get my head round prospectively how much space we are talking for just one feature film. Not talking about a day in/day out type working practice of a professional player...just an Indie feature being prospectively shot on a Scarlet 2/3".
 
IF you shoot at 4K 16:9 at RC 36 24FPS (720 Minutes per your estimates) you will end up with 1.4TB or there abouts...

-Frank Cueto
 
Thanks peeps that is most helpful. I got a better idea of what i am having to wrangle now....
 
Of course, this is no way a accurate estimate, if your are planning for the Scarlet, no way to know till they release more 411.

-Frank Cueto
 
Not sure what features you've been working on, but that ratio sounds high to me. Maybe because I've shot everything on film so far. For what it's worth, my shooting ratio -- with really good actors, and I emphasize really good actors --is no more than 2 or three takes tops, per set-up. And I'll print one or two takes. Masters are rarely shot more than twice.

You end up wasting a lot of time, money, and the good will, conficence, and enthusiasm of both your crew and your actors -- not to mention the studio, producers and money people. Unless there is something the actors aren't giving you, or there is a technical problem, two or three takes per set-up should do. Everything else in my opinion screams: "the director doesn't know what he wants." And that gets old real fast.

So, on a 5 page day(approximately 5 minutes of screen time) my dailies usually average about 40 to 50 minutes. So what is that? 8 or 10 to 1 Max? Multiplying that out to a 120 minute feature, you are looking at approximately 1200 minutes of printed takes. At 2 gig per minute 4K, gives you 2.4 TB of storage need for all printed takes. And as others have recommended you'll want to back up at least two copies, plus another copy or two for your editors.

Hope this helps.
 
Shooting ratios have gone up on average rather than down. Things like letting the camera "roll" to keep momentum going, etc, all adds to the total amount of footage as well as more work in post to log separate and log all this. I am on a feature now where the camera was just left recording for 20-30 mins. Most likely a mistake but since there are no camera reports, I just capture everything to start and discard later.

It is a matter of discipline regardless of format, but discipline seem to be lacking more with lower costs formats.

Michael
 
Joel J. Feigenbaum said:
Not sure what features you've been working on, but that ratio sounds high to me. Maybe because I've shot everything on film so far. For what it's worth, my shooting ratio -- with really good actors, and I emphasize really good actors --is no more than 2 or three takes tops, per set-up. And I'll print one or two takes. Masters are rarely shot more than twice.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the directing style. However, shooting digital means a lot more directors opt for the "keep rolling" attitude. On this last feature we only did 2 proper takes according to the slates, but re-did the performance 3 or 4 times each take. So thats 8 total runs plus the amount of time to reset while the camera is still rolling. You'll need to add that into the equation if your director chooses that route. Its not easy on the crew, and will significantly add to your download times, but there is no penalty to just keep rolling.

As a crew member, I would most certainly enjoy working for your style of directing that for the one employed on my last feature.

Joel J. Feigenbaum said:
At 2 mb per minute 4K, gives you 2400 mb or 2.4 gigs of storage need for all printed takes. And as others have recommended you'll want to back up at least two copies, plus another copy or two for your editors.
Click to expand...

Your math is roughly off by a factor of 1024. 4k is roughly 2Gb per minute, not 2Mb. 1200 minutes of 4k material would be around 2.2Tb. 1200 minutes of 2k material would be around 550Gb.

One more thing is that it doesnt matter a take is printed or not - they all need to be downloaded, duplicated and backed up. At no time should any RDC folder be left behind, as its not up to the data management guy to determine what takes were printed. I certainly woudnt want any loader determining what footage I kept. You may wish to only transcode printed takes to save time/money, but all takes need to be downloaded.
 
I have to admit that some pretty wacky ratios at 20:1...If you have to do more than five takes on something...then generally speaking something is not working. Personally I am a very tight worker and work on lower ratio than 8:1 but I was pushing it out as the feature i am working on will most likely have a lot of textural work that I will shoot.

---Thanks Joel this is very helpful. Its a lot clearer. i will end up buying one of the 8TB Maxx bays from Peter/maxx for the project. I was in two minds whether to keep my effects workstation separate to my edit bay. I well do. I am rendering VFX through a renderfarm here in my office but am looking into upgrading what I have now for edit bay at home for this project and not use the Nitris suites for it. So I am really jus thinking about the pros and cons to both.

The worst film I have shot...words can not express. It wasn't that the director didn't know what he wanted story-wise he just wanted it from every angle under the sun. Then to decide in the edit...I won't name names but Sam...Ha...thats not his name...I think they went three weeks over schedule. I quit the team after I had done what I was obliged to do. I had better things to do and more interesting projects to work on. I knew where this one was going. I was right when I saw the film three years later. Eventhough he had hosed down the scenes with shots the director decided to edit it himself. Bad move. But hey it was self funded and he had money to throw around. Satisfy your appetite I suppose. Just don't waste my time.

Sorry rant over...
 
Joel J. Feigenbaum said:
Not sure what features you've been working on, but that ratio sounds high to me. ...For what it's worth, my shooting ratio -- with really good actors, and I emphasize really good actors --is no more than 2 or three takes tops, per set-up. And I'll print one or two takes. Masters are rarely shot more than twice...
So, on a 5 page day(approximately 5 minutes of screen time) my dailies usually average about 40 to 50 minutes.
Click to expand...

But Joel, you've been both writing and directing for longer than a lot of the people who post here (not me, unfortunately) have been alive. Besides you, Bethany Rooney, and David Grossman, I can't really think of any directors, at least out of the ones I've worked with, primarily in television, who print less than 60-90 minutes a day (granted, those are usually 7+ page days). Most of them more than 2 hours, thanks to the magic of 2 cameras. Even on film.

The days of somehow being able to get everything needed in less than 8 days (down to 6 1/2, if you and I both remember the Lorimar days correctly), with full coverage and shooting primarily with one camera, and printing about 4000 feet per day seem to be long gone. Today, it seems to be 2 cameras all the time, cover everything whether it's needed or not, print 2 hours or more per day, and hope your editors can get a coherent show out of it. Some of the more experienced directors like yourself and others can do it in a much more coherent and professional manner. But what I just described seems to be the new reality. It's no wonder the networks are constantly complaining about controlling costs.
 
This is the issue with the influx of self shooters though. Hosing the scene with a camera and not doing thorough Pre-prod. I can't work like that. Everything to me has to be precise. I will probably shoot some safety's but I won't shoot a shot that I know I'm not gonna use. its senseless when time is always a problem.

I haven't shot a lot on film so I cannot comment on your point, however there is shooting style and there is laziness. I understand letting the camera roll...I have done it many times...hosing the scene aint happening on my time.
 
On the shoots I have been it somehow works out to be roughly 100GB per camera per day.
 
Clint Eastwood is another director that is 2-3 takes tops. Knows what he wants, knows how to get it out of his actors. And makes damn good movies; that's directing.

Michael
 
Conrad:

You are right. My math was off in my previous entry. I was typing mb when I meant gb and gb when I meant tb. Thanks for the correction. I've gone back and edited.

As far as other directors letting the camera roll through multiple takes without cutting and slating, I respectfully encourage all directors to stick to the traditional "film" methodology. For two reasons.

First, as mentioned before, to maintain the good will, enthusiasm and talents of your crew and cast.

And second, for your editor. There is nothing more wasteful time and media wise, than sifting through minutes or hours of bad footage. Just because digital allows us to keep rolling without the commensurate dollar costs, doesn't mean we should work that way.

If nothing else survives from celluloid capture as we move into this incredible world of digital cinema capture, I think the traditional set methodology of "CUT, PRINT" (or "CUT (no print), let's go again" should remain the Standard Operating Procedure.

But hey, like the old saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. This just happens to be mine.
 
But Joel your opinion is spot on!! There is a craft and an art to making films, as you know, and part of it is knowing exactly what you want otherwise what the hell is the point in doing all that prep. I completely agree that the SOP should remain the same.

Of course it is always nice to have the ability on the occasion when 'letting the camera roll' is the smartest thing to do, just don't let it become a normal practice in any way shape or form.
 
M Most said:
But Joel, you've been both writing and directing for longer than a lot of the people who post here (not me, unfortunately) have been alive. Besides you, Bethany Rooney, and David Grossman, I can't really think of any directors, at least out of the ones I've worked with, primarily in television, who print less than 60-90 minutes a day (granted, those are usually 7+ page days). Most of them more than 2 hours, thanks to the magic of 2 cameras. Even on film.

The days of somehow being able to get everything needed in less than 8 days (down to 6 1/2, if you and I both remember the Lorimar days correctly), with full coverage and shooting primarily with one camera, and printing about 4000 feet per day seem to be long gone. Today, it seems to be 2 cameras all the time, cover everything whether it's needed or not, print 2 hours or more per day, and hope your editors can get a coherent show out of it. Some of the more experienced directors like yourself and others can do it in a much more coherent and professional manner. But what I just described seems to be the new reality. It's no wonder the networks are constantly complaining about controlling costs.
Click to expand...

M:
True, those days are gone. And yes, the number of days we have to shoot an hour episode have gone from the good ol' days at LORIMAR of 6.5 days per ep to 8. But the scripts have actually gotten shorter! 58 pages down to 48 to 51 pages, because actual program time per 60 minute show has gone from 52 minutes to 43 and change. (A lot more commercial time per hour). Go figure.

Also is you point out, two camera days are now the norm instead of the exception. But the second camera is more of a time saver than a footage monster, because we would have gotten that tighter shot in the next set-up anyway. For the most part, should end up being a wash.

Anyway, I encourage you all to rehearse more and roll the camera less. Know what you want. Know what you need. Shoot it and move on. Life is too short and production money is in very short supply.

If there's nothing else I've learned on a set, get more than half of your day (page count)in the can before lunch. And once you move past 11 or 12 hours of shooting, work slows to a crawl. And nothing, nothing gets better.
 
I agree with you guys, 20:1 is WAY TOO HIGH. I am just the DIT, not Director or DP. Of the last eight or so features I have done, they average is around 15:1.

Almost half the footage is pre-roll before action is called.
5, 6, 7 takes are not uncommon
"leave the camera rolling and lets do another" is common as time starts running out for the day


Dusty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top