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 :)

20 million feet...

How do we get to see this beast in 4k? I feel like I should give up on movies until the projectors are wide-spread. You guys have ruined 2k for me :)
 
20 million feet ... and who is watching dailies? And when? :)
 
Jannard said:
Peter Jackson (and his team) has now shot the equivalent of 20 million feet of film on The Hobbit. For reference, he shot 7 million feet of film on The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Peter is shooting up to 50 RED Epics on The Hobbit. And there is still time to go...
Click to expand...
This may be a way for Studios to hang onto market share. I don't see a "low budget" solution to this any time soon (next 5 years). For the small Indie Moviemaker, the Story must be King. Or of course, there's always porn. 3D porn?
 
20 million feet? If that was 35mm stock and processing. That would have cost at least $20 million dollars or more, probably more like $30 million....
Not to mention the transfer to a digital format for editing.
Now if that was IMAX??? Probably double or triple that!! Jackson paid for the 50 EPIC's with what he saved on film costs.
 
Jannard said:
Peter Jackson (and his team) has now shot the equivalent of 20 million feet of film on The Hobbit. For reference, he shot 7 million feet of film on The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Peter is shooting up to 50 RED Epics on The Hobbit. And there is still time to go...

When I had dinner with Peter a couple of weeks ago... he was happy. If Peter is happy, I'm happy.

Jim
Click to expand...

That makes two of us. :)
 
How much exactly does 20 million feet of film VS hard drive storage in equivalent hours compare? Do they save a bundle or is it relatively the same?
 
20 million feet of film shot at 48fps is about 1,852 hours of footage (thanks Kodak iphone app).
100 hr of 5K @ 24fps is about 46TB, so double that for 48fps = 92 TB

So about 17,038.4 TB give or take a MB or two.

Anyone have any idea what's after Terabyte, and then after the thing thats after Terabyte.

I also suck at math and don't have the katadata app which would probably tell you exactly how much.
 
Jim, did you ask Peter what he thought about the opinions, from critics of early screenings of the movie (Mainly the 48fps negative feedback)?
The camera's have already proven to be a work of genius. You mentioned he's happy. That would be because he knows how it's all gonna turn out.
 
Jannard said:
Peter Jackson (and his team) has now shot the equivalent of 20 million feet of film on The Hobbit. For reference, he shot 7 million feet of film on The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Click to expand...

I hope that means the new movie will be three times better than the first film series. I mean, three times more footage... that must be better, right?

I'm reminded of the time in 2003 when Kodak sent director Dylan Sanders a case of (fairly expensive) Cristal champagne when they passed 2 million feet of film on Charlie's Angels 2...
BillBarnes said:
I remember the first 1 gigabyte hard drive's from around 1993 - 1994. I wonder where we'll be in another 20 years.
Click to expand...
Hey, I bought a 2GB hard drive for $2000 in the summer of 1994, a Seagate Barracuda. Sad.

We still got exabytes, zetabytes, and yottabytes above petabytes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yottabyte

We'll need drives this big when we're dealing with 48K 120fps 4D footage in ten years.
 
With performance capture to some degree we could theoretically save storage. Texture once, render multiple frames. Only need the "meta data" e.g. Animation for every subsequent frame which is relatively small to say a 48k frame.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
With performance capture to some degree we could theoretically save storage.
Click to expand...

True. But there are those who prefer to watch movies with real people, sets, and real locations. Motion capture has its place, but there's been a lot of backlash against the Uncanny Valley effect, especially with human characters.

Data rates have been climbing steadily for years, going back from analog 525 composite to component analog to component digital to HD to 2K to 4K and on and on and on. I don't see this changing. People's expectations are raised. Imax theaters are making a lot of money, so it's clear the public will pay more money to see bright, sharp, beautiful pictures, in 3D or not. And that takes a lot of data (whether measured in terms of film footage or data).

I think the days are soon coming where even a modest post facility in a major metro area will routinely have to have several petabytes of fast network storage. I don't see this changing. The real question to me is, "how many K are enough?" I don't have an answer to that... but then, I was perfectly happy with how Avengers looked, and I'm sure Disney was happy with the box office.
 
In the Hasselblad to Red comparison we saw a stills photographer get his eyes opened to being able to capture just the perfect moment every time - he just had to walk through the footage to pick it. He found it a bit strange to get his head around the paradigm shift and the way it changed his workflow.

What PJ does is the same thing applied to completely covering the angles, depth of field, focal lengths/angles of view, lighting, etc., etc to maximize his creative choices for the final cut from lots of footage of the same scenes. Very smart (though laborious). The goal is the final product - not bragging rights about how many cameras you used, or didn't, or how many takes it took. Craft is about outcomes, both creative and financial, not how you got there.
 
Calculations

Calculations

Some calculations:

20,000,000 feet = 6,100,000 meter
1 frame = 0.019 meter at 4 perf (considering cinema scope 2.4 here, with 1:1.2 anamorphotics)
6,100,000 meter / 0.019 meter/frame = 321,052,632 frames
321,052,632 frames / (48 frames/second * 2 eyes/frame * 2 exposures/frame) =
321,052,632 frames / 192 frames/second = 1,672,149 seconds
1,672,149 seconds / 60 seconds/minute = 27869,15 minutes
27869,15 minutes / 60 minutes/hour = 464,49 hours
464,49 hours / 24 hours/day = 19,35 days

Wow...

1 frame = 5120x * 2132y pixels (assuming 2.4 cinema scope here) * 16 bits per color * RGB = 65,495,040 bytes per frame
321,052,632 frames * 65,495,040 bytes per frame = 21,027,354,974,945,280 bytes

Thats 21 peta 27 tera 354 giga 974 mega 945 thousand and 280 bytes when stored uncompressed...

OK, no one will do that. They will make selected takes, convert only footage they need, may rely on B44A 4:1 EXR compression. So we don't really now how large their storage requirement will really be (except they tell us).

Interesting would be which recording format they really use (RED compression settings) and how they proceeed from there:

Do they have hellfast playback using some custom made 6 rockets in a box stereo playback system?
We all heard of that being possible, but has anyone ever seen it?
Do they just transcode to a proxy format?
If yes, how and to which format?

We currently use a CineForm based workflow (using our Converter application with network transcoding) based on CineForm DPC (aka DPX-C) single frame sequences. We get usually about 25% larger than the original RED file, but with RGB not RAW from then on in post. So the real disk space amount of the used clip data and all forthcoming VFX layers will be dramatically smaller than the above scenario would imply.

Coming back to the equation in terms of disk price:

I guess they using something like the latest DataDirectNetworks SFA12K that puts around 6.7 Petabyte in just 2 * 19" Racks (comparably small!) and with a target speed of 40 GByte/s???
That system won't come in cheap as well, but surely cheaper than the film development - and reusable for some time.

Not to forget about the pile of LTO5 tapes to back this all up and safe it for a little time.

A real shame is that printing to film still gives you the longest living and most secure archive...

Cheers,
Axel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top