4k 2:39.1 Workflow

[Owen Rennie]

Hi, i've just begun shooting a documentary at 6k 2:1 with the aim to finish at 4k 2:39.1

My plan is to create a custom 4096x1716 Timeline in Premier Pro and work directly with the R3Ds.. Would this be the best approach?

Should i use Premiers Red 2:1 preset instead? And add bars?


Any help would be appreciated, i've never shot anything other than 1080 16:9 before

Thanks

Owen

 

[Patrick Tresch]

On the project we edit in PP we transcoded the material to 2k scope prores files (2048x858) so we can easily edit (multi cam, multi track, multi layers...).
Then all transformation are upgraded easily to 4x bigger to 4k scope files and relink to the original R3D to finish in Resolve.


Pat

 

[Paul Russell]

I usually put 2.39 guides on the camera monitor.
Edit in Premiere at HD for speed. Export FCP XML out to Resolve. Colour and render out full 4K DPX. Back into Premiere for titles and other tidying up.

 

[Owen Rennie]

Thanks guys, all sounds quite confusing to me though unfortunately.... So to confirm I'm better editing on a 1080 16:9 timeline, then there's a way to turn it into 4k later?

 

[Chad Lancaster]

Do a 4k 2:1 timeline with a mask to show widescreen and then when you export just do a crop

 

[Owen Rennie]

Perfect, sounds easy

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Perfect, sounds easy

If it plays back on the editing timeline.

Pat

 

[Marc Wielage]

I believe the aspect ratio for 4K 2.39 is 4096x1714, just to be picky.

If your system can handle R3Ds, go for it, but I personally think you're much better off using half-res or even quarter-res proxies in the event you're pulling along multiple timelines and have layers and layers of VFX, titles, and so on. This will give your storage and computers more breathing room from less overhead and stress. You can always go back to the 6K R3Ds for the final conform and color-correction.

One issue I see with shooting at 6144x3072 is that there are scaling artifacts to consider. I'm reminded of what Fincher did for Gone Girl, where they shot wide and then recomposed for delivery:

(and thanks to Phil Holland for the diagram.)

To me, this is the most flexible approach, since it gives you all kinds of room to recompose the image in post. And as seen by the 4K release, the picture looked terrific, without any compromise. Be warned that 6K workflows are challenging in terms of drive speed, processor overhead, and storage requirements.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I say go for it. But make sure you got fast drives. Personally I would use my pegasus x12. We edited some rather long r3d projects without issues. And yes it´s a good trick to set your timeline so it crops and scale the image to your final resolution. We just bump down debayering while editing and that keeps the lag away. Keeping less height / pixels in your timeline but having the FF6k media linked in is improving render speed when burning out quicktime, DPX files etc.


I dont understand the Fincher approach of wasting sensor size on every shot. Off course some stuff needs "recoded look around" to allow for stabilisation and reframing in post but to shoot every shot with a 20% margin, to me feels like a bit of waste. One of the most epic with epic and dragon to me is the sensor size so why not try to use the full width? Then I find widescreen formats much more appealing than 16:9 or 2:1 Simply because there is usually more happening along the horizon than up or down below. And recording FF6k and then be able to reframe up down for best possible 2:40 is to me a really nice approach, then off course some shots need to be scaled up and re-racked also left to right.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I dont understand the Fincher approach of wasting sensor size on every shot. Off course some stuff needs "recoded look around" to allow for stabilisation and reframing in post but to shoot every shot with a 20% margin, to me feels like a bit of waste. One of the most epic with epic and dragon to me is the sensor size so why not try to use the full width? Then I find widescreen formats much more appealing than 16:9 or 2:1 Simply because there is usually more happening along the horizon than up or down below. And recording FF6k and then be able to reframe up down for best possible 2:40 is to me a really nice approach, then off course some shots need to be scaled up and re-racked also left to right.

I agree about the beauty of the full 6K field of view, but I also do my stuff like this. The thing is that when editing you might want to reframe in order for a cut to be optimal. Even on static shots it might be worth it. I don't go full head on with editing in premiere since I don't have the hardware for it. For me it's enough to transcode to Avid, do the editing with frame flex and whatever VFX needed for editorial and then I transfer it to resolve for reframing and final 4K quality. If i need to do VFX I rather render out the graded shot from resolve and backtrip after I'm done. Though things like stabilization might get tricky, so for those I'm transcoding to 5K DPX and stabilize before grading.

But having the composition framed with a bit of room around it is a powerful method of perfecting the edit. Coming from my work as an editor, I understand the benefits of this kind of approach and I like it a lot.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I agree about the beauty of the full 6K field of view, but I also do my stuff like this. The thing is that when editing you might want to reframe in order for a cut to be optimal. Even on static shots it might be worth it. I don't go full head on with editing in premiere since I don't have the hardware for it. For me it's enough to transcode to Avid, do the editing with frame flex and whatever VFX needed for editorial and then I transfer it to resolve for reframing and final 4K quality. If i need to do VFX I rather render out the graded shot from resolve and backtrip after I'm done. Though things like stabilization might get tricky, so for those I'm transcoding to 5K DPX and stabilize before grading.

But having the composition framed with a bit of room around it is a powerful method of perfecting the edit. Coming from my work as an editor, I understand the benefits of this kind of approach and I like it a lot.

I never been an avid user but I understand it must be a fantastic program for editors from just listening to the extra amount of work people are ready to go trough just to be able to use it for their editing

 

[Marc Wielage]

I dont understand the Fincher approach of wasting sensor size on every shot. Off course some stuff needs "recoded look around" to allow for stabilisation and reframing in post but to shoot every shot with a 20% margin, to me feels like a bit of waste.

It's no waste if the final image is still 4K, and 4K is still the maximum projectable image for theaters. Gone Girl made $368M in theaters and got generally good reviews, so what is there to understand?

Michael Cioni's presentations went into great detail as to why the production shot wide and cropped in post. I seem to recall that out of about 2500 shots, 2200 of them were repositions and opticals of some kind -- most of which were completely invisible to the audience. Fincher is an extremely technical guy, and I can understand why he would be completely OCD in wanting to control every aspect of the final image in post.

I never been an avid user but I understand it must be a fantastic program for editors from just listening to the extra amount of work people are ready to go trough just to be able to use it for their editing

Avid is just another tool. Take a few classes, read the manual, and you'll understand their methodology. It's just another philosophy. Clearly it works for hundreds of TV series and movies all over the world.

 

[fred gasc]

I wouldn't qualify MC fantastic for editors.
As Mark said, it's just another tool.
But it's the standart. (for how long that's another debate...).
Just like Protools is the standart. Like it or not.
Is Reaper as good if not better than Protools? Yes if you're
On your own, no if you work collaborative.
Avid is good at media management, collaborative and
I respect this editor although not my prefered one.
It takes a liitle more work to master than other NLEs.