Micheal Del Castillo
Well-known member
If your final output is a 2k DCP does it make a difference in the final 2k output if you colored in 4k as opposed to just doing the color grade in 2k?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Coloring in 4k vs. 2k
- Thread starter Micheal Del Castillo
- Start date
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
I would say it depends on a lot of workflow issues. For example, in Resolve the color per se doesn't change (assuming calibrated monitors at every stage), but sizing changes can be tricky. I had an issue recently where I had an extreme blow-up -- roughly 300% -- that looked like garbage if I used a 1080 timeline. Once I reverted to a 5K timeline and monitored in 1080, the results of the blow-up were a lot smoother.
It wouldn't have affected the final output at all, because we always use the highest possible resolution for the final output. Many, many, many major films are color-timed in 2K and then output in 4K for theatrical release, just so they can shorten the workflow schedule. It is possible to do a 4K end-to-end workflow if you have a fast enough pipeline, but it's not cheap or easy to do.
I'd argue the bigger problem is monitoring for projection vs. monitoring from a regular-sized display (30"/40"/50" broadcast monitors). There's a big difference between using a 15' or 20' DLP projector in a black room vs. doing it on a flat screen, and certain things don't always translate predictably or transparently. I think you basically have to do a theatrical color correction in a theater, and then do the home video/broadcast version on a traditional monitor.
It wouldn't have affected the final output at all, because we always use the highest possible resolution for the final output. Many, many, many major films are color-timed in 2K and then output in 4K for theatrical release, just so they can shorten the workflow schedule. It is possible to do a 4K end-to-end workflow if you have a fast enough pipeline, but it's not cheap or easy to do.
I'd argue the bigger problem is monitoring for projection vs. monitoring from a regular-sized display (30"/40"/50" broadcast monitors). There's a big difference between using a 15' or 20' DLP projector in a black room vs. doing it on a flat screen, and certain things don't always translate predictably or transparently. I think you basically have to do a theatrical color correction in a theater, and then do the home video/broadcast version on a traditional monitor.
Craig Parkes
Well-known member
I second this. Also, one thing it's vital to consider is if you can QC on a 4K monitor if UHD is part of your deliverable list down the line. A 2k/4k projection, and a UHD tv, are very different things - and what is ok on those projectors might not fly on a tv - especially noise/grain.
- Thread starter
- #4
Micheal Del Castillo
Well-known member
The project in question will have a very limited theatrical release (mostly festivals) and will mostly be shown in the home.
My other question is: How about when dealing with digital zooms? There is a handful (4 or 5) in the movie. Would you recommend those be done in 4k and scaled to 2k to fit the
rest of the film., or does it matter at that point if the rest of the movie is graded in 2k, then should the digital zooms be done in 2k?
My other question is: How about when dealing with digital zooms? There is a handful (4 or 5) in the movie. Would you recommend those be done in 4k and scaled to 2k to fit the
rest of the film., or does it matter at that point if the rest of the movie is graded in 2k, then should the digital zooms be done in 2k?
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
What we did in my project was: the client prepared a low-res 1080 QT LT version of the show as a Reference Movie, then we worked from the 5K camera files while viewing in a 1080 timeline. Since the zooms (repos) did not translate, I just did them all by hand and matched them precisely by doing A/B comparisons with the reference film. It worked fine -- it just added a day to the schedule.How about when dealing with digital zooms? There is a handful (4 or 5) in the movie. Would you recommend those be done in 4k and scaled to 2k to fit the rest of the film., or does it matter at that point if the rest of the movie is graded in 2k, then should the digital zooms be done in 2k?
They took a different tactic in the recent Gone Girl, where all the repos and VFX were done in 4K DPX and all the size changes and effects were baked in to the files going to color correction. That method can clearly work, too. In your case, if 99% of the market for this project is home video, then I'd work with the camera files, using the original resolution, but monitor and output in 1080 HD.
- Thread starter
- #6
Micheal Del Castillo
Well-known member
Thank you for the info/advice on your technique, Marc. Very helpful and much appreciated.
Craig Parkes
Well-known member
I's just note - if 99% of your market is the Home - you want a 4K master if it is doable - 4K will be in more homes than theatres in a very short space of time, and there will be a narrow window of 4K projects that get picked up for a premium by networks short of content on the international market.
That window is starting right now - I've had a film I produced sell to 4K VOD networks in Asia - the price we got for the film was substantially higher than what we would have got for the same film if it hadn't been finished at 4K.
We were a low budget affair, but that generally helps finishing at 4K - not many vfx etc. We had to do noise reduction etc to get the film perfectly clean which is what the 4K networks want - but if you can get a 4K master of your film done now is the time to do it, the buyers are out there in the market place and you'll be leaving money on the table if it's something you could do without drastically increasing your post costs.
That window is starting right now - I've had a film I produced sell to 4K VOD networks in Asia - the price we got for the film was substantially higher than what we would have got for the same film if it hadn't been finished at 4K.
We were a low budget affair, but that generally helps finishing at 4K - not many vfx etc. We had to do noise reduction etc to get the film perfectly clean which is what the 4K networks want - but if you can get a 4K master of your film done now is the time to do it, the buyers are out there in the market place and you'll be leaving money on the table if it's something you could do without drastically increasing your post costs.
- Thread starter
- #8
Micheal Del Castillo
Well-known member
Intersting point, Craig. I will def take that into consideration.
In fact I was just talking with a colorist friend of mine who mentioned a similar note; that distributors will be more likely to consider your film if it's in 4k.
In fact I was just talking with a colorist friend of mine who mentioned a similar note; that distributors will be more likely to consider your film if it's in 4k.
Steve Das
Well-known member
...That window is starting right now - I've had a film I produced sell to 4K VOD networks in Asia - the price we got for the film was substantially higher than what we would have got for the same film if it hadn't been finished at 4K. ..
...In fact I was just talking with a colorist friend of mine who mentioned a similar note; that distributors will be more likely to consider your film if it's in 4k.
But every film is a one-off so how can you know that you'll get more money for 4K from a distributor...seems like most distributor are focused
on the names of the cast...the genre...and the overall production value and quality of the film rather than the resolution.
A dp who does tests for HBO said the upressing they do in their tests is so good that people on 60'' screens can't tell the difference
and they just mostly guess the more contrasty image as being the 4K one.
- Thread starter
- #10
Micheal Del Castillo
Well-known member
I think the point my colorist friend was making is that (for distributors) the 4k looks better on paper than it does on the screen.
Craig Parkes
Well-known member
With 4K right now I think it's supply and demand - there aren't a lot of 4K finished films, and networks aren't really keen on launching their networks with up rez'd content.
This doesn't necessarily affect your likelihood of getting an individual distributor on board - content is still king etc etc. But it certainly doesn't hurt your chances of getting a sales agent pushing your film harder when they know there are more avenues your film can sell too (and sales agents are being approached hard for 4K content right now.)
What it does impact is the price you can get for your sales, and also the number of networks you can sell to (e.g. if you can sell to a 4K only VOD platform and a separate HD platform in the same territory, that's two sales to that territory rather than one.)
In viewing conditions I would say that there is a truth to the idea that 4K viewed at average viewing distance on an average TV isn't necessarily going to be a significantly better experience - especially if you are looking at an uncompressed master - but compressed 4K on a 4K screen is going to look significantly better than compressed HD up rez'd to a 4K screen - and that's what anyone who buys a 4K screen will notice (Uncompressed SD could look a lot better than a lot of early compressed HD as well - but end viewers in a digital world don't get to view the uncompressed master ever, so you have to think about the entire signal chain - not what one part of it looks like.)
Larger frame sizes allow for more efficient compression at the same bitrate with new technologies like HEVC (H.265) etc - this value chain is what the people selling 4K content right now are looking at.
And, even if it was illusory, even if the end viewer saw no appreciable difference - that doesn't stop the fact that it's not the end viewer who pays you for your content - it's the networks/platforms distributing your content - and there are networks/platforms out there right now paying a premium for UHD content over HD content - if you can have a UHD master without a significant amount of cost, and you choose not to go that route because of convention, you are likely leaving income on the table.
This isn't future proofing - that's the state of play right now. In 12 months time there could be even more demand for UHD content, or there could be less - my bet is there is going to be more demand.
Of course, there will also be more supply in 12 months time, so the premiums will likely be less - but if you are finishing right now, if your film is going to be with a sales agent within the next year, they'll be happier if you tell them that you also can deliver a UHD master - especially if your film can sell into Asian territories - because they will know that there a buyers out there looking for that content.
This doesn't necessarily affect your likelihood of getting an individual distributor on board - content is still king etc etc. But it certainly doesn't hurt your chances of getting a sales agent pushing your film harder when they know there are more avenues your film can sell too (and sales agents are being approached hard for 4K content right now.)
What it does impact is the price you can get for your sales, and also the number of networks you can sell to (e.g. if you can sell to a 4K only VOD platform and a separate HD platform in the same territory, that's two sales to that territory rather than one.)
In viewing conditions I would say that there is a truth to the idea that 4K viewed at average viewing distance on an average TV isn't necessarily going to be a significantly better experience - especially if you are looking at an uncompressed master - but compressed 4K on a 4K screen is going to look significantly better than compressed HD up rez'd to a 4K screen - and that's what anyone who buys a 4K screen will notice (Uncompressed SD could look a lot better than a lot of early compressed HD as well - but end viewers in a digital world don't get to view the uncompressed master ever, so you have to think about the entire signal chain - not what one part of it looks like.)
Larger frame sizes allow for more efficient compression at the same bitrate with new technologies like HEVC (H.265) etc - this value chain is what the people selling 4K content right now are looking at.
And, even if it was illusory, even if the end viewer saw no appreciable difference - that doesn't stop the fact that it's not the end viewer who pays you for your content - it's the networks/platforms distributing your content - and there are networks/platforms out there right now paying a premium for UHD content over HD content - if you can have a UHD master without a significant amount of cost, and you choose not to go that route because of convention, you are likely leaving income on the table.
This isn't future proofing - that's the state of play right now. In 12 months time there could be even more demand for UHD content, or there could be less - my bet is there is going to be more demand.
Of course, there will also be more supply in 12 months time, so the premiums will likely be less - but if you are finishing right now, if your film is going to be with a sales agent within the next year, they'll be happier if you tell them that you also can deliver a UHD master - especially if your film can sell into Asian territories - because they will know that there a buyers out there looking for that content.