finish on 1080?

[skim08]

hello out there... Would greatly appreciate your opinions.

I'm editing an ultra low budget, narrative feature shot on 4K. ... I thought I was going to finish on 2K ProRes. (Footage shot on 4K, 2:1, 23.98). And if $$$ later, I'd online back to 4K.

However -
I just spoke to a Post Supervisor (not working for us) who HIGHLY recommended finishing at 1080, NOT 2K - editing, color correction, layoffs (HD / SD) all at 1080.

His reasoning:
Our finishing at the moment is for the purposes of exhibiting at (we hope) top tier festivals. Very few places (festivals) are able to exhibit 2K.

He advised that it is unnecessarily costly to finish on 2K when we are not even going to have hardware (proper card), monitor, or venue that can show a 2K image.

Instead, most festivals just screen HDCam, which is 1080. Even if we sell it and it gets no theatrical run, the 1080 resolution still meets Blu-ray resolution.

He went on to say that once the feature is sold to a distributor (we hope), we can then make the distributor pay for the costs of onlining to 4K or finishing on 2K, and the subsequent costs of color correction.

I just know the director and DP will be very very alarmed if I suggest we finish at 1080. This Post Super is someone I trust, but I wanted others to weigh in on this.

Any other opinions on finishing on 1080 for the initial purpose of festival screenings? Thanks....

 

[M Most]

I just spoke to a Post Supervisor (not working for us) who HIGHLY recommended finishing at 1080, NOT 2K - editing, color correction, layoffs (HD / SD) all at 1080.

His reasoning:
Our finishing at the moment is for the purposes of exhibiting at (we hope) top tier festivals. Very few places (festivals) are able to exhibit 2K. ...
Instead, most festivals just screen HDCam, which is 1080. Even if we sell it and it gets no theatrical run, the 1080 resolution still meets Blu-ray resolution.

I agree with him.

He went on to say that once the feature is sold to a distributor (we hope), we can then make the distributor pay for the costs of onlining to 4K or finishing on 2K, and the subsequent costs of color correction.

This I disagree with. I've never heard of a distribution deal in which the distributor was "made" to pay for the cost of creating deliverables. In fact, in almost every case, the distributor will basically create the deliverables (using whatever facilities the distributor has contracts with) and deduct the cost from what is paid to you, the selling party. And those costs will often be higher than what it would have cost you to create the deliverables with your own chosen facility and delivered them to the distributor to fulfill the distribution contract.

I just know the director and DP will be very very alarmed if I suggest we finish at 1080.

Why? You're creating an element that differs only marginally from a 2K delivery. Assuming we're talking about a digital cinema 2K delivery, that's 2048x1080 (actually 1998x1080 for 1.85:1) as opposed to 1920x1080. Color space is different, but it's not difficult to go from one to the other. HD video is a standard deliverable for festivals, and it's more economical to create. So what's the problem?

 

[Seán_T]

I've finished ton ton of "ultra low budget" films and the majority of them choose 1080. What you post super is recommending is pretty common.

 

[skim08]

Hey mmost,
Thanks for your insights. That's very helpful info.

you wrote: "Why? You're creating an element that differs only marginally from a 2K delivery."

Yes... what you wrote makes a lot of sense. I've picked up on some uninformed 'attachment' that the director has to the 'idea of 4K', and it's become my job to put things into perspective. I think as long as the quality is up to the standard and of marginal difference (ie 2K vs 1K), it will be no problem (esp. seeing as you'd have to down-convert anyway before laying off to HD tape).

Also - I'm admittedly getting up myself up to speed on finishing options of this scope. Just wanted to prepare myself with as many facts before he and I have this conversation!

So, thanks again!

 

[M Most]

Hey mmost,
I've picked up on some uninformed 'attachment' that the director has to the 'idea of 4K', and it's become my job to put things into perspective. I think as long as the quality is up to the standard and of marginal difference (ie 2K vs 1K), it will be no problem (esp. seeing as you'd have to down-convert anyway before laying off to HD tape).

It might help to let him know that even among the largest studio pictures, only a small fraction are finished at 4K. And an even smaller fraction are distributed that way. In fact, the only picture to be shipped to theaters in a 4K Digital Cinema Package in the last 6 months that I know of is "Hancock." Every other digital release was at 2K. 4K finishing takes a lot more time, both in terms of rendering and film recording, and requires a lot more storage (therefore a lot more time for backing up and delivering to the facility doing the actual recording, assuming you don't have a film recorder - not to mention that facility needing to copy it to their server). For the vast majority of productions, it represents a cost differential that is not appropriate to the budgetary needs of the production, and in the end, does not make an appreciable difference in all but a very few presentation venues.

BTW, 1920x1080 is not "1K." The measurement of a film frame - the only time you'd be using the term "K" - is done based on horizontal pixels, not vertical. The vertical pixels are determined by the aspect ratio. A "2K" frame is presumed to be 2048 pixels wide. A "4K" frame is presumed to be double that, or 4096 pixels wide. If that 2K frame is in the aspect ratio of 1.85:1, that would make it 2048x1107. If it's in 2.40:1, that would make it 2048x853. So in those terms, 1920x1080 HD video formats are very close to what you would call "2K" at 1.77:1 (16x9).

 

[skim08]

hey mmost,
thanks for setting me straight about aspect ratios.

we shot 2:1... so our "2K" is 2048 X 1024.
For the sake of brevity here, I'll refer to it as 2K.

A new question has arised. The director and DP would like to color correct in our 2K - for the benefit of having the most information for the color correction.

Then we will downconvert and layoff to tape (D-5) at 1080. (please correct me if I'm mis-using terms here)

Can anyone speak to the benefits /differences of color correcting at 2k vs 1080? Does anyone see any issues in that down-convert to 1080 after it's been colored at 2K?

We would stay at 23.98 all the way.
(I assume we'd need to re-color correct when laying off to SD...?)

Also - if we are coloring at 2K, does anyone see any potential issues for me to edit my "offline" at 1080 in FCP? Then I'd relink the 1080 edit to the '2K' (based on file names), once we're picture locked and ready to color correct?

Thanks.
s

 

[Seán_T]

Well what do they mean by "most information"? Are they talking about higher bit depth then D-5 or greater resolution then D-5.

If you correctly HW downconvert from rec 709 to 601 the colours will still look the same, but of course if you display the image on a smaller 24 inch display they might find it dosent feel the same as the 20 foot screen in the DI theater. Ops got to go will finish this later....

 

[Bruce Allen]

Tell the DP and director they are morons.

1080p is 1.9K (not talking about full-aperture here).

They should stop worrying about an extra 0.1K that adds a whole lot of trouble and expense and start pestering you about real creative decisions.

If their main care about is 0.1K then they are talentless hacks with no respect for the artistic process and you might be wasting your time working with them because their ultra-low-budget film probably isn't going to lead to anything greater in the future.

If they want to discuss tape vs data workflow, that is something different. There is a small benefit (but additional expense) to doing CC on, say, 10bit 4:4:4 1080p files vs a tape-to-tape grade from HDCAM (that said, I have gone from DNxHD -> HDCAM -> color correct to HDCAM -> film many times and few have noticed HDCAM SR should be fine.

Tell them to send me a PM if they disagree.

Oh and maybe while they are at it, they can tell me which of the movie trailers they saw in their last art house cinema were finished at 1080p, which were finished at 2K and which were finished at 4K? Oh yeah, they can't...

Oh, and best of luck with the project by the way. Maybe the director and DP are just inexperienced and trying to maintain quality, so perhaps there is hope?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[M Most]

A new question has arised. The director and DP would like to color correct in our 2K - for the benefit of having the most information for the color correction.

Then we will downconvert and layoff to tape (D-5) at 1080. (please correct me if I'm mis-using terms here)

Can anyone speak to the benefits /differences of color correcting at 2k vs 1080? Does anyone see any issues in that down-convert to 1080 after it's been colored at 2K?

All of this depends on how you're doing this, what you're doing it with, and who's doing it. There are gamma and color space differences between formats for both post and presentation, and monitoring differences between video formats, data formats, and projection. You'd probably be much better off having the color correction done by a great colorist from an HD master in proper viewing conditions than doing it from 2K data on an LCD monitor with someone who doesn't do color correction for a living. You seem to be concentrating far too much on the equipment and far too little on the result. Decide on your budget, then decide how to spend it. Having someone capable in the chair is far more important than whether you have slightly more color information that is then manipulated by someone without that talent.

 

[Bruce Allen]

All of this depends on how you're doing this, what you're doing it with, and who's doing it. There are gamma and color space differences between formats for both post and presentation, and monitoring differences between video formats, data formats, and projection. You'd probably be much better off having the color correction done by a great colorist from an HD master in proper viewing conditions than doing it from 2K data on an LCD monitor with someone who doesn't do color correction for a living. You seem to be concentrating far too much on the equipment and far too little on the result. Decide on your budget, then decide how to spend it. Having someone capable in the chair is far more important than whether you have slightly more color information that is then manipulated by someone without that talent.

One day I'll learn to write posts more like Michael's and less like mine...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[number6]

hello out there... Would greatly appreciate your opinions....

...but I wanted others to weigh in on this.

Any other opinions on finishing on 1080 for the initial purpose of festival screenings? Thanks....

Thanks for asking the questions... These are some of the things others (including myself) will come up against and all of the responses you've got will be helpful.

 

[Nigel Stanford]

One day I'll learn to write posts more like Michael's and less like mine...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

I like your fire - but I've found that calling people morons only gets you so far

It sounds like the Dir and DOP are under the impression that 1080p is half the resolution of 2k rather than 95%. I'd get them to watch something cool shot and finished in 1080p, like the benjamin button trailer. If t's enough resolution to shoot Brad Pitt, it should be ok for them.