Indie Film: Does a 4K finish pay off? (looking for examples)

[Freya]

I havn't heard much about this. Obviously Youtube is huge for short form content but narrative stuff is not that popular on that platform, it's more about documentary and reality stuff.

Is netflix now having a lot of success with short form serials?
I hear a lot about the HBO style productions like "House Of Cards" but less about the revolution in short form narrative that is taking place. Does anyone have any links to something more about this. Sounds interesting.

Freya

 

[Freya]

Short form series are where it's at, especially when you can claim fees and/or rentals over several weeks compared to 4 weeks on a feature.

What do you mean?
What is the 4 weeks for a feature thing and how does it work with short form series?
I'm clearly very out of the loop on this.

Freya

 

[Elsie N]

Maryem makes a great point about AFM and where the long form narrative is presently at, and so does Craig. The attention spans of people these days is increasingly small -I worry about whether my kids will ever be able to complete a task in these days with Netflix, iPhones, iPads, and all the rest...thankfully we make sure they get access to these devices as privileges after completing chores, but other parents are not so strict.

Short form series are where it's at, especially when you can claim fees and/or rentals over several weeks compared to 4 weeks on a feature.

There are a few of us crazies left who will continue to aspire to produce features though...

Count me among the crazies, and I've adjusted my target audience and audience size. That is, I'm thinking of a niche audience who grew up on stories rather than effects. Probably means I will never produce a Wide Release movie or even an art house movie, even though I try to include something in my scripts that speaks to all ages.

The good news is that these type movies are less expensive to make as you can verbalize an event rather than show it. Why do I think this is so? Because there was a British show on PBS back when they were broadcasting on unscrambled C-band satellite. The name of the show was Sandbaggers and was about the British Intelligence service. It was essentially all dialog and described this killing or this subterfuge. I was captivated by that show, and I think I am not that odd in that the show continued for a time, suggesting there was an audience.

And lastly, there are millions who still read books. I think these are people who will allow a movie-maker to "tell" them a story, but probably I will only be able to reach them via streaming. And some of these folks already have 4k TVs, so I will master in 4k and distribute in 4k.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Here is a good example of 4k indy film... Won the Gold Lion on possibly the worlds most prestigius Film Festival, the Venice Film Festival 2014.

It´s all 4k and I can only say that it is quite a remarkable film and the visual language it uses, hardly any camera motion, clips long as 10 seconds, most on a closed down UP lens then that really put the picture quality to a test. And at such usage 4k is making a huge difference. I was working on some of the vfx scene and saw them both in 4k and 2k and simply put it´s better in 4k no doubt.

I think the fidelity of the imagery is very much one of the reason it was picked as a winner, the 4k / RED one MX was ofcourse not the soul reson, lightning, makeup and scenography as of course also playing a huge part, not to mention the acting and story etc. But still it´s the one film that I think pulls the 4k straw in the very best way possible.

http://www.royandersson.com/pigeon/

Thank you, Bjorn. I'll add it to the list! And thank you Craig for the further insights.

Anyone else have any more concrete examples / anecdotes of indie features?

Thanks

Bruce Allen
www.twitter.com/bruce_allen

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I think Craig has provided examples of how a 4K finish can open a few doors, which is always a plus for an indie. I also think Bruce's core thesis is intact, finishing at 4K because it is the golden road to enhanced distribution/revenue prospects is mostly wishful thinking.

It's probably a new thread waiting to happen, but I wanted to echo Gunleik's note about DCI bit rates. I sat in on a meeting where the original authors of the current DCI spec were discussing an expansion of the spec, in part to address 3D/HFR releases from the likes of Peter Jackson and James Cameron. 250mb/s (roughly 31MB/s) has been the DCI data cap - which works nicely for 2K 24P 12bit XYZ material. It was suggested that 400mb/s and 1gb/s variants could be added to avoid bit starving 4K/HFR/S3D releases, with 250mb/s persisting as the base standard. I think that's a fine plan and hope to see it widely implemented post haste.

Cheers - #19

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

What do you mean?
What is the 4 weeks for a feature thing and how does it work with short form series?
I'm clearly very out of the loop on this.

Freya

What I meant was the prep windows for feature are shrinking based on budget, along with shooting for just 4 weeks instead of say 5 or 6 weeks -or greater...which seems like a fantasy.

Whereas with series you have 8-10 weeks of prep then at least that for shooting depending on the series order. The economics alone makes so much more sense to be doing series or limited series, and broadcasters are responding to this Netflix binge watching trend...they want viewers to keep coming back to their services, and one feature film doesn't satisfy that.

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

Count me among the crazies...

What truly drives me crazy is when we have to hire 'professionals' within our unions but they don't take the professional part seriously...I want to rage every day in the edit suite when I'm reminded of how many times we had to go again because a camera movement wasn't remotely smooth, or the shot lacked focus, or focus was on the wrong actor in an emotional scene. Or we waited because props didn't have what we needed on the day, and thus we waited, which meant I lost one or two or three shots a day because I couldn't move faster than I needed/wanted to.

We're already working with extraordinarily small budgets, and have worked YEARS to get a given film into production...then I experience things like entire masters not being in focus because a prime lens was not set properly in the PL mount. Wish I had the ability to get money back for lack of performance but unfortunately it doesn't work that way...

As one of my colleagues likes to say, "It's enough to make a bitch wolf bite her pups." I get it. I really do. Sorry for the rant.

 

[Mark T Workman]

I think Craig has provided examples of how a 4K finish can open a few doors, which is always a plus for an indie. I also think Bruce's core thesis is intact, finishing at 4K because it is the golden road to enhanced distribution/revenue prospects is mostly wishful thinking.

It's probably a new thread waiting to happen, but I wanted to echo Gunleik's note about DCI bit rates. I sat in on a meeting where the original authors of the current DCI spec were discussing an expansion of the spec, in part to address 3D/HFR releases from the likes of Peter Jackson and James Cameron. 250mb/s (roughly 31MB/s) has been the DCI data cap - which works nicely for 2K 24P 12bit XYZ material. It was suggested that 400mb/s and 1gb/s variants could be added to avoid bit starving 4K/HFR/S3D releases, with 250mb/s persisting as the base standard. I think that's a fine plan and hope to see it widely implemented post haste.

Cheers - #19

A very good thread, Bruce! Congratulations! The important thing to remember about a 4K master is that a 2K master can be made from that! Do we get more money? Perhaps not! Perhaps we are just following the flow of mathematics and Moore's law. But perhaps not! Time will tell!

 

[Tom Lowe]

It's not just about how a 4K finish will help you today. It's also about how a 4K finish might help your film 1 year from now, 3 years from now, 5 years from now, and so on. If you believe that 4K will replace 1080p as the gold standard for film distribution (which many of us do), then it's crazy not to finish for 4K, because you are limiting the quality of the film for decades to come. For me, there is no way on earth I would spend years of my life on a film project and then post it at 2K.

All other factors being equal (script, lighting, acting, music, etc) it's better to finish 4K than 2K.

Remember, we are right smack dab in the middle of the transition to 4K.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

It's not just about how a 4K finish will help you today. It's also about how a 4K finish might help your film 1 year from now, 3 years from now, 5 years from now, and so on. If you believe that 4K will replace 1080p as the gold standard for film distribution (which many of us do), then it's crazy not to finish for 4K, because you are limiting the quality of the film for decades to come. For me, there is no way on earth I would spend years of my life on a film project and then post it at 2K.

All other factors being equal (script, lighting, acting, music, etc) it's better to finish 4K than 2K.

Remember, we are right smack dab in the middle of the transition to 4K.

I agree we are on our way to 4K but I do wonder how quickly that will be followed by 8K and then if there's some breakthrough in technology maybe we head a different way and then maybe 4K is no longer looking like the longterm juggernaught. My guess is we'll be with 4K for a while, just playing devil's advocate that no format is future proof most likely.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I agree we are on our way to 4K but I do wonder how quickly that will be followed by 8K and then if there's some breakthrough in technology maybe we head a different way and then maybe 4K is no longer looking like the longterm juggernaught. My guess is we'll be with 4K for a while, just playing devil's advocate that no format is future proof most likely.

I have written extensively here on this forum about this exact issue. 100 years of filmed entertainment, in theory (though not always in practice, due to degradation of negatives, etc), can be scanned to 4K for display. IE, 35mm film can be scanned and then sold to the public at 4K. This is not true for 8K or even 6K. Most 35mm chemical film just does not have the resolution for a 6K finish, period. So there is kind of a "soft ceiling" on what will become the gold standard for home entertainment display. Yes, you can watch sports at 8K, TV at 8K, etc, but "The Godfather" will never, ever play natively on an 8K screen, period.

So worrying about whether 8K will replace 4K is not something very important at the moment. Worrying about 4K vs 2K is.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I have written extensively here on this forum about this exact issue. 100 years of filmed entertainment, in theory (though not always in practice, due to degradation of negatives, etc), can be scanned to 4K for display. IE, 35mm film can be scanned and then sold to the public at 4K.

Although... I have seen films made before 1980 scanned to both 2K and 4K, and I'm not convinced there's enough detail in negatives from that era to resolve 4K. The possible exception would be 65mm spherical productions (West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia, My Fair Lady, etc.), and you could make a good case those might hit 6K.

You can technically scan them to 4K, but you can also scan 16mm or Super 8mm to 4K, and I don't think those formats can resolve 4000 pixels either. Not enough pixels in the emulsion. The MTF just ain't there.

I also don't think thousands of 2K D.I.'s made over the last 15 years are going to be worthless junk in 10 years when the world shifts to 4K. Avatar, Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, all the Harry Potter films... there's a ton of stuff that I suspect will never be rescanned and re-posted in 4K. And people will still be watching these films in 10, 20, 30 years because their content is so important. Nobody gives a crap how many pixels the movie resolves as long as it's entertaining, has a great story, and memorable characters.

I'm a big fan of using 4K/5K/6K as a capture format, but I'm skeptical (as Mr. Ferrari echos) that indie films below a certain budget can afford to release in 4K, and whether distributors are really asking for 4K now. The time and expense is a big issue. HD finishes are relatively straightforward and predictable.

 

[Freya]

Unless 4k Blu-Ray takes off then I suspect that 4K will be a long time in arriving in a big way.
There is a possibility that IMAX will make 4K happen in the cinema to some extent, I suspect that might be the other big hope.

4K streaming is going to be a minority thing far into the future because of the bandwidth.
Over time it may find its way into broadcast TV but broadcasters are not in a hurry and the world of TV is changing quickly.

I suspect it's best way of sneaking in may be on the back of HDR technologies such as Dolby Vision.
4K Blu-Ray supports HDR too so it could be a good technology to make things happen but there are obvious issues.

Freya

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It's not just about how a 4K finish will help you today. It's also about how a 4K finish might help your film 1 year from now, 3 years from now, 5 years from now, and so on. If you believe that 4K will replace 1080p as the gold standard for film distribution (which many of us do), then it's crazy not to finish for 4K, because you are limiting the quality of the film for decades to come. For me, there is no way on earth I would spend years of my life on a film project and then post it at 2K.

All other factors being equal (script, lighting, acting, music, etc) it's better to finish 4K than 2K.

Remember, we are right smack dab in the middle of the transition to 4K.

All of this plus 1000.


The other factor to consider is Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc.. who are all attempting to create master streaming libraries in 4K, 8K, and yes, even 16K. Why store a multitude of versions/ resolutions of a feature film when you can store one single high-resolution master and down-convert as you stream out? Netflix and the like are currently the elephant in the room here. It has not effected feature film distribution, yet, but indies are going to be the first to feel the 4K pinch. Netflix already doesn't want to entertain submissions for short films and even episodic TV shows or web series unless they are 4K now. That sort of restriction on new and upcoming feature film length media, whether its from an indie or large studio, is looming over us. The big studios are going to have more time to drag their feet on the way to compliance, only because they have the established product and marketing.

I think everyone needs to stop worrying about defined standards, limits or restrictions in terms of SD, HD, 2K, 4K, etc... We can save a bit of money at this point by finishing in 2K vs. 4K. Although, if we're looking at a feature with few or no FX shots or any CG work, then this point is really moot. Current PC hardware handles 4K with ease, even for finishing purposes. Rather than looking at it in terms of 2K being cheaper than 4K, we should look at producing the highest quality output we can with the budget we have. SD/480p/DVD resolution is cheaper than 2K in the same way and by the same logic that 2K is cheaper than 4K. So why are we not all still finishing for SD/DVD resolution output? And all the current arguments against 4K were all at one time the same arguments people used against HD/2K. And they're the same arguments we're going to hear all over again with the next shift to 8K and beyond.

To put it bluntly, if 4K post and finish is not cheaper for you now than a 2K post and finish was 7 years ago, even 5 years ago, then you're doing something wrong. ...very wrong. Compared to when the RED One launched on scene in late '07, computers are over 10X more powerful at 30% lower prices and software tools, in the form of grading and finishing software especially, are roughly 1/50th the cost of what they were then.

I think the two big considerations for indies at this point in regards to 4K are this:

1> How much are you truly saving by choosing by finishing in 2K instead of 4K?

2> Is your production something you want to be marketable in the future and for many years? Can you ultimately justify the savings up front to sacrifice potential acceptance later. And this is not really a consideration of traditional distribution channels, which are all still technologically challenged. The new world of distribution is digital streaming and instant downloads and these services are all about the high resolution master and pushing 4K+ technology forward.

 

[Frank Glencairn]

A
I'm a big fan of using 4K/5K/6K as a capture format, but I'm skeptical (as Mr. Ferrari echos) that indie films below a certain budget can afford to release in 4K, and whether distributors are really asking for 4K now. The time and expense is a big issue. HD finishes are relatively straightforward and predictable.

I don't get it Marc. To me, it makes no difference if I deliver HD/2k or 4k from 4k material. And yes, my workstation may crunch a few hours more over night, but besides that, I can't see any big $$$ differences. Not in 2015 anymore.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I don't get it Marc. To me, it makes no difference if I deliver HD/2k or 4k from 4k material. And yes, my workstation may crunch a few hours more over night, but besides that, I can't see any big $$$ differences. Not in 2015 anymore.

Ditto. In my own work, unless I'm doing highly detailed CGI, I can't even find a cost savings in 2K vs. 4K. Workstations may crunch a few extra hours over night? Maybe... Not really. Not on the new hardware. The difference in processing time on my medium to long corporate stuff (15 to 30 minutes in finished length), we're talking processing time differences of minutes. Maybe an hour or two more if I have to render the whole thing out at 4K vs. 2K.. And when I say an hour or two more, it's more like the project at 2K renders out in full in minutes -- usually 3 to 8 X faster than real-time. 4K, might take up to 4 or 5 X longer than 2K.... And on my current systems, usually renders out at about half real time for full quality. I couldn't do that with 2K back in 2010 and yet 2K finishes in 2010 were the norm...

If you're trying to justify 2K as being cheaper because all your workstation hardware consists of 2008 Mac Pro systems, or you work entirely off notebook systems, yeah, I get it... Not that I understand why anyone keeps trying to work that way, that's an entirely different liability in itself... On modern hardware, if 4K is costing you more money (VFX aside), you're doing it wrong.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Although... I have seen films made before 1980 scanned to both 2K and 4K, and I'm not convinced there's enough detail in negatives from that era to resolve 4K. The possible exception would be 65mm spherical productions (West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia, My Fair Lady, etc.), and you could make a good case those might hit 6K.

You can technically scan them to 4K, but you can also scan 16mm or Super 8mm to 4K, and I don't think those formats can resolve 4000 pixels either. Not enough pixels in the emulsion. The MTF just ain't there.

I also don't think thousands of 2K D.I.'s made over the last 15 years are going to be worthless junk in 10 years when the world shifts to 4K. Avatar, Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, all the Harry Potter films... there's a ton of stuff that I suspect will never be rescanned and re-posted in 4K. And people will still be watching these films in 10, 20, 30 years because their content is so important. Nobody gives a crap how many pixels the movie resolves as long as it's entertaining, has a great story, and memorable characters.

I'm a big fan of using 4K/5K/6K as a capture format, but I'm skeptical (as Mr. Ferrari echos) that indie films below a certain budget can afford to release in 4K, and whether distributors are really asking for 4K now. The time and expense is a big issue. HD finishes are relatively straightforward and predictable.

I watch netflix on a 4k screen, I notice a lot of indie films that have huge grain and I stop watching them(actually stopped watching a "ok" indie film yesterday since it was just to irritating on the grain, on a OK film that isn't messed up I will at least keep it on).

What I think is happening is the 2k film scan on Indie's is multiplying the grain size, I don't see this on 4k film scans which are more common on the non-indie's. I think it has to do with how the sample was done, and if the grain happened to be in the middle of the sample | between two pixels | between 4 pixels - it takes that one grain and hugely multiplies it for between 1 and 4 pixels.

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

Denoise and DEB are very useful features in RC-X.

 

[Elsie N]

I have written extensively here on this forum about this exact issue. 100 years of filmed entertainment, in theory (though not always in practice, due to degradation of negatives, etc), can be scanned to 4K for display. IE, 35mm film can be scanned and then sold to the public at 4K. This is not true for 8K or even 6K. Most 35mm chemical film just does not have the resolution for a 6K finish, period. So there is kind of a "soft ceiling" on what will become the gold standard for home entertainment display. Yes, you can watch sports at 8K, TV at 8K, etc, but "The Godfather" will never, ever play natively on an 8K screen, period.

So worrying about whether 8K will replace 4K is not something very important at the moment. Worrying about 4K vs 2K is.

Agreed, with the caveat of broadcast in Japan.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

David hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread even if it was phrased with a bit too much of the dramatic. The struggle has never been about acquisition, it's always been about display or distribution. Kubrick would watch multiple release prints of his films in different theaters to exercise complete control over the visual quality of his work. It's about the follow-through in Post more than the tech specs inside your camera. Looking forward into the next 5-10+ years I think it's finally time to acknowledge that a 4K Master is the way to go. The signs are there at the distribution level. Movie theaters are finally upgrading to next gen 4K projectors, streaming services are delivering 4K, and most importantly new TVs are all going 4K.