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

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

No a 2K does make grain larger than a 4K scan -- if anything, 4K scans are considered to be more grainy than a 2K scan. I think what you are seeing is the effect of post-sharpening, which is more common with 2K. It will make the grain stand out more.

But I think the bigger issue is whether visible grain is a bad thing or not. If the grain is there in the original, I'd rather see it preserved. The only reasons to employ grain reduction would be in restoration work to save a dupe optical effect that has aged faster than the surrounding shots, or in a modern D.I. session where the cinematographer needs to fix a shot or scene that doesn't intercut well due to excessive graininess.

But otherwise I can't imagine stopping watching a movie because of visible grain... The thing with 4K distribution is that you're going to notice more clearly the differences in sharpness and grain -- is that a bad thing? Isn't that one of the advantages of 4K, that differences stand out?

 

[PatrickFaith]

No a 2K does make grain larger than a 4K scan -- if anything, 4K scans are considered to be more grainy than a 2K scan. I think what you are seeing is the effect of post-sharpening, which is more common with 2K. It will make the grain stand out more.

But I think the bigger issue is whether visible grain is a bad thing or not. If the grain is there in the original, I'd rather see it preserved. The only reasons to employ grain reduction would be in restoration work to save a dupe optical effect that has aged faster than the surrounding shots, or in a modern D.I. session where the cinematographer needs to fix a shot or scene that doesn't intercut well due to excessive graininess.

But otherwise I can't imagine stopping watching a movie because of visible grain... The thing with 4K distribution is that you're going to notice more clearly the differences in sharpness and grain -- is that a bad thing? Isn't that one of the advantages of 4K, that differences stand out?

That makes sense. I btw would never stop watching a good movie because of grain, but as I viewing "bad" movies(story is horrible) I will continue to watch if it is shot well in order to learn new things. I also have netflix running more like background noise while I'm waiting for vfx or a system to move files, etc ... kind of a bad habit of keeping the tube on while i'm working.

Edit ... btw ... thinking about sound ... I will probably turn off a film after about 10 seconds if i hear low quality sound. I'm probably more fanatical on low quality sound then low quality image, both determine if I will switch to something else in about the first 15 seconds.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip) The thing with 4K distribution is that you're going to notice more clearly the differences in sharpness and grain -- is that a bad thing? Isn't that one of the advantages of 4K, that differences stand out?

Thank you David. To me, one of the big attractions of more resolution and dynamic range is the ability to introduce subtle notes in tone and feel that might otherwise be lost in the homogenizing effect of the delivery medium.

BTW, I'm looking forward to 8K because I'm a pixel peeper. That said, good quality UHD/4K - light compression, 4:4:4 color in XYZ or 2020, capable HDR display - is about as much image information as the average human visual system can process in typical viewing environments.

Cheers - #19

 

[Wayne Morellini]

As for breakout stories, it takes more than a camera or 4k resolution, as people would say. It takes a good engaging product. The problem with Red films often is the POOR color choice, that often looks like at least old 70's film, which is great as a MINIMUM, but overall slack. I saw the Dress Maker, a truly brilliant little film for all the non camera reasons, but the color looked like a mix of old film with yellowing skin tones and splashes of color. Now, it waa all right, but many films I have seen just look bleak. That is why I am excited about dragon, but it is up to film makers to make the distracting color at least more realistic or alternatively artistic or jazzed up. That gives your film another grade. Great sound. Then great picture, on top of great story, great acting, great direction, great production. Most of that greatness is cheap.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

People used to watch theatre, for instance, do you think we need multi million dollar sets, half million camera rigs and production crews in their hundreds to make a good film? People will sitnand watch what is good even with partly lame sets, they are just window dressing to Add another grade that should not be distracting either. But, it is how the story is portrayed that is the theme.

(Re:edited, stupid auto correcting keyboard again).

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Surely the color saturation level and color design (limited or expansive) is a creative choice -- you can have a big-budget movie that decides to use a muted palette such as "Saving Private Ryan" or "Se7en". Not every movie needs to use realistic or saturated color, or every color in the crayon box, just as not every painting needs to.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Sorry, you are right David, I should have included the creative choice. Just over responding to all the uncreative choices. Though artistic could be jconsidered Jazzed up compared to some of this. Do people just not grade, or auto grsde their footage? Maybe people should test out auto grading functions of resolve at least, to get some ideas.

 

[Freya]

People used to watch theatre, for instance, do you think we need multi million dollar sets, half million camera rigs and production crews in their hundreds to make a good film?

Dogville?

Freya

 

[Scott Crawley]

Craft not Pixels

Craft not Pixels

What will the program I am working on today be worth when the average YouTube pet video is posted in 4k, and will resolution have anything to do with that value? I'm thinking it will not.

Instead I am thinking; if the 2k film I am making today does not look significantly better than that 4k pet video of tomorrow... Then I will be better off working on the 999 other things that I am doing wrong than I will be blaming my choice of format.

 

[Elsie N]

If you consider your movie to be nothing more than a "use once... throw it away" story, then make it a 1080p or 2k if that is expedient.

If you do not know how your movie will be presented in the future but believe your story will stand the test of time, shoot with the highest production values at your disposal.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I don't fundamentally disagree with what you are saying, but if I am working on a SAGIndie or non-union film where so many of the cast and crew are working below rate I think it may be smarter to move the money around the board a little differently. I would rather pay my production team better, and/or put the money on screen in other ways.

Call it expediency if you like. I call it team building. A crew that is better paid can give me a greater ROI. That kind of good will results in greater effort, and that can snowball.

i'll still acquire in 4k because I can but finish may be another story right now. It depends. In 12 months we won't be having this discussion I think so it isn't something I spend a lot of time on.

If you consider your movie to be nothing more than a "use once... throw it away" story, then make it a 1080p or 2k if that is expedient.

If you do not know how your movie will be presented in the future but believe your story will stand the test of time, shoot with the highest production values at your disposal.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

If you consider your movie to be nothing more than a "use once... throw it away" story, then make it a 1080p or 2k if that is expedient.

If you do not know how your movie will be presented in the future but believe your story will stand the test of time, shoot with the highest production values at your disposal.

Well, virtually Amen to that Elsie, except maybe not everytime, 4k 16 stop like the Dragon or Ursa, would be good enough a lot of the time, even on a big 200 inch screen for average eyesight for lower end production. But 64k wide-angle/circumference one day might allow nice framing and zooming in post. But for now I would be happy to film even a 4k feature on the Dragon, knowing if it was good feature then it can look nice for decades. 4k is the new 720p and FullHD the new SD on big screens. The guy over at CNET is raving against 4k and big screens again, but knowing a thing or two about technology design, we can eventually expect cheap screens as big as your wall will allow, and as cheap as good wall paper maybe, and even auto 3DD, and people will even move every stick of furniture out of the way to do it, even getting walls designed for it. Over here we have had the phenomenon of the Mc Mansion of homes built 300-400 sq meter plus, virtually no property sides, not much yard, at prices 5 times houses in America, plus land 5-10x plus. A lot of the big homes have customer. Home theater rooms, in fact, you can see them in so.e of the more average homes of 200 meters plus. People would start getting these designed with 100-200 inch free wall space.

What will the program I am working on today be worth when the average YouTube pet video is posted in 4k, and will resolution have anything to do with that value? I'm thinking it will not.

Instead I am thinking; if the 2k film I am making today does not look significantly better than that 4k pet video of tomorrow... Then I will be better off working on the 999 other things that I am doing wrong than I will be blaming my choice of format.

Well maybe it would, if it was of a pet filming and editing in 4k Scott.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I don't fundamentally disagree with what you are saying, but if I am working on a SAGIndie or non-union film where so many of the cast and crew are working below rate I think it may be smarter to move the money around the board a little differently. I would rather pay my production team better, and/or put the money on screen in other ways. Call it expediency if you like. I call it team building. A crew that is better paid can give me a greater ROI. That kind of good will results in greater effort, and that can snowball. i'll still acquire in 4k because I can but finish may be another story right now. It depends. In 12 months we won't be having this discussion I think so it isn't something I spend a lot of time on.

I think Scott's point of view makes a lot of sense. If the project is a little indie feature at under $2 million, then I'm not sure what 4K is really going to buy you. I don't see a lot of distributors clamoring for 4K product right now. I'm a big fan of shooting in 4K/5K for post flexibility in composition, but a full 4K end-to-end workflow is problematic for budget-challenged projects at the moment.

I was doing HD post back in 2000, and it wasn't that tough back then. 4K is much, much more difficult in terms of time and money when you consider titling, backups, VFX, color correction, deliverables, and so on. It totally can be done, provided you have a considerably larger amount of time and money to solve the problems.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

But what about next year. 4k TV (and 8k) is coming, even hdr. Then their will be demand for token 4k filler footage at least. Even the netflicks and YouTube commercials al very nturrs will need content between primetime, where will they get the footage unless the eggs hatch into chickens. But sure you enough, they might not be savy enough to buy in indie 4k content, but soendna few billion upgrading and making their own before adopting 4k TV. It is a good marketing opportunity, to get a distribution deal together to take in A and B grade 4K indie content for sale to the 4k channels, particularly movie channels. You could even do deals where 2k finishes could be redone to 4k if desired. There might be little to it apart from wages to refinish it, but you get your content on TV, which is worth it to get some recognition for future projects. And so forth.

Now, a 2milion OK indie feature, year 2000 fullhd. Shouldn't 4k be similar priced by now (putting aside Rawcode and Bayer grading)? Shouldn't we be getting to the point it should costnan extra $2k out of 2 million, evren if an extra $20kk, that is an extra 1% of the budget, if you got the good product wouldn't it be worth it?

Somebody dy mentioned Dogville somewhere, that was a laugh, never seen it, didn't:fancy wasting my time on it, seemed to be something that could be filmed on vhs. . But I was thinking more of Total Recall, Imagine if it could have been filmed on Dragon with a good grade (and maybe less citche) then it would be a good see today, they would not have needed to remake it. Peolkr would see it repeated on TV, maybe the odd cinema showing and buy it on bluray. But imagine if it was shot in the 60's in black and white, with cheap story line and Lost in Space production values, how much would I be worth watching then. It might be on some dark part of television land, and you might see $2 dvd's of it sometime, but you won't see it much, and many people not at all likely. Now, imagine if it was shoot as I described it above, with dragon vaues and s good grade, it would still be seen over 50 years latter on TB. What is the resale value of your production. Is it good enough for somebody to at least pick it up as fill?

Lastly, I saw the latest Bond today, on the big screen, the technicians had just been through and the dark scenes were washed out. Looked terrible, worse than the Pirates of the Caribbean (forget which one I saw) and I never want to see it in a cinema again. Though it was a great film, poor color, yellowing skin tones, and broke continuity a number of times, and a number of times when they pulled focus the frame stretch changed, seriously, run that through a program to get rid of it. But that white wash ruined it 50%, I could get a 10x better viewing on my 8 year old TV at home with good blacks. My TV was second cheapest fullhd on the market, after a thousand or so dollars off, and second best grade picture, and now lowest good picture, and it still beats it. So, the polish makes good silver gleam, might as well have it on good silver.

 

[Marc Wielage]

But what about next year. 4k TV (and 8k) is coming, even hdr. Then their will be demand for token 4k filler footage at least.

I continue to believe that content is king. If you have a great story and great actors, told well, people will see it regardless of the format. Nobody cares about the K. Everybody cares about the emotion and craft of the storytelling. Sharpness alone will not sell a bad movie. A great movie in 2K is still a great movie.

Lastly, I saw the latest Bond today, on the big screen, the technicians had just been through and the dark scenes were washed out. Looked terrible, worse than the Pirates of the Caribbean (forget which one I saw) and I never want to see it in a cinema again. Though it was a great film, poor color, yellowing skin tones...

Go to better theaters. What city are you in? It looked great at the Grove here in LA.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Still working on my deal, but I really like my "4k" anamorphic compromise, i.e. 2048x1716 rectangular pixels. It's only about 40% more data processing then normal 1080p square pixels, yet looks great on 4k theater and also it formats really nice to 4/3 tablets and stuff (when I clip off the sides). As I was saying in my blog, this really gives me a lot of distribution options, and getting a deal for us indie's is real tough (so the better the distribution options just help all around). If I was doing square pixels at 2048x858 it really looks crappy when I reformat to to 1080p or the new iPads(4/3 aspect ratio ... and I basically get to keep my 1716 height ... actually have to slightly upscale for the newest iPad).

 

[Scott Crawley]

If this has been asked I apologize, but what would be the problem in 4k acquisition with an HD finish? If a distributor wants 4k deliverables you work it into the deal. Otherwise you save yourself the expense.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I continue to believe that content is king. If you have a great story and great actors, told well, people will see it regardless format. Nobody cares about the K. Everybody cares about the emotion and craft of the storytelling. Sharpness alone will not sell a bad movie. A great movie in 2K is still a great movie.


Go to better theaters. What city are you in? It looked great at the Grove here in LA.

Marc, I agree with you, this is about polish to stop it looking dated or less in future. If you got the product, by which I meant mainly content, then it pays to upgrade the delivery. For instance, if you were doing a C-F grade content documentary fullhd is sufficient, even on a $1000 camera for the lower grades. It is what it is, and soon enough will be gone, rarely to be seen on a network TV broadcast again, and rarely bought. But something of good content, that people want to see again and even buy, that is different. I want to do C-A grade, more profitable content that can go cinema (B and A grade mainly). We worry about this and that, but it is a matter also of making your own way and being prepared when the opportunity arises, such as the rising amount of 4k services and TV's driving demand for 4k content. Within 3 years you'll think differently. I live in a country that had a very big HDTV penertration and higher early adoption of 4k (the fact that most broadcast are still SD is ironic though). We have a stupid mentality over here, that the screen should be far enough away to fill only central vision, and 15 feet away etc. The stupid sales comments I have heard in the past. Home theatre is all about replacing theatre. So we get resistance from sales people to the idea of moving to 6 feet or more away rather than 12-15 feet. The 120 inch should change that concern. I suspect eventually the preferred home theatre size to go from 100 inch plus, more 120 inch plus. But until homes are built to accommodate it 120 inch might be a topping point in the market. It will be about what gives best and most pleasing results. The adrenal defficent might prefer something 60 inch or less, a lot of older people.

About the screen, it is the best non vmax screen in town. I actually think somebody might have left a light on somewhere, at the end there was a non even light glow. Fortunately I was not paying full price, I would not be happy. There were a lot of new staff, and the fumbling service I got, I would not let near a projector. That might explain things.

 

[Mark T Workman]

If this has been asked I apologize, but what would be the problem in 4k acquisition with an HD finish? If a distributor wants 4k deliverables you work it into the deal. Otherwise you save yourself the expense.

The problem with that is that it is generally considered that you won't actually be able to deliver a 4K master of "acceptable" quality without some level of over sampling. It will be really interesting down the line to hear how Raven rates on this at 4.5K but Patrick's solution to go anamorphic is pretty darn cool, possibly the only realistic solution in this regard. You'll probably, at the least, want a back up timeline of higher than 4K to down res from when you're delivering your "final" 2K or 1080P master.

I really like this thread as it does get down to the heart of the matter as to why so many of us go to such extra lengths of expense and study to deliver masters of "acceptable" quality. The irony of it for me is that my Scarlet MX purchase then double down to Dragon (so far) has resulted in only GOOSE EGGS and new software/personal disappointments! However, my entire Scarlet Dragon purchase and then some, was paid for entirely by mastering work I did in 4K restoration for films shot on film! Needless to say, I have to conclude that, "YES INDEED! 4K does pay!"

 

[Scott Crawley]

Excellent. I take your point and will keep in mind that I should over shoot my deliverable. It is a philosophy I aspire to.

As it relates to the Indy mastering in 4k or not, my question remains; Why wouldn't an independent production master in 2k or 1080 and save the 4k mastering expense for when there is a legitimate distribution offer on the table that requires it? Let the distro deal finance the expensive deliverables and use your money for production, post and marketing.

The problem with that is that it is generally considered that you won't actually be able to deliver a 4K master of "acceptable" quality without some level of over sampling. It will be really interesting down the line to hear how Raven rates on this at 4.5K but Patrick's solution to go anamorphic is pretty darn cool, possibly the only realistic solution in this regard. You'll probably, at the least, want a back up timeline of higher than 4K to down res from when you're delivering your "final" 2K or 1080P master.

I really like this thread as it does get down to the heart of the matter as to why so many of us go to such extra lengths of expense and study to deliver masters of "acceptable" quality. The irony of it for me is that my Scarlet MX purchase then double down to Dragon (so far) has resulted in only GOOSE EGGS and new software/personal disappointments! However, my entire Scarlet Dragon purchase and then some, was paid for entirely by mastering work I did in 4K restoration for films shot on film! Needless to say, I have to conclude that, "YES INDEED! 4K does pay!"