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

[PatrickFaith]

OK, but what other compromises are you making at $25K? As for comparisons to corporate work, I'm shooting the lowest compression ratio I can to maximize quality. OTOH, while I said that I usually break even on my corporate production work after constantly updating computers, cameras, buying new lenses, media, etc... These things have real budgets. $25K isn't a feature length anything, not even a short. I've worked on 30 second regional TV spots that have $100K budgets... We shoot similar proportions with this corporate production as is done for making a typical fictional narrative. I try to keep everything at a 5:1 ratio if I can, but it often creeps beyond that. 10:1 is my hard limit though... So if my final production (narrative or corporate) is going to be 2 hours in length, I won't shoot more than 20 hours of source material unless I just absolutely need to and then I will compensate in one area of the production to offset those "just had to" moments. And honestly, I rarely creep beyond the 5:1 mark. I cringe when I do. I still try to work like it's film and there are limits. I think too many people just roll the shit out of it on digital because they can. Even when we do roll extra, data storage is always the least of our concerns. It's cheaper than pretty much everything else in the budget, regardless of what production we're dealing with. I've never been on an indie production anything where data storage was a concern.

So when you're talking about $25K for a feature, you're talking funny money and cashing in favors and exploiting friends. You have shot 7 hours of footage to produce a 20 minute short film? Hmmm... Big studios can rarely afford such proportions, so you're not being honest with yourself in terms of real world costs. Since you can round up so much of this for gratis, why can't you borrow 200TB of hard drive space while you're at it? You'll only need $500 worth of HDDs and LTO storage space to store triplicate copies of the final master in a few formats, including a DCP for distribution.

I guess this is what irks me when discussing indie production. Let's cut the BS and be honest here about what things cost. You can rent all the computing power and storage space for production and post, just like you can rent cameras, lenses, media, etc.. You can scrounge up and borrow the same just as you get talent and crew to show up because they want to and for the "free" pizza. So cut the crap and you budget out your feature with actual money amounts applied to actual things to make it real. No pro-bono talent and grips for gratis. Pretend that labor laws really do apply to you and no one is going to work for free or for love of the craft or hypothetical screen and IMDB credit on some arbitrary future date. If the data storage cost for your production then is more than 1.5% to buy it up front or more than 0.6% to rent, then you're mis-budgeting somewhere. Even if we're talking the typical encounter I've had on indie productions where many are expected to show up for free because that's just the way this shit works, then take a look at the food budget. On a 10-day production if you stop sending the PA on Starbucks runs and if the crafty table has a box of apples, a cooler full of water and stuff for everyone to make PB&J sandwiches, you probably just saved enough to stretch the storage budget from 2K to 4K. You have probably also shot yourself in the foot because who is going to show up for a peanut butter sandwich and put in 10 hours for free? I'm also not saying that you have to go all the way to XAVC which takes almost no capacity from maximum quality RAW, which let's face it, is probably not a realistic consideration on the budget you have exampled. Even shooting 2K at that RAW quality level is going to blow the same budget, so let's get real here. Sometimes snobbery has to give way to reality... You can shoot many acceptable forms of 4K in between those two extremes. 4K ProRes 4444 HQ is only 35% more data on average than 2K ProRes 4444 HQ, as an example of one possibility, That's 4X the number of pixels in 1.35X the amount of space -- seems like a win to me. If your budget for a feature length production is $25K, you have obviously made a shit ton of compromises somewhere... Yet you talk like you can't compromise on data storage and you're saying you need 140TB to do it... Sony pictures used less than 200TB aggregate storage to do the 4K edit and finish of Skyfall in 2012. Maybe your $25K feature needs to re-evaluate a few things.

WORD. This is simply not arguable by a rational person that isn't self serving.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm cool with all of that. I feel your righteous soap box anger. Do I think it is likely that a $25k feature length film is going to be good? Fuck no. I wouldn't even do one, but we do shoot shorts for that amount and folks still go without pay. It sucks, but we still do it... sometimes... begrudgingly... for friends. ;-)

Been there, done that a few times myself... Actually the last few shorts I've worked on didn't have any budget that I'm aware of. Well, other than pizza, cheese burgers and a cooler full of beer...

Don't like $25k... is it too 1994 for you? Adjust for inflation then if it makes things more palatable. Sure we have crowd funding now that didn't exist then and that helps raise the budgets for some savvy producers but the hard reality is that there are a shit ton of folks still trying to realize their dreams on sub $100k budgets. You clearly have them rolling up on you just like the rest of us, offering pizza for work.

Could Smith still make Clerks for $30k? I guess so, but that is not what we are talking about here.

Clerks was made for $225K, not $30K. Honestly I think you have a much more realistic shot of making Clerks or something just like it for the same $225K budget nowadays then you did in 1994, even finishing at 4K. People forget how expensive it was (and still is) to shoot film. 4K storage and post requirements are super cheap in comparison. Seriously, go price out how much it would cost to shoot 10 hours worth of 35mm Kodak Vision stock and have it processed and scanned. That entire $225K budget just went to your film and processing, nothing else. Well, you may buy lunch for the production on the first day with what's left over...

Many indies hope to pick up distribution at festivals. The vast majority of festivals do not screen 4k. Shit, many of them don't even screen DVD's well. Jeff said it, I agree but we digress.

The OP was "Does a 4k finish pay off? (For Indies)" I remain unconvinced that it does.

With all the outlets today to get your film seen by audiences everywhere, I don't think the festival circuit is where it's at anymore. Too many limitations.... You have to submit and hope that whoever previews your film will like it and hold it for consideration. Then you screen it for a very limited audience and try to barter a deal. Meh... And all the while doing that, some of your bigger festivals won't even consider your submission if it's already been submitted and/or screened elsewhere. Some won't even consider yours unless it has already been accepted at "lesser" festivals or venues to good fanfare.

As for the OP's question... Does 4K pay off right now? Not really. It may help gain some more leverage when negotiating with services like Netflix... Actually they pretty much require 4K moving forward, or do now for shorts and episodic production, unless it's already a commercially viable franchise, features they're more lenient on. For future prospects, I figure that it's better to not short-change oneself and go for the 4K finish, unless this feature is intended to be shown in the near term and then discarded. My point here is that the cost savings of finishing at 2K rather than 4K is minimal these days, even non-existent, if complex CG FX are not involved.

 

[Craig Parkes]

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.

Cause that's not how the world actually works - if you don't plan to finish in 4K at the outset, and get the right people involved so they can give you a 4K output as an indie from the outset, then you will be chasing your tail redoing work in the HOPE that a 4K sale will eventuate.

Distributors/Sales agent dealing in 4K content right now are specialist, by the time that is no longer the case it will be expected that you finish in 4K at no extra cost.

You do something different from everyone else to take advantage of scarcity. If you CAN easily do a 4K output now (many indies can, they think it's harder than it is because it's new or because they aren't workflow savvy or simply have not approached the right people to do their finishing) then you'd do it so you had something you can sell at 4K.

Unless your film wins an Oscar/launches a major career no one is going to ask you to go back and make a 4K deliverable, at their cost, especially given the state of today's distro businesses - but if you have a 4K master than there are people who may want to buy it, even though you are an independent film with no names, because for them 4K content is something they need.

Finishing in 4K is not about succeeding as an indie - it's about making additional sales so that if you have succeeded as an indie you make a little bit more money, and if you have done middling as an indie you have lost a little less money.

That's it.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Finishing at 4K is neither a budget choking data monster, or, a magic carpet ride to a better distro deal. It's one of many choices. The obvious advice is to test the workflow with 3 minutes of footy that you cut down to 15 seconds (12:1) extrapolate from there. If, as Jeff suggests, you have even a hobbyist level workstation, then you should be able to copy and transcode 1080 rushes overnight, whether the camera original is 2/3/4/5/ or even 6K.

At the end of the day, if shooting on any RED cam, oversampling is part of the formula. It offsets some of the more difficult areas for entropy compression engines.

You also have to consider how your lenses will play on any window smaller than 4KHD on RED...

Cheers - #19

 

[Scott Crawley]

Cause that's not how the world actually works - if you don't plan to finish in 4K at the outset, and get the right people involved so they can give you a 4K output as an indie from the outset, then you will be chasing your tail redoing work in the HOPE that a 4K sale will eventuate.

Thanks for the reply. I see what you are saying. It is good to be a specialist in a niche market where demand is growing.

Just to be certain that I was clear in my question, you understand that I am not suggesting that anyone re-master in 4k in the HOPE that the sale will happen? The entire idea was not to do it at all until there is a sale.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I keep going back to the $25k budget not only because it represents a common segment of indies, but also because Smith originally said they shot Clerks for $25-30k. I remember reading that it cost an additional $200k for post improvements to get it up to exhibition standards. If that is correct, it kinda reinforces my stance on 4k finish; spend it in post when you have a demand.

Same thing with El Mariachi, which I worked on back in 1992. It was technically a $7000 production, but they had to do $250,000' worth of re-recording and mixing at Sony Pictures (including 100% of all the dialogue, because all the location sound was bad), and the color correction I did was probably about 8-9 days at about $15,000. All done from 16mm A/B rolls, as I recall.

The reality is that none of the indie distribution contracts I see right now are demanding 4K delivery... yet. The general rule of thumb is that the distributors don't want to pay for anything extra -- they believe that the films should arrive completely ready to go, with all the music rights, contracts, files, videotapes, sound mixes, everything completely finished. If the distributor has to do any additional work, the risk is that they'll do it outside the filmmaker's control.

4K will be important in the future, but one wonders how important a very minor $100,000 or $500,000 indie film will be in five years or 10 years. Will anybody remember it? Will the film please a wider audience in 4K than it did in HD? I know of indie films finished in standard def as late as 1998-1999, and the filmmakers aren't rushing out to finish these productions (shot on film!) in HD or 4K, because they're very, very obscure.

I would also argue that HDR may wind up as a more important delivery requirement. And the existing files we have right now can translate to HDR, provided you grade them that way. The challenge there is, the HDR standards are in a state of flux and the fine points aren't quite nailed down yet.

 

[Marc Wielage]

My point here is that the cost savings of finishing at 2K rather than 4K is minimal these days, even non-existent, if complex CG FX are not involved.

Jeff, with all due respect, how many 4K features have you finished and delivered? Trust me, it's harder than you think, particularly when you consider even a modest production nowadays often has a hundred or more visual effects, plus titles, conforming, color-correction, noise reduction, and on and on. Small deliveries rarely take fewer than 9 or 10 different versions, particularly when you add in foreign versions, pan/scan versions, HD vs. 2K DCI, textless, "TV clean" versions, director's cuts, deleted scenes, and so on. Double that when you add in 4K, and then remember that everything done in 4K requires four times as much time to process and copy. This gets even more challenging when there are last-minute changes and the movie that everyone believe was "locked" now needs to be updated.

If it takes us about three or four days just to render and check all the various versions required for an HD delivery, now you add another 8 days to that (minimum) for the 4K pass. I just had to confront this problem on a current project, and the producer ultimately decided we would just hold on to the 4K files and not put them through grain reduction and final renders just because of time and budget. If and when a distributor comes back and says, "hey, we'll give you $20K more for a 4K version," then there's no problem spending a few thousand dollars more and taking a week to do the 4K.

I also have not yet run into a film festival that can deal with 4K. I have dealt with film festivals that require DCPs, but even then there are last-minute stragglers that deliver on Blu-ray, which drives the festivals crazy. The transition to 4K is going to take longer than people believe.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Clerks was made for $225K, not $30K. Honestly I think you have a much more realistic shot of making Clerks or something just like it for the same $225K budget nowadays then you did in 1994, even finishing at 4K. People forget how expensive it was (and still is) to shoot film. 4K storage and post requirements are super cheap in comparison. Seriously, go price out how much it would cost to shoot 10 hours worth of 35mm Kodak Vision stock and have it processed and scanned. That entire $225K budget just went to your film and processing, nothing else. Well, you may buy lunch for the production on the first day with what's left over...

Same thing with El Mariachi, which I worked on back in 1992. It was technically a $7000 production, but they had to do $250,000' worth of re-recording and mixing at Sony Pictures (including 100% of all the dialogue, because all the location sound was bad), and the color correction I did was probably about 8-9 days at about $15,000. All done from 16mm A/B rolls, as I recall.

I am double checking and it seems my recollection is in part correct; production of Clerks cost $27,000 (almost all went to super 16 stock and processing), they were paid $227,000 and $100,000 of that went into deliverables. They split some $80,000 that was left after other undisclosed expenditures.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4...h0TWQBn#v=onepage&q=clerks film stock&f=false

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Jeff, maybe there maybe some cost we are missing about mastering in 4k for a feature, as we haven't done any. But thanks for validating everything I said before from working out what should be happening without reading it, about a tide of increasing 4k industry demand.

Guys, as I said, 4k is polish for good silverware.

With the current crop of cameras out there and current software tools, computer hardware, etc... I would love to know how delivering in 2K is going to save anyone money over 4K. This is a discussion/ argument for 2010, not when it's almost 2016. Granted, massive CGI work at 4K is still going to cost more, but that gap has closed significantly just in the past year or so. 4K distribution is still a logistics problem, not a production/ finishing problem. With primary distribution channels still being HD/2K/Film, I understand there isn't huge motivation to see a 4K finish in the feature film industry. But I still pose the question -- at this time, what does anyone save by doing a 2K finish? An hour or two of render time on final output? Seriously....

To say no one cares about the resolution is not true. Netflix and HBO care. All the techie kids and up and coming filmmakers care when their "pro" cinema gear can't capture at least the same number of pixels as the phone in their pocket.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

If XAVC is acceptable to production then yes, you can acquire with lower storage overhead, but my co-workers on an F55 indie short felt otherwise.

We shot a ratio of approximately 10:1 which isn't unusual for dramatic narrative, but is very unusual for the corporate videos I have been involved with. So for about 20 minutes of finished product we have more than 7 hours of footage. Extrapolated to 90 minutes I get about 35 hours.

If we use your numbers of 8TB per 2 hours we need 140 TB+ to hold the 35 hours of footage, proxies and other resources x 3 for backup. That just doesn't fly with a $25k all in budget.

I keep going back to the $25k budget not only because it represents a common segment of indies, but also because Smith originally said they shot Clerks for $25-30k. I remember reading that it cost an additional $200k for post improvements to get it up to exhibition standards. If that is correct, it kinda reinforces my stance on 4k finish; spend it in post when you have a demand.

If Smith waited to raise the $225k Clerks in all likelihood would never have been made.

What $700-1400 for 140TB of storage?

Clerks, yes I remember reading it costing that much. It need not have cost more than $30kUS, if he had done it right in the first place. But let's have a look, is that one of two houses in those days, so what $100-200kUS in todays value, or over here $500-600kUS in Australian houses . I agree with Elsie though. But a lot of it was spent by a young guy with a camera. A lot of it was from shooting film instead of modern digital, and maybe he spent more than an more experienced person would. When I was interested in doing features I was going to invest most in rehearsals (profit share) of talented locals, block it out, goooood delivery. Scripting content I was OK, I can do that myself. Bugger, I just realised that girl down the ......... that looked like she might be the daughter of somebody I knew, would suite very well the lead in my White film script. To stay retired or not to stay retired, that is practically a $1000 doller film.

My favorite short film of all time was Marla The Movie, $300 euros, look it up. Charm, piose, talent, delivery, script and content. And shot SD through a mean 35mm lens adaptor for a hazzy grainy dream like film effect, which gave it its charm. 4k maybe would have ruined it, but you can't argue something se could not have been filmed in 4k in the thousands these days, then have all the feature deliverable costs added to it.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Jeff, with all due respect, how many 4K features have you finished and delivered? Trust me, it's harder than you think, particularly when you consider even a modest production nowadays often has a hundred or more visual effects, plus titles, conforming, color-correction, noise reduction, and on and on. Small deliveries rarely take fewer than 9 or 10 different versions, particularly when you add in foreign versions, pan/scan versions, HD vs. 2K DCI, textless, "TV clean" versions, director's cuts, deleted scenes, and so on. Double that when you add in 4K, and then remember that everything done in 4K requires four times as much time to process and copy. This gets even more challenging when there are last-minute changes and the movie that everyone believe was "locked" now needs to be updated.

If it takes us a three or four days just to render and check all the various versions required for an HD delivery, now you add another 8 days to that (minimum) for the 4K pass. I just had to confront this problem on a current project, and the producer ultimately decided we would just hold on to the 4K files and not put them through grain reduction and final renders just because of time and budget. If and when a distributor comes back and says, "hey, we'll give you $20K more for a 4K version," then there's no problem spending a few thousand dollars more and taking a week to do the 4K.

I also have not yet run into a film festival that can deal with 4K. I have dealt with film festivals that require DCPs, but even then there are last-minute stragglers that deliver on Blu-ray, which drives the festivals crazy. The transition to 4K is going to take longer than people believe.

Marc, the only deliverable you need is for the North American film market if you have a deal, or something they love. Even if you do a DVD/bluray at the same time, you can make it simple (look at those $2 movies) or a bit sophisticated. But a lot of the rest you can hold off until the money is coming. You can output the footage in different formats, use the same graphic for web, poster and disc cover, disc title screen. You can use the same blurb on all these formats too. So, you could do it low budget if need be. One of the things you can't do affordable, is refilm it in 4k (incase anybody is still thinking 2k is much more affordable to film). Do any of you guys edit and grade using faster proxies, and let the software render out using the originals. Except for this finale stage, what real advantage would 2k deliverable have over 4kk on a low budget? If I had a smoke budget (the mist next to no budget). I would want to spend the extra time doing a 4k deliverable on a good product.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

He, he, I forgot, joking about the American market thing, as it only applies to American appeal films, which many here would be doing. Overseas people have different main markets, like local country and those of similar language, unless you are English, then you can do for local, and America if it is great. Unless you are on Canada, then you do a low budget film that pretends it is in the U.S., and just distribute it there.

 

[Al Lougher]

My two cents.. I brought this up before in this thread, but I still believe there is a better future for indies in the original series space. Note I say "original series" and not "web series". Web is now just a distribution method. I think there is a stigma attached to web series these days as most people now associate web series with poor quality, micro budget crap. There are even 12yr olds making web series and putting them on Youtube. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about quality TV-like content but shot by indie filmmakers. I've got friends who've made those $25K features and they're not seeing any return on them. Why? Because aside from most of them look terrible, content providers like Netflix/Amazon etc. are inundated with hundreds of these micro budget films every month. I'd like to think they have some sort of quality control otherwise their catalogs would become saturated with crap. Sure, there will always be the quality low-budget indie feature release. But I think micro budget films, those $25K films you guys talk about, or even sub $500K films will start to disappear because there will be no market for them. I'm a filmmaker at heart. I've always had a goal to make a feature, but over the past year or so that has changed. Content that builds a fan base is where it's at.

To stay on topic, my pilot episode for my "original series" "So Dark" was mastered at 4K and the 7 or so episodes we've written and trying to fund right now will all be shot on the Dragon and mastered in 4K. Why? Because I'm targeting getting my series on TV sets not Youtube. I'm betting that next year we'll see a massive take off with home 4K. Just look at the Black Friday ads for next week. I just bought one myself last weekend. 65" 4K for <$1K. Crazy prices! First thing I did was watch all the 4K content I could (including my own). And I didn't see one indie 4K film or series. But in the next year or so as others have said here, these providers (Netflix, Hulu, Ultraflix etc.) and other 3rd party apps will make their way to 4K TV sets around the world, and those with 4K ready content to sell will be first in line to be snapped up. Mastering my 20minute pilot film in 4K was no different to me in cost or time than 2K. Hopefully I'll have my entire series in the can by the time this happens, if I can fund the damn thing that is. That's the only issue right now. There's no business model for quality indie series. My episodes are around $15K each (roughly $1K per minute), that's the cost of an entire web series for some. And yes, everyone gets paid. Not much, but everyone I work with believes in the story and has a passion to want to see it made. Is that a sustainable model? Hell no. If Netflix is your ultimate distribution platform what is the difference between a $100K feature film or a $100K series? If more quality indie series are made and we can prove they can be sold then I can convince investors they'll see an ROI just like investing in a feature. Right now there is no ROI on series and that's the biggest problem. Hoping that will change over time. Right now we've had to register as a non-profit to help raise funds. Tax-free donations it seems are the best way right now. Anyway, my two cents. And if you want to see the quality I can make for under $15K just watch the episode or trailer in the link in my sig. Sure it's not perfect, but it's better than most of the stuff out there. But wait to see what we got cookin'

Peace out.

 

[Scott Crawley]

With all the outlets today to get your film seen by audiences everywhere, I don't think the festival circuit is where it's at anymore. Too many limitations.... You have to submit and hope that whoever previews your film will like it and hold it for consideration. Then you screen it for a very limited audience and try to barter a deal. Meh... And all the while doing that, some of your bigger festivals won't even consider your submission if it's already been submitted and/or screened elsewhere. Some won't even consider yours unless it has already been accepted at "lesser" festivals or venues to good fanfare.

As for the OP's question... Does 4K pay off right now? Not really. It may help gain some more leverage when negotiating with services like Netflix... Actually they pretty much require 4K moving forward, or do now for shorts and episodic production, unless it's already a commercially viable franchise, features they're more lenient on. For future prospects, I figure that it's better to not short-change oneself and go for the 4K finish, unless this feature is intended to be shown in the near term and then discarded. My point here is that the cost savings of finishing at 2K rather than 4K is minimal these days, even non-existent, if complex CG FX are not involved.

I am going back over your replies from yesterday because they are thoughtful and deserve more than the hurried cherry picking that I did yesterday. (Sorry, I was on the go.)

I share your sentiments regarding the festivals.

As for 4k being leverage with Netflix I don't really see it. Sure they may pay you more for those deliverables because they cost more to produce, but I don't think they are going to give your content special consideration nor are they going to pay you a penny more than is required to produce exactly those deliverables they desire.

A B grade picture in 4k is still a B grade picture. It just comes with a little added value. Please take no offense from the B grade thing. I don't doubt that you are capable of A quality work in your area of expertise. It is just pragmatism. The kinds of budgets we are talking about ($100k ish) generally produce B movies because they generally lack A list talent.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

I agree with Jeff. I think for the next 6-18 months, distribution networks that are pushing 4k, like netflix, will be open to buying a product that was mastered in 4k vs 2k.

If Netflix sees two basically identical "B" horror movies, but one is mastered in 2k and the other 4k, why wouldn't they buy the 4k one over the 2k one?

While I think that you are right in thinking that they won't pay a cent more for that 4k deliverable, it could still be the difference between selling and not selling. Doesn't that make it worth it?

 

[Scott Crawley]

You shoot for a 4k target, produce HD prints for speculation of sales and promote it as a 4k film. When a buyer places an order for 4k, you deliver 4k. Done and done.

I agree with Jeff. I think for the next 6-18 months, distribution networks that are pushing 4k, like netflix, will be open to buying a product that was mastered in 4k vs 2k.

If Netflix sees two basically identical "B" horror movies, but one is mastered in 2k and the other 4k, why wouldn't they buy the 4k one over the 2k one?

While I think that you are right in thinking that they won't pay a cent more for that 4k deliverable, it could still be the difference between selling and not selling. Doesn't that make it worth it?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

You shoot for a 4k target, produce HD prints for speculation of sales and promote it as a 4k film. When a buyer places an order for 4k, you deliver 4k. Done and done.

This.

Bruce is less than amused that people act like 4K is some magic sauce for getting your indie picked up and wanted a reality check. You got me. My point is that people shooting on RED cams should capture at 4K or better even if they have no agenda to ever master in 4K. If you don't have very many VFX shots, and you have someone involved who has a proper workstation and knows how to use it, then master at 4K. If not, just master at 1080/2K, then if the piece gets traction, let someone pay you to do the 4K version. Is that as efficient as just doing it in 4K the first time? Nope. But finishing an indie is typically a tough slog with enough headwinds already.

If Bruce's underlying query is whether or not a case can be made for mastering at 4K in terms of enhancing the commercial value of the movie - that's certainly possible, but hardly a given...

Cheers - #19

 

[Scott Crawley]

This approach does more than just allow you to put more of your budget into the production phase. It also has the potential to enable you to upgrade some or all of your FX shots. You will be re-mastering them anyway, so the door is open for the buyer to throw more money at them than you may have had originally. You may not want to open that door for a variety of reasons, but the possibility may be there for you.

Having more of your money for production could be the difference between getting better talent or otherwise improving execution. As a result, you could find yourself with an A movie in the end rather than a B movie. ;-)

 

[Wayne Morellini]

If you had the equipment already, how much extra would it cost to master in 4k compared to 2K, given your free time Scott?

 

[Scott Crawley]

If you had the equipment already, how much extra would it cost to master in 4k compared to 2K, given your free time Scott?

I don't do it all myself, so I'm not sure what you are asking or how to answer. Even on the small projects I get we tend to have FX shots that are done by people with skill sets different than mine.

Free time time and free equipment... I just don't live in that world. I've worked long and hard for my gear and my time has value. Your question is about as hypothetical as they come.

Speaking hypothetically $0 + 0 = 0... Right?

Is is nobody getting paid in your hypothetical world, or is it just me? Is this free film all mine? Will it be given to the viewing public for free, or will somebody be selling it somewhere down the road? (If anyone wants to pay for it, that is.)