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

[Elsie N]

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.

Scott, in that most Indie productions will hit the festival circuit before getting picked up, I think you are right. On the other hand, I think we need that 4k deliverable at the ready to help seal the deal at a higher price if approached. It is (or will be) much cheaper for a turn-key Indie to machine-out a 4k deliverable than for a low-level distributor to hire that done.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Scott, in that most Indie productions will hit the festival circuit before getting picked up, I think you are right. On the other hand, I think we need that 4k deliverable at the ready to help seal the deal at a higher price if approached. It is (or will be) much cheaper for a turn-key Indie to machine-out a 4k deliverable than for a low-level distributor to hire that done.

Those distributors are likely to make the Producer responsible for the deliverables anyway. The point is it needn't be done in advance. Spend the money only when you need to and maximize the amount of capitol that you can put into production. You can finance those deliverables easily if you have a deal in place, so why take it out of your production budget? In other words don't over-produce.

I know of no reason why the spec. master needs to be any more than 1080. Shop your film as "4k ready".

Is there a legit reason why this as a bad idea?

Are distributors routinely choosing material from properly presented 4k sources or are most screenings happening at lower resolutions anyway?

 

[Elsie N]

Those distributors are likely to make the Producer responsible for those deliverables anyway. The point is it needn't be done in advance. Spend the money only when you need to. In other words don't over-produce.

Or... 180 degrees from what you just said. '-)

 

[Scott Crawley]

Or... 180 degrees from what you just said. '-)

Sorry, you missed my edits. At the risk of quoting myself;

Are distributors routinely choosing material from properly presented 4k sources or are most screenings happening at lower resolutions anyway? If the latter, a 4k master is a near complete waste and should not be part of the budget.

The answer seems obvious to me, but the question is not rhetorical. I've been wrong before. ;-)

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

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.

 

[Scott Crawley]

If your budget is 1M+ I see your point, but for a Clerks type indie, storage can still be a proportionately significant expense, particularly if you don't have RedRAW compression at your disposal.

What does it cost to backup in triplicate, 36 hrs of F55 4k 16-bit RAW? (I have to ask, I haven't done it.)

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.

 

[Elsie N]

If your budget is 1M+ I see your point, but for a Clerks type indie, storage can still be a proportionately significant expense, particularly if you don't have RedRAW compression at your disposal.

What does it cost to backup in triplicate, 36 hrs of F55 4k 16-bit RAW? (I have to ask, I haven't done it.)

Personally I'm not concerned about other camera users. But as a RED centric small-house operation, Hard Drive storage expense is the least of my worries.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Personally I'm not concerned about other camera users. But as a RED centric small-house operation, Hard Drive storage expense is the least of my worries.

That is an advantage that we have, but it does not address the question; Does it pay an indie to do a 4k finish? If buyers aren't specifically looking for it and/or they are not even screening prospects in proper 4k then I maintain that it does not and will not.

I'm all over acquiring for a 4k target but we just haven't finished that way yet and when I'm working with other acquisition formats I can't even recommend 4k to most of them either. We just haven't enjoyed that level of success yet.

if we have the right people and the right project sure, but in that case I might hope we would attract the right money as well.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The storage argument is old and weak. Storage is dirt cheap these days and 4K isn't as big as everyone wants to pretend it is. 4TB hard drives can be had for under $100. My point above has nothing to do with $1M+ budgets. I have been finishing stuff in 4K since 2008 and actually finishing *everything* in 4K+ for 5 years now. Granted, 90% of my work is corporate and not indie film, but the workflow and post process is all the same and I've finished more than 10 hours worth of deliverable 4K content here in 2015, including some CGI at 4K, and I'm only a one man operation hiring talent and crew as needed with a part time helper and my wife doing the books. And that's all just because.. and practically on an indie budget because the corporate world is brutal. Most of it involves ad agencies using their own people or companies hiring the cheapest kid with a camera they can find. I carve out my own niche with the high-dollar clients by offering high resolution and other quality bumps and usually have to include web and app development as well as print services. By the time I keep my tools current, I barely break even. I actually make my living with other ventures in the tech industry and real estate market.

Using Clerks as an example... That's a great indie example and I think many people aren't thinking this through very well. Kevin Smith's cost to shoot, edit and finish Clerks was somewhere in the neighborhood of $225K. If memory serves. Delving into that, he spent more on film stock and processing in '93~94 than we would spend today on a competent workstation and archival storage that can edit, process and finish a comparable film at 4K. A lot changes in 21 years... Not to mention the amount of time saved with current tools vs. film processing and dealing with dailies, rushes, proxies, etc..

So on a modest budget indie film... Or even an ultra-low budget film like $25K... If we remove all the factors out of consideration that have no bearing on 2K vs. 4K, such as talent, crew, lights, etc.. etc.., that leaves us with camera choice and post production equipment and software tools, data storage... All the cool cameras shoot 4K+ these days. The Alexa is really the only hold-out, other than a lot of the popular DSLRs, and that's a different issue altogether. But you're not saving money in the budget by choosing 2K acquisition over 4K. So let's move on from there. It really becomes a question of time and space of working with 2K vs. 4K once we're into the post process. A $5K computer system today will handle 4K better than a $5K computer handled 2K just 3 years ago. Next year's 10-core i7 desktop CPU coupled with 4GHz DDR4 memory and dual Titan XPe 16GB GPUs is going to grade and finish 6K at full quality in real-time or faster while supporting 8K. So unless we're talking about a no-budget indie production that is trying to make due with 3~5 year old computers and tools, or older, which are crippling their workflow, what about 2K is going to actually save money vs. 4K???

My narrative style corporate projects are no different than making indie short films and I get to do one or two of those in a year... I could finish them in 2K, but it saves me nothing with my current tool set. Dropping to 2K doesn't even save me time anymore. 2K does take up less storage space.... But I'm not running short on that either... I have a 36TB RAID in my latest 8-core desktop build. Yes, 36TB... What did that cost me? Less than $2K for the 6 x 6TB SAS HDDs, SAS RAID controller and two new SAS fan-out cables, all in on that one. Running in RAID-5 I get a formatted capacity of 24TB and speeds about 600MB/s writes and 700MB/s reads. Not the fastest, but plenty good for this workstation and it's actually too much space. Way too much for one workstation. Couple it with an LTO backup solution and this one workstation could be a one-stop solution for an indie film production studio to do everything on including managing all the footage for a feature shot, edited and finished at 4K.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

A couple other points... Scott, I agree with everything else you've said about story/content being king. Ultimately a great film in 2K is a great film and finishing it in 4K will add little value to the work as a whole.

One thing that we have encountered here with a couple of our short film submissions to festivals, who all want them delivered in HD these days and some still on DVD for initial review.. But some are starting to ask if 4K versions are available and various producers and buyers tend to lift eyebrows and take notice when you mention that a 4K version is available and a proper 4K finish was done. Like I've said in posts above, Netflix and others are starting to demand 4K. They don't demand it from the big studios because they won't get it from there, yet, and the product is marketable on its own anyway. For indies coming in to fill content space, Netflix wants 4K. HBO wants 4K, BBC America wants 4K... Nat Geo wants 4K+... Some studios and productions are beginning to disallow the Alexa and other cameras that are not true 4K or better. We are seeing the transition, we're right in the middle of it. The reality of it is that by the time all this 4K stuff gets settled and everyone is just working in 4K and delivering 4K, we will be having this exact same discussion about 8K...

 

[Scott Crawley]

If you have $25k for everything, storage cost is severely limited, too limited at F55 4k data rates. While I envy your RAID, it is only one copy of three required and $6k is a BIG chunk of $25k.

This is an area where a feature length indie is very different from corporate media.

 

[Scott Crawley]

This part is exciting and representative of opportunity... Breakout opportunities. If your material would appeal to these outlets specifically, all bets are off when it comes to a 2k finish. They want 4k... Yesterday. If yours is ready now the world could be yours if you have 'the shizzle' ;-)

A couple other points... Scott, I agree with everything else you've said about story/content being king. Ultimately a great film in 2K is a great film and finishing it in 4K will add little value to the work as a whole.

One thing that we have encountered here with a couple of our short film submissions to festivals, who all want them delivered in HD these days and some still on DVD for initial review.. But some are starting to ask if 4K versions are available and various producers and buyers tend to lift eyebrows and take notice when you mention that a 4K version is available and a proper 4K finish was done. Like I've said in posts above, Netflix and others are starting to demand 4K. They don't demand it from the big studios because they won't get it from there, yet, and the product is marketable on its own anyway. For indies coming in to fill content space, Netflix wants 4K. HBO wants 4K, BBC America wants 4K... Nat Geo wants 4K+... Some studios and productions are beginning to disallow the Alexa and other cameras that are not true 4K or better. We are seeing the transition, we're right in the middle of it. The reality of it is that by the time all this 4K stuff gets settled and everyone is just working in 4K and delivering 4K, we will be having this exact same discussion about 8K...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

If you have $25k for everything, storage cost is severely limited, too limited at F55 4k data rates.

I still disagree. F55 shoots RAW, XAVC and MPEG4. A 128GB SxS card holds 40 minutes of 4K XAVC and I think 17 minutes of 4K RAW, but I would have to go look as I have not shot RAW on the F55 -- should be 1GB/s. Either way, this is comparable to and actually quite a bit smaller than the R3D 5K and 6K data sizes I work with daily. Big budget studios can shoot 25 to 35 hours of footage or more to create a 2 hour finished product. Few indies have such a luxury and in the days of film, that just wasn't even a consideration. Even now, it's just not. If we look at data sizes, most 4K formats for both acquisition and delivery are more efficient than established 2K counterparts, so we're not seeing huge overloads in storage requirements. Look at ProRes 422 HQ -- it's 500MB/s for 2K and 750MB/s for 4K. Storage capacities are larger and also cheaper than ever before, so let's throw that into the mix.

So let's say we can get 17 minutes of 4K RAW from the F55 into 128GB of space. That's only 8TB for two hours of footage, or approximately $250 give or take $30 or so with current storage costs. Let's say this is an ambitious indie project with lots of people working for free for a couple weeks and we generate 20 hours of footage from which to cut a 90 minute feature. The acquired data comes to 72TB at 4K RAW. Or if we acquire 2K ProRes with the Alexa or other 2K recorders out there, which has been all the rage the past few years, that comes to 40TB for 2K ProRes 4444 HQ or 72TB for 2K ProRes XQ! So if we go with 4444 or XQ at 2K, we have no significant data savings over shooting 4K RAW and we are taking up more data than if we acquired in 4K XAVC... Which, btw, 20 hours of 4K XAVC shot on the F55 comes to 4.1TB. Oh, shit... I could go on and juggle more numbers, but there are plenty of ways to acquire and fit 4K into various data storage limitations and we have far more options than we do with 2K.

2K RAW file sizes are huge if we're talking ARRI RAW or some of the other options out there and if we're going to discuss affordability or feasibility on the grounds of storage costs, then I don't think it' so much of a discussion on 4K vs. 2K, but rather a discussion of whether or not the production can afford to acquire in RAW format or other large format, resolution aside.

This is an area where a feature length indie is very different from corporate media.

How so? Well, I probably store quite a bit more data, actually. My annual data acquisition and storage is pretty comparable to feature film production and I probably archive more than most indie producers. I keep near-line HDD backups of most everything and online HDD forms of everything within the last 18-24 months or anything that I might need on an ongoing basis. LTO tape archival in duplicate of everything as well, updated weekly and most of that duplicated over time. I feel like I've hardly shot with my EPIC this year and compared to the last two years, I haven't. I think I have less than 60 hours on the camera since upgrading to Dragon. That said, I've still actually shot over 20 hours of footage this year and have archived more than 18TB of of content in all forms this year....

Going back on this and looking at a film like Clerks as an example... I don't know how many hours of film Kevin Smith shot for Clerks, but I can pretty much guarantee you that he didn't roll 20 hours worth. And I know that even at 4K RAW F55 data rates, triplicate copies of 2 hours worth of footage can be stored for under $500 all in. He made Clerks for $225K shooting film. A 10 minute film mag, processed and ready to scan costs more than $350. 2 hours of 4K costs far less than that 10 minutes of film to have it online and ready to edit.

This is also where we get into all the funny business and how to juggle money and priorities. Indie film works in an imaginary world where like-minded people often show up and put in their time and skills for love of the craft. $25K as a budget for one indie production may be comparable to $150K on a different production, depending on the skills and tools and whatnot that are brought to the table. Or lets look at this in a different way... Robert Rodriguez made El Mariachi, shot on film, for about $9700, or at least that's usually the number I've seen him claim. IMDB claims less at $7K or whatever... If he, or some other filmmaker, had the perfect storm of events to make this happen today with the tools available to us now, I have no doubt that it could be done for the same cost, or less, shot digitally and finished in 4K.

If we're talking real world costs and real world money of a production, the costs of storage and processes to handle 4K instead of 2K are insignificant. And, as with the XAVC example above, I can show you ways where 4K can actually SAVE MONEY in terms of storage. All too often with indie film production, we start seeing issues where people work for cheap or free and other supply equipment for free or close to that and favors are swapped, owed or cashed-in. If a production can work deals like that on all these various aspects, why does the buck have to stop short when it comes to storage capacities or computing power? It doesn't and more often lately it doesn't stop there now that weekend-warrior filmmaker types are now building systems that can handle 4K+ with ease.

On an indie production that legitimately pays for everyone and everything, 2K isn't going to save them a handful of beans in contrast to 4K and data storage is going to be peanuts vs. everything else in the budget. Most productions are going to spend 10X more on their lighting kit rental than their data storage. Wait, what? It's being shot with "available light" -- OK, well, let's pretend that won't look like shit and we'll approach post with the same philosophy -- we'll use "available" storage. I'm sure the Yin and Yang will balance out just fine in the end and we'll get what we paid for.

 

[Scott Crawley]

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.

I still disagree. F55 shoots RAW, XAVC and MPEG4. A 128GB SxS card holds 40 minutes of 4K XAVC and I think 17 minutes of 4K RAW, but I would have to go look as I have not shot RAW on the F55 -- should be 1GB/s. Either way, this is comparable to and actually quite a bit smaller than the R3D 5K and 6K data sizes I work with daily. Big budget studios can shoot 25 to 35 hours of footage or more to create a 2 hour finished product. Few indies have such a luxury and in the days of film, that just wasn't even a consideration. Even now, it's just not. If we look at data sizes, most 4K formats for both acquisition and delivery are more efficient than established 2K counterparts, so we're not seeing huge overloads in storage requirements. Look at ProRes 422 HQ -- it's 500MB/s for 2K and 750MB/s for 4K. Storage capacities are larger and also cheaper than ever before, so let's throw that into the mix.

So let's say we can get 17 minutes of 4K RAW from the F55 into 128GB of space. That's only 8TB for two hours of footage, or approximately $250 give or take $30 or so with current storage costs. Let's say this is an ambitious indie project with lots of people working for free for a couple weeks and we generate 20 hours of footage from which to cut a 90 minute feature. The acquired data comes to 72TB at 4K RAW. Or if we acquire 2K ProRes with the Alexa or other 2K recorders out there, which has been all the rage the past few years, that comes to 40TB for 2K ProRes 4444 HQ or 72TB for 2K ProRes XQ! So if we go with 4444 or XQ at 2K, we have no significant data savings over shooting 4K RAW and we are taking up more data than if we acquired in 4K XAVC... Which, btw, 20 hours of 4K XAVC shot on the F55 comes to 4.1TB. Oh, shit... I could go on and juggle more numbers, but there are plenty of ways to acquire and fit 4K into various data storage limitations and we have far more options than we do with 2K.

2K RAW file sizes are huge if we're talking ARRI RAW or some of the other options out there and if we're going to discuss affordability or feasibility on the grounds of storage costs, then I don't think it' so much of a discussion on 4K vs. 2K, but rather a discussion of whether or not the production can afford to acquire in RAW format or other large format, resolution aside.



How so? Well, I probably store quite a bit more data, actually. My annual data acquisition and storage is pretty comparable to feature film production and I probably archive more than most indie producers. I keep near-line HDD backups of most everything and online HDD forms of everything within the last 18-24 months or anything that I might need on an ongoing basis. LTO tape archival in duplicate of everything as well, updated weekly and most of that duplicated over time. I feel like I've hardly shot with my EPIC this year and compared to the last two years, I haven't. I think I have less than 60 hours on the camera since upgrading to Dragon. That said, I've still actually shot over 20 hours of footage this year and have archived more than 18TB of of content in all forms this year....

Going back on this and looking at a film like Clerks as an example... I don't know how many hours of film Kevin Smith shot for Clerks, but I can pretty much guarantee you that he didn't roll 20 hours worth. And I know that even at 4K RAW F55 data rates, triplicate copies of 2 hours worth of footage can be stored for under $500 all in. He made Clerks for $225K shooting film. A 10 minute film mag, processed and ready to scan costs more than $350. 2 hours of 4K costs far less than that 10 minutes of film to have it online and ready to edit.

This is also where we get into all the funny business and how to juggle money and priorities. Indie film works in an imaginary world where like-minded people often show up and put in their time and skills for love of the craft. $25K as a budget for one indie production may be comparable to $150K on a different production, depending on the skills and tools and whatnot that are brought to the table. Or lets look at this in a different way... Robert Rodriguez made El Mariachi, shot on film, for about $9700, or at least that's usually the number I've seen him claim. IMDB claims less at $7K or whatever... If he, or some other filmmaker, had the perfect storm of events to make this happen today with the tools available to us now, I have no doubt that it could be done for the same cost, or less, shot digitally and finished in 4K.

If we're talking real world costs and real world money of a production, the costs of storage and processes to handle 4K instead of 2K are insignificant. And, as with the XAVC example above, I can show you ways where 4K can actually SAVE MONEY in terms of storage. All too often with indie film production, we start seeing issues where people work for cheap or free and other supply equipment for free or close to that and favors are swapped, owed or cashed-in. If a production can work deals like that on all these various aspects, why does the buck have to stop short when it comes to storage capacities or computing power? It doesn't and more often lately it doesn't stop there now that weekend-warrior filmmaker types are now building systems that can handle 4K+ with ease.

On an indie production that legitimately pays for everyone and everything, 2K isn't going to save them a handful of beans in contrast to 4K and data storage is going to be peanuts vs. everything else in the budget. Most productions are going to spend 10X more on their lighting kit rental than their data storage. Wait, what? It's being shot with "available light" -- OK, well, let's pretend that won't look like shit and we'll approach post with the same philosophy -- we'll use "available" storage. I'm sure the Yin and Yang will balance out just fine in the end and we'll get what we paid for.

 

[Elsie N]

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.

Scott, what was true in 1994 is totally irrelevant to what is happening today. Just sayin'

 

[Scott Crawley]

Scott, what was true in 1994 is totally irrelevant to what is happening today. Just sayin'

Are you saying that the $25k indie budget is a thing exclusive to 1994?

I can guarantee you that it is a very typical if not luxurious budget for many still, today.

As interesting as all of this is, it still doesn't have much to do with whether or not a 4k finish is of benefit to most independent films.

 

[Elsie N]

Are you saying that the $25k indie budget is a thing exclusive to 1994?

Yeah, for that kinda money I think I can make the original AND the sequel. '-)

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

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.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Just throwing it out there, 192TB of redundant RAID storage (288TB actual HDD space) plus enclosures, cabling and PCIe host adapters can be assembled for less than $16K. Yes, this doesn't work for a $25K budget film of any sort. Make that $19K by the time the storage is attached to a manageable server and double that if you want to share it amongst 10 workstations with 10Gb/s+ interconnects. Double that again if purchased through a reliable vendor who provides multi-year warranty and support services.

On the flip side of that, we really don't need such massive amounts of storage all in one place or accessible at one time to make a feature film. Even if we have 20 hours of 4K source material. There are lots of different ways to dissect this frog, so to speak...

 

[Scott Crawley]

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. ;-)

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.

Is a shooting ratio of 10:1 high? For a RomCom it may be, but that is debatable and it is actually pretty low for any kind of action or fast cuts.

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. I concede that it can. But hey, I'm only one of many. TIFWIW

Thank you for including me in your discussion.

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.