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

[Elsie N]

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.)

I think this explains a lot of the difference of opinion.

For me anyway, I've progressed on a broad front. I've upgraded computers, storage capabilities, CAMERAS, apps... everything on a broad front. That is, keeping 4k-relevant in all phases. I write scripts with an eye on costs to produce (locations, cast size, crew requirements etc.)

And being primarily a self-centered production (I've done some outside work but not much) spending any extra time finishing in 4k is o.k.

When I'm through with a project I do not want to have to stop the project I've moved on to in order to satisfy a requirement to finish the previous project in 4k in order to help the sale.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I think this explains a lot of the difference of opinion.

For me anyway, I've progressed on a broad front. I've upgraded computers, storage capabilities, CAMERAS, apps... everything on a broad front. That is, keeping 4k-relevant in all phases. I write scripts with an eye on costs to produce (locations, cast size, crew requirements etc.)

And being primarily a self-centered production (I've done some outside work but not much) spending any extra time finishing in 4k is o.k.

When I'm through with a project I do not want to have to stop the project I've moved on to in order to satisfy a requirement to finish the previous project in 4k in order to help the sale.

If you make a sale you are practically guaranteed that you will have to go back and crank out additional versions for various markets. If it means that your story will reach an audience and your efforts will be repaid why on earth wouldn't you? We toil at this work for precisely that don't we, the audience and/or the paycheck?

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Can I do a 4K finish in my bedroom by myself? Yes. Is it a good idea? Well, every time I think I know something, I meet people who know 10 times as much and I'm quickly reminded about Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. Films, especially good ones tend to be made by multiple people, bringing special skill sets to the table. Not always. There have been success stories of films being made practically singlehandedly. But more often than not, a film will touch many hands when all is said and done, which is why a 4k finish at this point in time is not a given. At some point though, it will be more standard and these conversations will seem outdated.

 

[Marc Wielage]

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?

What if the 4K movie has a bad script? What if the 2K movie has much more famous actors? Don't forget that, especially in the indie business, content is king. On the long list of factors that help a small budget indie feature to sell, being in 4K is at or near the bottom of the list.

Note that within deliverables contracts, they generally demand multiple resolutions and aspect ratios for every format. In other words, they may want a letterboxed 2K version, a full-frame 16x9 pan/scan HD version, and various other permutations for TV and download. I have never seen a contract that only wanted a 4K version. There are some contracts out there that still require standard def (!!!), but those have started disappearing in recent years.

When I'm through with a project I do not want to have to stop the project I've moved on to in order to satisfy a requirement to finish the previous project in 4k in order to help the sale.

That's another significant problem with 4K deliveries: if your drives are clogged up with 16-20TB' worth of source material that you have to hang on to for weeks, and you're also trying to get other, older projects out at the same time, you can run into traffic jams very quickly. Even worse if you expect one job to be wrapped by (say) early November, only now it's November 22nd and the client continues making unexpected changes.

 

[Scott Crawley]

That's another significant problem with 4K deliveries: if your drives are clogged up with 16-20TB' worth of source material that you have to hang on to for weeks, and you're also trying to get other, older projects out at the same time, you can run into traffic jams very quickly. Even worse if you expect one job to be wrapped by (say) early November, only now it's November 22nd and the client continues making unexpected changes.

That and, If your master is 4k, every one of the lower res versions that you derive from that is going to take longer to render out as well so even your 2k deliverables could become more expensive to make.

 

[Elsie N]

If you make a sale you are practically guaranteed that you will have to go back and crank out additional versions for various markets. If it means that your story will reach an audience and your efforts will be repaid why on earth wouldn't you? We toil at this work for precisely that don't we, the audience and/or the paycheck?

I'm not sure I ken what you mean. Once you sell the rights I'm guessing (no current experience) the new rights owner (Netflix, Amazon, Studio) is responsible for any distribution venues they may opt to pursue. Still I'll also make a 4k Blu Ray master when finishing.

Can I do a 4K finish in my bedroom by myself? Yes. Is it a good idea? Well, every time I think I know something, I meet people who know 10 times as much and I'm quickly reminded about Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. Films, especially good ones tend to be made by multiple people, bringing special skill sets to the table. Not always. There have been success stories of films being made practically singlehandedly. But more often than not, a film will touch many hands when all is said and done, which is why a 4k finish at this point in time is not a given. At some point though, it will be more standard and these conversations will seem outdated.

Point taken, but I think what you see as happening in the future is something that can happen now. Granted, in my case I've only done some minor things... some for others as well as for myself. Yet that experience has given me confidence that you do not have to master all phases to make a good movie.

Being only adept at all phases may give one the ability to create a holistic movie that is much more watchable than a movie put together by a group of job-specific professionals.

I hold up Patrick Faith as an example of someone who works this way and my money is on him to be successful in his endeavor.

What if the 4K movie has a bad script? What if the 2K movie has much more famous actors? Don't forget that, especially in the indie business, content is king. On the long list of factors that help a small budget indie feature to sell, being in 4K is at or near the bottom of the list.

Note that within deliverables contracts, they generally demand multiple resolutions and aspect ratios for every format. In other words, they may want a letterboxed 2K version, a full-frame 16x9 pan/scan HD version, and various other permutations for TV and download. I have never seen a contract that only wanted a 4K version. There are some contracts out there that still require standard def (!!!), but those have started disappearing in recent years.


That's another significant problem with 4K deliveries: if your drives are clogged up with 16-20TB' worth of source material that you have to hang on to for weeks, and you're also trying to get other, older projects out at the same time, you can run into traffic jams very quickly. Even worse if you expect one job to be wrapped by (say) early November, only now it's November 22nd and the client continues making unexpected changes.

As to your first point, I think we are talking "all things being equal." My thinking is that while content is king, without a court or subjects a king is more like a Man of La Mancha. So, to exalt the king, give him royal resolution, an army of dynamic range, a color science queen. Then his audience of subjects will hail him as worthy to rule.

In re: your second statement, once you've mastered it becomes pretty simple to change formats and let the robot computer take care of the rest. And in my case I have more than one computer capable of doing rote work.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I'm not sure I ken what you mean. Once you sell the rights I'm guessing (no current experience) the new rights owner (Netflix, Amazon, Studio) is responsible for any distribution venues they may opt to pursue. Still I'll also make a 4k Blu Ray master when finishing.

They may, but my understanding is that is generally not the case. They do not want to be reworking your film, and you shouldn't be so eager to give them the right to modify it. If you were dealing with a top tier DP, their deal memo might even prevent you from conveying that right to the distributor.

What they typically want from you is a turnkey package that they can disseminate. Creating that package is the job of the producer.

 

[Elsie N]

They may, but my understanding is that is generally not the case. They do not want to be reworking your film, and you shouldn't be so eager to give them the right to modify it. If you were dealing with a top tier DP, their deal memo might even prevent you from conveying that right to the distributor.

What they typically want from you is a turnkey package that they can disseminate. Creating that package is the job of the producer.

BINGO! That's why you want to also have a 4k finish!

 

[Julio Quintana]

This conversation is getting silly. If it actually costs you nothing extra to do a 4K finish, like some people on here say, then do it. If it costs too much for your project, don't do it.

You could have this same argument about, for example, shooting with Master Primes vs. Compact Primes. The people who own or have access to the Master Primes would all say, "Of course it is worth it to shoot Master Primes!" The people who can't afford it will say, "No distributor will buy my movie just because I shot Master Primes!"

They're all right. In a way. Moving on.

(Full disclosure, I just did a full 5K DPX finish of my first feature. Just because. We'll see how much that pays off)

 

[Marc Wielage]

That and, If your master is 4k, every one of the lower res versions that you derive from that is going to take longer to render out as well so even your 2k deliverables could become more expensive to make.

Well, I can take the opposite argument. What if 100% of your source material was 4K, but you did separate renders for HD and 4K finals? This is essentially the way I work, but you could in theory just do one 4K master and then derive everything from that. In my case, the issues with 4K grain reduction make it something I have to approach in multiple steps, and for that reason I do HD and 4K separately. HD also generally has priority on delivery -- as in, "we need the HD right now, and the 4K a month from now" -- so it's usually not as much of a crisis to manage.

But that point is correct: rendering out HD is a lot less time-consuming, and (with audio and other variations), it's still a 2- or 3-day process in many cases.

This conversation is getting silly. If it actually costs you nothing extra to do a 4K finish, like some people on here say, then do it. If it costs too much for your project, don't do it. (Full disclosure, I just did a full 5K DPX finish of my first feature. Just because. We'll see how much that pays off)

I think this is unwise. I wouldn't even attempt to create a deliverable file unless I had a copy of the contract right in front of me and knew the specs to a T. If you create something that the distributor can't actually use, what's the point? It would kind of be like trying to do a $250,000 indie film that was shot in 65mm, and handing the distributor a bunch of 70mm prints. What are they supposed to do with those?

Give them what they really ask for and can use, and you'll find the distributors will be a lot more receptive. I suspect many people here have never been in the position of staring at a deliverables contract on a Friday and realizing all this stuff has to be ready by Monday morning at 9AM. And it's a long, long list. Trust me on this.

 

[Daniel Pearson]

Though slightly off topic, there are a lot of smart hats in the ring so I ask the question. How will any future 4K mandate work with documentary? Most documentaries have, to some extent (minimal through entirely), archive footage. Even SD archival material can work in HD but won't cut it for 4K. Can documentaries exist outside of future 4K?

 

[Craig Parkes]

Though slightly off topic, there are a lot of smart hats in the ring so I ask the question. How will any future 4K mandate work with documentary? Most documentaries have, to some extent (minimal through entirely), archive footage. Even SD archival material can work in HD but won't cut it for 4K. Can documentaries exist outside of future 4K?

Networks tend to have deliverables that stipulate percentage of Non-hd archive is acceptable.

 

[Julio Quintana]

I think this is unwise. I wouldn't even attempt to create a deliverable file unless I had a copy of the contract right in front of me and knew the specs to a T. If you create something that the distributor can't actually use, what's the point? It would kind of be like trying to do a $250,000 indie film that was shot in 65mm, and handing the distributor a bunch of 70mm prints. What are they supposed to do with those?

Give them what they really ask for and can use, and you'll find the distributors will be a lot more receptive. I suspect many people here have never been in the position of staring at a deliverables contract on a Friday and realizing all this stuff has to be ready by Monday morning at 9AM. And it's a long, long list. Trust me on this.

We have not created any deliverables. I'm saying that we DI'd the movie using 5K DPX files, including dozens of VFX shots, so now we actually have a 5K DPX master of the film that can be used to create any deliverables required. Like many here, the extra cost for us was negligible to do this over a 2K DI, so we did it. If I were making a $25K feature, maybe I wouldn't have. I really don't know. We'll see if it pays off.

 

[Craig Parkes]

We have not created any deliverables. I'm saying that we DI'd the movie using 5K DPX files, including dozens of VFX shots, so now we actually have a 5K DPX master of the film that can be used to create any deliverables required. Like many here, the extra cost for us was negligible to do this over a 2K DI, so we did it. If I were making a $25K feature, maybe I wouldn't have. I really don't know. We'll see if it pays off.

This is what I am talking about - and is pretty much exactly what I did (in my case, it was 4K Prores 4444 at 12 bit, due to space issues, but it has proven sufficient as a master to achieve UHD VOD sales).

You don't have deliver in 4K, but you do need a 4K+ vision master to make future deliverables from - and no one is going to keep your project around on their drives forever 'just in case' so it makes sense to do an end to end 4K workflow as an independent. That is, if you don't have a tonne of VFX dozens of shots as in Julio's case is probably high - anything approaching a hundred of shots plus the headache/time/costs/slowdown would likely make it a very marginal call (even if you weren't paying for the VFX, just spending the additional time doing it yourself)

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Now somebody mentioned noise reduction. Unfortunately the multi-quotes I have missed it. I know the film grain brigade used to harp on in the old days about how non film grain was not "authentic" but happily I rarely see it in broadcast today, and the picture looks a lot better. I know in cinema it is still used, but in broadcast (or cinema) you can get a much better picture compression quality without it, and with modern temporal deniose technique you can get close to 100% of the "authentic" missing picture under the noise in the frame, as most detail often is slow changing or trackable. I personally am for getting rid of it up front of convenient. If people eat to add crappy niose/grain, then maybe they should build it into the cinema projection standard, such that through a set pseudo random noise generator function, each frame can be given a grain profile, such as from a series of x-y brightness have a-b noise, sloped to z function, to produce a curved profile function in a number of BYTES per frame. Now, because such would be standardised, content producers that want noise could map the look of the functions on their end knowing that it should look the same in the cinema. Now you maybe double, and more the quality of a cinema deliverable with grain. It is not likely to look like the original noise exactly, but noise in unauthentic rubbish anyway, a more artistic choice. Before anybody objects, it can be incorporated in future upgrades, like 8k cinema, and 4k installations and replacement codec boxes. It's doable at little extra expense going over a ten year+ period.

What if the 4K movie has a bad script? What if the 2K movie has much more famous actors? Don't forget that, especially in the indie business, content is king. On the long list of factors that help a small budget indie feature to sell, being in 4K is at or near the bottom of the list.

Note that within deliverables contracts, they generally demand multiple resolutions and aspect ratios for every format. In other words, they may want a letterboxed 2K version, a full-frame 16x9 pan/scan HD version, and various other permutations for TV and download. I have never seen a contract that only wanted a 4K version. There are some contracts out there that still require standard def (!!!), but those have started disappearing in recent years.


That's another significant problem with 4K deliveries: if your drives are clogged up with 16-20TB' worth of source material that you have to hang on to for weeks, and you're also trying to get other, older projects out at the same time, you can run into traffic jams very quickly. Even worse if you expect one job to be wrapped by (say) early November, only now it's November 22nd and the client continues making unexpected changes.

You wouldn't deliver the bad movie is low resolution because it is bad though, like SD or QVGA.

You should have a system setup where you can work most of the expected deliverables at once (except reframing for a different ratio would be too much and probably needs a lite/auto indicated frame and a separate pass on a clear head before rendering) then output the expected deliverables. Any other deliverables are likely to be worked off one of these deliverable streams, which means going back taking the previous streams data points lightly adjusting to new spec and rerendering. If you have software that can do this, (sorry forgotten rest of the point, local kids needlessly yelling/moaning to each other outside). Anyway, such software if designed right (in the computer industry this is rare) can leverage common work between each stream to speed up the renders (but know the computer industry this level of integration is wishful thinking).

Aren't most deliverables a lot more compact, or do they demand a low compressed format? It sounds like the industry needs common deliverable standards, to reduce the amount of deliverables for a given frame ratio/resolution. And if you say it doesn't work like that, then get together to make it work like that, that is why we have standards and trade/professional organisations, otherwise we would have different forms of TV's and broadcasting and electricity voltages and plugs, and ac and dc all over the place in a country, but all were standardised to get rid of that. I'm aware that different channels like different bakes, but they if they want cheaper content they are going to have to get used to running footage through something like resolve on their auto settings. For everyday production work, extra labor is just going to have to be picked up in the price paid for work over the longterm.

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.)

You seem to be extrapolating a lot of wrong answers like a skeptic trying to do a book on liberal theology Scott. We were talking about the sub $25k (and other low budget), who is definitely not going to have $25k for each professional to spend a month or two on his or her's film. These are people not paying themselves up front, doing it hopefully for passion (which means they might have energy enough to do a descent job). I am talking about if people own sufficient equipment to do the job. So, no, I am not talking about other people not getting paid, just the primary doing extra looking for a profit. OK, lets finish with the Clerks brigade, the movie wasn't that great anyway, just the "hey wow they did what with how much" publicity machine a lot of us rightly bought into (except now production and content standards are so high $225k is getting to be more a asking price. But you can still film something for electricity, media, food, water and transport if you want. "You want to be a star, then buy yourself a bus ticket and get down here, we start filming in 2 hours". I'm just joking ).

Now, for FX shots, what types are we generally talking about here? Number one rule in low priced production company is to reduce them when not necessary. The problem with high end 3D is that ray traced renders are done per pixel, and 4 times more pixels can translate into 4 times more cost, but on low end you can use polygon based graphics that don't have the same extra per pixel costs. But that is fairly high end expensive FX stuff, but I have seen low end effects done effectively on cheap comedy TV production (where it matters least though).

 

[Elsie N]

I know this doesn't fit the narrow parameters of this thread, but in a broader sense it punctuates the progression of 4k here in the U.S. The head of DirecTV is quoted as saying:

“There are only three questions – where’s the content? Where’s the damn content? Where’s the goddamn content?”

The link to the article relating to DirecTV and 4k is here.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Now somebody mentioned noise reduction. Unfortunately the multi-quotes I have missed it. I know the film grain brigade used to harp on in the old days about how non film grain was not "authentic" but happily I rarely see it in broadcast today, and the picture looks a lot better.

I was just watching an episode of Gotham recently and mulling over how noisy some of the night shots looked. So grain and noise are still issues with modern cameras, even when shot on Alexa. Generally, there's quite a bit of NR work that goes on in the mastering process just as the file as rendered and delivered for broadcast.

You seem to be extrapolating a lot of wrong answers like a skeptic trying to do a book on liberal theology Scott. We were talking about the sub $25k (and other low budget), who is definitely not going to have $25k for each professional to spend a month or two on his or her's film. These are people not paying themselves up front, doing it hopefully for passion (which means they might have energy enough to do a descent job). I am talking about if people own sufficient equipment to do the job. So, no, I am not talking about other people not getting paid, just the primary doing extra looking for a profit.

I think there are realistic limits below which a feature film cannot be made. That would include a $25,000 budget. I think realistically, it is possible to do films for $200,000 or $150,000 or even $100,000 and get something reasonable done, provided you can live with the compromises: mainly lower-cost actors, fewer locations, and fewer shooting days. But there are fixed costs for which you can't compromise too much: lighting kits, lens rental, insurance, permits, editors, sound mixing, VFX, and color. If you try to cut too many corners, you're going to wind up with a very uncommercial production that you can show in your garage, but very few other venues. Real commercial films have to have recognizable talent, compelling storylines, and they have to be told in a visual way that holds the audience's interest. I've hung around enough with indie distributors to understand what they look for and what will actually sell. The grim reality of commercial release is that only a small percentage of indie films make a profit, and even then, it might take years for the investors to actually break even.

As far as budgets go: the usual rule of thumb for (say) a $1,000,000 production is that you have to budget roughly 15% for post -- but this doesn't mean that percentage holds if the budget skyrockets to $50M or $100M. The costs go up, but they don't go up 10 times. A $10 million film might have roughly the same post budget as a $50M film. But there are a lot of factors, schedule being very high on that list.

I've done plenty of very modest indie projects for color and final delivery where we were able to hold the line at roughly 25-30 hours of work for well under $10K. In many cases, that included some additional editing, the full conform, titles, multiple versions, and several different deliveries. A lot depends on how well the clients are organized and whether the film is truly locked. I still run into films where we do "final" renders, only to have the director change his or her mind at the last minute, and we have to frantically go back and replace shots or pull up scenes. This was almost impossible in the days when film prints had to ship to theaters. Now -- unfortunately -- it's become standard practice, to the point that features are merely "latched" and never fully locked, and changes run rampant. I don't mind changes, but the client has to understand that the longer they prolong the post process, the more it's going to cost.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Shooting R3Ds makes it even unnecessary to discuss a 4K delivery or not since you will always have that possibility. Yes, you might have a lot of VFX shots, but even those artists seem to do 4K today without that much of a problem.

But the main thing in my opinion is that 4K delivery now might seem overkill, but how many times have you thought "I wished that they shot that movie back in 1980 in that way, then a remaster with todays standards would have been much better" etc. If you are involved in a movie that might be considered important to preserve, or if it's popular enough to be viewed many times over many years, then when everyone is sitting in front of their 4K TVs or IMAX VRs in 2030 and that old classic goes available on the HBO late night theatre streaming event, you will think "really good that we did it in 4K so it could easily be remastered for rec2020 and todays viewing standards..."

 

[Matthew Quinn]

Here is a question.

OK So my new film is in its last week before it goes to Color and sound. We are pushing for the deadline for late submission for Tribeca. Obviously we wont be giving 4k files, or DCP to the film fest people to review, and it sounds like the guy doing our delivery is leading us for a 2K finish... Is this simply because he thinks we dont need 4K for the festival submission OR, does it seem like he wants to bang the production again for 4K later?

I'm kinda feeling he can finish in 4k, then compress down afterwards..

We edited in AVID MEDIA COMPOSER, Dnxhd36
thanks

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Here is a question.

OK So my new film is in its last week before it goes to Color and sound. We are pushing for the deadline for late submission for Tribeca. Obviously we wont be giving 4k files, or DCP to the film fest people to review, and it sounds like the guy doing our delivery is leading us for a 2K finish... Is this simply because he thinks we dont need 4K for the festival submission OR, does it seem like he wants to bang the production again for 4K later?

I'm kinda feeling he can finish in 4k, then compress down afterwards..

We edited in AVID MEDIA COMPOSER, Dnxhd36
thanks

Everything I do with Red material I finish in 4K. There isn't any difference since you work from the R3D files in grading and just change the resolution output. When I'm rendering out a master I always render out a 4K master from which I do scale down renders to different deliveries based on what people want.

The only thing I haven't looked into much is how to do a master in ACES and keeping all that data for future remasters in REC2020 and so on. Right I'm only doing Rec709 data range in 4K as DNxHR 444 master files.