No more "offline"?

[Mike the beginner]

In current practice, I think the offline/online process is still the way to go. Let's suppose you could edit Red in 4K resolution on Final Cut, in real-time. The problem with this is:
A- FCP will likely have abysmal real-time performance for color, effects, etc.
B- Monitoring 4k well and delivering 4k (or film) costs money. You might as well rent these specialized facilities.

If you get 4K monitoring and other things you need, your suite is fairly expensive and you're burning cash by tying up this equipment. It's cheaper to move editing to offline suites, and then online in your 4k suite.

Offline/online generally saves you money / gives you better quality. But if you can online on a cheap desktop system (i.e. everything including monitors and real-time editing system for under $10k), then that would be a more ideal workflow. Until good 4k/HD monitors become cheaper, and cheap editing systems become a lot faster, offline/online is still a good way of doing things.

I just read PC Format (uk magazine) and it mentioned a Japanese company Kawaitech is experimenting with Organic Displays. It uses cellulose, by putting an electric pulse through it, it can produce incredible resolutions for TVs. It quoted 20,480x16,384. The usual big guns like sony etc are showing an interest.

Would certainly make things easier for you guys when monitoring.

Mike the beginner

 

[Martin Drew]

I am sure most people would love to edit at the highest quality possible, but to edit efficiently the edit environment has to be snappy. You want to be able to tweak your edits in real time and not wait for renders or excessive disk activity. Anything that introduces lag into the system is going to have an effect on how well you can edit and become a barrier to realising your creativity. I wouldn't want to edit at 4K if the price was a slower system.

M

 

[Ace]

As with any artform, the fluidity of action is essential to creating that vital conversation between medium and artist. When things start to get slow, your allowing a great deal of conversation between you and the computer to go astray. This is why editing 2K for most will be IMO more beneficial. One is not to forget that your still editing a 4K image even if you are editing at 2k. Your editing 4K colourspace, your editing 4K sampled pixels, your editing 4K lattitude. And it would probably look better anyway due to downsampling.

 

[Karl H]

I am at least hoping that 4K redcode raw will convert in Redcine to a 2K editable redcode codec which is useable directly in the NLE.

Should this happen I think all other formats will become old technology quickly. Redcode 1080p or 2K at 4:4:4 wavelet will make for the best 'offline or online' I've ever worked with. I'm also hoping that one of the card manufacturers will announce output for at least 1080p recode to a monitor.....

It's a funny thing as if it all works the terms 'online' and 'offline' could be redefined by the Red workflow. With the advent of 4K we're now saying 2K will be offline - a year ago that was top-spec online... That's how much things are going to change if Redcode lives up to it's name.

 

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

it mentioned a Japanese company Kawaitech is experimenting with Organic Displays.

A while ago on "This Week in Tech" they talked about OLED´s. There is this information floating around that they "go weak" after only 3 years.

I dont know what they mean by that and of course its pure second (third) hand information.

Jochen

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

I found Mike Curtis' post on this topic very informative.

My thoughts on this:

1. Since Cinform will be able to make a 4k RAW editable workflow on PP and FCP possible I suppose RED will do this aswell. I like the idea of not beeing forced to convert the camera-stock to something editable but to edit 4k RAW proxies on the fly. No time eating conversion here. Great.
What you've got then is an EDL you can use in RED-Cine for instance.

2. Now you batch/convert with RED-Cine your footage into something with which you can do proper SFX/CC, for instance 1080 REG CODE RGB, Cineform 2K/1080 or uncompressed for the purists/nonbelievers. As I know from grading/keying/renderin 1080p is already a big cake to crounch. Thus mastering 4k with serious SFX/CC will be a pain. The (kind of affordable) CC-Apps relie on fast GPUs and have a 2k limit today. Apart from this 2K is the today standart for DI ond Hollywood stuff, 4 K does exist but is far to expensive for any indie production. (Writer, talents, etc. are much more vital than 4k...)

- 4k RAW is a brilliant Camera format for indie movie making. You will be able to edit it on the fly (hopfully) with data rates of SD uncompressed. But 4k ist not an online format, yet.

My 2 cents and I hope I did not miss anything vital,

Hans

 

[Tom Lowe]

As with any artform, the fluidity of action is essential to creating that vital conversation between medium and artist. When things start to get slow, your allowing a great deal of conversation between you and the computer to go astray. This is why editing 2K for most will be IMO more beneficial. One is not to forget that your still editing a 4K image even if you are editing at 2k. Your editing 4K colourspace, your editing 4K sampled pixels, your editing 4K lattitude. And it would probably look better anyway due to downsampling.

All good points.

I am beginning to see a possible flow here. Shoot 4K REDCODE RAW, then use REDCINE to convert the clips to Cineform 2K (Prospect HD) or an equivalent wavelet 2K from RED, if they offer something to match Cineform (for free?). This downsampled 2K footage should be just beautiful, and easy to work with in your NLE.

If you want to do reframing, cropping, etc, I guess you could open 4K footage (again either Cineform or Red) in AE, output to 2K, then encode to the Cineform or RED 2K wavelet format and drop those clips right back into your picture. I'm not sure what happens to sound during all this.

Also, if you followed the steps above, will timecode hold up so that on the off chance the Weinsteins pick up your feature, you could use an EDL from your 2K edit to remaster from your archived 4K footage?

This also offers the possibility of shooting your overcranked stuff at 1080RGB (again, full sensor), and having the footage closely match your 2K stuff.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I Need an editor with a kick ass system in orange county who wants to team up! red 1015 here!

i dont think my duel g4 quicksilver will do my work anymore after red comes out.. shes served me well but ill just leave her to the protools HD stuff.

 

[Bruce Allen]

HDforindies Mike is right. Just bear in mind that his storage numbers are for when the Red team succeeds in getting 4k REDCODE playing at full res through your NLE Which they haven't promised and which might be a year or two away.

...
I am beginning to see a possible flow here. Shoot 4K REDCODE RAW, then use REDCINE to convert the clips to Cineform 2K (Prospect HD) or an equivalent wavelet 2K from RED, if they offer something to match Cineform (for free?). This downsampled 2K footage should be just beautiful, and easy to work with in your NLE.

If you want to do reframing, cropping, etc, I guess you could open 4K footage (again either Cineform or Red) in AE, output to 2K, then encode to the Cineform or RED 2K wavelet format and drop those clips right back into your picture. I'm not sure what happens to sound during all this.

Also, if you followed the steps above, will timecode hold up so that on the off chance the Weinsteins pick up your feature, you could use an EDL from your 2K edit to remaster from your archived 4K footage?

This is exactly the gist of my "4k finishing folly" post (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=781).

Tom, have you actually done an online recently? Of course the timecode will hold up, that's the whole point - do your film at HD or 2K like any sane person and then if you get offered tons of money for the picture at 4K, you can always go back to the original REDCODE files.

Sound is done the same way it has been done for onlines for a while - digitize at full resolution from early on. It is not really affected by picture online - if you threw the sound guys new sound files that late in the process they'd go ballistic. Usually they digitize it themselves but's a legacy from the analog era, methinks.

In a few years with faster computers this will all change but let's not be stupid now. You want a reliable, responsive editing system for doing your creative edits and if that involves working at a lower-than 4K "offline" resolution, you bite the bullet because you value the edit and the storytelling above some stupid 4K spec.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Tom Lowe]

HDforindies Mike is right. Just bear in mind that his storage numbers are for when the Red team succeeds in getting 4k REDCODE playing at full res through your NLE Which they haven't promised and which might be a year or two away.



This is exactly the gist of my "4k finishing folly" post (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=781).

Tom, have you actually done an online recently? Of course the timecode will hold up, that's the whole point - do your film at HD or 2K like any sane person and then if you get offered tons of money for the picture at 4K, you can always go back to the original REDCODE files.

Sound is done the same way it has been done for onlines for a while - digitize at full resolution from the get-go.

In a few years with faster computers this will all change but let's not be stupid now. You want a reliable, responsive editing system for doing your creative edits and if that involves working at a lower-than 4K "offline" resolution, you bite the bullet because you value the edit and the storytelling above some stupid 4K spec.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

All I've ever done is onlines, but not a full feature yet. That's why offlining is a bit of a mystery to me, and not something I am eager to learn.

My reasons for wanting to finish in 2K are a little different from your's, though, Bruce. If I recall, you believe that 4K post will be too intensive for most computers and personal editing systems. I do not share this view. My reasons for wanting to do post at 2K are almost purely aesthetic:

1. Wanting to reframe, image stabilize, and downsample from 4K to a lower "final" res for aesthetic reasons.

2. Wanting to match overcranked (60fps) 1080RGB to my "final" footage res. This way I can shoot all my overcranked stuff "onboard" and it will match much better to my 2K footage than trying to match it to 4K. Of course, this will not be the case if I have return to my 4K archives for a remaster, but I'll have to live with that.

The fact that 2K will be easier on my editing system is only a bonus for me.

Different paths to the same destination, my friend.

 

[Bruce Allen]

you believe that 4K post will be too intensive for most computers and personal editing systems.

I believe that 4K post currently is too intensive for current editing systems. Of course one day (hopefully soon) it will not be.

Otherwise, I heartily agree with you about the bonus benefits of 2K for re-framing, overcranking, etc.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Tom Lowe]

By the way, is it correct to assume that using features like AE's image stabilizer (motion tracking) will work even better on such a large image like 4K?

In other words, if you shoot a sequence from a moving car, you could take your 4K footage and stabilize some serious motion out, and still be left with a lovely, stable 2K recropped and perhaps partially downsampled footage. Will 4K give advantages in stabilizer image quality versus, say, 720p footage?

I fooled around with AE trying to stabilize some steadicam 720p footage taken on an HVX, but the obvious problem there is that you are left with a cropped image at much lower res than 720. In fact, if the motion is violent enough, you lose about half your frame.

BTW, Bruce, what happens to sound if you run some 4K footage through AE to do reframing, effects, etc? I've never tried to use footage with sound in AE and then bring it back into a Premiere Pro timeline. This is assuming that the sound guy recorded to camera, not dealing with syncing stuff he may have given you on DVD or harddrive. Simple AE work does not effect timecode, does it? Do you just leave the sound in the clip, uncompressed?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

By the way, is it correct to assume that using features like AE's image stabilizer (motion tracking) will work even better on such a large image like 4K?

In other words, if you shoot a sequence from a moving car, you could take your 4K footage and stabilize some serious motion out, and still be left with a lovely, stable 2K recropped and perhaps partially downsampled footage. Will 4K give advantages in stabilizer image quality versus, say, 720p footage?

Yes and No. Yes it'll give you a clear image. No you won't want to use it. If it moves more than 10% and you're running a normal 180 degree shutter you're going to get Motion Blur. Motion Blur has effectively destroyed that shot. You will not be able to stabilize it. Not to mention if you're bumping around that much I would guess your parallax is going to be flying off the wall. In other words you're pretty much screwed.

No a little bit of jib vibration... no problem and with 2x oversampling you'll be able to do it without any resolution loss you'll just be only 1.8x oversampling or whatever it turns out to be.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Yes and No. Yes it'll give you a clear image. No you won't want to use it. If it moves more than 10% and you're running a normal 180 degree shutter you're going to get Motion Blur. Motion Blur has effectively destroyed that shot. You will not be able to stabilize it. Not to mention if you're bumping around that much I would guess your parallax is going to be flying off the wall. In other words you're pretty much screwed.

No a little bit of jib vibration... no problem and with 2x oversampling you'll be able to do it without any resolution loss you'll just be only 1.8x oversampling or whatever it turns out to be.

Ah, thanks for the info.