Why 4K workflow?

[Dan Hudgins]

Possable?

Possable?

4k post and filmout are out of reach for most independent filmmakers. They are just too expensive at this point.

The most visible advantage of shooting on RED in 4k vs. 2k is reduced depth of field. An average viewer will hardly notice aliasing improvements, lower noise, etc. but they will notice depth of field that looks like the material was shot on 35mm.

There is no reason why you cannot shot at 4K then do a good down res to 2K or 1920 or 1280 or 720 (for DVD) for post, to keep the DOF etc and work faster and cheeper on the DI.

As far as 4K DI being out of the reach of filmmakers, there was a 4K (?) film recorder up on ebay cheep a while back, if some RED users would get together they could pick one up and use it to make printing negatives.

Yes you need some HardDrives, but 500GB are going for less than $90 now, so 4K is much more in the reach of filmmakers than it was a year ago, and I am forging ahead with a good solution for making 4K uncompressed DI at home on the cheep real.

If someone would do the used 4K filmrecorder deal (for everyone in their co-op) from their HardDrives full of 4K TIF frames the cost would fall to just the film and processing. DIY film recorders are limited to 2K per monitor, but like I have said using 4K frames in post lets you hold something of quality so that if you sell your work using the 2K answer print, the buyer can use your CC 4K frames to make his own printing negative.

Since so many RED ONE (tm) users are in the same boat, if they could work together they could all benifit.

Everyone does not need to duplicate the cost of a render farm and film recorder, but if you need to it can be done for less than $10000 probably, if 10 people put in $1000 then they can all share the equipment, something like a film co-op. When done the equipment can be sold to get back maybe $500 each. I don't think anyone making a feature film cannot come up with $500 plus film+processing and harddrive costs to make a printing negative, analog sound negative (the film runs both ways so you only need 4000') and one light print (you do not need an answer print with shot to shot color correction from the printing negative because the frames are CC before they get to the film recorder, you just need to do some short tests using the LAD to get the one light CC right for the processing that day).

Since a 4K DI can be done for the most part with free or "freeish" software there is no reason that all the members of the Co-Op could not share time on their own computers to process frames and data for each others project. For that matter, there is no reason that they could not inlist all of their friends and relatives computers in their "downtime" to process frames, if each of 10 Co-Op menbers have 25 friends and relatives you could build up a render farm of 250 computers with an active time or about 12 hours a day. You could set up a FTP server for the Co-Op to move the files on and off the computers over the Internet etc. This would work like SETI at home, where people use the spare time on computers for large tasks,

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

Rather than look for ET, you could write a FTP/remote control program to make films like "ET" much faster and better by using an array of remote computers rather than trying to do everything inhouse on your limited funds. Make the world a better place than you found it, change the industry.

 

[Chris Swinbanks]

there was a 4K (?) film recorder up on ebay cheep a while back, if some RED users would get together they could pick one up and use it to make printing negatives.

As someone who has run a variety of different film recorders over the past 13 or so years... there's probably a damn good reason it was cheap.
There's just so many things that can and do go wrong, and wasting film getting (& keeping) them aligned and trouble free is a very expensive process without the backup of someone else to foot the bills....
just saying :usd:

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Thats why...

Thats why...

As someone who has run a variety of different film recorders over the past 13 or so years... there's probably a damn good reason it was cheap.
There's just so many things that can and do go wrong, and wasting film getting (& keeping) them aligned and trouble free is a very expensive process without the backup of someone else to foot the bills....
just saying :usd:

That's why I did not purchase it, and am working on software that uses standard PC parts, the quality may be a little less in the result, maybe, but it is easer to junk PC parts and keep the thing going. When I get done with the TIF I/O support, I plan on making some changes to DANCINEL.EXE to get the quality and some other issues better taken care of, not that what is there now is not maybe 75% to the point of diminishing returns.

The first DIY film recorder I built was around 1992 so things are much better now with PC parts, if you make the frames anamorphic you can adjust the vertical size with 2048x1536 to get more scan lines in the 1.85:1 or 2:1 image area than you get on a 2K film recorder, that helps reduce the aliasing artifacts. I am not sure you need black frame lines for projection since most movie houses project less than 1.85:1, maybe?

I am concentrating on direct printing to color positve stock rather than making a printing negative, the color is better and you get less dust and marks that way.

If you have 4K TIF files finished you have something high quality to fall back on, and you can make anamorphic printing frames of 2048x1536 using the full pixel count of the video board. If you post "letter boxed" in the normal 2K way you end up with fewer pixels on the filmmout since almost half the 2:1 frame will be black (or white) frame lines. That is if you go from 4K TIF to 2048x1536 anamorphic to 2:1 flat print you have 1536 DIY lines, but if you go through a normal film recorder you only get about 778 lines or almost half the vertical resolution, so the 2K DIY film recorder gives almost 4K filmrecorder vertical resolution if you adjust it for widescreen flat prints that project with a 2:1 mask in the gate.

From what I know of that film recorder it was a working post house, it sold with a working film scanner, and he offered to setup and teach the buyer how to run it. It was just a matter that so few people use film any longer that many of the labs and post houses no longer want to pay rent for a unused space and such. People that own those things use them to make money, filmmakers use them to spend money.

My point was, that if filmmakers COULD work together, they could save a bunch of money by running their own post just for output to film of their digital movies, keep the equipment going 24/7 to maximize return, not just have it sit with a dust cloth over it 99% of the time...