4k telecine for D.I

[Landon D. Parks]

In general, how much will it cost to transfor 35mm Anamorphic OR maybee Super 35mm to 4k data? Looking for rates per Hour of running time.

 

Generally looking to transfer 2-3 hours of 35mm to 4k Data for online editing and color correction for output to film. Im not sure if downconversion rates to 2k are included or not?

 

P.S) All I can seem to find is transfer rates for formats like DVCAM and Digibeta, I cant find any rates for 4k scan to data.

 

Thanks!

[Dominic Case]

Generally looking to transfer 2-3 hours of 35mm to 4k Data for online editing

This is approximately 13 terabytes of data. Where would you like it, sir? At -say- a dollar a frame, that's about a quarter of a million dollars. You'd probably get a bulk discount.

[Landon D. Parks]

come again? I figured something around $4,000.00 per hour of running time. Although thats just an educated guess... I dont know about 13 Tb of data thing, I did say down-convert to 2k, which should'nt be any more storage than two hours of HD.

Edited February 25, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Michael Most]

come again? I figured something around $4,000.00 per hour of running time. Although thats just an educated guess... I dont know about 13 Tb of data thing, I did say down-convert to 2k, which should'nt be any more storage than two hours of HD.

 

No, at 2K it would be twice the storage of HD. An HD frame is about 6 MB. A 2K frame in 10 bit Cineon format is about 12 MB. For reference, a 4K frame is about 48 MB.

 

You need to be much more educated before making this kind of educated guess. Stop listening to buzzwords. The only pictures doing 4K today are very, very large studio pictures that are spending upwards of $350,000 for their DI work. I'm just making an "educated guess" here, but I think that's just a bit out of your price range.

 

Just where do you think technology is today, anyway?

[Landon D. Parks]

I'm just making an "educated guess" here, but I think that's just a bit out of your price range.

Maybe, Maybe not. Depends how much I can get to make it. :D

[Guest Kai.w]

No, at 2K it would be twice the storage of HD. An HD frame is about 6 MB. A 2K frame in 10 bit Cineon format is about 12 MB. For reference, a 4K frame is about 48 MB.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, and then there are a lot of variations... 2k / 10Bit scope is actually more 10MB/Frame.

I think the original poster should not mix up telecine and scan. 2 hours of "HD" res material is easilly stored on tape but makes up for about 1.5TB of data at 10Bit...

 

-k

[Michael Most]

Maybe, Maybe not. Depends how much I can get to make it. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that's really true, here's a thought. Why not take that $250,000 and put it where it really matters - on the screen, or for better above the line talent. Nobody "needs" a 4K DI (or a DI of any sort, for that matter) in order to finish a picture. That kind of money goes a long way towards buying more production days, more production value (by way of locations, set dec, talent, etc, etc) and, in general, things that are far more important to the final product than your insistence on being a tech geek rather than a creative director or storyteller.

 

I hinted at it in earlier posts, but you really need to get a sense of purpose and a sense of your own true interests. If you really want to be a director, let go of all of this tech crap, stop worrying about things like DI post paths and technology that doesn't exist yet, and instead concentrate on storytelling and relating to actors. Take some acting classes. Take some theater directing classes. Learn the craft to which you say you aspire. That craft has little to nothing to do with tech issues. If the tech stuff is what really interests you, admit it to yourself and go down that path. Look into editing, cinematography, or post production as a career path. In other words, make up your mind as to what you want to be. If you're as mature as you constantly try to convince us you are, that should be something you can understand and be capable of doing.

[Landon D. Parks]

I am actually already involved in theater to a certain degree... I have directed two plays, both where school plays. I have also done Production design one non-school play.

 

I am by no means experianced in directing though, I'll be the first to admit that! I have a lot of learning to do yet!

 

My main concern is no such much technical for myself, but technical for the viewing public. I want the public to have the best possible viewing experiance, which is why I'd gove anytghing to shoot on 35mm. I dont think any Digital format can hold up to 35mm film.

 

My ultimate dream to see a film I directed projected on a 50' + screen, and DV on a 50' plsu screen would sort of turn me off of wanting to view it that way.

 

Basically, I'm more concerned with being able to shoot 35mm than doing a 4k DI, Personally, I THINK I would like DI for the fact that it makes jobs a little easier. And also because I can manipulate the images to my desire instead of relying on a colorist to interperate my vision.

 

Although I'm sure a system like Kodak looks mamager would help in that arena.

 

What ever, but thanks for the advice Mike!

Edited February 25, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

PS) I already know I want to be a Director. But I am also VERY interested in the DP field. I think I may train and study and practice to do both. Not at the same time mind you, but still be able Direct and Photograph. I really like the idea of being able to paint with light.

 

My Main interest right now is working with actors. I love it. I really like working with child actors right now, I find them easy to get along with and they understand what im saying, probably because we are more on the same wave length. But Adult actors are also a load of fun!

Edited February 25, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Max Jacoby]

And also because I can manipulate the images to my desire instead of relying on a colorist to interperate my vision.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, but this statment alone shows that you have no real idea what you are talking about.

[David Mullen ASC]

The colorist is the person you sit with when doing the color-correction for a D.I.; they operate all the controls.

 

The color timer is the person at the lab who color times the print in a traditional photo-chemical post.

 

The only difference between working with the color timer on the print versus the colorist on the D.I. is the degree of changes possible with a D.I.; otherwise, you exert the same creative control over the image -- i.e. you tell them what you want and they do it. The "interpretation" is yours. It's just that with traditional printing, you have a narrower ranges of adjustments possible.

 

You're confused with a different colorist's work on video dailies where you aren't there to supervise and they make some guesses as to what you want; however, these are just dailies for offline editing, not to be used for the final version of the film.

[Michael Most]

I want the public to have the best possible viewing experiance, which is why I'd gove anytghing to shoot on 35mm. I dont think any Digital format can hold up to 35mm film.

 

Well, I'd like to drive an Aston Martin but I can't. And in the end, it really doesn't matter because I still get where I need to go. If you turn out to be that good, eventuallly you'll get to make your masterpiece on any format you want. Until that time, you should stop thinking about things like the "the public's best possible viewing experience" and concentrate on things like script, cast, and basic production. In other words: stop reading industry magazines and Internet forums, and instead go do something creative. On any format that's available.

[David Cox]

Wow Landon, you've kicked up a storm here :-)

 

Back to your question without the hysteria that some people seem to have worked in to this...

 

Before shelling out all the extra cash for a 4K digital intermediate, I would ask whichever DI company that is happy to quote you for it, to show you the same scene posted at 4K and 2K and then passed through the bulk print process. In other words, see the difference at the point in the optical chain that your audience will see it, rather than the first generation print "straight out" of the film recorder.

 

The reason I say this is that 4K post is very much more expensive than 2K. Its not just the cost of scanning. The files are 4x bigger so need 4x the disk space, 4x the processing time, 4x the transfer time etc etc. So your added expense keeps with you until you're back on film. And the difference - well to be honest at the bulk print point it's pretty marginal. A big close up of your star won't actually look a great deal different. If you see any differences, it will be on those big wide shots, you know - the ones with 10,000 extras :-)

 

So I agree with one point raised in this thread that given the extra expense of a 4K DI over a 2K di, unless you're making a $30m feature, there are probably better places to spend that money to increase your production value.

 

HOWEVER! I strongly disagree with the poster that seemed to suggest digital intermediates are always a waste of money. The DI process provides a finishing touch that completes the DOPs vision of the movie, and as such DOPs should make it their business to insist that the DI is considered part of their department, rather than that of post. As another tool for the DOP, films that have a DI under such supervision have every reason to look better than those that do not.

 

So while it is true that "Nobody needs a DI of any sort to complete a movie", the same is true for the statement "You don't need any lights to shoot a movie". It just depends whether you want your movie to look good or not :-)

[Max Jacoby]

So while it is true that "Nobody needs a DI of any sort to complete a movie", the same is true for the statement "You don't need any lights to shoot a movie". It just depends whether you want your movie to look good or not :-)

 

I do hope you are not suggesting that movies that do not go through a DI have no chance of looking good. Because that would be a completely ridiculous statement that is proven wrong by pretty much a century of cinematographic masterpieces that look amazing without going through a DI.

 

I don't think Mike ever said that DI's are 'always a waste of money' as you put it, his point simply is that unless you have a sufficiently high budget, the additional cost of a proper DI can be spend better elsewhere.

[David Cox]

...which is what I said, if you read again :-)

 

And no I didn't say that films can't look good without a DI. But the reality is that DI is possible and has the ability to significantly increase the control (by the DOP) over the quality of the image. Its just another tool to raise standards. You don't have to keep up if you don't want to.

 

:rolleyes:

[Saul Pincus]

I do hope you are not suggesting that movies that do not go through a DI have no chance of looking good. Because that would be a completely ridiculous statement that is proven wrong by pretty much a century of cinematographic masterpieces that look amazing without going through a DI.

 

I don't think Mike ever said that DI's are 'always a waste of money' as you put it, his point simply is that unless you have a sufficiently high budget, the additional cost of a proper DI can be spend better elsewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Looking good" is the ultimate relative term. It's always a question of what you're looking to achieve, and what tools you need to get there.

 

There are a number of styles that are in vogue right now where using a DI can allow the filmmakers to get a film print looking a certain way - though not necessarily the way they intended it to be seen when they shot it. Sometimes it helps, sometimes not. In terms of films with lots of visual effects, where quite a bit of screen time originates in the digital realm, then it can just make economic sense to take a full DI path.

 

DIs are still the newest toy in the box, so we're bound to see more judicious use of the process in the coming years.

 

Saul Pincus.

Edited February 26, 2005 by Saul Pincus

[Landon D. Parks]

Sorry, but this statment alone shows that you have no real idea what you are talking about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nor have a ever stated I knew that much about DI.... I know that 4k is better than 2k, thats basic knowlege. I know generally that you will have more control in post with a DI than with the old way.

 

But never have I stated that Im a DI expert.

Edited February 26, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Max Jacoby]

But never have I stated that Im a DI expert.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wasn't talking about the DI itself, but about the fact that you thought you could grade it yourself and not leave that up to the colorist.

[pkbissen]

there's no such thing as a bad question, but i think you're asking yourself the wrong questions. if you've only directed 2 student THEATRE productions, i think it's a little bit of a stretch of the imagination to think that you'll get your first film financed unless you're as brilliant as somebody like Orson Welles.

 

i would concentrate on making shorts on 16, S16 or a pretty good video format. also, read about the industry and see how it works. i'm only saying that because you don't seem to have an great understanding of how film business works. i guarantee you, no one will give you the money to shoot a film on 35mm of any length with your lack of experience.

[Landon D. Parks]

if you've only directed 2 student THEATRE productions, i think it's a little bit of a stretch of the imagination to think that you'll get your first film financed unless you're as brilliant as somebody like Orson Welles.

I have no intention of getting my first film financed. maybee my 5th or 6th feature, yeah. If you have a good story, good script, name cast and a little directing experiance, you would be amazed at who will thow $10,000,000 your way! B)

 

Although thats a lot of good things to have, and most $100,000,000 flicks dont have all of those.

Edited March 14, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Paul Bruening]

Hello Gents,

 

I'm here to be bitch-slapped by my superiors. I have performed experimental scans on the Epson 4870 Pro flatbed scanner. While it is capable of 9800 dpi (nearly 10K) scans which might be useful when compositing and/or effects from 3D rendering software, I have been testing it at 4K and 2K scans. At 2K I can fit all my post workprint data on 400GbHDDs x 8 IDEE positions on my Abit VP6 motherboard. My concern is the 2058 pixels frame width (2K). It seems to me that the pixels are quite noticeable. Am I failng to account for average viewer screen distance? Does the transfer back to film reduce the visibility of the pixels? Is there common data processing tricks that can clean the pixels some? Also, is 48 bit depth neccessary or is 24 bit good enough? I've already solved the film transprot issue and photoshop macro issues, so, please, don't hammer my head on those topics. That's where everyone seems to think I'm a total idiot. Any clues and hints from lab techs without an axe to grind would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks guys,

Paul Bruening

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I want the public to have the best possible viewing experiance

If you're that bothered about the resolution why don't you just edit the film conventionally instead of digitally? The results will come out even better than a 4k DI that way.

 

Also, is 48 bit depth neccessary or is 24 bit good enough?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With film you could see some benefits in using 48bit depth, but when you say "good enough", that's entirely up to you. Are the pictures "that" much more pleasing to the eye when using 48bit.

Edited March 21, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[David Cox]

Hello Gents,

 

I'm here to be bitch-slapped by my superiors. I have performed experimental scans on the Epson 4870 Pro flatbed scanner. While it is capable of 9800 dpi (nearly 10K) scans which might be useful when compositing and/or effects from 3D rendering software, I have been testing it at 4K and 2K scans. At 2K I can fit all my post workprint data on 400GbHDDs x 8 IDEE positions on my Abit VP6 motherboard. My concern is the 2058 pixels frame width (2K). It seems to me that the pixels are quite noticeable. Am I failng to account for average viewer screen distance? Does the transfer back to film reduce the visibility of the pixels? Is there common data processing tricks that can clean the pixels some? Also, is 48 bit depth neccessary or is 24 bit good enough? I've already solved the film transprot issue and photoshop macro issues, so, please, don't hammer my head on those topics. That's where everyone seems to think I'm a total idiot. Any clues and hints from lab techs without an axe to grind would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks guys,

Paul Bruening

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hello,

 

I'm curious - what are you scanning? Unless I am mistaken, the scanner you mentioned is a $500 office document type of scanner. The scanners used for feature films cost anything up to $1.5m so I would hope they do look a bit better :-)

 

However, I would suggest that you may be seeing artifacts associated with how you are viewing your frames rather than issues with the frames themselves. It is possible that your monitor cannot show a full 2048 x 1556 file, so either it or your software is rescaling it to fit your monitor and that is causing the aliasing you are seeing. Otherwise your scanner maybe messing with the pixels to deliver the size you are asking of it. For the resolution you are suggesting, there shouldn't be any aliasing issues. Remember that your TV is only showing a few hundred pixels of horiz resolution, and that doesn'tlook that "aliasy", given the low resolution.

 

As for bit depth this is a much misquoted and misunderstood issue. Many people talk about a minimum of 16 bits per channel (48 total) without having ever seen a scanned file before and after grading. The number of bits you need is related to the material it is representing. For example, if you take a "flat scan" of a film frame, you end up with a very washed-out, low contrast image. Because of this, you end up with many hundreds of shades in the "blacks" that actually only represent noise and grain. After grading, these are all most likely set to black. The same happens in the white areas. So the effect is that actually, you need a lot less bits after grading than before. So if your scanner allows you to set the dynamic range of what you are scanning as it is scanned, then you don't necessarily need all those bits. However, if you can only get a flat scan or want a full choice later, then you do.

 

Regards

David Cox

Baraka Post Production Ltd

www.baraka.co.uk

[David Cox]

If you're that bothered about the resolution why don't you just edit the film conventionally instead of digitally? The results will come out even better than a 4k DI that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well that depends on what you are doing. A DI gives you so many options over how your film looks and gives you the option to compare different looks, change your mind etc. If you don't want to change anything, then you don't really need a DI. But thats like saying you don't need a choice of lenses, a choice of lens filters, film stock etc. These are all "unnecessary extras" that the lack of which won't stop you making a film, but if accessible will add an extra creative level.

 

With film you could see some benefits in using 48bit depth, but when you say "good enough", that's entirely up to you. Are the pictures "that" much more pleasing to the eye when using 48bit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes - quite right. Be careful about making a choice between 8, 10, 12, 16 or whatever bit depth on an 8 bit monitor!!! We sometimes play a trick on people who claim to be able to see a difference between the same image of different and excessive bit depths. We put both images up on an 8 bit monitor (so there is NO difference) and ask them to choose which is best. They can't until we tell them which has the higher bit depth, then they can "see" differences in the (indentical) pictures. Emporers new clothes, and all that :D

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Well that depends on what you are doing. A DI gives you so many options over how your film looks and gives you the option to compare different looks, change your mind etc. If you don't want to change anything, then you don't really need a DI. But thats like saying you don't need a choice of lenses, a choice of lens filters, film stock etc. These are all "unnecessary extras" that the lack of which won't stop you making a film, but if accessible will add an extra creative level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeh I have to agree, there are so many posibilities with editing the footage digitally. But in doing a DI you will also cut back on quality, so it's features for quality.

 

Personally if I were to do a 35mm film I'd probably scan it in at 2k and then edit it digitally. I'm one of those people who always likes to change things around months after shooting.

 

But if you can survive without adding digital enhancements e.t.c., then I'd just say go for an optical edit.