Jump to content

"Direct to Video" post processes


Paul Marschall

Recommended Posts

How is post handed for films that are distributed direct to video? Are they typically transferred to Digibeta, cut, onlined, and then color corrected? What format do the typically finish to? I assume they never go back to finish the negavite, or am I wrong?

 

Is there a spectrum of "direct to video" processes? If so, what is the best and what is the worst?

 

Thanks,

Paul Marschall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I've done a dozen or so direct-to-video features, but with decent budgets usually. Most were shot in 35mm; we cut the negative, answer-printed, struck a color-timed IP, and used that for the video transfers.

 

We used to make six to eight laybacks to D1 tape: 16x9 and 4x3 NTSC and PAL, in letterboxed and full-frame versions. Now we make three laybacks to 24P/1080 HD-D5 (actually 23.98P): 16x9 full-frame (1.78), 16x9 letterboxed (usually 1.85 or 2.39, but the 1.85 can be skipped if you feel 1.78 is close enough), and 16x9 side-matted to 4x3 with the image cropped/panned&scanned to fit within the 4x3 area. These three HD-D5 masters can be used to make the six or eight D1 submasters in PAL & NTSC.

 

The features I've shot in 24P HD has done similar things except there's no telecine. We make a color-corrected full-frame master and then make a letterboxed master (if needed for anything other than 1.78) and one with a 4x3 image side-matted inside 16x9. From those we make the NTSC and PAL D1 masters, 16x9 and 4x3.

 

I haven't done a film-shot feature that did an all-video post. Traditionally the problem has been if you did all the post in NTSC because then making the PAL version off of that would possibly lose some quality, and some PAL markets have really high technical standards (like German TV, but even the BBC is pretty picky). Some people did a PAL post instead and made the NTSC version off of that, which looks a little better than the other way around.

 

Now that we have 16x9 24P HD, it's better to post in that format (usually HD-D5) and make 60i NTSC and 50i PAL submasters from that (usually in D1 but sometimes Digi-Beta) in both 16x9 and 4x3. Some markets will only take 16x9 now.

 

So one method (among many), if you had telecine-transferred your dailies to NTSC for NLE, is to take the finished EDL and re-transfer selects from the camera rolls to HD, and then do a conform session (like an online) to create an edited master, and then do a tape-to-tape color-correction session.

 

Now if you're only interested in selling to the NTSC market, you might be able to avoid HD mastering although that's becoming an important market even in the US.

 

My last 35mm feature that was transferred to HD-D5 for home video using a color-timed 35mm IP in the Spirit took about five days to color-correct and cost about $50,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I noticed tonight another low-budget straight-to-video feature I shot on the New Release shelf at Hollywood Video, a film now called "Vampires: Out for Blood", which played on Sci-Fi Channel last year. 35mm origination.

 

Also, harder to find, is a 24P HD comedy I shot called "New Suit" that just came out on DVD too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great info David, thanks.

 

This is my first feature (finally!!) and we'll be shooting 3perf S35 (for the 2.35 and 25% savings). It has an OK budget and they're already talking distribution, foreign right now. Post always seems a bit of a crap shoot, whether you'll get a print or stick to video... Ideally I'll do a DI to finish it, but that's not in the budget right now. The plan is to get the film in the can for as cheap as possible and have a great video to shop around and hope distributors pick up the tab for the rest. Could anyone share experiences regarding this? I realize this is a gamble most people lose, but I think it's worth taking. Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Distributors never "pick up the tab" -- they buy something and then deduct all their costs for what you didn't finish from what they were going to pay you. In other words, you're still the one paying for the cost of "deliverables." And most home video distributors won't even buy your product if you can't deliver it in the formats they need.

 

Basically they agree to buy the movie and hand you a list of what you have to deliver to them (D1 masters, for example.) Now if you're lucky, the check they give you clears in time to pay for your costs of creating those deliverables for them...

 

For now, you can show people a video edit, probably using your original NTSC video dailies transfers, which hopefully were done well enough to show off the movie to a reasonable degree. But how much you end up spending on deliverables will depend on who buys it and what their requirements are. Hence the value in doing a final 24P HD transfer to D5, which pretty much allows you to create deliverables for a wide variety of markets. You don't want to do a final transfer only to D1 NTSC, and then find that a PAL distributor wants you do go back and do another transfer to D1 PAL, and then find out that some cable channel will buy it if you go and do an HD transfer, etc. because multiple telecine sessions will cost you a lot more in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Great info David, thanks.

 

This is my first feature (finally!!) and we'll be shooting 3perf S35 (for the 2.35 and 25% savings). It has an OK budget and they're already talking distribution, foreign right now. Post always seems a bit of a crap shoot, whether you'll get a print or stick to video... Ideally I'll do a DI to finish it, but that's not in the budget right now. The plan is to get the film in the can for as cheap as possible and have a great video to shop around and hope distributors pick up the tab for the rest. Could anyone share experiences regarding this? I realize this is a gamble most people lose, but I think it's worth taking. Am I wrong?

 

It's true, no one will pick up the tab but you, some distributor may be willing to advance some cash if he sees he can get it back asap but in the end the money will be deducted from your share of the "profits", I made a film in Mexico and got it distributed by 20th Century Fox, the movie did fairly good in theatrical and video so far, but I get just a small parts of the profits, not enough to break even and that's considering the film made in box office three times as much as it cost to make. But you have to keep in mind that this is a long run and can't expect to "make it" on your first film, I'm about to start shooting my next feature and things seem to be getting less difficult second time around...

 

And about straight to video, I guess the range of quality you can expect is very wide depending on the budget you're working with and how much care and attention you put on the actual production, post production for theatrical is very expensive and may not be the best investment. You may want to find out first the technical requirements of the companies you'll try to sell your film too. We made DVD and VHS for video release from a DigiBeta master and looks great. What I mean is that the money spent on a high end "theatrical" quality post production can be better expend on the next project and still have great master to deliver either on DigiBeta or HD. If you're shooting on 35mm most likely is going to look great anyway, just think about big budget films like "Collateral" or "Episode III" with all that money they still look like Mexican telenovelas...

 

Great luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I had a conversation recently with a "low budget" feature film producer who has a theory that, even if you expect / intend your film to go "straight to video", you should try and get your film shown in at least a few small theatres. His view was that the press that could be generated by doing this was well worth the additional cost, and either gave the video release a kick start or helped to get video / DVD only distibutors on board.

 

Not sure if it works - but its his theory at the moment anyway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> the movie did fairly good in theatrical and video so far, but I get just a small parts of

> the profits, not enough to break even

...

> I'm about to start shooting my next feature

 

I presume if you've got points in the movie you're either self financing or you own the production company; I don't mean to ask an impertinent question, but if you aren't making money off the first one, how do you finance the second one?

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Four-walling" (renting a theater to show your movie) may generate some reviews and help start the ball rolling, but home video distributors are more impressed with films that are bought for theatrical distribution with a real advertizing budget attached, which raises the value of the movie in their eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I have some questions about your 4/21 post:

 

"We used to make six to eight laybacks to D1 tape: 16x9 and 4x3 NTSC and PAL, in letterboxed and full-frame versions. Now we make three laybacks to 24P/1080 HD-D5 (actually 23.98P): 16x9 full-frame (1.78), 16x9 letterboxed (usually 1.85 or 2.39, but the 1.85 can be skipped if you feel 1.78 is close enough), and 16x9 side-matted to 4x3 with the image cropped/panned&scanned to fit within the 4x3 area. These three HD-D5 masters can be used to make the six or eight D1 submasters in PAL & NTSC."

 

Nowadays, the only 4:3 masters you make are side-matted, pan&scan reductions? Do you notice an image quality reduction by using less of the film image? Does this process help or hinder your ability to frame and format your compositions during shooting? Doesn't the pan&scan process cost about as much as a separate 4x3 NTSC layback? If so, why bother?

Edited by Robert Hughes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

> the movie did fairly good in theatrical and video so far, but I get just a small parts of

> the profits, not enough to break even

...

> I'm about to start shooting my next feature

 

I presume if you've got points in the movie you're either self financing or you own the production company; I don't mean to ask an impertinent question, but if you aren't making money off the first one, how do you finance the second one?

 

Phil

 

Hey Phil!

 

No, that's a good question. You don't get to break even with theatrical or video alone but I still have TV in all the windows and then I sold it to other markets, so in the end I'm pretty sure I'll be able to break even, perhaps even make a small profit, but another problem is that this process takes too long to keep working with the same money so you have to find new ways of financing unless you want to wait three years to start working on another film...

 

In mexico (that's where I'm from and where I am at) the Goberment has a new fund to promote film production, and it's very simple really, if you have a project whit detail budget, shooting schedule, script and it all makes sense, you can send for approval and they would give you 49% of the budget (up to around 650K) if you can prove you have either in cash or specie the other 51%, ( in México films budget average a 1.2 million dollars), So if you're able to get some one to give you hotels rooms for credit, or some one lend you a camera, some else to let you use their homes or offices as location for free on paper everything has a cost and all goes into the 51% you have to get, And if you are able to get all of this for free then you're maybe only worried to get 200k on cash if your film is under a million. Almost half the project send get approved, and the comity is form by members of the actual industry so you can't fool them with and impossible budget or shooting schedule, or if it doesn't make sense with the script you're planning to shoot...

 

And yes I have a small production company (I make TV commercial) so I have some equipment like camera, edit suite and stuff that makes the project much easy to accomplish, all though I do have to rent trucks and all that stuff when I have to make a feature film...

 

Good luck!

 

Rene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Heres another question about this area of transfer. My movie shot on NTSC video has been editted and all the sound pretty much put on. Most of it is scratch music, I have yet to get the rights to and the rest is slowly being composed by a professional Composer. My question is Was it correct to do alll the these things, Editting, subtitles, soundtrack and sound effects all in the Final Cut Pro system ?

I will be sending this to film festivals first, that just means a DVD but I suppose they will want digibeta for projection. Should I have done the sound mix after the transfer to digibeta using that sandwhiched transfer as my new master ? Maybe the Credits as well ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Nowadays, the only 4:3 masters you make are side-matted, pan&scan reductions? Do you notice an image quality reduction by using less of the film image? Does this process help or hinder your ability to frame and format your compositions during shooting? Doesn't the pan&scan process cost about as much as a separate 4x3 NTSC layback? If so, why bother?

 

You don't necessarily use less of the film when transferring to 16x9 HD with a 4x3 side matte. If you shot in 35mm 1.37 Academy but composed for 1.85 (very common) you could be using MORE of the film for the 4x3 version compared to the 1.85 version -- you're just using LESS of the HD signal, understand? You'd be placing more of the film area -- the 1.37 area -- into a smaller 4x3 of the 16x9 HD signal.

 

However, another approach is to just make the 16x9 full-frame HD transfer and then crop the sides to create a 4x3 pan & scan version in NTSC and PAL. In that case, you would be using less of the film for 4x3. That would be a little wasteful if you had shot 4-perf, but if you shot 3-perf, which is native 16x9 anyway, there isn't a bigger 4x3 area anyway.

 

If you create a 24P HD master with a 4x3 side-matted image in the center, then you'd get equally good 4x3 NTSC and PAL downconversions off of that. It may or more not be cheaper than making two separate transfers to 4x3 NTSC and PAL directly from the film, but telecine time can add up to be more than downconversion costs, plus if you were making 16x9 HD transfers as well, you'd have to switch recorders in the telecine, etc. Seems simpler to just make all your HD masters at once and then make downconversions later.

 

As for just making a 4x3 NTSC master and then doing a conversion off of that for PAL, that would not look as good. Besides, the need for a 4x3 PAL version has been declining over the years, especially in the U.K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...