OT: So anyway, 4K
Leaving the 4K hating for other threads in other forums...I know that a number of you are ACTUALLY WORKING with 4K and 5K right now. What's the story?
-- Are you working with it in native 4K/5k?
-- Aside from the frame dimensions, what format?
-- What's your distribution? (theatrical, tv, non-broadcast, corporate, etc.)
-- How much did it cost for you to upgrade your systems to handle 4K/5K (computers, storage, etc.)
If you're interested in 4K but haven't taken the plunge, what will it take to push you over?
Thanks for helping me out with this...
Recently purchased hardware that allows me to record in 4K. Have begun to "dabble" in it. Workflow thru Resolve and Media Composer to produce 1080P content and DVD distribution for independent film production. As of this point, I have not been thru the entire process, end to end, still developing workflow. Biggest drawback to 4K is monitoring 4k as currently capable of monitoring HD. Record time in 4K is limited to <1 hr per take, not too bad, but, cumbersome.
Wondering what qualifies as "hating" 4K?
Going back to the old VHS vs. Betamax contest annoys me. How so? The question for me is - What is "4K?"
Consumer 3840 or Cinema 4096? Not much difference? Only when it comes to monitors, maybe, in a practical sense. I imagine that a lot of manufacturers will cheap out and go the VHS route -- errr. 3840... errr H265?
Anyone wanting to go the "elite", "professional" (in the dirty word sense) 4096 full RGB pathway will have to buy the $50,000 Canon / Dolby, etc., monitor. Geez, its like they don't realize that film production is a popular cottage industry now, or something.
I am also interested in knowing if 4x the resolution of HD (if HD was ~4x the resolution of SD?) will render all of the current 1920x1080 catalog obsolete the way everything 720x480 now is.
So, actually have been working with "4K' source files for a while now, really since RedOne, but interestingly enough no takers for final output at that resolution -- overwhelmingly 1920x1080 delivery with a couple of "2K" features. Its a bit like shooting in 35 for a 16mm release. You do get that lovely depth of field, because obviously the one thing you really can't fake with all the electronic bamboozling going on is the physics of lens optics. For that I like the big image area. As far as 'crop-in' to clean up scene issues -- can someone help convince me that isn't just being lazy with set discipline?
Latest release of DaVinci Resolve 10.1.3 seems to take care of deBayering at Full Quality quite nicely with a somewhat beefier GPU array on an older MacPro running Mountain Lion. Maybe stick in a new Blackmagic 4K card, but... something I am surely getting less interested in, by the minute, is blowing my retirement fund on more instantly-obsolete hardware.
"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.
Really good point!
How much one actually delivers in full 4K so to say.
Here locally the cinema is "only" 2k and i do not see any advantage
in 4k delivery if not super heavy vfx jobs but even then it bogs down nicely
as to process vfx in 4k gets s much slower compared to 2k.
4k race is a bit like 3d used to be to me.
Needs to have actual delivery needs and demand buy paying clients.
Without them it is just another expensive hobby.
At least here.
DaVinci 10, OSX 10.8.5
MacPro 5.1 2x2,93 24GB
GUI 4000 / GPU GTX 780
Full Ligthspace CMS
At customer request, we did a 4k DCP of a film we did DI on for Cannes last year (La Jaula de Oro, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2042583/combined), and it was relatively painless. We monitored/projected in HD, but did renders in 2k and 4k for DCP delivery. Source material was 3k film scans (VFX was done in the same 3k resolution, titles in 4k).
We haven't actually done 4k delivery from Red Epic and similar yet, but I'm sure that's just a matter of time, and since we always do highest quality debayer for final renders anyway, I don't think it should be a big problem.
Joakim Ziegler - Postproduction Supervisor