Thread: Monstro Dailies projected

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39
  1. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by M Most View Post
    You wouldn't consider it silly if you were working on a picture with 2000 VFX shots and a tight release deadline.
    I still do. No need to degrade the whole film to 2K when you can do the non sfx shots in 4K and the easier sfx ones also or in 3K and the time consuming stuff in 2K, and upsample all < 4K to 4K for the final master. But that's too much to ask, apparently.
    Michel Hafner
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Michel Hafner View Post
    I still do. No need to degrade the whole film to 2K when you can do the non sfx shots in 4K and the easier sfx ones also or in 3K and the time consuming stuff in 2K, and upsample all < 4K to 4K for the final master. But that's too much to ask, apparently.
    Apparently you're not aware that on a large tentpole picture, essentially EVERY shot in the movie is a VFX shot. And many, if not most of them, have many, many elements. Either they get made at 2K or they don't get done at all. That's simply today's technical reality.

    And just to keep terminology correct, "sfx" in the mainstream industry means sound effects. Visual effects are VFX.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    4,949
    Until the public actually starts deciding which movie they are going to see based on image quality as a top priority...

    I still think we will see 8K DCPs at some point in an effort to differentiate the theatrical experience from UHD/4K TV. That said, the people writing the checks are going to put it off as long as they can.

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    In this digital age I find it strange that this procedure is not used more. Its way easier now than it was back when rolling film so no real excuse not to do it.
    Even in the case of VFX-heavy movies, you'd think that certain scenes at least would be previewed on a big screen. Perhaps experienced directors don't need to do this, but I am not a director, and I wouldn't know.
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Pinterest
    | Flickr | Instagram
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Blair S. Paulsen View Post

    I still think we will see 8K DCPs at some point in an effort to differentiate the theatrical experience from UHD/4K TV. That said, the people writing the checks are going to put it off as long as they can.

    Cheers - #19
    It's already differentiated because it's a completely different experience. Large auditorium, huge screen, custom designed seats, extremely elaborate and high quality sound system, projection that's more perfect than it ever was on film, and consistency (thanks to DCPs and digital projection) that was never previously achieved. Not to mention the presence of a live audience. And the exclusivity of a brand new release. And all of these factors are present in almost all modern theaters, particularly those in cities.

    Resolution is only a factor in the minds of those that frequent forums like Reduser. In the minds of civilians who actually go to the movies, it's irrelevant because essentially every movie released in theaters today looks great (unless it intentionally doesn't).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16 At a tangent 
    Senior Member Tom Gleeson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,299
    Quote Originally Posted by M Most View Post
    Apparently you're not aware that on a large tentpole picture, essentially EVERY shot in the movie is a VFX shot. And many, if not most of them, have many, many elements. Either they get made at 2K or they don't get done at all. That's simply today's technical reality.
    Mike,

    I agree and I'm not sure everyone understands the sheer number of VFX shots and the multilayered. multi pass, processing intensive nature of many of the shots. As computer technology moves forward and with some amazingly powerful GPUs coming into the market how long do you think before a 4K finish becomes a commercial proposition? Is it a correct assumption that a 4K render will take four times longer than a 2K render?
    Tom Gleeson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Michel Hafner View Post
    I still do. No need to degrade the whole film to 2K when you can do the non sfx shots in 4K and the easier sfx ones also or in 3K and the time consuming stuff in 2K, and upsample all < 4K to 4K for the final master. But that's too much to ask, apparently.
    I agree with Mike: if you have 2500 total shots in a 2.5-hour movie, and 2000 of those shots are VFX that have to be composited in 2K because of turnaround time, do you want the image to constantly shift back and forth between "4K sharp" and "2K uprez"? If they all share a common denominator, then you won't see the difference.

    I won't name the colorist, but one person I know mentioned they were just finishing up a 4K home video pass of a famous sci-fi film, and I asked, "so how much of it is uprezzed?" and he laughed and said, "if we did a 4K end-to-end workflow on the entire thing, we'd still be working on it in December." And it was May.

    So it's not just the 4K render times that go 4X slower... it's also dealing with files from different VFX vendors, doing backups, getting approvals, redoing pieces of shots, running them through color, doing multiple passes when creative people change their minds, doing final versions... it's a slow process even at 2K.

    Bear in mind this gets even more difficult with 3D releases (plus there is still no means to project 4K 3D with dual streams of 4K in a mass-market release), and there's multiple versions for Imax, Dolby Vision, TV, and on and on and on. It's not atypical for a tentpole release to have more than a dozen (more like 2 dozen) different color-correction passes to compensate for different venues and formats. As it is, the post house has to book multiple rooms and multiple people working 24 hours a day to meet all the deadlines... and that's on 2K material.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    I agree with Mike: if you have 2500 total shots in a 2.5-hour movie, and 2000 of those shots are VFX that have to be composited in 2K because of turnaround time, do you want the image to constantly shift back and forth between "4K sharp" and "2K uprez"? If they all share a common denominator, then you won't see the difference.

    I won't name the colorist, but one person I know mentioned they were just finishing up a 4K home video pass of a famous sci-fi film, and I asked, "so how much of it is uprezzed?" and he laughed and said, "if we did a 4K end-to-end workflow on the entire thing, we'd still be working on it in December." And it was May.

    So it's not just the 4K render times that go 4X slower... it's also dealing with files from different VFX vendors, doing backups, getting approvals, redoing pieces of shots, running them through color, doing multiple passes when creative people change their minds, doing final versions... it's a slow process even at 2K.

    Bear in mind this gets even more difficult with 3D releases (plus there is still no means to project 4K 3D with dual streams of 4K in a mass-market release), and there's multiple versions for Imax, Dolby Vision, TV, and on and on and on. It's not atypical for a tentpole release to have more than a dozen (more like 2 dozen) different color-correction passes to compensate for different venues and formats. As it is, the post house has to book multiple rooms and multiple people working 24 hours a day to meet all the deadlines... and that's on 2K material.
    Sounds like these processes need some serious rethinking and optimisation. Going from 2K to 4K about 20 years after 2K was introduced should simply not be so bothersome (complex special effects or not) considering that raw processing power and storage capacity per dollar have gone up tremendously since then. And still, some directors manage to go above 2K because they want to and it does not break the bank or limit the film to trivial special effects. Where there is a will there is a way. But most directors seem to prefer to stuff even more complexity into each visual effect than do it at higher resolution.
    Michel Hafner
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,501
    It's how you use your budget. Justice League (2017) and Avengers: Infinity War(2018) both had a budget of around $300,000,000 according to IMDB.

    VFX in Justice league was disturbingly bad, where in Infinity War, I wasn't disturbed by bad VFX(it might have been very good, haven't watched it that closely), both having Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format).

    You can buy 4x the CPU power for the same money as 7/8 years ago (i7-3960x Q4/11 vs TR2970wx Q3/18) so that is not the reason.
    Same is valid for GPU, storage, etc..

    So it must be money spend and sticking to old habbits (and most likely a lot of other unnecessary reasons).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,515
    Judging by some of these comments, it's somehow strangely reassuring that many posters on RedUser clearly still live in an alternate universe in which everything is solely dependent on Moore's Law and computing power. And in which resolution is everything. And in which everything is "simple" and cheap. However, that is not the real world of large tentpole features, in which every shot of every picture goes through a myriad number of approval steps, and in which any of those involved can cause a shot to be redone. And in which movies have release dates that must be met, which means that shots that involve 600 elements and take upwards of 20 hours per frame to render (and that's just for the composite - and that's at 2K.....) must be approved and cut back in to the picture prior to the delivery. If one hasn't been involved with productions of that scale, it is next to impossible to really understand just how much is required to pull these things off.

    The reason there is apparently little motivation for going to 4K for VFX deliveries is because there is little additional return for doing so. There is no evidence that Infinity War would have had larger box office than it did had the picture been finished at a higher resolution. Or that Wonder Woman would have been either better or more financially successful if it had been done 4K end to end. If you want that to change - for whatever your reason is - you need to demonstrate what exactly the studio would gain by doing that. Because at this point in time, it would lose a lot (like a timely release date). And gain almost nothing, because the only complaints about quality in these pictures are on Internet forums like RedUser. Joe Public has no problem with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts