Is there a point to shooting an indie feature film in 4K??

theconformist

@ironfilm I doubt there is any premium place on 4k features for distro, more likely it may only help in deciding to buy it at all. In all likelihood your film will best case end up on VOD or Netflix, so there's the "future proof" angle. But again, shoot the highest resolution your production can afford. I wouldn't NOT shoot 4K if you have the ability.

IronFilm

"Of course they need 4K content, how else do you justify buying 4k TV, monitor, graphic card, etc. This is a classic case of manufacturers/marketers creating a demand. "

That is what I'm saying, there is companies out there which need heaps more 4K content to be everywhere so they can justify their sales.

So I suppose my question boils down to, all things otherwise being equal, is there a price premium paid for purchasing a film if it is in 4K vs 1080p?

"Thinking about the transition from SD to HD, there was definitely a period during which the dearth of HD content meant there were some channels programmed with any random HD material they could find, good or bad - mostly eye candy. That period ended pretty quickly when mainstream channels started going HD."

That is what I'm wondering, are we kinda still in this phase for 4K?

balazer

Thinking about the transition from SD to HD, there was definitely a period during which the dearth of HD content meant there were some channels programmed with any random HD material they could find, good or bad - mostly eye candy. That period ended pretty quickly when mainstream channels started going HD.

I see 4k as being a much smaller deal than HD was. How big of a screen do you need and how close do you need to be sitting to it to be able to tell any difference between 1080p and 4k? Do you think people will stop caring about the great films of the last 50 years just because they are no sharper than 1080p? Of course not. Great content is great content. Personally, I want 60p before I want 4k.

discomandavis

I think it depends on the film. Depends on the DP. I agree with all previous comments, but certain films benefit from 4k, and it's sharpness, while others don't. That being said, it is much easier to take something out of a movie (IMO) then put it back. This is where higher resolution is beneficial. I can always go from 4k to 2k, but vice versa (with few exceptions) doesn't fly so well.

Xenocide38

I'd say it depends on the camera you are using. Resolution can help compensate for other factors such as noise, codec, etc.

If you're shooting 1080p ProRes on an Alexa, you've probably got more than enough to make a great looking movie (as long as lighting, audio, etc are good too)

However, if you want to shoot 1080p on a 5DmkIII, I think you'll find that a little lacking. Not all 1080p is created equal and not all 4K is created equal.

If you plan on using something like a DSLR, I'd say definitely consider a 4K option but if you're using a higher-end camera that only shoots 1080p, that should do you just fine.

theconformist

@IronFilm Indies have been shooting 4K on RED cameras for over 5 years now, and it's not because they think it's more attractive to distributors - it's just because you should shoot at the highest resolution possible (without sacrificing too much DR, etc). Don't discount the need to "future proof" your film as much as possible, there's a lot more information in a 4K file - you don't know what kind of platform people will be watching films in the future, whether it's on 100" 4K & 8K TVs, holograms, Oculus glasses, or whatever.

kellar42

For me, it provides a way to make indie content look more professional without the Hollywood budget. It makes for really nice 1080 or 2k, it stabilises well, camera moves can be added in post, hell, I can even pull promotional stills from it if I want. This may sound like blasphemy to some, as nothing can replace good lighting and technique on set, but 4k is part of a toolbox that closes the visual gap between us and Hollywood (to my eyes.)

Tron

I'm a 4K convert, to me the files are just fantastic - I wish I had this tech 3 years ago. Having the flexibility to adjust composition in post provides tremendous freedom in the editing room. Being able to extract a single frame and blow it up for print -just like you would a film negative, is also excellent. From a resolution standpoint the files are absolutely future proof, as they surpass retina perception at "closer" distances (depends on display size vs. distance obviously).

From a dynamic range and color sensitivity standpoint there will always be room for improvement, so that is where I suspect imaging technology will continue to improve and eventually justify the purchase of future upgrades down the road.

@Mckinise I would agree with all of your points except for the fact that productions like Planet Earth can not be shot on 8mm B&W and draw an enthusiastic audience. At some point we should concede that image quality is just as integral to a production as story, focus, framing and audio. I would rather shoot something that will produce marketable material for 10 yrs then 2 years. 4K at $1500 is just too cheap to ignore today. We're not talking about a 2nd mortgage for a Red Epic or Scarlet in order to get an incredible baseline of quality (like just 2 years ago). Paying an extra $500 for the step up is completely worth it, whether you eBay existing gear and pay the extra premium or buy it as a first camera and begin the journey of becoming a filmmaker. For stock footage sales alone the payback difference experienced will be immediate and marketable for many more years into the future.

DrDave

For me it's a no brainer, 4K. But others may feel differently.

Mckinise

The argument is that 4k will "future proof" your content. The reality is that no matter what you are making now you will probably not be happy with it in a DECADE. At that point, 4k or not, you may not want anyone seeing it.

Speaking of future, that's when 4k will be accessible to the masses.

Right now there is no easy physical medium (Blu-ray, CD, DVD). Streaming is not there for the majority of people and the Cable/Satellite providers are still not giving us Full HD (1080p). Many, if not most, digital theaters max out at 2k.

So, sure, record in 4k. Edit in 4k. Grade in 4k. Render out for the 2k theatrical and the 1080p Blu-ray. Then a decade from now when they are pushing 8k and everyone is just THEN able to easily watch 4k, you will be set.

My advice: If you have NO equipment and the money to invest in 4k now, do it. If you already have equipment and little to no money: Make the best movie you can with what you have. This is not the visual jump from standard definition to Full HD.

More Important Questions:

Does it have a GREAT story? Yes!

Is it in Focus? Yes!

Is it framed well? Yes!

Can we HEAR it? Yes!

Great! Instant Classic. People will love it for years to come.

JuMo

If you have access to an affordable 4k cam that you are comfortable working with, it will likely increase options and lifespan for distribution. Also, depending on the camera, sometimes shooting in 4k for 1080p delivery can be a good move (especially for compressed H264). Marketing or not, resolution is not going to take a step backward now, so you if you're willing and comfortable, I would consider 4k. I'm not going to argue that there is really not a huge market CURRENTLY for true 4k audience, but saying that there is nothing to it reminds me a little of the old comment '640K of ram should be enough for anybody'. But if you're not familiar or comfortable with any 4k cams (or don't really have the budget/access), then shoot on the camera you know feels right for the job.

spacewig

Of course they need 4K content, how else do you justify buying 4k TV, monitor, graphic card, etc. This is a classic case of manufacturers/marketers creating a demand. And after that it'll be 8k, then ... Smellorama?

Back to your question, you can always shoot HD, upscale to 4k and employ rhetorical wizardry...

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters