editing 4K at home...

[agwah]

Jason,

You are absolutely right, renting is a hassle, owning the whole thing is better. In my head I was just trying to work out the real absolute minimum required to get a 4K production going, and then having a couple of bucks left for what is in front of the camera.

For some of us it might be a good idea to set up the post production workflow first as you can't really rent that, but the camera you can.

 

[Haakon]

So I guess you must be purchasing a "base" RED One, which means a Red camera head, no lenses, no EVF, no cage, no tripod, no rails, no batteries, no battery chargers, no travel case, no decent microphone/audio, no follow-focus, no matte-box/filters (which means how are you going to mount a simple ND filter when you go outside??) basically nothing else but the Red camera itself?

Jason,

Most (if not all) of those things you need regardless of the camera you buy. I already have a tripod, rails, case, mic, mattebox, etc. They won't be additional costs of RED. The point is, I also have a pretty decent computer setup already. If I don't have to buy a whole new one just to work with RED, I'm certainly not going to. And if that means editing in 1K (and outputting to the same 4K I'd get with a more powerful system), then yes, I'd rather do that. Besides, even if my system IS powerful enough to handle 4K, it's going to perform an order of magnitude better with the lower res proxies. As others have pointed out, it's mostly an issue of money. Sure, if I had an endless supply, I'd be on the 'online' bandwagon too. I choose to be realistic, however, rather than idealistic - especially when it comes to my career and how I'm paying my bills.

 

[Homersapien]

Jason the topic was about editing 4k not about the setup people choose to shoot 4k with, there are many topics devoted to that.

What about the user who purchases a Red Camera and uses a couple of Nikon lenses and their cheap tripod to shoot some 4k footage to begin with, if only for personal use and to learn how to operate the camera. Suggesting that people are buying the camera purely to make money out of rental is daft because most people want it for themselves and if they can earn money using it then it's a bonus. Personally I'd prefer to hire myself out as a camera man with the camera and the rest of the equipment I buy/have for it. But I'll admit I won't have all the equipment from the offset, the Zoom won't be out till late 2007 for a start anyway.

This isn't a thread about rental or accessories, it's a discussion about how best to edit 4k at home... it doesn't specify whether the footage is a bunch of crap or the next blockbuster, just how we can go about editing it.

 

[sean90291]

DV was successful as it was used as an on-line format, so users didn't need to mess with proxies and conforms.

That's what I live for. I got into the DV revolution because I can make films on my laptop. I do what I can with what I have. And when I get the RED, I'm hoping to continue in that vein. I don't understand all the computer techno-speak. I won't have all the perfect supplementary equipment. I'll have a great camera and I know how to write a script, frame a shot, and edit it all in my Avid Xpress and After Effects. I'm hoping the tech geniuses out there will simply tell me what minimal computer system I need to buy once the RED package arrives on my doorstep.

 

[visceralpsyche]

That's me! Shoot 4K, edit 576p! (maybe 720p)

Work out the rest later...

Zane, definitely go with 1280x720p as it gives you square pixels to work with. 576p means anamorphic which creates a lot of issues if you do any SFX in post. Plus 720p is easy enough on modern hardware and can easily be downrezzed once you are ready to stick it on DVD.

 

[filmmaker1977]

Okay, I understand this is speculation until more details of REDCINE are released etc. But there was a bunch of discussion round these parts about requiring a big post-house to online 4K footage. And then Graeme piped in saying the goal is to hopefully allow 4K editing at home (which to me is the whole point).

Wondering if some of you tech gods can speculate on what would be required in a home editing system. Just wing it. A projected MINIMAL system configuration would be most interesting to me but... (because I'm sure a $15K system will do it). How about a $5K system? Possible?

two days far away and i've been finding this thread :thumbup: came from a prior input of mine.. :-Laugh(DBG)-1

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=710708&highlight=home#post710708

edit
my pride.. :embarasse :kiss:

 

[ZaneIsNumber1]

Zane, definitely go with 1280x720p as it gives you square pixels to work with. 576p means anamorphic which creates a lot of issues if you do any SFX in post. Plus 720p is easy enough on modern hardware and can easily be downrezzed once you are ready to stick it on DVD.

Thanks Paul. My setup can do 720p, just being dramatic by mentioning good old Pal SD. I will be looking at major computer upgrades mid next year anyway. For now, sitting tight and waiting for the latest Red workflow developments.

 

[Emanuel]

We just demonstrated real-time online 4K RAW editing (dual stream dissolve with Dalsa Origin footage) to Adobe management under Premiere Pro 2.0 running on a Dual core dual proc Xeon Woodcrest system (about $3K PC with two drives in RAID-0.) So it can be done today, although we aren't shipping this technology yet, but we intend this be available for Red customers as the alternative workflow (for those who can't stand offline workflows.) This a simple extension of the now shipping CineForm RAW workflow. So even with the purchase of our software the system costs will be doable at $5k for a Red online.

Each David's input is gold to our community.

Perhaps this sort of things give us our belief in our way of life. In the name of all dvxuser.com people, :dankk2:

Well you are not mis-informed, as "traditional" workflows for 4k would be very expensive. As there is nothing tradition about the camera, there is no harm in overhauling the post workflow as well.

Today you can colour correct with anything that uses After Effects API (within Premiere Pro or After Effects.) This means Premiere's our tools which now is pretty decent with it our 32-bit float secondary color corrector, Color Finnese from Synthetic Aperature, and others (the AE API is the most common.)

http://www.synthetic-ap.com/products/cf/showcase.html (see "Le Marais" case) has been under my eyes.

Grading would still be best over HDSDI to a referrence monitor, although a calibrated LCD can be used (LCD's are getter better.)

Any suggestions?

Render times for 4K, that will depend on your PC, number of filters and the type of demosaicing algorithm used (guess 10+ times playlength for 4K.)

:dankk2: for the tip number -- useful estimation.

 

[filmmaker1977]

You just agreed with me, although you start sentences with "To the contrary" just to sound disagreeable with my posts. If you look at the subject of this thread "editing 4K at home...", I am stating, yes that is possible. I'm even saying you could do it with last years sub-$1000 Pentium D, I just recommend the new system. If you going to spend $20k+ on camera gear, a computer built in the last year is not a bad idea.

AGREED

:angry: hey haakon, objection! don't be child.. offline offline.. nhanhanhanha.. :thumbdown c'mon do you know who is this mister with who you're speaking with?!

i protest, of course!

don't act as a red fanboy.. he is a red competitor! so what?

we have this (great) luck: Mr. David Newman is dvxuser' contributor! i need, we need him over here! do you follow my words (even because you can't read my lips) ?

and by chance, his words too? did you look the title of this thread?.. ONLINE just FYI.. if you don't care or.. ------> don't bother! this isn't your redusers.net (a good beginning.. it really is.. try the rich pro target instead of the poor indys, not following the jarred's example and you'll see the outcome..)

please, Sir David Newman, i beg you in order to have your presence among us. :thumbup: thx







btw, i'm not cineform related.. even as customer.. not YET.. and this won't be my ticket requesting a discount but i already saw some stuff done with one of (t)his tools.. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: and i just ask a little bit of respect! we the majority of the dvxuser applicants aren't at the same level of this señor, ok?

might you imagine like his name may be Jim Jannard, Stuart English or Graeme Nattress?..

please?

 

[Peter Murphy]

so basically you have to be a tech whiz if you want to edit with this kind of footage.

 

[filmmaker1977]

following the Mr. David Newman's online route, it won't be.. then, here is his indy relevance.. and as it's possible to read, i'm not alone..

 

[Haakon]

haakon :angry:, don't be child.. off-line off-line.. nhanhanhanha.. :thumbdown c'mon do you know who is this mister with who you're speaking with?!

i protest, of course!

don't act as a red fanboy.. he is a red competitor! so what?

No worries, we're just having a friendly discussion. I have nothing against Mr. Newman at all... I don't even know him personally. I am simply trying to bring a little clarity and reality to this topic. If you read through the last few pages of replies by several users, I think you'll see the answer quite clearly:

What about the user who purchases a Red Camera and uses a couple of Nikon lenses and their cheap tripod to shoot some 4k footage to begin with, if only for personal use and to learn how to operate the camera?

That's me! Shoot 4K, edit 576p! (maybe 720p)

Work out the rest later.

When the Red starts paying for itself, then it's 4K online.

In my head I was just trying to work out the real absolute minimum required to get a 4K production going, and then having a couple of bucks left for what is in front of the camera.

I think all of this speaks for itself. People are anxious to get into RED, but they want to be able to use it "right out of the box." The good (great!) news is that REDCINE is giving us that freedom. Whether it's via proxies or another method, the fact is we will be able to conform a 4K output on our home computers without needing expensive plugins, costly hardware, or fancy gear. When you realize how much power that gives the individual, you realize the power of RED.

I think Sean's post sums it up the best:

That's what I live for. I got into the DV revolution because I can make films on my laptop. I do what I can with what I have. I'm hoping the tech geniuses out there will simply tell me what minimal computer system I need to buy once the RED package arrives on my doorstep.

DV was great for him not because he could edit the footage "online" (although certainly that's nice), but because it was possible to edit DV using the machines and software he already had. While the two may seem to be identical, they are not; they just both happen to apply. And that's the key. What most users really desire is simple: the ability to edit the footage they shoot with the equipment they already own. Whether or not it's online is far less important. That applies to DV, HD, RED, whatever. Look at his last statement again; "I'm hoping the tech geniuses out there will simply tell me what minimal computer system I need to buy once the RED package arrives on my doorstep." Really, that says it all right there.

If you take a look at the HVX, the problem it had at launch (and still has, in many instances) is not that it can or can't be edited online, but rather that the footage is difficult to mangage. Some NLEs support the codec, some don't. In many cases you have to unwrap and rewrap the MXF layer to obtain compatibility. And even when you get compatibility, even the fastest consumer computers have difficulty scrubbing through the playback at full framerates with basic effects in realtime. These are the real issues.

So, if we are able to shoot in 4K, zap that footage down to a workable size of our choice and be able to edit that footage in an efficient and reliable way - PLUS have the option to export a final version in the full 4K resolution if we want - well then, I think that is what will make people satisfied. And yes, I am sure there will be users interested in full online capability who will buy the necessary equipment needed to facilitate that. But based on the comments I have read on this and other forums, I do not believe this to be the intention of the majority of the posters I have seen. Of course, your mileage may vary.

and by chance, his words too? did you look the title of this thread?.. ONLINE just FYI.. if you don't care or.. ------> don't bother!

Actually, "online" isn't in the title of the thread - it's "editing 4K at home." In other words, we're going out and shooting 4K material, now how are we going to deal with it? The "at home" part is the most important. As I quoted earlier, lots of users want to be able to take their 4K RED footage and edit it in their hotel room or on their laptops or with their desktop PC - wherever they are. They don't want to have to drag around bulky raid systems or refrigerator drives. And I think that what people will discover is that the best way to facilitate that is not through online editing.

Just to recap and make it absolutely clear - I am not against online editing. At all. I don't think it's "bad," and I certainly welcome the option. I just want everyone to realize that REDCINE is a gift for all of us, and I think that having the option to edit in proxy and power through the 4K footage on the equipment we already own is what is going to get many users excited about dealing with RED.

May I also offer that the only place anyone will even see full 4K versions of their footage in the reasonable future is through a projector - and that's if they have the means to do so. My guess is that most of the stuff shot by RED, especially by users here, is going to end up on DVD, Blu-Ray, or HD-DVD, and displayed on HDTVs or nice computer monitors at best. And guess what - it's going to look stellar! But if it's going to top out at 1080, that's just another reason why wouldn't want to be draining resources just to be editing in a full 4K timeline. Remember, the option to output to the 4K master is always there.

this isn't your redusers.net (a good beginning.. it really is.. try the rich pro target instead of the poor indys, not following the jarred's example and you'll see the outcome..)

Don't worry, redusers is an entirely different project and website. I am still tinkering, but I can say that the focus is going to be more on information and reference than anything else. The audience may even be completely different than DVXUser, I don't really know. I guess similar to Jim Jannard's original motivation for starting RED, I'm simply creating the RED website that I want to visit. If others find it useful and want to join in, that's great too! But no, it won't have anything DVX or HVX related, and yes, I think it will cater to a more "pro" audience - if for no other reason than because the camera is in a more "pro" league than the smaller HD/V cameras. I think both sites can coexist very peacefully alongside each other.

 

[Jason Rodriguez]

so basically you have to be a tech whiz if you want to edit with this kind of footage.

The CineForm RAW approach is actually quite easy, no technical wizardry required. You just go from the camera, through REDCINE, to CineForm RAW codec (render to that codec). From there you can online with 4K on a decent modern machine (sounds like a Pentium D Extreme Edition or better from what David Newman said).

Jason the topic was about editing 4k not about the setup people choose to shoot 4k with, there are many topics devoted to that.

I understand that, and apologize if I was sending the discussion OT. The point I was trying to make was that a decent modern machine, including a Pentium D Extreme Edition, is fairly in-expensive, and will get you 4K real-time "online" editing with CineForm RAW. Some users were noting that they simply can't afford a new system after purchasing a RED, and I was just wondering why that might be the case when a computer system is a very small percentage of a functional RED package.

Again, I humbly apologize if I've offended anyone here . . . I realize that everyone is in a different boat.

BTW, I also wanted to point out real quickly though that if your computer system is too old, you might be spending quite a bit of time rendering out dailies, and an upgrade may still be a smart idea . . . I know this is an arbitrary number that may have no basis in reality, but theoretically if it takes one second to render 1 frame of 4K REDCODE RAW to whatever offline/online codec you're planning on using, it will take 24 hours to render 1-shot hour of REDCODE RAW.

 

[Anders Holck]

You just go from the camera, through REDCINE, to CineForm RAW codec (render to that codec).

So REDCINE will offer a passthrough mode?
I just figured it would debayer as default.

 

[Jason Rodriguez]

I just figured it would debayer as default.

It's sort of a pass-through mode as CineForm RAW can re-wrap the RAW data and present it to the user in real-time using an AVI or Quicktime wrapper (that's directly importable into a bunch of different applications), maintaining the original RAW bayer data from REDCODE . . . there is no demosaic process in this transcode which would naturally destroy the RAW data and create RGB or YUV data. There is a re-comression process (very mild, and very high-quality . . . i.e., you won't notice it), and that might take a little bit of time, but it will be much faster than a demosaic.

 

[Anders Holck]

Ok, so you'll read the Redcode RAW data directly in your future Cineform RAW conversion product?

 

[filmmaker1977]

ok a clever answer as usual..

i understand your redusers.net is your goal by now.. as i posted there is a market that you're looking for and i wish you all the best!

but the point is: red is a dream.. a dream for all these guys over here coming from video.. DVXuser is this success because of these 'poor' filmmakers..

in my case, i'm coming from the film side (Super16) and F900 but i hate both.. why? because i'm just a writer/director that would like to make movies like Murphy (a sculptor) maybe wants.. like a fine arts craft.. not like what those pro DI post houses are offering.. i hate to pay bills.. because i love the freedom.. and making movies like i love..

home movies? why not? if someone can call this to a movie crossing sundance, toronto, venezia, berlin, etc etc etc.. that's his problem, not mine.. mine? the tools.. home made is a real concern.. not to sell myself as an artist like a whore, yes, it's my real concern..

btw, i saw your trailer.. that faithfull movie.. i think you just were dp, correct? but for example those two young people when they're screaming.. sorry but that's crappy déjà vu.. why? exactly because it's déjà vu.. (however i liked your lighting even if that M2 shallow dof effect is a little bit excessive, isn't it?) that's precisely what i want to avoid: the mimic effect.. try to pay the DI post house bill (i already did it) and you'll have not in any way other than as these kind of options.. and if you don't know to choose, one day you can't follow where the difference is..

btw, pro isn't the same than quality.. art it is. art can be made at home. coppola predicted it.

No worries, we're just having a friendly discussion. I have nothing against Mr. Newman at all... I don't even know him personally. I am simply trying to bring a little clarity and reality to this topic. If you read through the last few pages of replies by several users, I think you'll see the answer quite clearly:

...

Actually, "online" isn't in the title of the thread - it's "editing 4K at home." In other words, we're going out and shooting 4K material, now how are we going to deal with it? The "at home" part is the most important. As I quoted earlier, lots of users want to be able to take their 4K RED footage and edit it in their hotel room or on their laptops or with their desktop PC - wherever they are. They don't want to have to drag around bulky raid systems or refrigerator drives. And I think that what people will discover is that the best way to facilitate that is not through online editing.

Just to recap and make it absolutely clear - I am not against online editing. At all. I don't think it's "bad," and I certainly welcome the option. I just want everyone to realize that REDCINE is a gift for all of us, and I think that having the option to edit in proxy and power through the 4K footage on the equipment we already own is what is going to get many users excited about dealing with RED.

May I also offer that the only place anyone will even see full 4K versions of their footage in the reasonable future is through a projector - and that's if they have the means to do so. My guess is that most of the stuff shot by RED, especially by users here, is going to end up on DVD, Blu-Ray, or HD-DVD, and displayed on HDTVs or nice computer monitors at best. And guess what - it's going to look stellar! But if it's going to top out at 1080, that's just another reason why wouldn't want to be draining resources just to be editing in a full 4K timeline. Remember, the option to output to the 4K master is always there.


Don't worry, redusers is an entirely different project and website. I am still tinkering, but I can say that the focus is going to be more on information and reference than anything else. The audience may even be completely different than DVXUser, I don't really know. I guess similar to Jim Jannard's original motivation for starting RED, I'm simply creating the RED website that I want to visit. If others find it useful and want to join in, that's great too! But no, it won't have anything DVX or HVX related, and yes, I think it will cater to a more "pro" audience - if for no other reason than because the camera is in a more "pro" league than the smaller HD/V cameras. I think both sites can coexist very peacefully alongside each other.

edit
you said: 4k at home isn't online, so is it offline?
because of Mr. David Newman help, now we know you're wrong.

 

[gunleik]

Totally not going to the discussion here, but here's a cheapo way to monitor 4k (or close):

If you could easily span the image on 2 monitors, there'd be a lot of possibilities (2x Dell or Apple 30" would do fine)

But to do this one would need a built in gamma & color management tool with calibration info for specific monitors.

Hey. You'd get a long way with 2x 23"

Gunleik
(who knows about differences of "broadcast production monitors and computer monitors, but would like to see an intermediate solution anyway...)

 

[Anders Holck]

No you'd need 4x23" to get close....Frame height is 2304 even the 30" is only 1600

Tou'd actually need 4x 30" to cover it...

 

[Stephen W]

Actually, 3x30" would do it - you'd just need to mount them vertically