Robert Sanders
Well-known member
David Newman said:
Is there an easy way to re-wrap the file from AVI to MOV?
editing 4K at home...
- Thread starter sean90291
- Start date
Is there an easy way to re-wrap the file from AVI to MOV?
David Newman
Well-known member
Robert Sanders said:
Yes. Also you can capture directly and editing an MOV on the PC.
Thomas Mathai
Active member
Until recently there hasn't been even 2k resolution monitors available, yet for the last decade or more, post production work has been done in both 2k and 4k.
You don't need a 4k monitor to view 4k, you can have the image fit to window for editing then view to 100% to check specific areas of the screen.
Sure it would be nice to have a 4k monitor, it's not a big need.
IMHO, for editing at home, you should have at least 2 workstations.
The first one should be your editing box, which with RedCine Raw being 27MB/sec, it could probably be a current system
The second one should be for all the image processing with RedCine,, vfx work, color timing, etc. It would be better to have a render farm, but that's out of most people's budgets.
The biggest headache with working in 4k isn't editing, but everything else. Even something like rotoscoping is going to take exponentially longer just because of the size of the image.
Ideally the storage should be shared, but that's way more expensive. Instead, a really fast network will be important, to transfer shots around.
I see the concept of offline/online to be just a video thing. Digital conforming should be more seamless. But it'll be up to the NLE to make it so.
This is how I want it done:
I should be able to load the REDCode Raw 4k media online, have the NLE automatically create a proxy version (if desired), that points to the original high res version.
The NLEs really need to incorporate a DAM (digital asset management) database for better file sharing and conforming. I'd rather have my timeline import/exported as XML than EDL, with as much metadata included.
When it comes to outputting the final version, the NLE should give me the choice of outputting the proxy version or high res version.
As the GPUs get better and better, there shouldn't even have to be proxying beforehand, it should be done on the fly.
I don't think RED should have to take on all this development themselves, even though they might provide core components of it.
The NLE developers need to tackle most of the workflow issues.
You don't need a 4k monitor to view 4k, you can have the image fit to window for editing then view to 100% to check specific areas of the screen.
Sure it would be nice to have a 4k monitor, it's not a big need.
IMHO, for editing at home, you should have at least 2 workstations.
The first one should be your editing box, which with RedCine Raw being 27MB/sec, it could probably be a current system
The second one should be for all the image processing with RedCine,, vfx work, color timing, etc. It would be better to have a render farm, but that's out of most people's budgets.
The biggest headache with working in 4k isn't editing, but everything else. Even something like rotoscoping is going to take exponentially longer just because of the size of the image.
Ideally the storage should be shared, but that's way more expensive. Instead, a really fast network will be important, to transfer shots around.
I see the concept of offline/online to be just a video thing. Digital conforming should be more seamless. But it'll be up to the NLE to make it so.
This is how I want it done:
I should be able to load the REDCode Raw 4k media online, have the NLE automatically create a proxy version (if desired), that points to the original high res version.
The NLEs really need to incorporate a DAM (digital asset management) database for better file sharing and conforming. I'd rather have my timeline import/exported as XML than EDL, with as much metadata included.
When it comes to outputting the final version, the NLE should give me the choice of outputting the proxy version or high res version.
As the GPUs get better and better, there shouldn't even have to be proxying beforehand, it should be done on the fly.
I don't think RED should have to take on all this development themselves, even though they might provide core components of it.
The NLE developers need to tackle most of the workflow issues.
Thomas Mathai
Active member
Peter Murphy said:
I thought we are tech whizes
Rereading the thread, i thought I'd reiterate this earlier post which was salient :
I don't see why some people are taking (personally) the posit that finishing 4K on a desktop system is going to (possibly) be expensive, for now. Even if you are willing to colour correct on an LCD, the only 4K one now is a viewsonic for $6K, and you'd be scaling the image just to see it on your screen. And a 4K HD reference grade monitor ? Well, there's no need to even mention it, if you're talking about cost.
Let's get down to why you would be finishing your 4K REDcode Raw footage on a home desktop system. Let's assume for a minute that we take the costs of the hardware, monitors, and software out of the equation. Looking at your deliverables - there are no 4K DVD's, no 4K television requirements, no 4K internet content providers, and so on. Festivals like Berlinale, Sundance, Cannes, TIFF - how many of them project movies in the 4K format ? How many ask that it be provided ? So, the only real deliverable for 4K is for film out (as far as I am aware). What are the average costs of a film out for a feature length movie ? And is it just a matter of taking your 4K RGB master edit and going straight to fim out or are there intermediary steps ? (remember Haakon's post about checking focus and colour accuracy)...
The genius of REDcine is that it mimics the modularity of the camera - it allows you to tailor your deliverables for each and every project. Indeed, every penny of the cost of post is going to be coming out of my own pocket, and/or my financeers. It is in my best interest to have the ability to edit and finish a 4K project from my home desktop, and i will RELISH the day that that's not only cost effective but quality effective. Like filmmaker 1977, I want the divide between the technology and the art to be as seemless as possible... However, as a small business man, the cost vs. reward ratio must be taken into account.
Hopefully, the costs of finishing 4K on a home system will be in the ballpark for the little guy, in the future, but having all the options for today, is just as important, IMHO. I would be loathe to see someone pick up a 4K monitor to finish on and not be able to see the whole image, or get decent cc'ing ability.
Ask yourself, do you need to finish your footage in 4K RGB ? That's the beauty of RED and REDcine - as Stuart mentioned above - the final project size should determine your work paradigms. For the little guy with limited resources, choosing what the need is over the want is paramount. :beer:
just my 3 pence from and artist who wants the best bang for the buck ... :beer:
RED # rebel with a clue
Stuart English said:
I don't see why some people are taking (personally) the posit that finishing 4K on a desktop system is going to (possibly) be expensive, for now. Even if you are willing to colour correct on an LCD, the only 4K one now is a viewsonic for $6K, and you'd be scaling the image just to see it on your screen. And a 4K HD reference grade monitor ? Well, there's no need to even mention it, if you're talking about cost.
Let's get down to why you would be finishing your 4K REDcode Raw footage on a home desktop system. Let's assume for a minute that we take the costs of the hardware, monitors, and software out of the equation. Looking at your deliverables - there are no 4K DVD's, no 4K television requirements, no 4K internet content providers, and so on. Festivals like Berlinale, Sundance, Cannes, TIFF - how many of them project movies in the 4K format ? How many ask that it be provided ? So, the only real deliverable for 4K is for film out (as far as I am aware). What are the average costs of a film out for a feature length movie ? And is it just a matter of taking your 4K RGB master edit and going straight to fim out or are there intermediary steps ? (remember Haakon's post about checking focus and colour accuracy)...
The genius of REDcine is that it mimics the modularity of the camera - it allows you to tailor your deliverables for each and every project. Indeed, every penny of the cost of post is going to be coming out of my own pocket, and/or my financeers. It is in my best interest to have the ability to edit and finish a 4K project from my home desktop, and i will RELISH the day that that's not only cost effective but quality effective. Like filmmaker 1977, I want the divide between the technology and the art to be as seemless as possible... However, as a small business man, the cost vs. reward ratio must be taken into account.
Hopefully, the costs of finishing 4K on a home system will be in the ballpark for the little guy, in the future, but having all the options for today, is just as important, IMHO. I would be loathe to see someone pick up a 4K monitor to finish on and not be able to see the whole image, or get decent cc'ing ability.
Ask yourself, do you need to finish your footage in 4K RGB ? That's the beauty of RED and REDcine - as Stuart mentioned above - the final project size should determine your work paradigms. For the little guy with limited resources, choosing what the need is over the want is paramount. :beer:
just my 3 pence from and artist who wants the best bang for the buck ... :beer:
RED # rebel with a clue
Excellent posts by Thomas Mathai and D_and_G although they represent slightly different ideologies. It's important to be pragmatic in these things and I think that D_and_G's comments about deliverables and markets should be considered by those eager to post 4K features at home. At the moment the only feature film (that I know of) to attempt an entirely 4K DI post pipeline was Spiderman 2 and they had a few bucks and Sony Imageworks behind them. A few hundred digital artists. And nearly two years. For them the payoff was the bragging rights (we're the first!!!!) and the few venues that offered pristine digital projection. Meanwhile the majority of their exhibitors presented standard DI 35mm filmouts which probably looked not much better than 'Lord of the Rings' @ 2K. I have seen 4K filmouts on an Arri laser film recorder and they are not as spectacular you might think. A lot gets lost in the translation to film print (remember Jim's estimate of 3.2K for film negative - not print) Yes, right now a filmout is the only practical way you can 'release' your 4K efforts on a significant scale - and a 90min feature film record will run about $100 000 (@ just below $1 a frame) give or take.
That's the bleak view. The optimistic view is that 4K is the future - and for that Red is offering us a future proof tool - 'obsolescence obsolete' and all that. It's the security in knowing that you're investing in a forward leaning vision that won't be outdated in 5 years - or 10 or 20... or ever, possibly. But currently we are in a MAJOR transition from SD to HD - one that has really just begun and took dozens of years of pushing. We don't yet have an effective way to screen uncompressed HD in our homes.
Shooting 4K on Red - not a question. You'll get the best HD down-converts in the biz; the ability to do insane 200% blowups; exquisite plates for fx work, environmental texture maps and photogrametry, promotional stills right off your 'neg', etc, etc.) But posting 4K??? At home???? Right now???? Just be careful that the premier of your 4K film does not consist of inviting your friends and family home to watch your efforts - in quadrants!
That's the bleak view. The optimistic view is that 4K is the future - and for that Red is offering us a future proof tool - 'obsolescence obsolete' and all that. It's the security in knowing that you're investing in a forward leaning vision that won't be outdated in 5 years - or 10 or 20... or ever, possibly. But currently we are in a MAJOR transition from SD to HD - one that has really just begun and took dozens of years of pushing. We don't yet have an effective way to screen uncompressed HD in our homes.
Shooting 4K on Red - not a question. You'll get the best HD down-converts in the biz; the ability to do insane 200% blowups; exquisite plates for fx work, environmental texture maps and photogrametry, promotional stills right off your 'neg', etc, etc.) But posting 4K??? At home???? Right now???? Just be careful that the premier of your 4K film does not consist of inviting your friends and family home to watch your efforts - in quadrants!
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
These numbers are inaccurate. At least, from the lab LINK with which I'm used to work with.boothba said:
Nowadays, I have a feature budgeted for US$51,949.52. For 128 minutes of feature length plus additional beginning and end marks.
As well:
US$8,054.40 for the sound master or intermediate
US$4,321.33 for the first copy
These numbers were converted from the Euro currency (October 5th 2006 rates) and I know in other (more competitive) places of Europe or in the US, the prices are below. In the past, I already exchanged information with David (Newman) on the subject as you can follow here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=382361&postcount=9
David Newman's answer:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=382453&postcount=11
$10,000 was the estimate @www.pixelharvest.com as it's possible to read for 90 minutes length. Even if it is low, I remember a search inside the US market where I could find some reasonable prices around the $35,000 mark. It was a texan lab -- I don't remember its name now. Nevertheless, quite far away from your $100,000 quote.
Last edited:
Emanuel said:
This number was quoted to me by the head of our DI department at Technicolor Toronto, for a 4K film record on their Arri film recorder, which includes processing and a couple of prints (if I'm not mistaken). I'm sure you could get a $5000 quote for a Kinescope output if there are any left on the planet.
None the less, I'll try to confirm that and get back to you (my buddy's not answering his phone right now). It may have been a quote for the entire 35mm DI process which includes de-min/de-max scans, color grade and film record - but I doubt it. Hell I remember 8-10 years ago when film records were $3 a frame on our Quantel Domino recorder.
For clarity - these are Canadian funds. And.... there's the 'rate card quote' and there's the number they agree to do it for. I don't know how often they get rate card.
Anyway I will try to confirm.
Emanuel said:
On their website Pixelharvest says:
"Filmout service offered very soon."
http://www.pixelharvest.com/cineform.html
They do offer some very attractive rates for scans, but not records. Very different. And remember we're talking 4K filmouts. Not a lot of players in that field - although I know a small company that engineered their own 'model'. I think it looked a bit like the Franken-cam, I'd imagine.
ZaneIsNumber1
Well-known member
Where I live most filmmakers are shooting 16mm, then finishing to standard def video. If they can combine their talent with a little luck, they will have a saleable product, go back later and finish to 35mm.
I plan to shoot 4k, but will probably be greedy and finish to 1080p (to bluray or something) along with SD.
These are the only formats I can screen, so why edit or finish to anything higher?
If things go well, I always have 4k source material for 35mm transfer (or to whatever other formats come along in, say, 2020, if my film is still of any interest then).
4k shooting = seriously future proof. And boy will it sound good:
"So you're shooting video?"
"No, we're shooting 4k digital cinema!"
but 4k editing on your home computer..? I don't see the point for now
I plan to shoot 4k, but will probably be greedy and finish to 1080p (to bluray or something) along with SD.
These are the only formats I can screen, so why edit or finish to anything higher?
If things go well, I always have 4k source material for 35mm transfer (or to whatever other formats come along in, say, 2020, if my film is still of any interest then).
4k shooting = seriously future proof. And boy will it sound good:
"So you're shooting video?"
"No, we're shooting 4k digital cinema!"
but 4k editing on your home computer..? I don't see the point for now
Last edited:
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
However boothba, the point is to have 4K online editing for a 4K master it will be very important in order to the future availability.
The digital exhibition is there crossing the street. It doesn't matter how long will be but that will be. And if we can be prepared to this market with archive product, it will be a great income indeed. I guess an unevenly deal without previous precedent in the recent (hi)story of the motion picture. That's why 4K is relevant since the moment that someone can deliver it. As far as possible.
The digital exhibition is there crossing the street. It doesn't matter how long will be but that will be. And if we can be prepared to this market with archive product, it will be a great income indeed. I guess an unevenly deal without previous precedent in the recent (hi)story of the motion picture. That's why 4K is relevant since the moment that someone can deliver it. As far as possible.
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
you resume all the point mister.. my respect :thumbup:
Emanuel said:
Emanuel said:
I really can't argue with this and I agree (as does filmmaker) with you're 'as far as possible' sentiment. That's how things get done, and that's what Red's all about. And so if you'll allow me I'd like to clarify my position. Returning to the subject of this thread (editing 4K at home), I realized that I earlier failed to make a distinction between two basic kinds of narrative filmmakers.
Group A: The post-reliant group. Many modern filmmakers grew up shooting ads or videos during the first (SD) digital revolution in the 80s & 90s. They have grown accustomed to spit-polishing their films in post, from full on digital fx, to set extensions, set replacement, sky replacement, primary color grades, secondary color grades, tertiary color grades, digital make-up (think Superman), digital stuntmen, digital face replacement, digital, er, other things replacement (I had to shrink Jennifer Lopez's ass once - true), digital zooms, digital cameras, impossible cameras, wire removal, rig removal, grip removal, gaffer removal, and fixes, fixes, fixes. I've worked on three David Fincher films and he is definitely one of these guys (in a good way). While it might be tempting to call this "the slick group" or "the Hollywood look" I would easily put Peter Greenaway and Gaspar Noe in this category and they are neither Hollywood, nor slick.
Group B: The digital-age John Cassavetes. These are the ms-en-scene directors, the French New Wave aficionados, the purists, the die-hards, the 'fix it in production' blow-hards, the 'waiting for the right light' shooters, the "shadows happen in life" producers, the "gimme a camera, some actors, and some cigarettes" cinephiles, the "keep it reel" realists, the observant, the faithful, the devout, the PAs (just kidding). Oh ya, they are also the documentarians, the nature shooters, the sports shooters, etc (but that's another story). This group will make some stunning Red movies, and they will make it seem so easy. The Dogma analogy has been made before, and it is extremely interesting. For while Dogma offers up great stories and riveting acting with lots of grainy, poorly exposed low res imagery, the 'Red-ma' group will deliver same, but in glorious, grainless, impeccably exposed 4K.
This group will take a page from the book of digital gurus like David Newman and Graeme, buy a home system, shoot, offline, online (or both at once), cut, cut, cut, add a tasteful dissolve or two, set a look, (throw on some grain, maybe) and then move on to their next production. Oh, and they might just spare a passing thought as to why this thread ever existed.
Group B is not the reason why I and others offer cautious post warnings, for it is a great irony in that those red filmmakers who are not particularly 'post-reliant" will probably be the first to succeed at editing and finishing 4K films at home. No, the problem is group A, and I'm trying to brace myself cause I'm one of 'em (as much as I'd like the courage to be in group B).
The truth is that there are many irresponsible, self-styled 'post savvy' directors, filmmakers and 'creatives' who think they can merrily climb the resolution-ladder and continue with business as usual. They want to keep solving their problems in post, but without the hassle of considering little things like storage, data-rates, archiving, render times, competing HD formats, and the all important fact that more resolution means more pixels to fix. I see it already as my commercial clients move from SD to HD. Budgets are the same. Schedules are the same. Standards are the same. Expectations are the same. Except we are now moving 5.926 times the number of pixels around. To these folks I would like to say: "do you know those 20 or so computer-things you're accustomed to doing at SD to hone each shot, and make it your own, perfect, or whatever - well at HD you get to do 12 things. And at 4K you would get to do 7 things. Assuming your schedule and budget are fixed, what format (or finishing resolution) would best fit your particular aesthetic? What's more important to you, skin pores or the ability to digitally sculpt the images the way you're accustomed?"
Yes this has become a bit a rant. but I think there's a point in here. I believe that Peter Jackson and David Fincher and Greenaway and Noe can make better movies right now by finishing at 2K and HD rather than 4K. Given the way they work and the manner in which they lean on post. That's a close call, but I'm crazy. So.... what of the little guy on his home computer? We know that Red offers an acquisition revolution, and there are strong promises of a similar post revolution in the near future. But no matter how good the compression gets, no matter how small the bit rates get, no matter how cheap the storage gets, one thing remains a given: at 4K you'll never hear these ass-saving words:
"Ah, don't worry about it. You'll never see it anyway. Next shot...."
Shoot 4K. Ponder your finishing resolution.
Last edited:
boothba said:
Well because I promised - and because I'm a bastard - I thought I'd include this one other 4K film record quote I found from Arri services.
http://www.arri.de/entry/services.htm
Click "Digital Intermediate & VFX". Then click "Price List" then download the PDF. On page 12 you'll find a rate of $2 a frame for 4K filmouts (which drops to $1.50 a frame after the first 2,500 frames), and $1.50 a frame for 2K filmouts (which drops to $1 after 2,500 frames.)
I also find this insane and it does prove that the 'old ways' are restrictive, and elitist and not creatively egalitarian at all. Things get better. Many rules yet to break.
Last edited:
boothba said:
OK, it get's worse. I was checking out that PDF and on page 24 it says "unless otherwise stated, all prices are in Euro..." I could find no other mention of currency, though it was a German web site so it follows.
And their prices for standard post facilities like Spirit, Pogle, Inferno, Shake and Maya seem normalish for a major market.
Jason Rodriguez
Well-known member
$50K for a film-out is nothing new . . .
You might want to try and find a place that is using Jeff Krienes' Kinetta 4K recorder, according to Jeff the costs of the film-out should be more reasonable. You also might want to look at somebody with a Celco, etc.
Part of the problem of cost is the speed at which you are scanning out films . . . at 4K you're scanning out a lot slower than 2K.
So if you look at the business model, at 4K you're going to be scanning out a whole lot less films per year than at 2K if you had the scanner busy every day of the year, so naturally you're going to have to charge more.
Remember that film-recording is an art-form in and of itself, wrougth with a lot of technicalities and dark corners/surprises if you don't know what you're doing. Paying the extra money to get the result you want on-screen without surprises is worth it, especially if you're planning on viewing this piece of millions around the world.
If you're just doing film-festivals though, I don't see why digital projection should be a problem . . . most major and minor film-festivals have the ability to project digitally. I'd leave the cost of film-outs to the distributor if they should pick up your film.
You might want to try and find a place that is using Jeff Krienes' Kinetta 4K recorder, according to Jeff the costs of the film-out should be more reasonable. You also might want to look at somebody with a Celco, etc.
Part of the problem of cost is the speed at which you are scanning out films . . . at 4K you're scanning out a lot slower than 2K.
So if you look at the business model, at 4K you're going to be scanning out a whole lot less films per year than at 2K if you had the scanner busy every day of the year, so naturally you're going to have to charge more.
Remember that film-recording is an art-form in and of itself, wrougth with a lot of technicalities and dark corners/surprises if you don't know what you're doing. Paying the extra money to get the result you want on-screen without surprises is worth it, especially if you're planning on viewing this piece of millions around the world.
If you're just doing film-festivals though, I don't see why digital projection should be a problem . . . most major and minor film-festivals have the ability to project digitally. I'd leave the cost of film-outs to the distributor if they should pick up your film.
Jim Arthurs
Well-known member
One year ago, the majority of folks on this forum were anticipating the release of the HVX and struggling with a valid post-flow for that camera, which is much, much lower in recorded rez compared to the RED than SD is to the HVX. Now, with almost a tone of insolence, we're nit-picking a workflow that even the cream of Hollywood would think twice about attempting!
While the RED being able to record 4K "negative" is a marvel and amazing, who among us will actually need to take advantage of that in a post workflow? One year ago I was struggling on a venue project to do 5 minutes of edited 4k by 4k, and boys and girls, if you haven't done something similar, you don't know what you're getting into. Seriously.
Personally, I would be freakin' THRILLED to have the worlds best 1080p or 2K as provided by the RED's scale down, and I can't imagine who on this board wouldn't be, or who would feel limited by that in production or post. From my point of view, I'll finally have a camera source that can fill and deliver the potential of my ancient VelocityHD NLE, which I've had for several years and have always felt like feeding HDCAM into it was slumming it.
Folks, we are years out from HD completely replacing SD in our everyday world, and years beyond that where 4K is common as a viewing experience for the public. "Well, RED is changing that!" is the reply I hear, and I say that RED is changing only the areas that RED is capable of affecting. RED in many ways is a cancer, albeit a positive one, and it will be a long time before that cancer spreads throughout the whole body. How much 35mm has been shot in the last thirty years that has never been taken beyond a standard SD telecine? How much film of ANY kind is being shot TODAY that is ever scanned or used to the limits of it's recorded rez?
Evaluate your actual production needs as a current DVX or HVX user, a current independent filmmaker shooting 16mm or 35mm, or a VFX professional, then look at your post workflow, and consider with a healthy dose of realism where and what RED will do for you. For me, I'd be pretty happy having a camera that can "just" smack-down an F950 CineAlta. Maybe that perspective will change as I'm able to effortlessly make 4K home movies of my dogs, but until then...
Regards,
While the RED being able to record 4K "negative" is a marvel and amazing, who among us will actually need to take advantage of that in a post workflow? One year ago I was struggling on a venue project to do 5 minutes of edited 4k by 4k, and boys and girls, if you haven't done something similar, you don't know what you're getting into. Seriously.
Personally, I would be freakin' THRILLED to have the worlds best 1080p or 2K as provided by the RED's scale down, and I can't imagine who on this board wouldn't be, or who would feel limited by that in production or post. From my point of view, I'll finally have a camera source that can fill and deliver the potential of my ancient VelocityHD NLE, which I've had for several years and have always felt like feeding HDCAM into it was slumming it.
Folks, we are years out from HD completely replacing SD in our everyday world, and years beyond that where 4K is common as a viewing experience for the public. "Well, RED is changing that!" is the reply I hear, and I say that RED is changing only the areas that RED is capable of affecting. RED in many ways is a cancer, albeit a positive one, and it will be a long time before that cancer spreads throughout the whole body. How much 35mm has been shot in the last thirty years that has never been taken beyond a standard SD telecine? How much film of ANY kind is being shot TODAY that is ever scanned or used to the limits of it's recorded rez?
Evaluate your actual production needs as a current DVX or HVX user, a current independent filmmaker shooting 16mm or 35mm, or a VFX professional, then look at your post workflow, and consider with a healthy dose of realism where and what RED will do for you. For me, I'd be pretty happy having a camera that can "just" smack-down an F950 CineAlta. Maybe that perspective will change as I'm able to effortlessly make 4K home movies of my dogs, but until then...
Regards,
agwah
Well-known member
boothba said:
ha ha, great topic boothba
The first time I saw a file from the then new 22MP still camera back (39 now) it flipped my head in a spin that never really stopped since then. I had been waiting for a solution that would be as good as film, and here was something with a level of detail without noise that film would never be able to achieve due to the grain. Every hair out of every pore visible. It becomes so sharp as to look unnatural. The eye isn't used to being that close to another persons face, unless it is your own girlfriend.
Most probably it will be like when sound or color showed up, people will adjust, some actors can handle that kind of detail with all their "flaws" showing, others will insist on being smoothed out and may even demand their own person to do the post retouching, the same way that Marlene Dietrich had her own cinematographer put a particular light for her precise makeup.
Then there is the whole world of in betweens, where you accept the divide and take the best from both worlds; for example: I am curious as to how fast accurate and good the softwares will become when you can set an intense detail and contrast ratio for the whole scene, and leave areas of skintones a tiny bit gentler.
4K seems to me a great resolution, smack in between the fuzzy old TV and the retouching intensive digital still pro formats.
I will keep believing that it is going to be possible to handle it all at home.