OPINION: Do you need 4K (narrative) to have shot at Distribution?

[Zak Forsman]

never in a million years will a distributor let something like "it's not 4K" stop them from distributing a movie they think they can make money on. 

[mercer]

never in a million years will a distributor let something like "it's not 4K" stop them from distributing a movie they think they can make money on. 

I understand that, I'm just afraid that I will put all of this work into a project and they will only accept 4K material, but logic dictates that if the project is any good and they can make money... Why would they turn it down. 

[Axel]

One of the biggest successes recently was Avengers - Age of Ultron. It was shot with Alexa 3,5k, Pocket and GoPro. And mastered and released in 2k. Because all experts agree that 4k is of little advantage for the cinema audience. The screens can't get any bigger, and the higher resolution is distinguishable only from those seats where the image is heavily distorted anyway. Avatar 2 is shot in 8k, 60 fps and will be mastered in 4k, 3D. The 2009 Avatar (shot, as mentioned above, in 1080p) changed the whole industry, because all of a sudden every screen had to be 3D-able. It may very well be, if the successor does well, that from then on HFR will be accepted or even expected, but I'd guess for cinematic releases 4k will never be a must.

At home, you can make your TV as big as you like, you can sit as close as you like and stay centered. 4k makes much more sense there. I'd guess on the long run 4k will become the standard there. But Netflix won't be able to get Avengers for a lower price just because it's only 2k. Action movies don't profit from higher resolution in the way docs do, for physical reasons.

As far as the camera choice is concerned, 4k alone is just a label that says nothing about the quality. I borrowed the FS7, and the video looked terrible (XAVC-I, Sony S-Log3). Many HD cameras make better images (the C300 for example, but in my opinion also my tiny Pocket). I borrowed the BMPC (4k raw), and that was the best footage I had ever seen on my 1080 monitor, I'd say it was the surplus of resolution.

Apart from what the VoD distributors "demand", I'd say the Ursa Mini on paper is the hottest choice for a lower budget. But certainly not for really low or no budget.

 

[lafilm]

I tend to agree with your theory. My plan was to shoot in 4K and then downres to 1080p for the edit.  I know there is an ongoing debate that you gain nothing by doing that but I think the footage looks weightier, more cinematic ... To my eye anyway.

Would it be smarter to edit in 4K prores and then downres, so I have a master in 4K and then do my grading on the 1080p? Or do the whole process in 4K before I downres?

​Mercer, I would edit in 2K. You still see the fine details and then go to 1080p. I would back up my 4K masters to a separate drive and store away for safe keeping.

Of course if you have the latest and greatest compute setup, than sure, Edit in 4K the entire process and downres to 1080p HD for distribution.

[lafilm]

never in a million years will a distributor let something like "it's not 4K" stop them from distributing a movie they think they can make money on. 

Thats not entirely true imo. ​You could go either way on this.

In another year (2016) even submitting a project on 1080p HD, you may not get people to even want to view it. They may bypass it altogether (unless the film was recommended by someone they know and trust in the biz) 

Also, once Blu Ray 4K hits - everyone and mean everyone will want to see all new films on their brand new badass 4K Blu Ray player.

At that point, forget it.

[Zak Forsman]

Okay, whatever you say. I'm not arguing distributors don't want 4K content. I'm saying that globally, even 1080p is overkill in many of the 130+ territories a movie will be sub-licensed to by your distributor. Profit motive will always come first for them. Also, when it comes to physical media, in my experience it's very easy to get a DVD deal. You'd have to have made a real dog of a movie not to get one. But it's much, much more difficult to get a distributor to commit to a Blu-ray release. 

I just renewed VOD and DVD rights in the US and Canada for my first movie. It was made in 2007 and shot on a Panasonic HVX200. The master we delivered is in Glorious 720p!!!

[Axel]

Also, once Blu Ray 4K hits - everyone and mean everyone will want to see all new films on their brand new badass 4K Blu Ray player.

4k BD will be a still birth. The VoD libraries are growing any minute, I monitor a tendency away from discs that only gather dust. You don't?

[The Chris]

Thats not entirely true imo. ​You could go either way on this.

In another year (2016) even submitting a project on 1080p HD, you may not get people to even want to view it. They may bypass it altogether (unless the film was recommended by someone they know and trust in the biz) 

Also, once Blu Ray 4K hits - everyone and mean everyone will want to see all new films on their brand new badass 4K Blu Ray player.

At that point, forget it.

​I don't see how that's even possible, the worlds largest digital distributors - Nexflix and iTunes - have almost no 4k content and 4k TV's are still a few years from being commonplace in the home. Its still a very small, niche market because there's virtually no readily available and cheap content. That $600 Samsung player with the preloaded BS isn't moving the needle, neither is a 4k version of that crappy Spiderman movie Sony is constantly pimping. There's no cheap 4k DVD content anywhere and its not likely to take hold anytime soon because the market is already completely saturated with DVD/Bluray and the next-gen stuff seems to be skipping physical media and moving to streaming. Japan, Korea, U.S., UK and others at the cutting edge of broadcasting are not even true 1080p yet. DVD sales have cratered thanks to VOD and digital sales. Phones and Tablets have taken a big chunk of the viewing pie, 4k is overkill on those devices as well.

Large corporations are only interested in one thing - profit. If an overwhelming majority of your audience is living in a 1080p world - nobody is turning up their noses at content because its not 4k. I'm sure it can't hurt to have 4k, but in no way is anyone limited because its not. Next year isn't going to be any different than this year, a few 4k shows/movies on Nexflix and such, but little else. 

[silvertonesx24]

I recently lost out on a job for multiple music videos because I don't have a 4K camera. Pretty annoying.

​Agencies sometimes want to see 4K. Because their camera phones can shoot 1080p

[elkanah77]

Thats not entirely true imo. ​You could go either way on this.

In another year (2016) even submitting a project on 1080p HD, you may not get people to even want to view it. They may bypass it altogether (unless the film was recommended by someone they know and trust in the biz) 

Also, once Blu Ray 4K hits - everyone and mean everyone will want to see all new films on their brand new badass 4K Blu Ray player.

At that point, forget it.

​This has to be the biggest bullshit so far this year,,,  No-one will want to view material in 1080. Come on!

As for Blu-Ray 4K...... I've bought Aliens on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD and Blu-Ray. I'll be damned if I'll let the greedy bastards trick me into buying it one more time.

[lafilm]

never in a million years will a distributor let something like "it's not 4K" stop them from distributing a movie they think they can make money on. 

​Ah..yes..if you have a movie of Bill Clinton with a new 18 yr old kid.

Other than that, you better step up to the plate by 2016. 4K or bust.

Okay, whatever you say. I'm not arguing distributors don't want 4K content. I'm saying that globally, even 1080p is overkill in many of the 130+ territories a movie will be sub-licensed to by your distributor. Profit motive will always come first for them. Also, when it comes to physical media, in my experience it's very easy to get a DVD deal. You'd have to have made a real dog of a movie not to get one. But it's much, much more difficult to get a distributor to commit to a Blu-ray release. 

I just renewed VOD and DVD rights in the US and Canada for my first movie. It was made in 2007 and shot on a Panasonic HVX200. The master we delivered is in Glorious 720p!!!

​Congrats on your film! I like to see everyone succeed at doing what they love.

As far as distribution, that is a tricky situation. There are many distributors...most suck. Meaning they will fuck you, you will not see a Huge check when the deal is signed. They will distribute, yes, but if they give you no money up front, you will never see any on the backend. Maybe $500 bucks.

I'm talking about a real distribution deal where you will make a minimum of several hundred thousand dollars upfront - with a distrib company that has a track record of releasing low budget films that make serious money. If not, show the movie to your family and keep your day job. This is business.

[lafilm]

4k BD will be a still birth. The VoD libraries are growing any minute, I monitor a tendency away from discs that only gather dust. You don't?

​You are wrong with a capital W.

[lafilm]

​This has to be the biggest bullshit so far this year,,,  No-one will want to view material in 1080. Come on!

As for Blu-Ray 4K...... I've bought Aliens on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD and Blu-Ray. I'll be damned if I'll let the greedy bastards trick me into buying it one more time.

​You will suck it up and pay. Why?

Because nothing looks like 4K Blu ray that you have ever seen.

BTW, purchase the original "Alien" when 4K Blu Ray shows up. The sequel is an action film with stupid one-liners and is not scary.

Ridley Scott's 1979 film is one of the top 15 best films ever made.

[Waggish]

So here's what I don't get about this discussion -- and please, somebody explain to me if I'm missing something!

It would be one thing to think of this as some sort of (strict) 'requirement' if 4k was a significant imposition. As far as I can tell, it's not. You can go right now and buy, let alone rent, a 4k camera for $1,300 at B&H or wherever [NX1]. (Sort of an aside, but it's on top of that more like a 6k sensor.) After that you've got tons of options; the obvious dslrs, Black Magic, you can get a RedOne on ebay for $6,000, etc. -- all in the few-thousand dollar range. What's really most important is what Ed David is driving home: how's your camera system compressing footage, and so forth. I find this really funny with the GH4/A7s debate, for instance. Sure, GH4 has internal 4K, but if you're downresing it to 1080p in editing, it's no different than the A7s which gives you straight-1080p based off of a full sensor readout. If you're going for cinema quality (4:2:2) then you'll need an Atmos Shogun in either case; so why all this talk about GH4 having 4k being any sort of advantage? Whatever, I digress.

I assume you're posting this topic because you want to make a film, or have one already made you want to distribute. If you already have made something, then I think, since Zak Forsman has generously taken the time to share his experiences, it's not a big deal. If you haven't shot anything yet, then I'd say get a 4k camera. Your time on a film is so much better spent thinking about story, character, etc., than what seems to me a pretty solvable problem. If you have a specific non-4k camera you want to use for some very specific story/mood-driven reason (like Bolex monochrome or something) then I say your filmmaker's instinct should be: damn the consequences I want to make the best movie possible and this is my camera. In which case, again, it's a non-issue. Damn the consequences.

[lafilm]

So here's what I don't get about this discussion -- and please, somebody explain to me if I'm missing something!

It would be one thing to think of this as some sort of (strict) 'requirement' if 4k was a significant imposition. As far as I can tell, it's not. You can go right now and buy, let alone rent, a 4k camera for $1,300 at B&H or wherever [NX1]. (Sort of an aside, but it's on top of that more like a 6k sensor.) After that you've got tons of options; the obvious dslrs, Black Magic, you can get a RedOne on ebay for $6,000, etc. -- all in the few-thousand dollar range. What's really most important is what Ed David is driving home: how's your camera system compressing footage, and so forth. I find this really funny with the GH4/A7s debate, for instance. Sure, GH4 has internal 4K, but if you're downresing it to 1080p in editing, it's no different than the A7s which gives you straight-1080p based off of a full sensor readout. If you're going for cinema quality (4:2:2) then you'll need an Atmos Shogun in either case; so why all this talk about GH4 having 4k being any sort of advantage? Whatever, I digress.

I assume you're posting this topic because you want to make a film, or have one already made you want to distribute. If you already have made something, then I think, since Zak Forsman has generously taken the time to share his experiences, it's not a big deal. If you haven't shot anything yet, then I'd say get a 4k camera. Your time on a film is so much better spent thinking about story, character, etc., than what seems to me a pretty solvable problem. If you have a specific non-4k camera you want to use for some very specific story/mood-driven reason (like Bolex monochrome or something) then I say your filmmaker's instinct should be: damn the consequences I want to make the best movie possible and this is my camera. In which case, again, it's a non-issue. Damn the consequences.

​Waggish, It is different. Downrez 4K to 1080p footage...will ALWAYS be superior to native 1080p.

Bolex 1080p in my opinion was dead on delivery except in very. very few niche situations (aka, money)

If you're only going to be watching your movie on the web, it really doesn't matter. 

For any chance at a cinema release , it's 4K only.

 

[elkanah77]

​You will suck it up and pay. Why?

Because nothing looks like 4K Blu ray that you have ever seen.

BTW, purchase the original "Alien" when 4K Blu Ray shows up. The sequel is an action film with stupid one-liners and is not scary.

Ridley Scott's 1979 film is one of the top 15 best films ever made.

I saw ​the original Alien 1979 when it came to the cinemas and to this day (I've seen a couple of time after that) I find this one of the most boring sci-fi movies. Only surpassed by 2001 as the most boring sci-fi ever. Camerons 1986 Aliens totally destroys it in every way. I'll admit though that it's two different type horror sci-fi movies. As for the 4K vs 1080 I stand by what I said. Have a nice day. :-)

[lafilm]

I saw ​the original Alien 1979 when it came to the cinemas and to this day (I've seen a couple of time after that) I find this one of the most boring sci-fi movies. Only surpassed by 2001 as the most boring sci-fi ever. Camerons 1986 Aliens totally destroys it in every way. I'll admit though that it's two different type horror sci-fi movies. As for the 4K vs 1080 I stand by what I said. Have a nice day. :-)

​LOL

Please read below and let me educate you.

 

1. Ridley Scott is a legendary visionary filmmaker.

2. James Cameron is not.  He's an action hack that got lucky with a man named Arnold. 

3. "ALIEN" (1979) is a horror film classic set in outer space. The perfect "Haunted House" film with a different backdrop. It has wonderful acting, classic score, amazing cinematography and sets. Classic minimalist dialogue and the film creeps along like the great Hitchcock thrillers that came before it. Ridley Scott is a master technician. The film is taught in film schools.

This is a film for cinephiles who understand and appreciate the language of cinema.

The Master - H.R. GIGER  - had a huge hand in this film.

 

4. "ALIENS" (1986) is a science fiction film sequel that destroys any semblance of suspense, terror, horror of the original film.. and is not the least bit disturbing. It has bad, over the top acting, weak dialogue, silly one-liners, and plays like a video game. James Cameron is an action director with absolutely no idea how to make a film suspenseful. Action is his genre, not suspense or terror. He was the wrong man for the job (not that film should have ever had a sequel to begin with).

This is a film for video game nerds, and marvel comic action hero fanatics who have ZERO attention span, and do not (or can not) appreciate the language of cinema.

The Master - HR GIGER -  DID NOT -  have a huge hand in this film. 

Need I say more?

Have a nice day

[lafilm]

elkanah77 said:

"2001 as the most boring sci-fi ever".

Again, let me educate you:

Stanley Kubrick's "2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY" is the greatest science fiction film ever made. Nothing comes close.

You my friend, do not understand films.

A shame.  Well, at least you have Play Station at home

[mercer]

​Waggish, It is different. Downrez 4K to 1080p footage...will ALWAYS be superior to native 1080p.

Bolex 1080p in my opinion was dead on delivery except in very. very few niche situations (aka, money)

If you're only going to be watching your movie on the web, it really doesn't matter. 

For any chance at a cinema release , it's 4K only.

 

Lafilm, do you have a distribution deal? Zak, has been kind enough to answer any questions on his. If you do, I would love to hear more about it. 

[elkanah77]

elkanah77 said:

"2001 as the most boring sci-fi ever".

Again, let me educate you:

Stanley Kubrick's "2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY" is the greatest science fiction film ever made. Nothing comes close.

You my friend, do not understand films.

A shame.  Well, at least you have Play Station at home

Did I upset you?

​I am quite educated thank you. My opinion on what is good or what is not is just as valid as anyone else's. Including yours. As for playstation, I'd rather stick to my Sony A7s rather than play games. As a matter of fact I find games just as boring as watching Alien.

You really shouldn't try to educate anyone anymore, as you come out seeming quite, err, angry.