Projectors under 15k.

[Neil Sadwelkar]

So after spending $100-200k on a projector, maybe another $500-800k on all the other ‘must-have’ critical gear to do a 4k DI and finish, establishment costs, wages etc, what kind of ROI period does one have in your part of the world? Is this still a viable business at these capital investment costs?

I ask because the distinction between consumer and pro gear is narrowing, DI and finishing budgets are shrinking, working with film originated images reduced to near non-existent, are we at a point where it’s simply overkill spending that much $$ on gear that simply doesn’t pay for itself, for clients that can’t tell them apart, and who won’t pay for the luxury.

———————————–
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India

[Ryan Holmes]

[Neil Sadwelkar] ” are we at a point where it’s simply overkill spending that much $$ on gear that simply doesn’t pay for itself,”

I think there is still a segment, small though it may be, who demand this level. It’s certainly not the level many of us work at. However, when a summer Hollywood blockbuster goes to a finish suite then this type of quality is expected (Avengers, Start Trek, Superman, Transformers, Hunger Games, etc.).

I don’t think for many environments (corporate, wedding, local TVC work) that it’s a viable business model. But if you’re playing in the very deep end of the pool where people are shooting film, 5K, and 6K having a 4K DI projector hooked up to a Baselight/Scratch/Resolve system with full panels attached to a high speed RAID via fibre channel is expected. Especially since the artist working in that room is likely charging a steeper per hour fee then the guy down the road color grading local car dealership commercials.

[Neil Sadwelkar] “I ask because the distinction between consumer and pro gear is narrowing,”

I agree with you on this. And while it’s “narrowing” it’s not completely vanished. There are areas where the professional wants a level of control and customizability that consumer level products don’t match. And typically you will have to pay for that. Specifically in regards to color accurate panels there is quite a bit of difference between the TV I buy at my local big box retailer and the monitor I buy from Flanders Scientific for color grading.

The question probably becomes: in the market one works in is the added cost of getting the image 99% color accurate vs. getting the image 80% color accurate worth it?

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost

[Juan Salvo]

If you’re letting your client make color critical decisions on an inadequate display that differ from the decisions they would make on adequate display, then yes, you’re engaged in malpractice.

That said, for 709 there are plenty of very cost effective displays that are quite adequate. Like the panny plasma you mentioned. I use a BT300 as my client displays. But when properly calibrated both client and reference display lead to the same decisions.

But the seiki display is not describing the same thing. If you’re finishing 709, why look at it in 4K? There’s no standard/distribution for that.

I’m not saying you have to spend 70K on a 4K projector, I’m saying you shouldn’t claim to be able to do 4K finish, on a $1500 Chinese knockoff panel. I see nothing wrong with using a plasma to do an HD finish.

Just use the appropriate gear for the job, and if you don’t have the gear be honest with your clients about what you can do.

[Neil Sadwelkar] “I ask because the distinction between consumer and pro gear is narrowing, DI and finishing budgets are shrinking”
A big part of the reason they are shrinking is because producers won’t know any better until the project is done, are going with shops that underbid, because they don’t have the right gear. They do what they can to make it look good in the room, regardless of the fact it won’t look like that anywhere else because it doesn’t adhere to standards.

As far as the distinction between pro and consumer gear narrowing… when it comes to displays if anything it’s been widening of late. Edge lit white LED has become the norm. IPS panels are being phased out. Plasma is dying off. IGZO panels are fairly weak right now. If you look at any of the consumer 4K displays, they all leave a lot to be desired.

Colorist | Online Editor | Post Super | VFX Artist | BD Author

https://JuanSalvo.com

[Joseph Mastantuono]

Manufacturers are also in a completely different game. They do tons of stupid tricks on their TV’s to make them seem more appealing when they’re side by side in a best buy. Over sharpening, adding contrast, gamma shifts, and color shifts (a slight bump in skin tones often). Lets not even get started with “auto-motion”

Getting these consumer displays to back to show close to what they should is difficult but possible.

Also, for color work, it’s far more important to have a color critical 1080p/2k display than a 4k display.

As far as what Juan says about “malpractice” I tend to agree, although I’ve seen it more with producers trying to bring color work in house than with post houses / colorists underbidding.

I think that there’s a big disconnect with the manufacturers of TV’s, We’re all looking for better gamuts, 10bit displays, “truer” displays, and they just bonk the consumers over the head with gimmicks. Not that 4k is a gimmick, I’d have a hard time thinking that the guts of a 1500$ 4k panel could have the correct color science in it to work.

Every panel has 2 parts, the display, and the electronic signal processing to get the signal and translate it to what the display can show (voltages to individual crystals and led’s ETC…), the latter is where a lot of consumer devices fail.

Joseph Mastantuono
http://www.goodpost.net
Color Grading & Post Production Consulting