What On Earth To Get?

[Arnie Schlissel]

Except that Color will only output to a video monitor via an internal capture card or an Io HD. And the Io HD is probably not compatible with Javier’s system, either.

Short of finding a used Cinewave (HD & SD), or Aurora Igniter (SD only), the only real option is a new Mac.

Arnie
Now in post: Peristroika, a film by Slava Tsukerman
https://www.arniepix.com/blog

[Javier Calderon]

Well . . . Thank you much, Neil. This is quite valuable – although admittedly regrettable – information.

[Javier Calderon]

Thank you ALL of you for responding and taking the time to share your information w/me actually.

So what does this basically mean folks? (besides the obvious fact that I would have to get a new system if I want to do HD in the future) . . .

Does this mean that if I want to work w/16 on this system (which I’m not saying I WILL! Hold your horses, Bob! Don’t pelt me w/another “don’t be a cheap loser” tirade! lol) that I would only be able to view playback in SD – if at all?

I have this only as a final, concluding question to this thread since I’m now simply wondering how shoestring budget indies get made using 16 film on computers far less powerful than the G5 I have here. Did they (do they) get their shot film processed and sent back to them on some sort of non HD format (VHS/DV tape, etc) that their system can handle? If so, then they can work with it, but the footage simply won’t have the best resolution . . .

am I getting this correct?

Again, I’ll let this thread go after this remark, as I understand that now I’m DEFINITELY getting not only off the thread topic, but off the Kona FORUM topic! Any last responses/comments would be greatly appreciated, however.

For now I’ll hunt around on the web as well to see if I can also find some further help on this particular query.

Thanks again, all
Javier Calderon

[David Roth weiss]

Javier,

Why sweat? Just get yourself a cheap used G5 with PCI-x slots and any Kona or BM card and move on. There’s nothing says you have to buy a brand new octo-core Mac Pro.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY™

A forum host of Creative COW’s Business & Marketing, and Indie Film & Documentary forums.

[Bob Zelin]

I’ve got even a better answer for Javier, since he wanted to know how all these great movies were made without all of this “state of the art” equipment. There are COUNTLESS AVID Meridian systems – the standard in LA for cutting 35mm feature films – that owners can’t give away. You could easily find a complete AVID Meridian based system, that has been used to cut major TV shows and major features for a VERY VERY low price. These systems will never do HD, but you asked for a great system, that was used to cut big things before all of this state of the art stuff came out – so here it is. And as others have suggested to you – there are lots of inexpensive Pinnacle CineWave cards out there – these were great, expensive products at one time. Have a ball Javier – you can get an older AVID, or just a CineWave card, and not spend too much money.

“But how will I do HD, how will I import Adobe CS3 graphics, how will I compress for the web” – then I start on my tirade again.

Bob Zelin

[Alan Okey]

[JavierC] “I have this only as a final, concluding question to this thread since I’m now simply wondering how shoestring budget indies get made using 16 film on computers far less powerful than the G5 I have here. Did they (do they) get their shot film processed and sent back to them on some sort of non HD format (VHS/DV tape, etc) that their system can handle? If so, then they can work with it, but the footage simply won’t have the best resolution . . . “

Javier,

Forgive me if I’m being presumptuous, but I think you’re blurring the line between editing and finishing. Lots of great film-originated work has been edited on cheaper computers at offline resolutions and then finished on a higher end system.

Instead of trying to do everything on desktop systems, it may actually be more cost and time effective to do an offline SD edit / negative cut list and then finish the film using high-quality HD transfers or 2k DPX datacine scans in a high end finishing and/or color correction suite using tools like Smoke or Lustre/Scratch/da Vinci. Compared to what it costs to get a single film print made, money spent in a high-end online finishing suite is a relative bargain.

Even if the project will never go back out to film, there’s a lot to be said for finishing at the highest possible quality/resolution and down-converting as a final step. Any compositor or colorist would much rather work with high resolution/high quality source footage to get the best possible result. This also has the benefit of allowing one to create a high quality master archive in case a film out is ever a possibility in the future.

You can certainly work with 2K material in Color, but it will bring even the best octo-core Mac Pro to its knees, and require a very large and fast storage system. Make sure to figure that into the overall cost.

Also realize that from the producer/director’s standpoint, going the D.I.Y route may not end up being the most cost-effective solution, especially if time is of the essence. There’s a significant amount of time and money that must be invested in order to finish a film on a desktop system. While it’s certainly possible to end up with a very high quality product, it happens at a much slower pace than what is possible in a high-end finishing suite. The person paying the bills may decide that it’s a better use of their time and money to spend the $$ in a high-end finishing suite and have the luxury of real time interactivity and near-instant gratification.

It’s the old saying: Good, Fast, Cheap – pick two.

If saving time and money aren’t of critical importance, and if learning the craft of color correction is your goal, then by all means, dive in!

[Javier Calderon]

Alan wrote regarding the D.I.Y. route:

“While it’s certainly possible to end up with a very high quality product, it happens at a much slower pace than what is possible in a high-end finishing suite.”

Wo. I’ll say. I’ve been one-man-band-ing my present feature and it’s taken me probably at least twice as long as it would had I a team helping me. I have been absolutely defiant regarding all the obstacles that have happened in the way of its completion, but 1) I will hopefully be finished in a few (relatively) short months, and 2) I’m very much looking forward to taking all the knowledge I continue acquiring from helpful folks on forums just like this one and making the next project all the better (and smoother!) for it.

“If saving time and money aren’t of critical importance, and if learning the craft of color correction is your goal, then by all means, dive in!”

Oh I’m diving alright. Swimming with sharks, to be sure, but slapping around in the water as best as I can all the same.

Thank you very much,
Javier Calderon

[Neil Patience]

Bobs suggestion of an old Avid system is quite a good idea especially for a long form project like a feature. The older systems are pretty much bullet proof. You could do a traditional offline online so would not need masses of storage. (about 50 secs/gig uncompressed) If you were lucky enough to get your hands on a Symphony you get uncompressed SD editing and a half decent colour corrector (real time) thrown into the bargain.

In terms of the 16mm question just get your rushes telecinied to the best SD source you can, ideally digibeta. Again if you can do more than just a one light transfer and you will save yourself a load of grading and get a very good result from 16mm.

As a minimum Avid spec you want something can can digitise at 2:1 for the online side of things if a !:1 machine is too expensive. You wont really notice the difference between the two in terms of quality Symphony has the best grading tools.

Actually there is a complete Symphony system for sale on ebay currently for about $10k to give you an idea. (ends in a few hours so happy bidding) You could probably sell it again after the project and not lose too much on it. – Just a thought !

[Javier Calderon]

So 16 to Digibeta transfer, eh?

. . . things to consider for the future.

Thanks a bunch, Neil, Bob, and everyone.

For now I gotta get back to editing and finish this DV feature.