Best choice of timeline

I've been shooting projects that are destined for TV broadcast using RED cameras for several years. Prior to the advent of RED Dragon, I have typically shot at 4KHD (3840 x 2160 (at a 16:9, or 1.78:1 aspect ratio) as opposed to true 4K (4096 x 2160). As widely discussed on the REDUser forum many have recommended the 4kHD as the "best" choice for acquiring footage that is destined for down-converting to HD format for delivery and broadcast. There are some technical issues for this.

My question is does anyone have any recommendation for the "best" FCPX timeline choice for editing 4kHD footage destined for a HD delivery. In other words, would you recommend editing in a 4kHD (3849 x 2160) timeline and later compressing to HD format/resolution for output or should I just edit in a HD (1920 x1080) timeline to begin with? Are there any considerations for doing one or the other? I can test both options myself but I wondered if anyone had experience with this.

Hi Joseph,

If you don't need to do any artificial reframing your best workflow will be to edit the footage in its native format, then downsample to HD upon export. If you want to do some reforming work it is better to edit immediately in an HD timeline. There won't be any different with regard to picture quality, but editing in the native format will be smoother.

- Ronny

Thanks, Ronny. I appreciate the advice and I understand the advantages of staying native/using proxies with the 4K timeline - that makes sense. However, it's not uncommon for me to do some re-framing of the original 4KHD footage in editing - often I might add a dynamic push effect to a static shot - so is the reason to edit in an HD timeline (as opposed to a 4K one) just to evaluate the "look" of the re-framing before the final output? Or is there some other reason? I'm not trying to make this more complicated than it is

Thanks again and for the record I really appreciate the quality of the advice (and help) I see that you offer in this forum.

That's correct. You can just as well apply reframing when working on a timeline in the native format. But when you work in a 4K timeline with 4K footage and you need to upscale considerably to do your reframing, your upscaled image may seem a little softer when you play the timeline.

Of course the upscaled image will look perfect again when you downres to HD upon export. But because people may not always understand this will happen, I often suggest to work immediately in an HD timeline when a lot of reframing needs to be done. As you say, this has more to do with getting an instant "look" of the reframing than with anything else.

- Ronny

Only reason to edit4K in an HD timeline is reframing/Ken Burns effects.

Thanks, guys. Got it now.

BenB wrote: Only reason to edit4K in an HD timeline is reframing/Ken Burns effects.

Here is a good example of this. A single-cam locked-down GH4 shot can be transformed into a Ken Burns multi-cam sequence by editing 4k in an HD timeline. Since the final output is HD, there's no resolution loss, provided any zoom stays below 1920x1080 pixels, and you could probably get away with 1280x720 for some cases.

This is one answer to "why shoot 4k now since nobody is watching 4k?"

vimeo.com/channels/humcrush/101051502

Joe,

You're right and the Vimeo you linked is a nice example of that.

You know, I have a producer who always asks "why do we want to shoot a close-up when we can just pull it out of the 4K master shot?" I suppose that speaks to the existential view of producers who want to call it the "martini shot" and wrap the location versus directors who want just "one more." Thanks for adding fuel to the fire

At HD resolution it's damn good though. Nice piece.

Our studio has done some testing, and here's what we've seen to be a big mistake some folks may get fooled in to.

Put a camera 6 feet from talent, shoot a close up shot, staged, makeup, lit as a close up shot in 1080.

Move the camera to 15 feet, shoot it as a wide shot, etc, with 4K.

In a timeline, that 1080 close up with still look better than the 4K "fake" close up.

At least in the test we've done.

Point is, if you fake close ups and such, they'll lose something, because they are fake, and not staged properly.

Just my two cents there.

I can confirm what Ben says. Zooming in in post is absolutely not the same as changing the position of your camera to make close-ups. When you do it in post you create a false perspective that is unnatural to the human eye. The subject comes closer to the camera but the subject's relation to the background stays exactly the same. When you move the camera to create a close-up the background does change in relation to the subject, which is more natural.

The proof is that while you can easily cut between a wide shot and a close up that have been recorded by moving the camera, cutting between a wide shot and an artificially created zoom from the wide shot will often look awkward. Most people try to solve this by dissolving between the shots, but as you can clearly see in the video even the dissolved shots don't always work.

Reframing 4K in an HD project is fine as long as you don't use this technique to create artificial close-ups. Very often these won't cut well at all.

- Ronny

Absolutely, Ben. Being able to pull alternative framings (cu's, etc.) from a 4K master shot (working in a lower resolution) is one thing - and it is a viable technique for material that was captured in one take/one camera, either because of time, money or whatever.

But like you said, simply enlarging an image to create a frame that suits doesn't obviate the need for or take into the account the effect of light placement and (real) lenses in creating a carefully composed shot.

Sounds like the old zoom v. prime lens discussion, doesn't it?

Update: Just read Ronny's reply. He said it better.