I ran into a slight set back today while at a post house. They were scanning selects for me to a hard drive as uncompressed 10bit HD for a later film out. They told me I would need about 200 gigs for a 22 minute film. I gave them a 250 to be safe. I also asked to have them scan the cuts with handles. The colorist/tk operator, put five second handles on the head and tails of all 393 edits. The resulting files added up to 540 gigs. I said, "what the ....!"
Those little handles added up to on 65 and a half extra minutes of material, which in turn made the file size huge. So, I thought I would share my experience with all of yees, just in case you might be doing the same. Even for a short film, you should walk in the door with a 500 gig firewire "800" drive. Eight hundred, because you will be there all day, if you try it with a Firewire 400.
didn't take into account the handles
1 reply to this topic
Posted 06 December 2006 - 05:34 AM
yes - data handling when dealing with film is something that must be very carefully thought out. Because so much data is generated, transfer time and (where needed) file conversion time can have a big impact on post schedules and budgets. Also remember that the entire value of the film scan is being left to the reliability of the drive taken to the scanner / telecine. If that drive were to fail, you would most likely have to pay for the transfer again and that in turn is likely to be much more expensive than the drive itself. Best practice is to transfer to two drives, leaving one behind for later delivery in case you get hit by a bus on the way home!