Pirates of the Caribbean 4

[Rudi Herbert]

Might work, but that's a lot of gear and cables if you've got three cameras rolling...

I'm thinking external modules no bigger than a RED drive or a RED brick, that can be attached to the camera just like the batteries and add minimal weight and cabling, or at the very least, be mounted very close to the camera, on tripod legs, belt pouches if on a steadicam, etc...Surely beats large crews waiting around or a DIT always running behind, which on shoots with 4 hours of material shot daily, it would tend to happen frequently, unless you shoot to small capacity media, like 8 or 16 GB CF cards, reload constantly and back up immediately. It would be a path worth exploring if the external modules were truly portable.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm thinking external modules no bigger than a RED drive or a RED brick, that can be attached to the camera just like the batteries and add minimal weight and cabling, or at the very least, be mounted very close to the camera, on tripod legs, belt pouches if on a steadicam, etc...Surely beats large crews waiting around or a DIT always running behind, which on shoots with 4 hours of material shot daily, it would tend to happen frequently, unless you shoot to small capacity media, like 8 or 16 GB CF cards, reload constantly and back up immediately. It would be a path worth exploring if the external modules were truly portable.

Wouldn't all those back-ups done on camera still need to be downloaded regularly?

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Think of on set data management (more than just backup) as the replacement for sending film to the lab and waiting until "tomorrow" to see what you have shot. There is a "transfer" with that process also.

I agree with this, then again, remember that people seem to demand from RED not only that it emulates film in quality and look but to also better it in every other technical aspect. And yes, while there has to be a time allotment for checking footage on set after it's been shot, the backup side of things tends to be more tedious and time consuming, so if this area can be improved through multiple, simultaneous recording, then you can use your DIT's time and talent more for more creative things like applying looks, etc, on set.

 

[M Most]

Wouldn't all those back-ups done on camera still need to be downloaded regularly?

Yes. Especially when you consider that it's very unlikely that either of the on-camera recording solutions would be RAID-protected.

 

[Bill Anderson]

"Too clean": I'm glad to hear this. I don't want anything that has a preconditioned "look", whether "film" or "grain" or "retro" or whatever it may be. These types of "looks" tend to reveal other incompatibilities when it comes to a two or three hour long multitude of moving images - and, in spite of being used convincingly from time to time, were quite limited. Combined with a little artistic talent ( and current post tools) a sterilely clean image is the best point of departure. We get to add the dirt. ( :

 

[Michael McLaughlin]

tapes vs film work flow...

tapes vs film work flow...

and were does RED fit in.

Unfortunately or not the first cameras used in any
"large capacity" to bridge both worlds (film - TV) were
Sony F900 and Panasonic Varicams.

With these two you had the expectation of tapes, forget
about all the other issues of using these cameras as a
replacement for films; but focus on that one point.

Now expand this into tv shows that originally shot on film
moving to these cameras; and people after a couple of years
become use to having a tape.

I believe this is what David is running into on sets like this.
His set on that show probably wasn't like a big feature like
Spiderman, so unfortunately the "drama" comes from producers
etc. who are used to a very comfortable workflow, under certain
restrictions manpower wise (once the show really gets to production),
cost, time and on and on.

It is the present and the future, digital cinema, but I believe continue
enlightenment of TV show producers (who may be use to the tape workflow)
is the key.

This fight will not be easy.

 

[Jannard]

Our goal was to match/beat film's resolution and DR with a cleaner image and the flexibility of shooting a RAW "negative". Given that base, we thought that one could do just about anything with the footage that they want. There are certainly other respectable options out there and we fully understand if someone wants something else. Our vision is not the only one...

Jim

 

[David Mullen ASC]

"Too clean": I'm glad to hear this. I don't want anything that has a preconditioned "look", whether "film" or "grain" or "retro" or whatever it may be. These types of "looks" tend to reveal other incompatibilities when it comes to a two or three hour long multitude of moving images - and, in spite of being used convincingly from time to time, were quite limited. Combined with a little artistic talent ( and current post tools) a sterilely clean image is the best point of departure. We get to add the dirt. ( :

There are arguments both ways, for creating looks in-camera and creating looks in post, especially from the DP's perspective since he might not even be around for post, and not all dailies systems can easily and cheaply add looks (like diffusion) so you run the risk of the movie being in editorial for months after wrap and having everyone get used to the clean unprocessed look and then being unable to convince them to add the intended look.

It's already happened to me, had a movie where I thought that post diffusion would be the best approach, only to find that it was not only a lot more tedious than using a camera filter, but ultimately, the producer kicked the director and me out of post and finished the movie himself without the intended look added. In the end, I wished I had just slapped the diffusion filter on the camera and been done with it, then on-set monitors would have the effect, the dailies would have the effect, I wouldn't have to spend color-correcting time adding the effect, and ultimately, the producer couldn't have taken away the intended effect, etc.

That said, we are clearly moving into a future where most of the look, other than lighting, is going to be created in post -- and we are used to the flexibility of film images and it's great that digital images are reaching that flexibility in some areas, already surpassing it in other areas -- so we just need a better system in place that helps the cinematographer stay involved in the post process.

 

[christopher witzke]

Our goal was to match/beat film's resolution and DR with a cleaner image and the flexibility of shooting a RAW "negative". Given that base, we thought that one could do just about anything with the footage that they want. There are certainly other respectable options out there and we fully understand if someone wants something else. Our vision is not the only one...

Jim

I... for the life of me.... can't understand why anyone would want any other way of capturing what's in front of them. It just seems to work so well.

 

[christopher witzke]

There are arguments both ways, for creating looks in-camera and creating looks in post, especially from the DP's perspective since he might not even be around for post, and not all dailies systems can easily and cheaply add looks (like diffusion) so you run the risk of the movie being in editorial for months after wrap and having everyone get used to the clean unprocessed look and then being unable to convince them to add the intended look.

It's already happened to me, had a movie where I thought that post diffusion would be the best approach, only to find that it was not only a lot more tedious than using a camera filter, but ultimately, the producer kicked the director and me out of post and finished the movie himself without the intended look added. In the end, I wished I had just slapped the diffusion filter on the camera and been done with it, then on-set monitors would have the effect, the dailies would have the effect, I wouldn't have to spend color-correcting time adding the effect, and ultimately, the producer couldn't have taken away the intended effect, etc.

That's obviously not the cameras fault.... more of a contractual loop hole.

 

[Jannard]

There are arguments both ways, for creating looks in-camera and creating looks in post, especially from the DP's perspective since he might not even be around for post, and not all dailies systems can easily and cheaply add looks (like diffusion) so you run the risk of the movie being in editorial for months after wrap and having everyone get used to the clean unprocessed look and then being unable to convince them to add the intended look.

It's already happened to me, had a movie where I thought that post diffusion would be the best approach, only to find that it was not only a lot more tedious than using a camera filter, but ultimately, the producer kicked the director and me out of post and finished the movie himself without the intended look added. In the end, I wished I had just slapped the diffusion filter on the camera and been done with it, then on-set monitors would have the effect, the dailies would have the effect, I wouldn't have to spend color-correcting time adding the effect, and ultimately, the producer couldn't have taken away the intended effect, etc.

That said, we are clearly moving into a future where most of the look, other than lighting, is going to be created in post -- and we are used to the flexibility of film images and it's great that digital images are reaching that flexibility in some areas, already surpassing it in other areas -- so we just need a better system in place that helps the cinematographer stay involved in the post process.

Two things we can't control are politics and bad decisions. I feel for DPs who are hired because they have a look in mind and someone "else" decides they are now in charge of the look. That can happen with film, RED and just about any other camera. Good news is you can slap a filter on the lens if you sense that might happen. It is not a RED specific problem. The inmates are always trying to run the asylum...

Jim

 

[David Mullen ASC]

That's obviously not the cameras fault.... more of a contractual loop hole.

Sure, but I'm just pointing out that there are arguments for creating as much of the look up front as there are for creating it later, it's not that one approach is superior to the other, they have their pros and cons.

I still find that, no matter what new technology comes along, it's still "garbage in / garbage out" - the best-shot material still goes through post the best and comes out the other end looking the best, and the worst stuff still can have problems even after post, so philosophically, I'm still of the belief that you should bake-in as much of the final look as is practical and reasonable... but with the understanding as to how that interacts with the post process and also knowing what post tricks are the more efficient way of achieving the look.

Actually, what I ascribe to is sort of a "50/50" policy, which is start the look in camera, finish the look in post, rather than take a completely blank slate into post. Then everyone in post sees where you are going with the image, understands the intention of the shot, but you haven't killed any ability to adjust the image further in post.

 

[christopher witzke]

The inmates are always trying to run the asylum...

Jim

Ain't that the truth!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Here's something Tom Lowe can relate to.. I've had producers tell me that I didn't have to shoot an exterior scene in the beautiful light of late afternoon / sunset because now I could just create that look in post with shots made at noon.

 

[Bill Anderson]

There are arguments both ways, for creating looks in-camera and creating looks in post, especially from the DP's perspective since he might not even be around for post, and not all dailies systems can easily and cheaply add looks (like diffusion) so you run the risk of the movie being in editorial for months after wrap and having everyone get used to the clean unprocessed look and then being unable to convince them to add the intended look.

It's already happened to me, had a movie where I thought that post diffusion would be the best approach, only to find that it was not only a lot more tedious than using a camera filter, but ultimately, the producer kicked the director and me out of post and finished the movie himself without the intended look added. In the end, I wished I had just slapped the diffusion filter on the camera and been done with it, then on-set monitors would have the effect, the dailies would have the effect, I wouldn't have to spend color-correcting time adding the effect, and ultimately, the producer couldn't have taken away the intended effect, etc.

That said, we are clearly moving into a future where most of the look, other than lighting, is going to be created in post -- and we are used to the flexibility of film images and it's great that digital images are reaching that flexibility in some areas, already surpassing it in other areas -- so we just need a better system in place that helps the cinematographer stay involved in the post process.

But these types of conditions will prevail no matter what camera is being used. We will make mistakes, or demands that ultimately prove to be beyond our control. However, if we are to make creative choices, whether in post or in camera, this ( "too clean") is a grand place to start.


And to clarify: I don't mean "sterile" image, I mean sterilely clean: i.e. without blemish, perfect fidelity- that it may reveal the subject for what it is and, as a consequence of art, for what it can become.

 

[M Most]

Here's something Tom Lowe can relate to.. I've had producers tell me that I didn't have to shoot an exterior scene in the beautiful light of late afternoon / sunset because now I could just create that look in post with shots made at noon.

I expect that you'll also be told not to shoot closeups because blowups are now flawless.

 

[christopher witzke]

Sure, but I'm just pointing out that there are arguments for creating as much of the look up front as there are for creating it later, it's not that one approach is superior to the other, they have their pros and cons.

I still find that, no matter what new technology comes along, it's still "garbage in / garbage out" - the best-shot material still goes through post the best and comes out the other end looking the best, and the worst stuff still can have problems even after post, so philosophically, I'm still of the belief that you should bake-in as much of the final look as is practical and reasonable... but with the understanding as to how that interacts with the post process and also knowing what post tricks are the more efficient way of achieving the look.

Actually, what I ascribe to is sort of a "50/50" policy, which is start the look in camera, finish the look in post, rather than take a completely blank slate into post. Then everyone in post sees where you are going with the image, understands the intention of the shot, but you haven't killed any ability to adjust the image further in post.

From your perspective, I completely agree with you. Why? because you possess an intuitive approach and experience to making images that many of us only dream of possessing. Which by the way you SHOULD protect by "baking" in the look you are hired to create.

The thought of "auto-tuning" Bob Dylan's voice in "post" scares the hell out of me..... But I on the other hand, need all the help and options I can lay my greasy hands on.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Yes. Especially when you consider that it's very unlikely that either of the on-camera recording solutions would be RAID-protected.

Mike,

Do you think that, if in possession of say, 2-3 SSD copies of your footage, you would only need to make one RAID protected copy while on set, and generate more at a later time, instead of the 2-3 made nowadays or would you still insist on generating several protected versions asap?

 

[M Most]

Mike,

Do you think that, if in possession of say, 2-3 SSD copies of your footage, you would only need to make one RAID protected copy while on set, and generate more at a later time, instead of the 2-3 made nowadays or would you still insist on generating several protected versions asap?

Define "later time." If you mean later that same night, I'd probably say no. If you mean a month later when production is wrapped, I'd probably say something else. All of this also depends on exactly what it is you're saving and where. If those original copies are kept intact and in two different places, that inherently offers more security. If they're ultimately wiped and/or kept in the same place, that's something else. If they're backed up to something like LTO tape on a nightly basis, that's still another thing.

None of this is for me to say. It's something that is decided by producers, studios, and bond companies. There is no such thing as 100% protection (there isn't with film, either).

 

[Deanan]

The key with a data/file workflow is to make sure that there is enough media so that media is held until reviewed through dailies and editorial until recycled.

Turning over media in shorter bursts helps to keep the loaders pipelines filled so the catchup at the end of the day is minimized. Ideally it's only the last mag set of the
day and that can usually be taken care of by the time everyone else has wrapped.

Pushing overflow footage to the next day's lunch delivery also works well for some show.