Resolve and Tangent Elements

[Christopher Adams]

Now only if i found this lovely career like 5 to 8 years sooner

 

[M Most]

This is coming from a friend of mine, who is a producer at one of the top DI houses in LA.
$250,000 is about the average cost for a standard studio feature, but I believe, that price includes prints too.

It includes an answer print. Release prints are another matter.

High end DI's can cost anywhere from $200K to $500K or more, depending on how long you want to take, how many different deliverables are required, and who's doing it. There are other cost variables as well, such as remote viewing arrangements, which are often done to accommodate busy directors or producers who are working in a city other than the one the DI is being done in, and multiple original printing negatives.

 

[Gabriele Turchi]

This is coming from a friend of mine, who is a producer at one of the top DI houses in LA.
$250,000 is about the average cost for a standard studio feature, but I believe, that price includes prints too.

wow ...so a 100Million USD blockbuster move DI pay even more than 250000?

g

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I hate to say it, but what you're describing sounds like a market in which money cannot be made. A market in which you cannot make money is not really a market. If all your clients want you to do is spend large amounts of money but not compensate you for it, well, that doesn't sound like a particularly successful business plan. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating your business or the market you serve, I'm just commenting on reality vs. common perception. If the only way you can be successful in your market is by acquiring a Lustre or a Baselight, you have to weigh the cost of doing that against what those clients are willing to pay for. The cost of anything in business is only relevant when it's weighed against the revenue it can generate. If a piece of equipment costs $100K but can generate revenues of $500K, that's an excellent investment. If something costs $1000 or less but doesn't generate revenue, that's a bad investment. I understand your dilemma, but I think you need to look at this in pure business terms, not in terms of the pain its causing you to explain things to a client base that doesn't want to listen. No amount of badgering Blackmagic is going to change their pricing policy, and no amount of complaining is going to put the genie back in the bottle. If Resolve is not the program for your business, you need to use something that is and figure out if the cost of that is justified. Because those same agencies that might cause you to spend money for something else are perfectly willing to turn around the day you do and set up their own in-house finishing room. Probably using Resolve.

Whereas this is good advice (and we follow) it, our market does pay pretty well - not as well as features, but we make a good living. There is just the problem of clients getting strange perceptions about things, our needing to deal with it and people making gear/software needing to be aware of it- but that doesn't mean they don't pay, nor even that mine is an equipment rather than talent and personality-driven world. They want real talent using what they perceive to be the "best" gear.

I think things have gotten worse recently because things have moved too fast that it is almost impossible to keep up unless moving pic prod is your main activity (and even then...) Again, these are marketing and ad concept people, fashion people, it would be unreasonable to expect them to know an awful lot about production, because their main job is something else, but the internet allows them to have a little bit of knowledge, just the amount that is proverbially a dangerous thing.

From what Blackmagic tells me the genie will soon be put back in bottle, as a new version will have many new tricks up its sleeve that the free version does not. Whether I had any influence on that via my net griping I don't know, but either way I am happy. It's not really the $1000, it's the time spent learning and getting good with the soft that would bug me if I couldn't use this knowledge profitably anymore and had to become proficient at another interface - which is quite an investment because my main activity is as a director/DP, and so I have an extremely limited time budget to learn new software in any particular area.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Interesting the direction that this thread is taking.

Although I do agree in many ways with "M Most", I do have to admit, having the "expensive system" always gives some "glamour". I know many people that make a living out of the glamour that expensive equipment provides, heck, the entertainment industry is in many ways smoke and mirrors, and post is no exception.

I am quite happy with Resolve, yet sometimes I get comments from associates suggesting we should "upgrade" to Scratch, or Smoke, and even though both tools do their respective jobs very well in their fields, I know I'm not getting those comments because of the relative merits of the applications, but because of the marketability to clients.

In the end the logic of some clients is somewhat simple.... if you are successful, it must be, among other things, because you have the best tools... and the best tools are always the "most expensive" tools.... and so... if you are using the cheapo tools, you are probably a loser.

The same goes for RED, there are hounds of people in the industry that would never touch a RED, but would shoot on Alexa, or Genesis, "because Panavision is Panavision", and RED is that "cheap camera".

Unfortunately its something that is ingrained in the culture and spreads to everything that we do.... the expensive house, the expensive car... the expensive shoes.... and so on.

In my humble experience, I usually steer away from clients that come with that attitude of "Why do you use that cheap software... or that cheap camera...?"... Those clients don't have any respect for you or for your work, and will always criticize... if not because of the software, because of something else. Those are the same clients that want packaged prices, don't want to pay, want deals, want credit, and then in the end of the day, go out and bash you and say that you work is sh*t, because you didn't give them free hours or what have you.

In the end, thats why is hard to develop a portfolio of clients, my opinion, stay true to yourself, if Resolve is the tool for you, then good, if is not the tool, then get the tool that suits your needs, not because of price but because of needs..... and run away from the hounds of jerks that just want "the best", those are the worst clients.

Just my two cents.

Now, when can we get support for the Element on Resolve

Well the thing is, if you did ads, you would realize that the client is in fact many people, several of whom you do not meet until after signing on - same goes for a fashion brand even if they do not have an agency. You have the creative team (often 2 or even 3 people the agency client executive, the agency producer, at least 4 people form the client side, including the marketing director, the brand manager, sometimes the C.E.O... All told you have sometimes up to 15 people from the client-side on set. Do you really suggest vetting them all for authentic appreciation of talent over gear or respect for the autonomy of your gear choices? Really?

 

[ERIC PECK]

Well the thing is, if you did ads, you would realize that the client is in fact many people, several of whom you do not meet until after signing on - same goes for a fashion brand even if they do not have an agency. You have the creative team (often 2 or even 3 people the agency client executive, the agency producer, at least 4 people form the client side, including the marketing director, the brand manager, sometimes the C.E.O... All told you have sometimes up to 15 people from the client-side on set. Do you really suggest vetting them all for authentic appreciation of talent over gear or respect for the autonomy of your gear choices? Really?

Rob, in my humble experience, usually the guy to convince is the agency producer, to an extend the executive of the account. Once they are on board, they will stay with you for many years, and more often than not, they will stay in the same agency for years too.

On big accounts, it is not unusual, in my experience, to see the same executives stick for years with the same clients, simply put, they are the guys that know the little details about the way the client operates, in terms of culture, market, etc. How many years has Chiat\Day being with Apple? McCann Erickson has handled worldwide Coca Cola for as long as I can remember.

So yes, more often than not, you can develop a close relationship with the agencies you work with. Yet sometimes a horizontal move comes in, and an executive from another agency comes on board, and the first thing that happens is that you lose the account that X executive handled and directed to you, because new executive pushes the producer to work with Y production company. Hopefully when that happens, old executive moves to another company, and keep the relationship with you. Have you seen how many presents executives and producers from agencies receive from "providers" during the holiday season?

As for the client of the agency... they will usually accept your staff and equipment, even if you are editing on a Video Toaster, as long as the agency accepts you on the first place.

As for the amount of people, there are only 4 or 5 big ad groups, and less people than what you would think (Omnicom, WPP, McCann, who else?)... and some of them are total jerks that will pull the account from you for no reason, and that will treat you with no dignity or respect if you do not stand for your own grounds. I've seen it happen, I've seen it happen to folks that sell the smoke and mirrors of having big expensive equipment.

Wasn't David Ogilvy notorious, among other things, for being the man that would fire a client if necessary (and never apologizing for it)?

I know is hard, when you are an aspiring director, producer, whatever and you want to pay the bills, and you don't want to say "no" to a client, but over the years I've found it easier to say "no", when there is no huge lease on my back as a result of that big iron I bought. And yes, I do reject clients, and yes, I do have enduring work relationships that I've had with clients that accept my talents, some of them for more than ten years. They've seen me grow, and I've seen them grow.

I do agree that having expensive equipment makes it easy to appeal clients, and when I saw BMD released the free DaVinci... and for Windows, an image came to my mind of 14 year old kids running DaVinci at home,... yet one should not fall for the trap of trying to appeal clients with expensive equipment to make them hire you.... just my two cents.

 

[Gabriele Turchi]

It includes an answer print. Release prints are another matter.

High end DI's can cost anywhere from $200K to $500K or more, depending on how long you want to take, how many different deliverables are required, and who's doing it. There are other cost variables as well, such as remote viewing arrangements, which are often done to accommodate busy directors or producers who are working in a city other than the one the DI is being done in, and multiple original printing negatives.

Mike : does a "soot Digital" movie cost less (because does not require film Scanner?)

also : usually what system is usually used to export the final Conform ? that includes titles etc... SMOKE , Flame others ?

thanks
g

 

[M Most]

Mike : does a "shot Digital" movie cost less (because does not require film Scanner?)

Yes, it does. But it's not "a lot less" in the case of a $300K or more DI because scanning is only about $30K of that total. It is usually a separate charge. And even though conforms are generally simpler and less problem prone with digital origination, conforming is usually a set charge regardless of origination. Visual effects integration and editorial changes, as well as previews, are also separate charges and can be substantial on the type of pictures you're talking about (hence the >$500K pricing on those jobs). Since most large pictures still require a film delivery, film recording, developing, timing, and printing is part of the package regardless of the origination format, although on larger studio pictures, that might be inflated if multiple printing negatives are ordered. On top of all that, of course, is the talent factor. If you want Stefan Sonnenfeld, or Steve Scott, or Steve Nakamura, or Jill Bogdonawich, or Dave Cole, or any other "big name" either sitting in the chair or supervising whoever is in the chair, that will cost you as well.

also : usually what system is usually used to export the final Conform ? that includes titles etc... SMOKE , Flame others ?

It depends on the facility. Different devices are used depending on the need and the particular facility pipeline. Smoke and Inferno are popular. After Effects is often used for title creation. In some facilities, everything is produced directly by the DI system, especially if Pablo (which is an editor, compositor, and color grader rolled into one device) is being used. Other facilities like to run everything through the color system after title integration. Some republish the titled shots directly into the DPX stream produced by the DI system (or a copy of it), thus avoiding any re-rendering. There is no one universal answer.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Rob, in my humble experience, usually the guy to convince is the agency producer, to an extend the executive of the account. Once they are on board, they will stay with you for many years, and more often than not, they will stay in the same agency for years too.

On big accounts, it is not unusual, in my experience, to see the same executives stick for years with the same clients, simply put, they are the guys that know the little details about the way the client operates, in terms of culture, market, etc. How many years has Chiat\Day being with Apple? McCann Erickson has handled worldwide Coca Cola for as long as I can remember.

So yes, more often than not, you can develop a close relationship with the agencies you work with. Yet sometimes a horizontal move comes in, and an executive from another agency comes on board, and the first thing that happens is that you lose the account that X executive handled and directed to you, because new executive pushes the producer to work with Y production company. Hopefully when that happens, old executive moves to another company, and keep the relationship with you. Have you seen how many presents executives and producers from agencies receive from "providers" during the holiday season?

As for the client of the agency... they will usually accept your staff and equipment, even if you are editing on a Video Toaster, as long as the agency accepts you on the first place.

As for the amount of people, there are only 4 or 5 big ad groups, and less people than what you would think (Omnicom, WPP, McCann, who else?)... and some of them are total jerks that will pull the account from you for no reason, and that will treat you with no dignity or respect if you do not stand for your own grounds. I've seen it happen, I've seen it happen to folks that sell the smoke and mirrors of having big expensive equipment.

Wasn't David Ogilvy notorious, among other things, for being the man that would fire a client if necessary (and never apologizing for it)?

I know is hard, when you are an aspiring director, producer, whatever and you want to pay the bills, and you don't want to say "no" to a client, but over the years I've found it easier to say "no", when there is no huge lease on my back as a result of that big iron I bought. And yes, I do reject clients, and yes, I do have enduring work relationships that I've had with clients that accept my talents, some of them for more than ten years. They've seen me grow, and I've seen them grow.

I do agree that having expensive equipment makes it easy to appeal clients, and when I saw BMD released the free DaVinci... and for Windows, an image came to my mind of 14 year old kids running DaVinci at home,... yet one should not fall for the trap of trying to appeal clients with expensive equipment to make them hire you.... just my two cents.

I agree with what you say and we never put our equipment foot forward - anyone can rent equipment it is a commodity, and the only thing commodity prices tend to do is fall. We put forward talent, relationships, knowledge. But its' annoying when something we paid for and invested a lot of time to learn becomes a problem to use because of a stigma, that's all. As for the world you describe it is not quite like mine. Here it is the creative directors who rule a TVC project, not really the agency producers as directly - and I've never heard of any director having the kind of tenure you describe. I am not a post house really, just a DP adding to his signature look via color correction, which I only sell as a service as a tie-in to my cinematography, not as a stand-alone service.

 

[Björn Benckert]

This is coming from a friend of mine, who is a producer at one of the top DI houses in LA.
$250,000 is about the average cost for a standard studio feature, but I believe, that price includes prints too.

I don't think you get any prints included with that price. Normal fee for a colorist doing feature work is about 400USD/h if you work in 4k you can probably bring that up a bit. Then you will most likely work for a month before it's all done so then the 250.000USD seams about right for the color timing. At least with digital media included to send to the lab for printing. Think the business will change though, when producers realize it's only talent plus like 20k USD computer involved. Before the starting point was a 2.000.000 USD scanner like the spirit or the millennium or such. Then tape decks and all the rest, now it's a mac and a couple of fire wire raids and you are good to go... so the salaries maybe will not go down but the turnaotund for the companies doing those tasks will bomb drop very soon. It's like welcome to digital, just as for the music industry, postal service or anything else.... this year it is very much film going digital...

 

[jake blackstone]

I don't think you get any prints included with that price. Normal fee for a colorist doing feature work is about 400USD/h if you work in 4k you can probably bring that up a bit. Then you will most likely work for a month before it's all done so then the 250.000USD seams about right for the color timing. At least with digital media included to send to the lab for printing. Think the business will change though, when producers realize it's only talent plus like 20k USD computer involved. Before the starting point was a 2.000.000 USD scanner like the spirit or the millennium or such. Then tape decks and all the rest, now it's a mac and a couple of fire wire raids and you are good to go... so the salaries maybe will not go down but the turnaotund for the companies doing those tasks will bomb drop very soon. It's like welcome to digital, just as for the music industry, postal service or anything else.... this year it is very much film going digital...

As Mike already correctly pointed out, that price usually only includes answer prints. Release prints are separate charge.
As far as your other point of soon doing DI on a major feature releases on a couple of Macs, I think you're, shall we say, extremely optimistic or plain misinformed. I guess, that's the same silly reason, why I regularly get offered to do color grading a feature for $2-3K. All I can do then is just smile

 

[Luis Otero]

I just got the e-mail from Tangent Devices indicating that the very expected "Element" will start to ship next week. Any update from BMD if they will support it? They currently do support Tangent Wave, so.......

 

[jake blackstone]

I just got the e-mail from Tangent Devices indicating that the very expected "Element" will start to ship next week. Any update from BMD if they will support it? They currently do support Tangent Wave, so.......

I expect this question to be number one for BM at NAB. Peter and Rohit, get ready

 

[Warren Eagles]

I think it is much more about the guy/gal on the tools now. My clients don't really care wether I run a free DaVinci or a Baselight. The want to see great pictures and if I can attempt to entertain them for the day that's a bonus
BTW I have Resolve with the Resolve panels.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I think it is much more about the guy/gal on the tools now. My clients don't really care wether I run a free DaVinci or a Baselight. The want to see great pictures and if I can attempt to entertain them for the day that's a bonus
BTW I have Resolve with the Resolve panels.

I hope you're right - I prefer to compete with people quality rather than tool choice, but some part of me still fears that Resolve will develop a stigma in certain markets, which will partially negate the value of a lot of learning time. I hope I am wrong.

Indeed after watching your videos, I'm sure your clients have a great time working with you

 

[Sergio Perez]

Unfortunately Elitism goes side to side with democratization. Many top end Cinematographers and producers from the old guard trash, for example, Red because it allowed a new bunch of people- normally young, out of the system new players- to get into their game and into their market. In post, I've heard people from big post production houses complaining about DavVinci saying it has "eaten" considerably their market. This, in my view, is a wrong perspective. These companies should be contracted by having not only the top equipment, but by having the best professionals. I think that it feels a lost easier for these people to invest in equipment and give clients a perceived notion of value by the price of their equipment then by having award winning artists working for them in all areas. I will buy DaVinci Resolve, most certainly, but I'm sure if I have a high end job for high nd distribution I will definitely hire the services of someone whose main profession and skill is in that particular area. If this person presented me with a portfolio of award winning jobs and coloring portfolio and said he had his own professional coloring studio with Da Vinci Resolve, I would select him over a major post house that couldn't provide me similar portfolio but with more expensive gear. This is me talking as a potential client.

Bottom line, I believe, is that this democratization of software and hardware will truly help promoting talent and independent artists, just like it happened on the audio industry. What is important if one is to become a colorist is to truly be the best at it, not a jack of all trades kind of guy. A colorist is a specialist, just as an editor. Create a good and impressive portfolio and DaVinci Resolve will surely get you booked. Don't forget that color correction includes having a studio that can accurately represent or simulate the scenarios in which your client's work will be displayed. This is probably the most expensive part!

 

[brandon thomas]

Haywire was graded on Resolve 7 for Mac. but they put the titles on and did the final output with a Pablo..

so.. a couple macs... and a Pablo. close enough..?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Unfortunately Elitism goes side to side with democratization. Many top end Cinematographers and producers from the old guard trash, for example, Red because it allowed a new bunch of people- normally young, out of the system new players- to get into their game and into their market. In post, I've heard people from big post production houses complaining about DavVinci saying it has "eaten" considerably their market. This, in my view, is a wrong perspective. These companies should be contracted by having not only the top equipment, but by having the best professionals. I think that it feels a lost easier for these people to invest in equipment and give clients a perceived notion of value by the price of their equipment then by having award winning artists working for them in all areas. I will buy DaVinci Resolve, most certainly, but I'm sure if I have a high end job for high nd distribution I will definitely hire the services of someone whose main profession and skill is in that particular area. If this person presented me with a portfolio of award winning jobs and coloring portfolio and said he had his own professional coloring studio with Da Vinci Resolve, I would select him over a major post house that couldn't provide me similar portfolio but with more expensive gear. This is me talking as a potential client.

Bottom line, I believe, is that this democratization of software and hardware will truly help promoting talent and independent artists, just like it happened on the audio industry. What is important if one is to become a colorist is to truly be the best at it, not a jack of all trades kind of guy. A colorist is a specialist, just as an editor. Create a good and impressive portfolio and DaVinci Resolve will surely get you booked. Don't forget that color correction includes having a studio that can accurately represent or simulate the scenarios in which your client's work will be displayed. This is probably the most expensive part!

I agree with most of what you say, but although "jack of all trades" might be a bad idea, a DP who does not know color correction at all, at this point, I would say is not competent. It would be like a set designer knowing nothing at all about lenses and understanding nothing about how their work will be filmed.

I don;t agree with "award winning". Most awards I don't agree with - it seems they are merely given out to the most pretentious and dull film they can find. Most Cannes winners I was barely able to sit through,. and at a technical level were horrendous. And who to heel are the judges anyway? Why should I care? But i do agree its' all about the talent, and I wish more clients thought that way.

 

[Luis Otero]

OK. Now that we know that they will support Element control surfaces, the relevant question is when they will release the beta version that will enable such support.

 

[jake blackstone]

OK. Now that we know that they will support Element control surfaces, the relevant question is when they will release the beta version that will enable such support.

Peter said, that it will be in the next beta version, which can be any day now.