American DITs... ugghhh

[Brian Merlen]

Post super is the answer... Forget the DIT and colorist, the Post Super should have the final say along with client approval

Now see, this is a thought I've heard a lot on these forums, and I get where it comes from, but I don't get why I never hear anyone argue against it. Scratch that. I think I never hear anyone argue against it on these forums because the majority of the people here work in Production, and so they view this matter through the lens of Production.

A Director of Photography is hired, in very succinct and simple terms, to make sure that everything hitting the film or digital sensor looks good.

But with modern productions being so heavy in VFX and DI, and with the possibility, even likelihood that the final product looks radically different in terms of tonality, color contrasts, and more, why is it so radical of a thought that the DP shouldn't have the final say? In other terms, in the past, there was a Director of Acting and a Director of Photography. The Director of Acting role morphed to become just the Director, and is typically the boss on set. Different Directors have different levels of knowledge and talent when it comes to composition, lens choices, framing, lighting, color, etc. Similarly, it is not the DP's role to give acting critiques, nor are they typically charged with, say, getting a convincing performance out of an unruly and uncooperative child actor. It's their job to have the camera rolling and the lighting right and the framing right when the child actor decides to finally stop crying and to giggle at the product.

In much the same way, are either the Director or the DP expected to be the most versed in the possibilities of post? Why is there no Director of Post? Why is there no person that lives in the Post chain who's role exists to offer possibilities on Look of the final product, or even has the final say? I guess that role does exist, and it's the Colorist; the oddity being that the person that spends all of their time making footage at the end of the chain look GOOD and UNIQUE could have their oppinion completely uppended and superseded by the person that specializes in acquiring good images at the very beginning of the chain.

It is not the DP's job to understand all of the possibilities of how their footage could look, yet it feels like heresy to suggest that they don't automatically get final say. It feels a little outdated. I get it, I see where it comes from, I see why that stance is so entrenched. It just feels like yet another piece of this whole puzzle that is there Because It's Always Been Like That, and not Because That's How It Should Be.

 

[Scott Crawley]

The production team gets together, talks about how it's going to look, and then you all work at making it that.

That is a distinction some folks fail to make.
Every time a DIT claims to "Establish the look on set with the DP" somewhere in the world there is a Colorist that falls down dead. :Angel_anim:

I'm not saying that Colorists are faeries, nor am I trying to minimize the importance of the DIT's role. What I am suggesting is that some DITs, while trying to carve out a place for themselves, may be overstepping a bit. A little perspective and respect for others in the post chain wouldn't hurt them. You know 'them'... the ones that folks are calling douchebags and such. ;-)

 

[Corey_O]

There were always dailies colorists and lab color-timers in the film days. As far as I'm concerned, that's all the DIT need worry about: getting a temporary look that represents something reasonable for the editor to work with during that process, and also is somewhere in the ballpark of what the DP and Director want. No harm in that.

The problem with putting the DP in charge of that is that it takes time away from the other work he or she needs to do in terms of lighting the set, worrying about the camera, keeping an eye on the clock, getting prepped for the next shot, and being concerned about the sun and location (not necessarily in that order). Putting the DP in charge of setting a look is yet another responsibility that just eats up time on the set. If having a good DIT on the set saves the DP even 45 minutes a day, they've earned their keep.

I don't dispute that there are smaller jobs that don't require a DP. But if you're burning up $100,000+ a day on location, then I'd say having somebody experienced, cooperative, and competent to set looks, backup footage, check the sound, and control data management is all a good thing. I see no down side to that under those conditions.


Mike, wouldn't it be just as useful to just cut together a temp version using the editor's dailies, then conform the original files and have the colorist make an overall setting that sorta/kinda matches the on-set version? I've done this just by dragging along two timelines -- one with the conformed original, one with the temp color version, and A/B'd them. Too often, I've found that the on-set color corrections simply don't translate into the DI room, especially when the location monitors are questionable in terms of calibration.

My other issue that I've often run into is showing DPs and directors what they approved on set (for features), then months later, having them say, "yeah, we thought that was good then. Let's throw it out and start over and go in a different direction." This happens a lot more than you might think.

100% agree

 

[Christopher Mills]

In much the same way, are either the Director or the DP expected to be the most versed in the possibilities of post? Why is there no Director of Post? Why is there no person that lives in the Post chain who's role exists to offer possibilities on Look of the final product, or even has the final say? I guess that role does exist, and it's the Colorist; the oddity being that the person that spends all of their time making footage at the end of the chain look GOOD and UNIQUE could have their oppinion completely uppended and superseded by the person that specializes in acquiring good images at the very beginning of the chain.

It is not the DP's job to understand all of the possibilities of how their footage could look, yet it feels like heresy to suggest that they don't automatically get final say. It feels a little outdated. I get it, I see where it comes from, I see why that stance is so entrenched. It just feels like yet another piece of this whole puzzle that is there Because It's Always Been Like That, and not Because That's How It Should Be.

Ok..
Yes, the DP has historically expected to have been hired to determine the look of the print, not just to make sure it is raw material for another stage of film making to alter.
There have been Directors of Post.. They are called Post Production Supervisors. If the Colorist has that role in LA Studio productions now, then excuse my ignorance of that.

I do think that the colorists I have worked with over the years have skills I do not, and they do a great job of executing the results of our collaborative planning and the media they are handed.

And yes, it is a priority in at least local 600 jobs that the DP gets to have say so on the look of the film.

If it were not, we would have gaffers and camera operators and the DIT would control the look, and we would have no Director of Photography.

It's not about a cabal planning on reducing the role of DP. Its a business, and the budget to have the DP around doing post is just not always allocated.

Now, when I wear the producer hat, and I pick a DP, I want one who can envision and execute a look for the final film. I am not yet used to the idea that I should be hiring the colorist to design the movie. I am used to the idea that I will need a colorist to execute a final coherent overall output of the design we decided on when planning the film.

However, I am not going to want to wait until that far down the process to plan our look.

 

[M Most]

Why is there no Director of Post? Why is there no person that lives in the Post chain who's role exists to offer possibilities on Look of the final product, or even has the final say? I guess that role does exist, and it's the Colorist;

That is rarely the case unless the colorist is named Stefan. In features, the final arbiter of the look (and everything else, for that matter) is the director as long as the picture is still in his hands. If the studio takes it away, it is then in the hands of whomever the studio gives that responsibility to. In television, it's the executive producer, usually aided by the post producer, and usually supervised for them by the associate producer.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

When I first started doing "modern" DIT work my main goal was to give the DPs I worked with more control over the look when shooting digital. Thanks to metadata support and RAW data sets, RED offered a terrific option where the DP's look could travel with the images but nothing had to get thrown away. That is still a great reason for a DP to want a DIT and many DPs with "juice" will continue to get one. From the producers perspective its about data security and filling a job on the call sheet.

The larger issue of the DP being able to control the look is a whole other thread ;-)

Cheers - #19

 

[Marc Wielage]

I'm in no way in the loop, but no Colorist I have ever heard speak, or have spoken to even admits to looking at the on set color.

Oh, that's not true, at least not in LA for studio or network projects. I've worked on many many many productions where they brought in the off-line and said, "OK, here's what we've been looking at on set and in dailies for the last six months. Let's match this look and then decide if it works for the theatrical version." (And I've had this happen numerous times for TV movies as well.)

In Ye Olden Days, we'd literally have to bring a second monitor into the color-timing theater, which was not fun (nor was it really accurate). In later years, we were eventually able to drag along simultaneous versions and A/B them. And -- as I said before -- quite often, the director or DP would say, "eh, just get in the ballpark and let's just make it look pretty. Ignore the old version." I have no problem with that. The only thing that's important is that the final color correction compliments the work, tells the story, and makes the director & DP happy.

That is rarely the case unless the colorist is named Stefan.

Or Steven or Steve!

I would dispute the need to always "set looks" in the first place. With an electronic camera - especially one that records using either a log curve or a RAW recording - exposure, lighting, shutter, and other tools of cinematography, combined with sensible camera setup parameters, are often enough to get you an image with no additional manipulation that's very representative of what's being shot.

I agree 100%. I think far too many people -- especially around here -- sweat and bicker and argue about creating complicated looks on set, when the reality is, all that's needed is to get something reasonable that looks OK for dailies and OK on the on-set monitor, and not spend too much time on it. Michael Cioni has commented about this at length at his post seminars and on his blog, and I agree with his philosophy. Sure, you can create all kinds of fancy looks and tweaks and adjustments with RedCineX-Pro and similar programs, but the reality is... just get something basic down where the editor and director can see something in the ballpark of the final image, and know going in you can always go much further in the final color correction pass.

I've heard numerous panel discussions at the ASC where A-list DPs gripe about the time and trouble needed to try to do near-set or on-set dailies, and how they don't want to be bothered with the additional responsibility of worrying about yet another thing going on around the set. The other issue that has come up is that the DP often has devote several weeks to supervising the final color correction (on features), which is often time that they're not getting paid, and also time that they can't spend working on another job. At the highest level, I think those DPs do get paid and things do get scheduled in a timely manner, but for everybody else -- especially for TV -- it's not that simple.

 

[Björn Benckert]

My thoughts....
A DP today that do not bother or think that he does not need to look over the imagery on set. Will learn less and soon he will earn less. As of now when we do not shoot film the files can tell a lot. Like how much noise are we getting in the blacks, how far does the director want this pictures to be crushed. etc. Nowadays those things is not just something that shows up in a scanner a few days later, theya are actually something thats possible to tackle before it's to late. So to argue is should not be done or that its not paid for etc is plain stupid and if you go that route I think you will fall behind, no matter how much experience you have as a DP. It's all quite simple, back when it was film all the DP's I worked with that insisted to be sitting in the telecine and also came by post very frequently are now living in hollywood and they shoot major feature films. The DP's that where more practicing the "I know how to expose so I do not need to be in the grade, and I do not like post sessions" they are still around here in stockholm shooting the same old stuff as always. I do not know if it was because of the guys that where eager to see what could be done with colors and what could be fixed in post was also more eager to make progress. But some how this can apply as a rule to all the DP's I worked with. And about 10 of them now lives in LA and shoot big stuff. Those where the guys that sit in on my post sessions and they where the once asking all the questions. So with todays setup, if you got a DIT on set it might be that he is only capable of moving files from cards to drives or it might be that he is doing quite a bit of color grading when he is not on set as a DIT. But no matter what I think it's essential to, spend some time around the computers. Just to see what difference that filter actually did, shoot one with one without, shoot with HDRx one stop or two stop or was one stop better than 2 or was it to much of a step between the two stop to process a good composite... no DP can learn that stuff without spending a good amount of time around the computers and preferably with some skilled staff around. So saying "just backup the files and shut up" which this thread is pretty much all about, is to me not really a step forward and that atitude will for sure not move you up the ladder in your DP carrier...

 

[M Most]

As of now when we do not shoot film the files can tell a lot. Like how much noise are we getting in the blacks

That's what camera tests are for, to learn about the limits of the camera's capabilities prior to shooting so one doesn't waste time during the production day figuring out what can and cannot be done. All good cameramen test new stocks, new cameras, etc. prior to shooting anything "real" with those tools. They know how far they can go so that on the day they can shoot with confidence. That doesn't take an elaborate grading and monitoring system during production, it simply takes an understanding of the limits of your tools.

how far does the director want this pictures to be crushed.

Except in live broadcast, why would one need to know this at the time of shooting as opposed to in post production, when you actually have control over it?

The DP's that where more practicing the "I know how to expose so I do not need to be in the grade, and I do not like post sessions"

Nobody is talking about DPs not attending grading sessions or being involved in post. At least Marc and I aren't talking about that. I think Marc would agree with me that I really like having the cinematographer around and giving input, for a number of reasons. First, they have knowledge of conversations that the colorist was never a part of that can bring insight and inspiration. Second, they have a perspective that is not encumbered by how difficult it is to do something in a grading system, and not affected by how long it might take to do it. That frees up the creative thinking a bit. Third, they know what they wanted to do during production but didn't have time for, and will often point out areas where a judiciously placed window might really help the image in ways the colorist might not notice. And finally, in simple terms, they bring the art. They are in the position they're in not because they're good technologists but because they are visual artists, at least at the highest levels. The best ones see the world through an artist's eyes, and not through those of most laypeople. That sensitivity can be a great help to a colorist, and is always appreciated by most of them. Nearly every cinematographer I've ever worked with is eager to be involved in the finishing steps when they have the time available, and equally as eager to at least have a relationship with those in post via other means when that isn't the case. Sometimes it's notes, sometimes it's adjusted images, sometimes it's just a phone conversation or a review of the first color pass. When it is notes, it's usually based on the offline and the notes are written in reference to that, something colorists can relate to. There is a very significant difference between on-set manipulations and involvement in post. The former is what's being discussed. The latter is assumed.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

He wasn't talking wear and tear, at least the way I understood it. He was talking about the breakage from careless handling of the equipment.
if insurance covered wear and tear, then I want a new car

i was 100% talking about wear and tear..(constant plugging in and unplugging... computer rattling in transport... so on...) the accidental "careless" handling of the equipment was just one aspect.. and when your loading onto a lift gate with some else operating it, accidents can happen.. I wouldnt call that careless...

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

the coloring on set aspect of DIT's may go away.. but the technician roll will still remain..

part of the job is to keep up with the technology and learn it..

with a new piece of equipment coming out every 6 months.. its our jobs to be there to set it up properly and handle any issues on set that may arise..

as the files get larger and larger.. transcoding will not go away.. it will only grow in request.

A gaffer is called a gaffer because back in the day he would move gear around flying above set with a gaff... he doesnt do that anymore.. but the term is still in play..

same thing goes with DIT.. back in the day, painting the camera was a huge portion of the job.. thats going away.. new responsibilities such as transcoding and media management have popped up.. and anytime your dealing with a computer/camera.. you should be a TECH.. ive had the pleasure of dealing with a crashed computer system on set many times.. and its my problem, but i have to know how to quickly rebuild my computer and get it back up and running to complete my tasks... thats I.T. right there..
but like i said.. i personally also dive in as an extra AC or utility type person when im not doing the data stuff.. it helps the camera guys out and should be part of the job

also.. as long as I pay the same rate as an operator to join the union.. call me anything you want.. DIT, or kid with a computer.. im still getting paid a good rate and getting a kit rental

 

[M Most]

the coloring on set aspect of DIT's may go away.. but the technician roll will still remain..

I completely agree, which is why I've said that the job needs to be redefined.

as long as I pay the same rate as an operator to join the union.. call me anything you want.. DIT, or kid with a computer.. im still getting paid a good rate and getting a kit rental

I think part of the problem is that the current rate is based on a position that required a different and quite frankly, more unique and rare set of skills when it was first defined. The rate, honestly, needs to be adjusted, and with it the initiation fee.

 

[Nick Gardner]

as long as I pay the same rate as an operator to join the union..

I thought the DIT membership rate was about $3000 less than the operator membership rate. Did that change? That's assuming the DIT joined 600 as a DIT and not an AC or something else.

Nick

 

[Corey_O]

In “ye olden days” I like that Marc.
I was a commercial dailies colorist in those days. Remember celluloid. My relationship was 9 out of 10 times with DP’s for dailies. The line producer would supervise the session.
Relationships build…… trust follows…. and your in the food chain.
I remember one test session with Vilmos Zsigmond who happened to be shooting a commercial and he was the only person to show up at the test session to check exposure of different stocks. He said he had never been in a telecine suite and was amazed at what the “Pogel and Spirit” could do. Curious joyful person. Enough name dropping.
The finals would almost always be supervised by the Madmen. The Director and DP would be to busy working on their next jobs.
The way I see the current system working depends on the production.
TV… film… commercial….. Industrial…..
TV and film develop LUTs in DI before shooting and DIT insert LUTs into Dailies. In TV there can be another intermediate colorist that balances the edited show before handing it off to the DI for the final correction.
Commercials productions in general DP’s develop relationships with DITs and set color on set or CO3 does it all. :-/
Industrial varies…..
Technology changes people do not have to. Just know that for every d….bag out there are far more like Vilmos at the top of the chain.
I don’t know where it will end but I would bet on Michael and Peter Cione leading the way. I like their style and they are good people.
I admit this could be entirely wrong and if thats the case never mind.

Corey Olson

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Gavin, I usually agree with you on a lot of things, but I really disagree on this. [...] It is, however, about getting a story told in the best possible way. The nature of production is that a lot of things happen during a production day that everyone who is there remembers, to the point that it often influences decisions as to what shots to use, what lines to keep. [...]

I don't feel like merging post and production into one "phase" though are mutually exclusive to the goals of good story telling. In fact I would say for that very reason we shouldn't think about storytelling in "Pre production" "production" and "post production". Maybe something on paper ended up falling flat when shot. Maybe something shot just doesn't have the magic that you thought it had on set. I'm proposing that writing should continue through the edit. Bring the writer in to the edit and do rewrites based not on how you imagined it would sound when acted out but how it actually ended up being performed. Take those revised scenes and go shoot them.

Generally the middle section is the technical necessity for the delineation. If you have 3 weeks to shoot a feature and after that maybe a few days in the future for pickups you need pre-production to be buttoned down and the number of changes you can make in post are going to be minimal. I agree that the editor should be isolated from the periphery of "What they actually shot" but I don't think that means you have to wait until it's too late to make changes to start that process.

Now you could argue that the enormously expensive failure that was John Carter would be an argument against a more animation styled live-action pipeline but I would argue that's partly due to the lack of experience in anyone trying it on that scale so it was bound to be a mixed bag of success and failure but also that we aren't anywhere near technically ready yet. On the other end of the spectrum Avatar followed a very non-linear Pre -> Produciton -> Post pipeline and followed more of an animation pipeline and it was enormously successful. Both though demonstrate that what we traditionally think of as a "Live Action" movie can be produced in an innovative form, a form which doesn't believe that once "Production" ends everything is written in stone.

There are numerous examples through film history where the filmmakers abandoned the script or completely rewrote it during production based on ideas that came up during production. I don't think that's always wise (and there are certainly examples where that failed miserably, or they succeeded brilliantly without changing a word) but I know from experience that I've never finished a project and thought I couldn't do better if I did it a second time.

The second side-effect is that you strip down production to all that it really should be about: the characters. With sufficient technology we should be viewing production in my opinion like we view performance capture. On a modern set you have the art department trying to set dress, you have the greens fluffing bushes, you have huge generators to power the lighting, you have carpenters putting up walls. All so that you can capture an intimate moment between two people sharing an emotional spark. That to me on principle is completely backwards. Get rid of the cameras, the lights, the crew and capture the performance. Then figure out how to make it look pretty. That's the next big technical challenge for the industry in my opinion. Even blocking usually isn't terribly important to the story or the performance. It's usually more about making the shot attractive than some important character motion. Let the actor act and then put them in post where they were supposed to be to make the shot tell the story/look nice. Move all of the logistics and army of support technicians to post production and let production focus on nailing the story and getting the performance. Maybe that means the editors don't ever come on set, but they can work with the director to put together a rough and then immediately dive back into re-shoots. Today once that production behemoth starts moving it by necessity can't change course very quickly.

 

[Sarah C.]

You guys are all AWESOME. I vote $1k (US) + for DITs here or abroad! For a real DIT that is. Even I've transcoded on set, calibrated a monitor here and there, even got a Red owner/AC to update firmware to correct an odd black level problem... but I am NOT a DIT. I know who YOU ARE though! ..Regards

 

[Von Thomas]

This is an interesting thread. I'm still wondering why it was even started in the first place. Big Lu said it very well, yet there seems a bit of hate the DIT (must be a producer), or DIT envy? I get it all the time, but dismiss it as lack of knowledge, and lack of seeing the big picture.

There are 2 types of DITs, I call the first type, guys (and ladies) with computers, and the second type, knowledgable technical artists.

I was one of the first digital techs in the United States for still photography, starting back in 1998. The role of the tech was crucial as not one still photographer shooting advertising, fashion and editorial knew anything about digital. When asked to shot a job digitally, they threw up there hands, and would come looking for help, I was that help. I ran a successful digital capture business for more that 6 years, then 2008 happened. Along the way, I taught photographers, assistants, how to do, what I do. I was an digital capture instructor at International Center of Photography (ICP), teaching their very first digital class. Well guess what, assistants learned a bit of digital, photographes learned a bit of digital, schools began to teach digital classes, and the market of digital techs started growing exponentially. Where once I was getting $4000.00 per day (in 2004) with rental computers and cameras, dwindled down to $1000 in 2012. Well nature of the beast. I was among the first 5 digital techs in New York City, now everyone is a digital tech, everyone...

I swung over to digital cinema in 2009 and moved to LA. I started with the RED camera, because I understood it, and it's workflow (no different than working with a Phase One back). When I first started here, DIT's did not litter the landscape, but it only took 2 years, and every out of work AC, cam op, DP, PA, picked of a laptop or a Mac Pro, and they were in business as a DIT. That's the problem I see here in LA, no one specializes, they are jack od all trades, anything to bring in a buck. This phenomena has done damage to the industry, but it's not limited to the DIT position, it's system wide.

I worked for Light Iron in their early days of their Outpost cart, and there was importance (as it should) placed on just keeping the media safe, but no correct color on set, nor calibrated monitors on set, no way (that's a post job). One day I decided to bring my Eizo 232 and place on the Outpost cart, I started doing a one light using techniques I brought from years of digital stills (and decades as an advertising and catalog photographer). I was getting beautifully produced dailies that DPs, directors and producers were excited about. I knew I was on to something, and that was 3 years ago, (now everybody and their mother has a color grading panel). I started color correcting because I had the talent, and the the correct gear to analyze the image, my approach was not haphazard or a fluke, it is sound and based on principles that can be taught and learned. I did not do this to make a better day rate, I did this because I could do something that the next person could not, and love it. Can you put a price to that? I deserve $2000 per day or more, do I get it, no, but I'm worth it. I'm not alone, there are talented DITs across the US that surpass the average (person) with a computer, and take their passion for their craft very seriously, we are not wanna be's, but the real deal. If all the fakers, all the jack of all trades would just get the hell out of the way, this business would be a lot more sound, and the douche, would not be present.

I've saved quite a few movies and projects from disaster, not all DPs are skilled masters of their exposure, captains of their color temperature, and they require a bit of experience to help them from screwing up the projects they hold dear. If you ask any DI house about projects that need fixing, they will tell you that more than 50% of the projects that come through their doors need an enormous amont of fixing. They make serious profit off the on set blunders, money that could have been saved and possibly put to better use on set. A good DIT helps to get these mistakes or misguided procedures to a minimum.

It helps if a DIT has a photo background. Exposure is the number one mistake that DPs make, and this is where 38 years as a shooter aids the DP. Am I worth $1000, damn straight, am I arrogant, yes, but I'm also a teacher, and good guy to have on set, a safety net, and the hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars riding on set, you want a talented technical, artistic DIT.

If you are a wanna be DIT, and want to be more, take my next DIT Dailies workshop, I'll train you.

Von

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I think part of the problem is that the current rate is based on a position that required a different and quite frankly, more unique and rare set of skills when it was first defined. The rate, honestly, needs to be adjusted, and with it the initiation fee.

1000% agree. The current scale rate - equal to a camera operator - often causes negative feelings with other members of the camera department. There are, of course, some jobs that require a serious, high-level, skilled ninja DIT - but those guys always work above scale rate anyway. The fact that the scale rate is so high in relation to the department is a key reason many producers are asking "can we get away without a DIT? So and so just did it on XYZ series.". Lowering the scale rate will actually benefit DITs.

 

[Von Thomas]

Lowering the scale rate will actually benefit DITs.

Thinning or vetting out the riff raft would benefit the better DITs.

 

[M Most]

If you ask any DI house about projects that need fixing, they will tell you that more than 50% of the projects that come through their doors need an enormous amont of fixing. They make serious profit off the on set blunders, money that could have been saved and possibly put to better use on set.

They may say that, especially if you ask. It doesn't mean it's true. And it doesn't mean that what they consider to be "fixing" isn't simply exposure matching across coverage that was shot at different times of the day. Or inserts that were shot by another unit months later. Or marks that were in the shot and somehow escaped the eyes of everyone in production and editorial. Or C-stands in the shot that nobody noticed. Or VFX shots that have been completely altered. Or VFX shots that are completely CG and have nothing to do with principal photography.

I'm not saying that there aren't some issues that are "blunders." I am saying that on a competent production, there aren't a lot. And I'm not saying that DI facilities don't occasionally need to "fix" things. But what they tell you may or may not be what you think they're telling you. Not to mention that every department sometimes needs to do a bit of self protection.....