American DITs... ugghhh

[M Most]

This already exists for the most part. Other than perhaps the Skype part of it.

Good luck with making such a setup reliable and bulletproof, at least at this point in time. Also, good luck with having 4G Internet service in the middle of Louisiana or Georgia that can handle 6 hours of material from 2 or more cameras while you're shooting. And good luck with getting a studio to sign off on security.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Probably because of my film background, I've never developed the sense that I need to color-correct an image on set while I am shooting. And personally, my shoots are so fast that I move from set-up to set-up with barely a moment to breathe, or check my email, let alone set looks on a computer. So my philosophy is to build looks in prep and in post, but I try to avoid doing that once I am shooting because I don't trust uncalibrated and uncontrolled viewing environments. I mean, what am I looking at when I decide that this magenta has too much chroma? How do I know it's not the monitor? How do I know how that decision I make looking at a monitor on set matches the monitor at the post house? I have to assume that at best, all I can see on a set is an approximation and that going beyond a certain level of fine image adjustment is just wasting my time. This is why shooting raw or log is so important to me, I like knowing that I will have more information later to play with than what I see on the set.

Now of course exceptions can happen, maybe the script I am shooting just added a stylized flashback and I may feel tempted to "wing" some special look on set.

But as I said, this may just be a generational thing, I trained myself to not need on-set coloring controls so now I have a hard time seeing the need or having the time even if I did feel the need. I also admit that I tend to shoot dramatic narrative that are fairly naturalistic with a large page count per day, not some stylized short form project like a commercial where a client may be demanding things be colored on set to their satisfaction.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

My feelings may also be driven by the realization that I can be a bit of a perfectionist, and yet I believe that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and I am wary of being given a tool that encourages overly fine-tuning things because it may be like candy to a baby or a bone to a dog, too tempting to resist and thus slowing the creative energy down that a set needs to keep moving forward.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Good luck with making such a setup reliable and bulletproof, at least at this point in time. Also, good luck with having 4G Internet service in the middle of Louisiana or Georgia that can handle 6 hours of material from 2 or more cameras while you're shooting. And good luck with getting a studio to sign off on security.

The automated data management side basically already exists, and there is other stuff in development that I probably can't say much about. It can run on camera style batteries. Is it a good idea? I agree with an earlier statement you made. If a computer/automation can do something better than a human being, then fine. At this point in time, I still feel there is need for human involvement, especially on the QC side of things. So, even if the data backup system is simly loading a card into a machine and the machine takes care of the rest, I'd still want to watch it through, every frame if possible. I still believe in a no-frame-left-behind mentality.

There are certainly ways to automate the transcoding and even the uploading of files but I would agree with you that the bottleneck is often the internet. On one project, we were dealing with about 4-8TB of data a day which needed to be compressed down to H264 and DNxHD36 and sent securely to the west coast. Where we were shooting, the internet speeds were just not fast enough, so we needed to setup shop about 20-30 miles away in a facility that had the required specs.

I love technology and I don't disagree with Mark and others that the tech is going to evolve and more will be done on set. However, I agree with Mike that it needs to be thought through and make sure that just because it can be done, is it the better way? If it is, then progress is good. If it causes more problems than it solves, then that needs to be looked at as well.

I love the innovators. I don't fear change at all. I certainly wouldn't be on this forum if I did.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Probably because of my film background, I've never developed the sense that I need to color-correct an image on set while I am shooting. And personally, my shoots are so fast that I move from set-up to set-up with barely a moment to breathe, or check my email, let alone set looks on a computer. So my philosophy is to build looks in prep and in post, but I try to avoid doing that once I am shooting because I don't trust uncalibrated and uncontrolled viewing environments. I mean, what am I looking at when I decide that this magenta has too much chroma? How do I know it's not the monitor? How do I know how that decision I make looking at a monitor on set matches the monitor at the post house? I have to assume that at best, all I can see on a set is an approximation and that going beyond a certain level of fine image adjustment is just wasting my time. This is why shooting raw or log is so important to me, I like knowing that I will have more information later to play with than what I see on the set.

And this way of thinking is IMO the BEST way to work. And what I am saying with respect to changing color on camera - is that AFTER you set your looks in prep - based on tests, etc. - you, as a DP, can just make MINOR adjustments - "make it warmer, make it cooler, push/pulll a stop, punch that saturation, crush the black s a bit, etc." - just like the "old days" of film rushes - but you can do that right on the camera - while you look at a 17" 10-bit TV logic monitor on a c-stand.

Obviously, when shooting RAW (or LOG) on a specific sensor, you (the DP) know how far you can push or pull the image and be okay - but most times there seems to pressure on the DP with respect to how the dalies look. All I am pointing to - is a future where the DP who does the work in prep - finds the look(s) - and know how to monitor (or just shoot) on set with confidence - and when he/she wants to make an adjustmet to how the DAILIES look - an adjustment to the look he/she already set and established in prep - it can be done on set - with one finger on a mobile device.

I can not imagine a DP not wanting that option. I can fully understand and respect not wanting to do any "critical color" on set - I get that - but I'm just comparing what happens MOST of the time now - to what is possible.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I like the way Mark lays out the scenario. 90% of the "look management" is done in pre and post production. If the DIT has a clear understanding of the desired look, they can often make minor adjustments during production with only the briefest of chats with the DP.

FWIW, one of the techniques I have found valuable when wearing the DIT hat, is to quickly get a handle on what the DP wants, then pick my spots throughout the day to have short private conversations with them about anything I see that might be an issue. I only take up as much of their bandwidth as necessary to properly watch their back, which I consider my #1 job. If I'm working with a high caliber DP like a David Mullen, I spend most of my time looking at how they achieved the image I'm seeing at my station and considering it a master class in lighting I'm getting paid to attend. How's that for a pitch for a higher day rate ;-)

Cheers - #19

 

[M Most]

All I am pointing to - is a future where the DP who does the work in prep - finds the look(s) - and know how to monitor (or just shoot) on set with confidence - and when he/she wants to make an adjustmet to how the DAILIES look - an adjustment to the look he/she already set and established in prep - it can be done on set - with one finger on a mobile device.

Except for the mobile device part, we've been doing that with systems like Technicolor's DP Lights for at least 7 years now. And many DIT's are doing it today with more affordable things like Pomfort Livegrade and Link Color, coupled to a simple HDLink. I don't see where this is some amazing "future" thing.

Oh, and BTW, the next version of DP Lights has an iPad interface with a one finger (or two, depending on what you are changing) adjustment.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think we can all agree that coloring is happening on set, near set, and off set... just like editing to some degree, with some of the same pros and cons -- it's the difference between immediacy of action at one end and contemplation at a distance at the other end. Art happens in both places. And if one DP likes doing coloring on set, then more power to him, it just doesn't fit into my mode of working. However, dailies creation in the camera truck (I don't know if that counts as being on the set or near the set) or at the production office or in a hotel room is a new paradigm, I think it mainly is for the benefit of the producers who want costs to be more controllable. Personally, ever since I started shooting digitally back in 2000, dailies are less of a worry because they aren't for me necessarily, unlike film dailies -- I know what I shot when I shot it with digital, the only issue with dailies is whether they accurately reflect that to others. With film dailies, they are one the ways I know what I was shooting, how it is turning out (that and the neg report, etc.) and they are watched by me with a hyper-critical eye. But it's odd on a digital movie when people ask me "how are dailies looking?" because I saw it when I shot it on a nice HD monitor, which is bounds to be better than watching some compressed footage online or a DVD. If blu-ray dailies had ever taken off, then maybe I'd be more enthusiastic.

 

[M Most]

However, dailies creation in the camera truck (I don't know if that counts as being on the set or near the set) or at the production office or in a hotel room is a new paradigm, I think it mainly is for the benefit of the producers who want costs to be more controllable. .

That's part of it. Another part is quick turnaround, often necessary in a world where everyone is shooting on digital cameras that use some kind of solid state card as a recording medium, but nobody seems to be able to afford enough cards for the amount of material they're shooting. So in many cases, production will be told they can't have as many cards as they requested, and they will then turn around to post and tell them that the dailies have to be created, checked, and backups verified quicker than is sometimes even possible so that they can erase the cards they have. This seems to happen on almost every show I've been involved with over the last year. The need for quick turnaround is also very significant in television, where editors need to be up to camera in order to maintain a post and delivery schedule. With productions shooting seemingly everywhere these days, but nearly all post production remaining in Los Angeles, making the dailies deliverables near the shooting location, coupled with high speed transfers (often via a data colocation facility, but sometimes directly from the studio or other production center if available) serves as a "tether" between production and editorial, allowing editors to have their material at the same time or often earlier than they would if the production was shooting locally. In these cases, it's not only often less costly, it's considerably more efficient when compared to the alternative, which is usually flying the drives to L.A. and processing them on arrival, much like we used to do with film.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

I would add, though, that there's a lot more to making dailies and satisfying the attendant deliverable requirements than just color settings. Hence my previous post.

There is also getting to know the hair and make up department a little too well

Jokes aside... I am surprised that this thread is still going on. It was quite wonderful to see the wide variety of respectful opinions on here. Thanks all.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Except for the mobile device part, we've been doing that with systems like Technicolor's DP Lights for at least 7 years now. And many DIT's are doing it today with more affordable things like Pomfort Livegrade and Link Color, coupled to a simple HDLink. I don't see where this is some amazing "future" thing. .

We've been doing that for years Mike - but that's software on a computer taking a feed from the camera. I'm talking about a wireless mobile device (iPad mini, etc.) controlling non-destructive RAW color controls on the camera. No cart, no computer. Setting saved in meta data of digital negative.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

But it's odd on a digital movie when people ask me "how are dailies looking?" because I saw it when I shot it on a nice HD monitor

Exactly - and I'm just saying that many DPs I have spoken too - would certainly love the ability to very easily, and quickly just make adjustment to color while looking at that nice HD monitor in seconds - as opposed to walking over to a cart and looking over someones shoulder. I'm not talking so much about "live grading" - I'm talking about those minor adjustments that we use to do with a note on the camera report that went with the neg to lab. Make it warmer, cooler, etc.- and obviously controlling RAW settings give you control than just changing the color temp.

 

[James T Mather]

My feelings may also be driven by the realization that I can be a bit of a perfectionist, and yet I believe that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and I am wary of being given a tool that encourages overly fine-tuning things because it may be like candy to a baby or a bone to a dog, too tempting to resist and thus slowing the creative energy down that a set needs to keep moving forward.

Very true.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Exactly - and I'm just saying that many DPs I have spoken too - would certainly love the ability to very easily, and quickly just make adjustment to color while looking at that nice HD monitor in seconds

I agree with this. While I don't spend a bunch of time dicking with a look on set, I do like being able to quickly and easily make adjustments to contrast, and saturation. Using the looks menu on the touch screen is crude at best. an ipad app to just easily tweek a few things in certain situations would be great. But I don't need a DIT for that ;-) just the ipad app.

Nick

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I agree with this. While I don't spend a bunch of time dicking with a look on set, I do like being able to quickly and easily make adjustments to contrast, and saturation. Using the looks menu on the touch screen is crude at best. an ipad app to just easily tweek a few things in certain situations would be great. But I don't need a DIT for that ;-) just the ipad app.

Nick

Bingo.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If you haven't recorded the scene yet and you want to see it a little warmer, why can't you just adjust the color temp setting on the camera? And if you've already shot the scene, why are you only now deciding you want the scene to look a little warmer? It's this going back to footage you just shot and deciding then how you want it to look that I don't quite understand. By that point I've had to move on to worrying about the scene in front of me.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

If you haven't recorded the scene yet and you want to see it a little warmer, why can't you just adjust the color temp setting on the camera? And if you've already shot the scene, why are you only now deciding you want the scene to look a little warmer? It's this going back to footage you just shot and deciding then how you want it to look that I don't quite understand. By that point I've had to move on to worrying about the scene in front of me.

David - we are saying exactly the same thing - I'm just saying that instead of going over to the camera and changing the color temp - you would, at your monitor, have FULL wireless control over all the RAW controls in the camera - RGB curves, saturation, etc. - much more control to adjust image than just color temp - on a UI designed to quickly make those adjustments and store looks, etc.

I realize that some DPs, like yourself might not be interested in that kind of control/ability - but I know many that are. And honestly, IMO, I can see a lot efficiencies and advantages over someone live grading CDLs - which is extremely common on episodic TV shows (at least on the East Coast).

And yes, I'm with you 100% on make the adjust (if there is one) before your roll.

The EPIC has more control over RAW settings and color on the camera than any other RAW motion camera I am aware of - as soon as we can get wifi control of the EPIC one way or another - it's going to really be an exciting option for managing color - IF the DP is interested in that. And I have zero doubt that many will embrace it - and I'm very excited for it to happen.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

David - we are saying exactly the same thing - I'm just saying that instead of going over to the camera and changing the color temp - you would, at your monitor, have FULL wireless control over all the RAW controls in the camera - RGB curves, saturation, etc. - much more control to adjust image than just color temp - on a UI designed to quickly make those adjustments and store looks, etc.

I realize that some DPs, like yourself might not be interested in that kind of control/ability - but I know many that are. And honestly, IMO, I can see a lot efficiencies and advantages over someone live grading CDLs - which is extremely common on episodic TV shows (at least on the East Coast).

And yes, I'm with you 100% on make the adjust (if there is one) before your roll.

The EPIC has more control over RAW settings and color on the camera than any other RAW motion camera I am aware of - as soon as we can get wifi control of the EPIC one way or another - it's going to really be an exciting option for managing color - IF the DP is interested in that. And I have zero doubt that many will embrace it - and I'm very excited for it to happen.

It'd be a combination RedMote and Touch Screen. There's clear reasons to use either of those (and though the RedMote has a bad rep, when it works, I love the damn thing), so imagine combining.

Then, take it a step further; if the camera is writing wirelessly to a near-line server, and if the DoP has the iPad/Surface/Nexus/Kindle/Laptop on hand, the camera can be feeding out a live feed of what it sees, while the DoP, Director, Producer, and any other principles are reviewing clips. The live feed can be used while others on set are moving things around and setting up.

I'm by no means saying that everyone will or should utilize this, but having the option will be extremely powerful.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

But as I said, this may just be a generational thing, I trained myself to not need on-set coloring controls so now I have a hard time seeing the need or having the time even if I did feel the need. I also admit that I tend to shoot dramatic narrative that are fairly naturalistic with a large page count per day, not some stylized short form project like a commercial where a client may be demanding things be colored on set to their satisfaction.

I am with you on this!
there is really no reason to dive into onset coloring now days, unless of course its just to add a little something to the transcoded files so that the client has something pretty to look at when they see the 1st edit..
(again im coming from commercial world)

I dont really see the point for features.

I would rather focus on the grade in a nice suite that has been set up for it.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Re: M Most/Mark Pederson - Metadata in camera.

I am going to with Most on this one (I think? Maybe I misunderstand your position). I don't think the camera is the place to store this data. All I want off of the camera is a Global Unique ID for the clip. Why? Because you might pull the mag after a shot and then that data is lost to the ether and inaccessible. If it's on the mag it might change before someone reads it again and then it's almost worse than non-existent... it's wrong or conflicting.

This data belongs in the cloud. You might be offline and storing this on a tablet or laptop during filming but it needs to be in a database that can be uploaded to a single master database. All of the meta-data should then be re targeted to the clip info based on GUID. Then if you receive an H264 of a clip and the metadata is stripped your workflow isn't dead in the water, you simply scan the filename for the clip GUID and JOIN the data from the database. Databases, real databases not BS sidecar files, can easily track changes, they can be interacted with by thousands of artists simultaneously, they have transaction control so that you don't corrupt entries, they can be mirrored and sharded. You can write applications that interact with this data from around the world. You can also expand the data and customize it well beyond what any camera company like RED could imagine.

The camera should certainly be able to load CDLs and LUTs and monitor that out on set. It should even probably track/store what monitoring LUT was applied. But the only thing that should be stored in-camera is what the camera directly had to process. If you want extensive meta-data sync'ed to the clip then it's best that the camera pulls that metadata when possible. If for instance your camera has a fancy slate feature that tail slates every clip with meta-data in the DNxHD proxy then it should attempt to contact the on-set database for that information. It shouldn't *be* the database. Oracle, MySQL, Microsoft and Postgre etc have refined the science of storing metadata. I don't want a MongoDB server running on my Epic, and to properly store and track metadata that's the sort of system you need.