Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Wcttd

Yes, but they also take lots of other notes varying based on the particular production. Something that was set up to satisfy all the popular styles notes, plus having a large degree of customization, and was followed through together with Apple and Adobe for full integration and versatility... well that would be as Red as 16-bit 6k, or scorpions.

I don't need it... but did we need solid state recording back when the only media that was available was tape and celluloid?

I am just saying. It sounds really cool. And you could always have one of those super small portable high resolution color printers close by.

I mean why not? Maybe Jim won't focus on that now, but it would be yet an other area to lead, and he doesn't like to follow. And if anyone is going to do this, and it will be done, then why not get it started soon? Like whenever Red can pinpoint the date when they will break even. Which might be about a year or two after DSMC comes out. Unless he doesn't let up on the OT gas pedal.

Sorry... up late.
 
Liam Hall said:
Can't you just shout PRINT?
Click to expand...

Button or no button the better part of this idea for me is the notes being tied to specific scenes and pages of the script for post, and the ability to generate different documents from that.

Again, I am only talking about possibilities, and how things would be in my perfect world. Though in my perfect world I would still have pens, those wouldn't be banned.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Just a small stick about the size of a usb stick - with ONE button. That's it. The director wears it on a lanyard. If he/she likes the take - he/she presses the button. Anytime during the shot, prior to calling "cut".
Click to expand...
Great idea Mark, but can I add a practical note?

The general way in which this works on set (and forgive me if I'm teaching you to suck eggs - I'm sure I am!) is that the Director (or more often than not the AD) calls cut and then the decision to "print it" is made/called. This is particularly important, of course, if the Director it not calling the show, as is very often the case.

So... A slight amend: It would be much better if the take was tagged as a circle take should the button be pressed at any time before the next time the camera turns over - the old addage again - fit the tech to the job, not the job to the tech...

That also allows for someone other than the director (probably the 2nd AC) to operate the tagging device, should that be a preferable workflow (and I would foresee a lot of Directors preferring this). It also allows for a little thinking time before making the decision on the Director's part, which will almost certainly add to more accurate selection of takes, and probably fewer circle takes in a lot of situations.

Just a quick thought...
Dom.
 
After pondering this idea a little more on set, watching our director right now I feel mixed about this idea.
I honestly don't think most directors, fully committed and attentive to the monitor and his/her actors is going to remember half the time to hit the button. I think its a cool Idea and so forth but I don't really see it as a way to log markers/tags in a scene that would be useful to anyone if the director never pushes the button. Or on the flipside, what if you get one of those directors who comes bursting onto set like an action hero and hits the button every ten seconds? How is that managable in post?
I think ultimately if the director is spending any of his/her concentration on hitting a button that will distract his/her attention away from the action, even for a second, it will be considered a distraction and not used or possibly abused.
Cool idea though.
 
mikeburton said:
Cool idea though.
Click to expand...

I've said it before and I'll likely say it again: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Introducing technology for the sake of technology, or doing it because the idea seems "cool," is not a good reason to bring distracting devices to a production set. Especially when the one being potentially distracted is the director.

But as I've also stated previously, the idea of tagging more useful metadata to clips at production time is something I consider a worthwhile pursuit, but it needs to be done in a non-intrusive way.
 
You'd only know if it helps you or hurts you once you try it. On a side note, directors should edit, even if they don't end up cutting their own stuff, but enough so that they can get a real understanding of the process.

I fully understand your concerns and worries, plus it is a PITA to have things change. But I can't help thinking that it would be very handy for me, since I edit most of my own stuff. I am quite sure I will know if I am marking every other thing, and stop, especially if I am working with someone else cutting the project. But in the end, the only way to know if it helps is to try it as see if it suits your style. Then make up your mind after post is complete.

Either way, a script supervisor linking their notes to a digital copy of the shooting script on the fly can't hurt and I can't see it as anything but a good idea. Of course if it slowed down the process it is back to the tried and true, but that goes without saying. There has to be a design that works though, we just have to find it.
 
mmost said:
the idea of tagging more useful metadata to clips at production time is something I consider a worthwhile pursuit, but it needs to be done in a non-intrusive way.
Click to expand...

"a non-intrusive way" is really the magic key here.

That's why I want a little WCTTD that is nothing more than a tiny stick with a single button.

More elaborate ways of tagging will happen. But, first, you need to just get productions doing it, and seeing time or cost savings or more efficient creative processes.
 
USlatin said:
...directors should edit, even if they don't end up cutting their own stuff, but enough so that they can get a real understanding of the process.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any director I've ever worked with who hasn't spent many, many hours in the cutting room polishing his or her cut - with the editor. True auteurs are few and far between. Filmmaking is a collaborative medium, something that hopefully produces a product that's more than the sum of its parts. The collaboration between director and cinematographer, when it's done right, produces more compelling visuals because it has the benefit of two talents, each of which has a specific area of concentration and their own unique point of view, helping to tell the story. The collaboration between director and editor is even more synergistic because unlike the director, the editor has a more detached, fresh view of the material in front of him or her, one that isn't tainted by personality conflicts, good and bad production memories, and "heat of the battle" moments with the cast. For an editor, shots aren't used because they bring back happy working memories, they're used because they belong in a particular place in the picture in order to tell the story more effectively. In my experience, the abilities of a good editor not only help a director to tell their story, they often help them to see possibilities they didn't even realize were there. That's the talent of the editor, and the true value of having a director and an editor that are two separate people.
 
mmost said:
I don't know of any director I've ever worked with who hasn't spent many, many hours in the cutting room polishing his or her cut - with the editor. True auteurs are few and far between. Filmmaking is a collaborative medium, something that hopefully produces a product that's more than the sum of its parts. The collaboration between director and cinematographer, when it's done right, produces more compelling visuals because it has the benefit of two talents, each of which has a specific area of concentration and their own unique point of view, helping to tell the story. The collaboration between director and editor is even more synergistic because unlike the director, the editor has a more detached, fresh view of the material in front of him or her, one that isn't tainted by personality conflicts, good and bad production memories, and "heat of the battle" moments with the cast. For an editor, shots aren't used because they bring back happy working memories, they're used because they belong in a particular place in the picture in order to tell the story more effectively. In my experience, the abilities of a good editor not only help a director to tell their story, they often help them to see possibilities they didn't even realize were there. That's the talent of the editor, and the true value of having a director and an editor that are two separate people.
Click to expand...

Well said. Multi-skilling is the true friend of mediocrity. I say that as a director who writes, shoots and edits:)
 
Great post Mmost. I absolutely agree.

The attachment to the footage is my main arch enemy right now. I am working with a few people I trust that give me honest feedback, and they are under life threats to not change their honesty. Their approach is quite often drastically different from what I set up on the timeline alone. I cherish those "holy Q%#$!" moments when I realize how ass-backwards I was. It feels so right when you realize what had been holding you back. You absolutely need a satellite's view, and that is so hard after writing and directing.

For big projects I wouldn't dream to cut alone. I look forward to hiring a good editor to work on my feature. Someone who I respect and trust enough to show me the way when my lights are out.
 
i don't think anyone is discounting the on-set methods of yelling Print and having a qualified script supervisor.
whats being talked about it a better way to then make that "Printed" material and notes accessible to the Production as quickly and efficiently as possible AFTER that process, not to negate a production job or change the efficiency of workflow from a human perspective. it can all be useful and everyone has a different style. it's all what works for you and your production but options are not a bad thing.
 
Jason Diamond said:
i don't think anyone is discounting the on-set methods of yelling Print and having a qualified script supervisor.
Click to expand...

Mark my words:

In the future - the role of Script Supervisor will be EXPANDED. This position will become even more relevant as tagging solutions are defined and refined. On-set meta data needs to be tagged to the screenplay.

My suggestion for a simple, and (as mmost said) "non-obtrusive" device for the director was to make a faster and more efficient for the director to tag selects without "shouting" - as we all know ... there's a bit too much of that on set these days and it's not really the most efficient way to work.

As far as the script supervisor goes - he/she should have a lot more control and options to tag and annotate - but I assure you - MANY directors I know would LOVE a device that was one, simple button.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
In the future - the role of Script Supervisor will be EXPANDED. This position will become even more relevant as tagging solutions are defined and refined. On-set meta data needs to be tagged to the screenplay....

As far as the script supervisor goes - he/she should have a lot more control and options to tag and annotate ....
Click to expand...

And as soon as you find a laptop that's small enough, light enough, reliable enough, and has enough battery life to last through a 12 to 14 hour production day without being tethered to AC, then you might have something to compete with a script book, paper, pencils, and pens. And did I mention reliable enough?

I do find that most script supervisors now use digital stopwatches, though. That's a start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top