1080p out - a slippery slope

[Ian Laurie]

Hmmm... interesting read.... Although I can see the joy of editors having a tape and 1080p signal... I think i would have to go with Dylan on this one. I have had my camera for a little over a year. almost every editor i have worked with has told me something was not possible. My work around was always to hand a disc to a producer showing them it was. If they want to edit 1080p, thats fine but as far as i am concerned they are gonna have to do it with the proxies or with files i give them from rocketcine. Relinking the media before colour correction works fine. I have had editors purposely rent old systems to maximize their profits... only to have to fight with them cause the system CAN"T DO IT. I have been told by editors that they aren't willing to shell out a penny to upgrade their systems because 15 years ago it cost them $40 000 and their is nothing wrong with it. I have been told not to film in certain formats like 24.00 because it might not be compatible to the "legacy" gear. And to be completely blunt, I DON'T CARE! If I can spend the time learning new methods of doing things in order to maximize my abilities, so can everyone else. I had someone who was planning to shoot super16 get mad because i needed 3 more hard drives. As soon as they decide they can shoot red, they suddenly feel that everything should be almost free cause it is digital. I think giving them the option of 1080p to tape will only make the issue worse. So in short, While i welcome the addition of 1080p output for others needs... I will fight alongside the DOP to refuse it.

 

[Michael Brennan]

[QUOTE....... And DP's will be having to defend "not" using it for the sake of giving their clients the best looking images with the most flexibility in post. [/QUOTE]

There is a point that a DP who knows the camera can deliver a desired look that requires little or post manipulation. Sure, some looks can only be created in post. but which ever way you look at it post does not add data to to original image it is always destructive. ( a sound reason to start with highest bit depth and res possible)

DPs create the data from scratch and many are not always available to control the look in post, so baking in a look is a solid political and creative approach under these circumstances.

Mike Brennan

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Dylan, your thread shines light on a subject that is still an issue, not only in Canada but also here in Germany. Personally I wouldn't blame editors but much more the advantages of tape based workflows.

As we all know episodic TV, commercials, and many other post production pipelines are still based on tape, nowadays mostly HDCAM-SR. There are many reasons to do so:

1. 1080p HDSDI is the lowest common denominator to all flavors of RAW, 35mm and tape based camera formats.

2. Standard HDSDI signal for all postproduction devices makes a lot of sense if 1080p is the delivering format. The editor wants to choose hers/his tools not by technical means but by hers/his creative preference. I can fully understand that. Ruling out tools just because they don't work with the Red SDK seamlessly cannot be an argument.

3. Archiving. Just tell someone to make a copy and put the tapes on the shelves - as easy as it gets.

4. Rushes can be accessed by everyone in the pipeline - no extra software needed.

5. Once on tape, rushes are consistent from seat to seat; you cannot guarantee this if everyone can debayer by her/himself.

6. Last but not least: All things are there, proven, working, payed - whatever. Good reasons not to change that.

The solution for Red centric productions which are supposed to fit into the above mentioned classic workflow: do a meaningful one-light and dump the rushes on tape. You can do that - no beta software involved- with DVS Clipster, RocketFuel, Scratch, Framecycler, SpeedGrade, Baselight - you name it.

The disadvantage is that you cannot conform from the R3Ds. But if the one-light has been done correctly there is no need to do so. RAW is not a mystical format where someone can dig for "hidden" information and hence grading off the RAWs is "better". The problem is that many rushes I've seen cut off information by using the wrong ASA in the SDK or a problematic gamma/LUT that compresses too much information and cut offs highlights (RedSpace). Often rushes don't meet the cameraman's intention because needed information is lost on the way are processed by interns/uneducated staff or they are based on funny metadata (there are always downsides of new technologies) set on set.

Since we've done over 20 years camera department supervised telecine and satisfying daylies off 35mm I think that should be possible with RAW as well and has been accomplished by myself and many others. No witch-work, really. Just a bit of pushing, tedious perhaps but necessary.

The problem is that people think that digital does not need the know-how of a DP after the shoot. Because digital has been WYSIWYG that thinking has a valid foundation. That does, of course, not apply to RAW. But RAW is digital as well and hence the misconceptions everywhere. Now it's the job of the camera folks to battle for lost ground. In a suffering economy not easy. But commitment and political intuition for the partners (editors, producers, directors) will bring back the lost ground. But there are many new DPs around who never shot 35mm and don't know what they are missing. It's the duty of the older to teach them.


Hans