A Digital Loader is not a DIT

[Ian Laurie]

Thanks, Brook.

I also am not union (yet), but have found that I have done all that you have mentioned as well as continued support into post. Sometimes I think that the unions are so busy worrying about who gets paid for what that they don't allow any room for overlap. Overlap happens. If the DoP asks me to grab something for him, I am not gonna stand around trying to figure out who's job it is. I struggle with the need that people have to so firmly define positions. But appreciate your opinion as to where what i have been doing lands. I have not been pleased with being called a Data Wrangler, etc. when I have been and continue to be called on to do so much more. Thanks for you opinion.

 

[Brook Willard]

I just reread my post and found a bunch of spelling, grammatical and prose errors. I must admit that I wrote it once through without proofreading... and I was definitely on a train-of-thought sort of shooting spree. So if there are some funny things in there, they may be chalked up to lack of attention.

 

[Drew Suppa]

I, too, have been doing both on low budget indie films.

I'm also an Operator and AC at times, and for smaller projects DP as well, but when it comes to DIT work, I'm just as concerned with the IRE's as I am confirming the .R3Ds are intact and successfully have transferred to both an archival and editing drives.

This is the time these roles need to be defined.

On smaller productions couldn't this be the same person? I have been filling both descriptions; checking false color in RAW, working with the dp, transferring data and backing up, doing a first light in redcine to verify image quality.

Am I right in thinking this, or way off?

 

[Alex Carr]

The Need for DIT will Fade, Some Cinematographers just 'need' a Loader. But for now as many people are struggling with workflow or Working with the Camera on Set, there is a definate need for DIT. But for how long?

I eventually see this position becoming more of a DP's Assistant more than anything, because it can be certainly justified on a larger Budget. Where there is a Loader, but this sort of DIT 'only' works with Color. Example: 3cp from Gamma Density, In no way Specific to only Red One. And brings DIT or DP's Assistant to a 35mm Film Shoot.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I just reread my post and found a bunch of spelling, grammatical and prose errors.

Nobody should hire you until you show you can also do re-writes on your free time! :furious3:

Thanks for that! Holy chit! Nice of you to share such a long ass "stream of consciousness".

 

[Tim Naylor]

I don't use DIT's unless I have to match multi camera show with Sony's, Pana, etc or the client for mysterious reasons needs one.

With RED, AC, 2nd AC, Digi Loader.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I agree with everything Brook said about what a DIT is or should be. (Awesome posts, Brook!)

I don't agree with Brook's "say no to data wrangling" opinion. Not all productions warrant a full DIT for various reasons already mentioned here by others. On larger productions and busy studio sets, a digital loader or data manager person can be nice in addition to having a DIT.

I think the biggest problem in the industry I see right now is that productions mostly don't know when they need a DIT and when they do not. Nor do most even know what to ask for and what makes someone a DIT and not just some data monkey that offloads and checks media.

I don't believe the need for DITs will fade as Alex says. Quite the opposite, I think. As more and more productions realize the benefits of RAW image workflow they will want to do more with the footage on-set in terms of checking, manipulating, etc.. This is where the DIT comes in. But once again, this is determined to some extent by the size or scope of the production. Many productions that could benefit from a DIT may still not be able to have one due to budget and/or location constraints.

 

[Alex Carr]

Well I meant that the position can be more warranted as a DP's Assistant, and be more widely used. In a sense thats what a DIT actually is. They are Focused on the image, and translate from a Film standpoint to a Digital Workflow with this particular camera System.

Gamma Density is going to keep DIT alive, Provided Producers understand how much money they save Loading CDL's into Davinci, instead of Spending 50 Hours 1st Lighting, Most of the work would be done, so the Grade would be the next step, and nearly cut the Grade in Half. So when Producers realize that we could save them up to $20k in Color Suite they might start to listen to DIT. And in hopes it can be widely accepted on Larger Shows. For shows that just want a Loader, I'd rather be an Assistant.

 

[George K "Veck McCartin]

This is an old thread; but it is one getting more attention lately.
"DIT" is used in most circles I've seen and heard to replace "Shader", "Engineer," and "Video Controller." In labor parlance, "DIT" is a camera department term and, as such, is usually organized under the ICG in the US. In most cases I've encountered, the DIT is also in charge of data management-whether or not it is performed personally by that DIT or his/her Camera Utility (a rare find).
This differs on some productions and in some regions, usually dependent on where in the chain image manipulation occurs. Personally, I object to adding any more job titles as many producers and UPMs will only confuse duties or refuse hires even when they are necessary.
I don't think we can say that "DIT" is strictly image control or that "Digital Loader" (still NOT a job title or classification, Thank Heaven) is strictly IT. I believe the ladder in HD goes: Key-DIT, 2nd-Camera Utility, 3rd-Digital Utility
Of course, I will happily come out and wear whatever silly hat and title you'd like to give me as long as I know the check will clear.
Veck

 

[Jody Neckles]

The role of the dit take 2

The role of the dit take 2

I think it's time to review the role (and name) of the DIT.... So to start off this discussion I refer to Marks basic summery:

My opinion:

DATA = FILM = CAMERA DEPARTMENT

LOAD, UNLOAD, COPY = AC or DIT

LUTS/LOOKS, COLOR/IMAGE PROCESSING (on set dailies, etc.) = DIT

Notice Mark suggests the role falls within the camera department... I disagree. In fact DITs are better described as consultants and technical leads that works *with the production team*, facilitating the *entire* digital process onset to the delivery of files to post production. They are not working exclusively *for* the camera department. I refer to Evangelos post for you to consider:

As I see it, there is a need in the close circle of the producer for a new position... I call it DpE or Digital production Engineer. is the guy that sits with the producer, director and DoP together and plan the production he has the full responsibility from start to end that is pre-production to final first copy on film or digital (in any form, web, DVD, Bleuray etc) and archiving.

Indeed, in agreement with Evangelos and similar posts by Jonathan Smiles the DIT should be advising and consulting production based on their deliverables, providing they have the necessary experience. Drawing upon their knowledge of the film making pipeline they work with production and post house to devise and facilitate the best path in terms of project workflow, data backup, colour management, timecode, audio syncing, onset review etc through to dailies for post production and VFX....

.. the DIT name is wearing very thin IMO with so many chancers and ACs with laptops claiming to be DITs when they are in fact Loaders. I don't even think the name adequately describes what we do and does not reflect the polarized technical and creative nature of the role and the types of services we offer....

 

[Jody Neckles]

So Brook, if the DIT is in the camera department position where do you see it fit in the camera department?...

I had focus puller recently say to me 'In the hierarchy of the camera department I see the DIT as somewhere beneath a Focus Puller and somewhere above a 1AC' I just laughed to myself.

I'd sooner be facilitating big multicamera shoots and post production pipelines onset than move *up* to a focus pullers role. In fact I don't even see it as a step up as I have no desire to be a DP let alone a focus puller.

That fact is a lot of good DITs have not come from the camera department and has filled a large gap in the traditional camera departments skillset. Good DITs should have has skills that are more aligned to a Post Production Supervisor/Colourist/DI Supervisor/IT consultant than anyone in the camera department. Another fact to back this claim is there is no one person in the camera department that could teach or take over from the DIT role.

A lot of DITs, like myself have not worked there way up through the camera department but have years of experience handling digital material devising solutions on the post side. With that said I have learnt an incredible amount working with the camera department and this has only helped me to understand their needs and better *serve* them.

The role is still evolving as productions leverage the true benefits of shooting digital which is instant gratification and tight quality control of the digital assets. With applications like Live Play and Storm the next evolution is all about Metadata. DITs will be expected to facilitate more an IT based solutions onset that incorporate Colour, Dailies, Post, VFX and Playback (some like myself are doing this now) and I just don't see this a camera department role.... also perhaps the DIT name or paygrade does not adequately reflects these responsibilities.....

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I think it's time to review the role (and name) of the DIT.... So to start off this discussion I refer to Marks basic summery:



Notice Mark suggests the role falls within the camera department... I disagree. In fact DITs are better described as consultants and technical leads that works *with the production team*, facilitating the *entire* digital process onset to the delivery of files to post production. They are not working exclusively *for* the camera department. I refer to Evangelos post for you to consider:



Indeed, in agreement with Evangelos and similar posts by Jonathan Smiles the DIT should be advising and consulting production based on their deliverables, providing they have the necessary experience. Drawing upon their knowledge of the film making pipeline they work with production and post house to devise and facilitate the best path in terms of project workflow, data backup, colour management, timecode, audio syncing, onset review etc through to dailies for post production and VFX....

.. the DIT name is wearing very thin IMO with so many chancers and ACs with laptops claiming to be DITs when they are in fact Loaders. I don't even think the name adequately describes what we do and does not reflect the polarized technical and creative nature of the role and the types of services we offer....

Although I agree with some of the points here, the DIT does fall within the camera department here in the US as described by Local 600. I believe the position can remain in the camera department and still act as a bridge between set and post. I think the last thing we need is to keep changing it and confusing producers even more.

Where most of the confusion comes from is between the DIT (whether it's a traditional HD shoot or a RAW shoot, it still is defined by manipulating the video signal, optimizing levels, signal recording, workflow implementation, etc) and the digital loader position (managing data to and from camera). A digital loader does not manipulate the signal, nor do they manipulate the metadata to affect the image. They manage data and can do straight transcodes. A DIT can supervise the digital loader, and on smaller shoots can perform the data management tasks themselves.

I think if those terms were used correctly, there wouldn't be as much confusion from the producer's side. If they want to bring the DIT in early in the game to help devise workflows and such, no issues there. But if we create a hundred different names for the position, they won't even know what to ask for when putting together budgets and plans. I say, keep it simple. Now, if what we're talking about is a post person who is to interact with the camera department, that's something completely different and falls out of the realm of 600.

Again, this is all based on US structure. Things may be different elsewhere.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

So Brook, if the DIT is in the camera department position where do you see it fit in the camera department?...

I had focus puller recently say to me 'In the hierarchy of the camera department I see the DIT as somewhere beneath a Focus Puller and somewhere above a 1AC' I just laughed to myself.

I'd sooner be facilitating big multicamera shoots and post production pipelines onset than move *up* to a focus pullers role. In fact I don't even see it as a step up as I have no desire to be a DP let alone a focus puller.

That fact is a lot of true DITs have not come from the camera department and has filled a large gap in the traditional camera departments skillset. Good DITs should have has skills that are more aligned to a Post Production Supervisor/Colourist/DI Supervisor/IT consultant than anyone in the camera department. Another fact to back this claim is there is no one person in the camera department that could teach or take over from the DIT role.

A lot of DITs, like myself have not worked there way up through the camera department but have years of experience handling digital material devising solutions on the post side. With that said I have learnt an incredible amount working with the camera department and this has only helped me to understand their needs and better *serve* them.

The role is still evolving as productions leverage the true benefits of shooting digital which is instant gratification and tight quality control of the digital assets. With applications like Live Play and Storm the next evolution is all about Metadata. DITs will be expected to facilitate more an IT based solutions onset that incorporate Colour, Dailies, Post, VFX and Playback and I just don't see this a camera department role.... also perhaps the DIT name or paygrade adequately reflects these responsibilities.....

Again, take my info as based on Local 600, but the DIT is not below 1st AC and the rate is equivalent to a camera operator.

 

[Jody Neckles]

Again, take my info as based on Local 600, but the DIT is not below 1st AC and the rate is equivalent to a camera operator.

Thanks for that Steve.
Are these rates published anywhere?

 

[Dustin Cross]

The DIT needs a solid post background, but also a good camera background. I am typically tech support for the camera and expected to know all the menus and answers to questions like what is the difference between format and erase on the Alexa.

Plus DPs look to me to recommend how they should use the camera on some shows. Should they change ASA or only shoot 800? How to get proper exposure on the camera. All kinds of tech camera type questions until they are comfortable with the camera.

I typically come on the production early and get involved in post workflow discussions.

In the states DIT is one of the senior people in camera department.

I would really like to have a Data Manager working with me on set, but it never happens on my lower budget stuff. I can handle two cameras by myself pretty easy and can handle an occasional third cam. More than that and I would require production to get a dedicated Data Manager to work with me.

The biggest problem I run into is people think I also take care of video assist. This comes from all the tape based DITs who integrate with video, but I don't do that on file based shows.

As more digital cameras come out more Producers want a good DIT who can make those digital cameras work and recommend a good workflow.

A lot of producers call me and pay for a DIT when they only need a Data Manager because they know, if something goes wrong, I can take care of it.


Dusty
Local 600 DIT

 

[Jody Neckles]

Although I agree with some of the points here, the DIT does fall within the camera department here in the US as described by Local 600. I believe the position can remain in the camera department and still act as a bridge between set and post. I think the last thing we need is to keep changing it and confusing producers even more.....

Indeed your probably right... I just don't like the name as I find it doesn't fully reflect what we do particularly in a supervisory role.

I say, keep it simple. Now, if what we're talking about is a post person who is to interact with the camera department, that's something completely different and falls out of the realm of 600....

Again, this is all based on US structure. Things may be different elsewhere.

It's funny because I think this statement does do better describe what a DIT does, although I do object to being known as the post person, as we are physically onset aiding the *production* process

.... IMO the Digital Acquisition Supervisor better reflects the role but it's probably too late to change the name in the US but in Europe where we are yet to have the role set in stone it could be different.....

Obviously we need to factor in the fact the DIT knowledge is not limited to post and they would certainly need to be expert on the cameras knowing the setup, menus, builds, capabilities and troubleshooting better than anyone else on set....

 

[Jody Neckles]

The DIT needs a solid post background, but also a good camera background. I am typically tech support for the camera and expected to know all the menus and answers to questions like what is the difference between format and erase on the Alexa. ...

I would really like to have a Data Manager working with me on set, but it never happens on my lower budget stuff. I can handle two cameras by myself pretty easy and can handle an occasional third cam. More than that and I would require production to get a dedicated Data Manager to work with me.

Completely agreed....

The biggest problem I run into is people think I also take care of video assist. This comes from all the tape based DITs who integrate with video, but I don't do that on file based shows.

[prediction]
... indeed it will become even more of an issue as the boundaries between the DIT role and playback become increasingly blurred as with dailies and playback becoming one of a kind... I am not suggesting we as individuals do (with only one pair of arms!!) both DIT and Playback but i'm sure at some point it will fall under department to provide these services. Hell, it's happened already!!.....Again this is another reason why I don't see DITs as *in* the camera department.... anyone that owns a Qtake system, as I do, will know what I mean....

I see it as a department with potentially the following members on large scale productions...

DAS (head of department), a Colourist, Digital Loader, Playback Op, Editor and VFX.... you could call it an OUTPOST department (lol sorry Cioni but I haven't thought of a better name yet)..... anyway I digress...

With regards to playback we can thank and the pioneers of iPod and iPad dailies on this forum and next year Teradek as the concept of video dailies is taken to a whole new level. I see this as an opportunity to improve quality control onset with tools like Live Play and Storm and also empower others in other departments to help themselves and playback/Edit footage. These developments will also further advance the reasons to shoot digital over film and tape....

 

[M Most]

As someone who has worked in post for many years, but also for almost 8 years as a member of the camera department (as a visual effects supervisor), I have a bit of a different perspective on all of this.

The job description for the DIT under the Local 600 contract was written at a time when essentially all digital cameras were based on legacy ENG camera designs, such as the F900. The job was defined to be similar but different than the existing video job descriptions, in part to account for the differences between traditional multi camera video production and the more single camera oriented film style shoots that the job was being created to serve. The job was primarily camera centric, as it included camera setup, maintenance, video settings, and taking care of set monitoring, as well as responsibility for the recordings being turned over to post production. Since that time, the cameras and their attendant needs have changed, to the point where most of the original responsibilities as described in the original concept often no longer apply.

The notion that the DIT is a "post expert" somewhat flies in the face of my experience. Many of the DITs I've run into - particularly the younger ones, who did not come up through either the film or video route - have post knowledge, but not enough experience to be taking on some of the responsibilities they're assuming. Their knowledge of "how post works" comes from one or two productions, and often one post facility, and what they do is designed to fit that particular very narrow model. Most of them never really visit or talk with the particular post facility involved in the finishing work, and as a result often come up with things that are confusing, because quite frankly, every post path seems to be a bit different these days, and every facility has their own particular ways of identifying materials and their own ways of doing things. If I could ask one thing of DITs it would be to not assume that you know how a show is going to be posted simply because you think you understand "the process," because today more than ever, there is no "process." There are a lot of different ones, and what might be optimal for one is not optimal for another.

As far as the departmental jurisdiction for a DIT, I think it's fairly obvious that it's part of the camera department, if only for the fact that it assumes responsibility for the data coming out of the camera before it's turned over to post production and editorial. I also agree that a new description and possibly a new designation is in order, simply because the equipment has changed, and therefore the working methods have changed, from the time of the original conception of what a DIT would be doing. It should also be recognized here, though, that this also likely means a lower scale because the level of camera expertise, as well as the attendant video engineering knowledge and responsibility, is arguably less than it was in the video camera days, and the reliance on the DITs expertise in that particular area is less as well. Of course, there is other expertise required that has never really been part of a camera department before, like IT knowledge, for instance. But this is something that producers are much less likely to be willing to pay a high scale for, as they don't necessarily see it as a "skilled" position (until they get boned by incompetence, of course...). So, to some degree, this is a case of be careful what you wish for.

 

[Jody Neckles]

The notion that the DIT is a "post expert" somewhat flies in the face of my experience. Many of the DITs I've run into - particularly the younger ones, who did not come up through either the film or video route - have post knowledge, but not enough experience to be taking on sme of the responsibilities they're assuming.

Absolutely... to paraphrase another popular quote on the RED forum
'just because you mum bought you a RED camera it does not make you a [good] DP' The point there a good DITs and bad DITs....

As far as the departmental jurisdiction for a DIT, I think it's fairly obvious that it's part of the camera department, if only for the fact that it assumes responsibility for the data coming out of the camera before it's turned over to post production and editorial.

My definition of a DIT is this:

The DITs role is in essense to facilitate the entire digital process at the highest quality from data acquisition onset through to safe file delivery of the digital assets to post production.

.... so for the following reasons I have slightly different take on where the DIT fits in:

1) no one in the camera department can train you or step in and cover you if you were sick etc. There is no apprenticeship model for the DIT in the camera department.
2) the skills required are outside of the departments core skillset
3) The DIT handles the audio data and now facilitates: quasi-playback duties, colour, dailies processing, audio syncing, post etc.... and soon an absolute TON of production metadata (circle takes, audio notes, camera notes etc). There is a need for this and it is outside of the responsibilities of the camera department.

I also agree that a new description and possibly a new designation is in order, simply because the equipment has changed, and therefore the working methods have changed, from the time of the original conception of what a DIT would be doing. It should also be recognized here, though, that this also likely means a lower scale because the level of camera expertise, as well as the attendant video engineering knowledge, is arguably les than it was in the video camera days, and the reliance on the DITs expertise in that particular area is less as well.

Indeed it should be reviewed but actually the grade if anything should be same as some of the older video engineering knowledge is replaced by IT... or even increased as we DITs add scalable value to the production environment... think networks, centralised storage, onset post, onset dailies for all see and access.... Indeed my clients realize the value of it and are already paying for it...

 

[M Most]

3) The DIT handles the audio data and now facilitates: quasi-playback duties, colour, dailies processing, audio syncing, post etc.... and soon an absolute TON of production metadata (circle takes, audio notes, camera notes etc). There is a need for this and it is outside of the responsibilities of the camera department.

Yes, it is. It's the responsibility of the script supervisor and has been for as long as I can remember.

Indeed it should be reviewed but actually the grade if anything should be same as some of the older video engineering knowledge is replaced by IT... or even increased as we DITs add scalable value to the production environment... think networks, centralised storage, onset post, onset dailies for all see and access.... Indeed my clients realize the value of it and are already paying for it...

Perhaps in Europe, and perhaps on features, particularly larger features. Probably not in the US, and not for television. Producers here tend to make associations that, while completely false and irrelevant, guide their sense of what something is worth. Cameras are getting better and cheaper, therefore they require less expertise and less care, therefore those who do that should be paid less. Storage is cheap and getting cheaper, ergo people who deal with that should also be cheap and getting cheaper. Network equipment is sold to consumers at Best Buy, ergo it doesn't take some kind of high end expertise to deal with it. If you let go of informed knowledge and assume the mentality of those who are employing you, it becomes clear why I said what I did.