A working post workflow

[Jon Armstrong]

Over the past 2 years, we have been heavily investing time and energy in developing digital post for feature films. Here in Australia the budgets are excruciatingly small with even a big budget being no more than $5A million.

This means that unless an inteligent workflow can be found then the industry eventually will cease to exist. Initially we have worked from 35mm but have refined to a compact and economical post pathway.

Shoot your 4K. This can be either Redcode or RAW. With drives now at 1TB storage of 32TB is possible at RAID 5 or 6 using quad Gigabit or 10Gigbit ethernet (Quad is already there) My preference for feature would be to shoot RAW since this is a data capture and allows for a first grade at camera original and save the changes. This is simply the adjustment of CT and exposure.

The shot material is then cloned to Inphase Technology Tapestry. The clone is important since there is almost no chance of data errors in the transfer. Do not put the clips into folders as this can complicate the data string. With the holographic storage done and a second clone created move the backup disc to a safe location preferably in another building.

This material is then transcoded to a working copy at 2K as a proxy and edit. My preference is for FCP as opposed to Avid since the FCP files are more friendly to file based output than Avid. It is also cheaper. Proxies are for edit only so the marginal difference between ProRes422 and the Avid codec which I forget are imaterial.

It is absolutely essential that niether the timecode or the clip names are changed. If you wish to change a timecode or clip name, export the material from the source, re archive and store as inserts. This path means that later when you reverse conform each clip is unique.

Once the final edit is done, the project is media managed and the material within that timeline is reconnected to the original 4K. This is a bit laborious since the current Holo storage has on 300GB available. If you have a RAID then the original RAW can be transcoded to .cin or .dpx image sequence.

Send this to color as a 2K proxy and grade. When grading ensure that the monitors are calibrated with a proper colorimeter just prior to working however ensure that the monitors are well warmed (about an hour). You will probably have to use LCD monitors and these are not created equal. My choice has been Eizo Colour Edge 24's and worked well. They do not use the computers colour card but an internal one built into the display.

The final stage is done in Shake where the image sequence is refined and the final spools are assembled.

The image sequence is now sent to the lab to be printed.

During the time in shake, the video masters can also be created likewise the JPEG200.

With this workflow, there is no use of tape (an HDCAM SR1 is horrifyingly expensive and few can afford to have them for in-house use)

Jon Armstrong
Adelaide Australia
http://www.nildesperandum.tv
jon@nildesperandum.tv

 

[Brad Hawkins]

I'm not sure that I understand what it is that you're doing in Shake? I've never personally, nor heard of anyone else, assembling in Shake.

Please enlighten me because this is interesting.

 

[mezmo]

hi Jon,
I'm not a big post guy but as I understand it Color and Shake
are really not up to this kind of 2K workflow at the moment.
If it's film out you want then you really should think about a
post house with appropriate DI tools. You can still afford this on
your $A5 mil budget. You can produce an assembled and graded HD
version of the film with FCP Color and Shake but a post house with
a film lab relationship is required to produce a good looking burned
Neg. Test strips from all major scenes and something like Truelight
will make this happen.
I think you can compile your 2k in FCP cuts only. 2k Transitions in Shake
are apparently painfull and slow. Again I'm not a big post guy but I have
done some DI useing Truelight and it looked fab.
Cheers Mezmo

 

[Stokestack]

hi Jon,
I'm not a big post guy but as I understand it Color and Shake
are really not up to this kind of 2K workflow at the moment.
...
Test strips from all major scenes and something like Truelight
will make this happen.
I think you can compile your 2k in FCP cuts only. 2k Transitions in Shake
are apparently painfull and slow.

Um, in what regard? Shake has been used on 6K (and beyond) Imax movies, not to mention Lord of the Rings, King Kong, and so forth. And Shake 4 includes Truelight.

Can't really address the transitions issue without knowing what kind you want to do. It's not a strong editing tool, certainly.

 

[Brad Hawkins]

I've used Shake extensively for the last few years and I am completely confused. Transitions? Assembling?

Shake is a workhorse compositor, but I've never heard of it being used in these ways. I mean if you need to clone, paint, roto, comp, or do some other kind heavy lifting, but usually we are talking about less than a thousand frames. Obviously you can load as many frames as you want, but in my experience they're not that easy to manipulate in Shake.

But maybe you guys know something that I don't.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Luki - for GODS SAKE get over there and demo SCRATCH for this guy. He has holographic storage and he's conforming in shake - I FEEL HIS PAIN as read his workflow ...

 

[Jon Armstrong]

Shake is used to create the .dpx image sequence. Shake is $500 Scratch is a lot more.

Shake handles images far better than other affordable programs. Whilst I mentioned that $5 million is an example of budgets this is the very top. The majority of work is on a budget of $200,000 to $1 million. A $90,000 post bill is out of the question. All this expense means that there is no longer money to pay hard working crew.

I am heartily sorry for writing this post and will say good night.

Jon Armstrong
http://www.nildesperandum.tv

 

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Don't be sorry Jon. I was very interested to read your workflow post:gun:
I understand what your trying to do. I can only point out the obvious to everyone on this site: RED costs $17,500.. post production for many people is going to have to be cheaper eh no eh no

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Jon -

I meant no offense at all, only trying to save you time and energy - and your post reminded me of work-flows we have used in the past - and yes, they worked - but with much time and energy.

Often, I see many people refusing to pay for "expensive" software or hardware - but then it takes them five times as long to get it done.

At some point - you need to put a real value on YOUR time and the time of your staff. And if you could get the job done faster and better, could you do more work and make more money?

I'm not saying that's you - just a that I see lots of people fall into that trap -

You should never apologize for posting a workflow that works for you.

 

[Brad Hawkins]

Okay, now I understand. You're using shake to (for lack of a better word) transcode and build your final dpx sequence. This makes more sense, although I agree that Scratch would be a much more enjoyable process for you and your staff, using Shake in this manner is a bit like trying to roast a hot dog with a blow torch. For a short I produced last year, we were able to do our DI and conform in Scratch and I can say that I was very impressed.

Another thought would be that if these are really low budget films (<500k) then you could shoot 2k (or 4k redcode) and reinvest the money saved. After all, over the last 5 or 6 years we have seen a number of movies on the big screen that were shot in 1080p, so 2k or 4k redcode would be a vast improvement to those productions.

Anyway, I feel your pain, its a whole new workflow and very few people have actually done it as of yet, and most of those have had very large budgets. I work on "24" in post production, and even though Rodney would love to shoot on Red I know that the 'powers that be' probably wont allow it because it would require a complete restructuring of our post workflow, and this is a case where we're talking about a very popular TV show with good sized budget.

Don't get discouraged, I'm sure you'll find a great workflow that works well for your needs.

Brad

 

[Thomas Mathai]

I've used Shake extensively for the last few years and I am completely confused. Transitions? Assembling?

Shake is a workhorse compositor, but I've never heard of it being used in these ways. I mean if you need to clone, paint, roto, comp, or do some other kind heavy lifting, but usually we are talking about less than a thousand frames. Obviously you can load as many frames as you want, but in my experience they're not that easy to manipulate in Shake.

But maybe you guys know something that I don't.

Shake has been used for Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship Of the Rings for DI color correction.

I've used Shake to convert quicktime movies to DPX sequences, sometimes up to 30 minutes long.

On a multi-core Mac, you can set up a cluster, then Shake can use QMaster to use the cluster to render out frames, as if you had a mini render farm.

Transitions are basic A/B fx shots. Setting up a string of shots as a sequence in Shake isn't easy, but very doable. FCP lets you send a timeline to Shake.

Some are using After Effects for their DI color correction and that's not any easier than Shake to set up, even though it's timeline based.

Shake may be marketed for compositing, but it can be used for other things, especially when you realize that a lot of DI work is started in compositing before the tools evolved to make things easier.

 

[Brad Hawkins]

I'm pretty sure that the DI work in LOTR was done on a Lustre system.

Listen, I love Shake. I've learned and used lots of other compositors over the years, everything from Commotion to Nuke, but I've never found anything that I like as much as working with Shake.

That said, I've always felt that Shake is not the best tool for some things, it doesn't have realtime playback for example, and that was my only point. You use the tool for the job, but obviously sometimes we can't afford all the tools we want, so we settle for a workaround, and that's cool too.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

I'm pretty sure that the DI work in LOTR was done on a Lustre system.

Listen, I love Shake. I've learned and used lots of other compositors over the years, everything from Commotion to Nuke, but I've never found anything that I like as much as working with Shake.

That said, I've always felt that Shake is not the best tool for some things, it doesn't have realtime playback for example, and that was my only point. You use the tool for the job, but obviously sometimes we can't afford all the tools we want, so we settle for a workaround, and that's cool too.

Fellowship of the Rings was released in 2001, and Autodesk released Lustre in 2003, which is based on Colossus, which they aquired from 5D. 5D made plug-ins for Discreet systems, Fusion, and Shake.

So I wouldn't be surprised if Fellowship was graded using Colossus and Shake.

While Shake may not be the best tool for a job, that doesn't mean it can't be used. For low to nobudget, where there is more time than money, might as well use Shake if it's available.

 

[Brad Hawkins]

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/digitalcinemamag/printer_13360.shtml

Plus you can see that its Lustre in the documentaries for Fellowship.

But of course that doesn't mean that they didn't also use Shake. And your point is well taken, you can do anything you want with Shake, including some DI work, if you are so inclined.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/digitalcinemamag/printer_13360.shtml

Plus you can see that its Lustre in the documentaries for Fellowship.

But of course that doesn't mean that they didn't also use Shake. And your point is well taken, you can do anything you want with Shake, including some DI work, if you are so inclined.

From your link:
"Over the last three and a half years, I have been using lustre in its various INCARNATIONS on feature films including The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Ghost Ship, Boogeyman and Spooked. "

Here are articles about THAT incarnation:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/02_feb/features/cw_lord_5d.htm

http://www.pluginz.com/news/10

http://www.fxguide.com/article29.html

 

[Lucas Wilson]

Fellowship of the Rings was released in 2001, and Autodesk released Lustre in 2003, which is based on Colossus, which they aquired from 5D. 5D made plug-ins for Discreet systems, Fusion, and Shake.

...and Colossus was based on the SACC system by ColorFront. Discreet did not really acquire Colossus in the traditional sense. When 5D went out of business, Discreet acquired all the IP on the product side, which included Colossus (Colorfront) and Cyborg.

Then Colossus became Lustre, and a lot of people have said (without any real confirmation) that a lot of the Cyborg technology found its way into Toxik.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA

 

[M Most]

Then Colossus became Lustre, and a lot of people have said (without any real confirmation) that a lot of the Cyborg technology found its way into Toxik.

And a lot of other people have said (also without confirmation) that a lot of the Cyborg design elements found their way into Scratch.

Other people. Anonymous other people. Not me. No, not me....