American DITs... ugghhh

[jake blackstone]

No insurance policy covers wear and tear.

He wasn't talking wear and tear, at least the way I understood it. He was talking about the breakage from careless handling of the equipment.
if insurance covered wear and tear, then I want a new car

 

[M Most]

Producers, more and more are seeing the value (including both overall project quality and overall project cost savings) of having someone on set that can look at the footage with a post-production eye and even make headway into various areas of post.

As someone who has spent most of my life in post, but also spent at least 7 years in production, I am going to make a statement that's probably going to be heavily challenged here, but it's my opinion, based on a lot of observation, conversation, and direct experience. Aside from some visual effects supervisors, I have yet to meet almost anyone (other than a very select few) who works primarily in production who actually understands how post production works, regardless of how much they think they do. And that very much includes DITs, because quite frankly, I've yet to meet one who has significant post experience - and I don't regard transcoding files (most often without having to do any double system sync, let alone check each shot for sync, upload to 3 different places, turn over extensive reports to editorial and production, make bins for editorial, merge ALE's for both editorial and upload services, make verified LTO tapes, reorder shots for DVD's, watermarking, having various different window burns for different deliverables, having some deliverables include everything and others select takes only, etc., etc.) as post production. That is basic lab work. For all of the years we shot on film, film and lab were production charges, not post charges. Post charges didn't start until the material was handed to editorial and the assistant started synching. I find that many of the DIT's who say they are "designing the post workflow" are doing nothing of the sort. They are coming up with a way to back up camera files, and that's about it. Which is fine, but when I read statements like "look at the footage with a post production eye" that implies that the person is a post expert, in the mold of an editor, a colorist, a conforming editor, a sound editor, a sound mixer, a post production supervisor, a post producer, or anyone actually involved in the real operations of post production. And as I've said, I have rarely if ever met a DIT who fits that description.

This is not a knock on DITs, many if not most of whom are very talented, knowledgeable, meticulous, and take pride in what they do. But what they do is not post production, and claiming knowledge of things you don't actually do or have direct experience with is at the very least misleading, both to the producer you're working for and to yourself. I have yet to hear of a DIT asking an online editor what he or she might do to aid the conform. Or, in many (but certainly not all) cases even talk to the colorist to see if their on set corrections were being used (that is rarely the case) or even referred to. Or how to set up things so that they might be used more easily and more reliably. That doesn't mean such contacts and conversations don't happen, it's just that I've rarely experienced it. Getting material from the camera to storage and occasionally to a transcoded file or even through a dailies process does not constitute post production. Blair's statement about DIT's working for post is a great idea that I would probably support, if only for the fact that at least under that scenario. the people claiming to aid the post process actually understand and come from it. Most colorists and certainly most editors don't claim to know how to set up a camera because most of them have never actually done that. DIT's shouldn't claim to know how editors, colorists, online editors, and others work because they don't actually do that, either.

OK, go ahead and unload on me. I did say it's only my opinion....

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Mike's opinion, as usual, is both blunt and based on a great deal of experience. It's easy to dismiss it as too LA/high end centric, that the wider world of production is much less specialized, etc - true enough. That said, he brings up issues that are still meaningful even outside that arena.

FWIW widely varying skill levels, expectations, understandings, disruptive process changes, etc all conspire to make the catch all title DIT a canker sore in the eyes of many. When that person is a d-bag to boot, the genesis of this thread, it just gets uglier. Exacerbating all of that is the compensation issue, which tends to rile people up in all areas of life. Ideally there would be clearly defined versions of the DIT genus from data manager on up to Digital Acquisition Supervisor, each with appropriate duties and pay. Not holding my breath.

One of the powerful bits of the DIT (whatever species) being part of the post side is that the post vendor can determine the most efficient way to fulfill their contract. Low cost data manager and everything else back at the shop, rock star DAS (or dailies colorist) live grading on set with an assistant editor and digital utility generating dailies in a cart or van, and anything in between that suits the project and personnel pool.

The trend of merging production and post seems likely to gain more traction going forward. Doing more on/near set isn't inherently bad, or good, it just creates a dynamic that needs to be managed effectively to leverage its potential. Moreover, in addition to devising a strategy fitting the parameters of the project it needs to be tailored to the way the particular people in key positions on a given project prefer to work.

Cheers - #19

 

[M Most]

Ideally there would be clearly defined versions of the DIT genus from data manager on up to Digital Acquisition Supervisor, each with appropriate duties and pay. Not holding my breath.

Part of the issue is that the term "DIT" has been adopted by the wild west and become a part of it. Like a lot of other things, redefinition - without any agreement on what that redefinition is or should be - has taken hold. The job of "Digital Imaging Technician" began as a specific crew position within Local 600, which originated the term as well. It was created at a much different time technically in this industry, which was the period immediately following the introduction of the Sony F900 camera. This was the first 24p HD camera, and the first that was really referred to as being capable of being used for digital cinema (OK, only George Lucas really saw it as that, but he had a lot of influence at the time.....). As with all cameras of this type at the time, the F900 was a video camera through and through, and as such, really required engineering expertise to set up optimally. That included knowledge that only video engineers really had at the time, but video engineer was not a "film" crew position - it existed only in the supplemental videotape contract, and was crewed only on live and multicamera sitcom shoots when they were done on tape. There was no precedent for having a video engineer, or for that matter, a video operator (camera shader) on a single camera style set. So the union created one, and most of the early DIT's were very experienced video engineers and shaders who had been around for quite some time and were happy to provide their much needed expertise in a new arena. Cut to now, when digital cameras are no longer video based, they don't require the kind of tweaking that engineers provide, and they don't really require live shading, at least internally, to yield an image that can be manipulated as needed because of the introduction of both RAW recording and log gamma curves. The job has radically changed, as has the make up of the group that is doing it to a large extent. In fact, the requirements of the job in 1988 are completely different than those needed in 2013 - yet the job as defined by the union is still exactly the same, with the same description and the same rate. That has hurt the experienced DITs because many production opt to not carry one at all, and it has hurt the newer ones because many producers (and cameramen) have a hard time defining exactly what the job means on their particular set, and an even harder time justifying a rate that was based on a position that required extensive, time honed skill at the time of its definition. I've talked to Steven Poster numerous times about rewriting the job description and adjusting the rate to make carrying a DIT more attractive on a wider range of productions, but things move slowly in the contract business.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

The DITfalls of change

The DITfalls of change

I've been a video engineer, shader, etc for hard wired EFP applications - virtually always multi-cam - though I did tweak the F-900 for a single camera feature project once. As Mike notes, that engineering position, often filled by guys like Bob Kertesz/Gary Adcock/etc who had deep understanding of signal chains and image metrics, commanded and deserved a serious rate. In the modern iteration of our favorite misnomer "DIT", guys like Brook Willard brought a powerful combination of computer knowledge and camera expertise to set that was essential to getting the most out of digital cameras - especially those like RED that captured a RAW data set.

The maturation of the digital camera platforms, concurrent with radically more powerful mobile computing devices with wireless connectivity, is opening up a plethora of options for tech savvy producers. By the time the ICG wades through all the politics (no offense to Steven Poster, its a minefield) common understanding of the job title DIT may have morphed yet again. Some would argue that the accelerating rate of change brought about by technology is so dramatically faster than the evolution rate of the wetware that some kind of overload armageddon is nye. I wouldn't go that far, but I do believe that collaborative enterprises like content creation need better coping strategies to effectively manage the pace of change. In other words, if you reinvent the wheel for every project you'll confuse everyone far too much but if you don't adapt and evolve fast enough you're road kill.

In the short term, as long as production and post remain holed up in their silos and union rules try to retain obsoleted jobs, a lot of DITs are going to find themselves victims of a proxy war.

Cheers? - #19


,

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

He wasn't talking wear and tear, at least the way I understood it. He was talking about the breakage from careless handling of the equipment.
if insurance covered wear and tear, then I want a new car

A car is a good analogy though. A truck taken to a construction site and driven over mountain passes every day is going to wear out a lot faster than a truck which drives around a film backlot. Hard drives don't like being jostled, solder doesn't like being heated and cooled. Nothing likes to being plugged in and out multiple times a day. A film set to electronics is like salt water to an undercarriage.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

I'm only going to respond this way because I was quoted directly.

Mike, my long term goal is to Direct. It has been for years. So when I got out of college, I headed into post production.

Which sounds like it doesn't make any sense. But I wanted to know what problems people ran into at the very end of the line. What causes problems when you master to tape? Well, a few of those were caused by things in that happened in the edit. What causes problems in the edit? Some of those are from the ingest. Problems with the ingest? DIT. Problems DIT? Camera. Problems camera? Pre-pro.

That's a very abridged version, but for me, I decided to work my way through every part of the process that I could, backwards. If I want to know what corners I can cut as a director in order to get my projects done in time and under budget, then I HAVE to know how every part of the process works, in depth, and what is and is not needed at each step.

So there are DITs that have had conversations with the editors as to what makes conforming easier. And with the colorists as to what makes their life easy. And with the compositors and GFX artists. Because I have. And wish that I could have conversations with every post team after I hand the hard drives over to the producers.

Are DITs like me the norm? I don't know. I can't imagine excelling at the current role of DIT without having a good head for Post. Maybe not years and years of experience, but bear minimum, a good finger on the pulse. The DIT role is evolving into a utility player: Backup and Transcodes is the primary goal, rough edit, color, VFX assessment is the secondary goal (but both goals need to be met on the day of shooting). That's a lot of knowledge base for any one person to have.

If the DITs that you are seeing don't have enough post knowledge, and that shoots post houses in the foot, then perhaps it's time post houses open their doors to DITs and help the conversation along.

Which, echoing Blair above, is pretty much the Light Iron model.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I have refrained from stepping into this for a bunch of reasons, but now that it has become a broader discussion, here is my opinion -

Me- DP, sometimes steadi op and camera op on biggish movies. I have been in the biz for 20+ years, and I know post pretty well, I was an assistant editor on steinbecks, and I built tracks on magnasync machines. I was an editor on 3/4" and S-VHS.

I have never hired a DIT, and I will never hire a DIT. I know how to make pictures with the tools of my trade, I don't need a guy to help. That's why I get paid my day rate.

I do hire data managers/digital loaders. They are a critical part of the process, just like a loader was. But they are just that - a loader.

If you don't understand how it works, great, hire a DIT. That's what they are for. They were, and for a little while longer will be the guys who help those who don't understand
how to do it and hold their hand. There is no reason on earth to have a DIT on a RED shoot. Shooting RED is like shooting negative. Done. It's easy. In a very short mount of time, we will all be up to speed on this, and it will be more or less back to normal.

I have seen a steady decline in so called "real" DITs on jobs. Most of the short gigs I do, just have enough cards and let editorial download. Long term, they have enough to send them to editorial and recycle.

Dits biggest advocates are DITs. The whole, transcode on set, make dailies, yada yada is DITs justifying their existence. I have never met an editor that wanted mor editting on set. They just want the damn files.

Dits will go by the wayside as we all get used to the new model. Somebody needs to be in charge of the footage just like they did when it was on 400' rolls. But that guy doesn't get paid as much as the Operator, or get to call out the DP on exposure choices. Loader.

This is my old grumpy biased (and highly focused) opinion and I am sure it will differ with many others. Carry on telling good stories.

Cheers,

Nick

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I agree that DITs days are numbered. Transcoding and backup can and will be handled by something like the Codex Vault far more effectively than any human could ever reliably perform. The days of building weird custom rigs to do checksums and copy to a RAID really should be handled through purpose built software. It's hard and difficult because there is no one piece of software that does it right yet. It's like the 'bad old days'. Way too many sources of error in the current system.

I disagree though that post and production are going to go their separate ways again. Hardware is speeding up. There is no technical reason post can't happen anymore on set. I can do 5k greenscreen comps on a tablet now (surface pro). And it's getting easier and faster every year. The trend is definitely pointing towards what once took years taking months and what took months taking weeks and what's taking weeks now to take days. The separation between post and production was one of technical necessity not some carefully picked strategy balancing the pros and cons. In my opinion post and production are on a collision course. It's already happening within post production and it's inevitably going to keep cascading back down the pipeline into production more and more. And it's not something in my opinion that should be feared or even avoided I would argue it's actually a positive.

The traditional workflow is to shoot something, edit it, hand it off to VFX/grading/mix, ship. And of course throw in some reshoots if it's a feature somewhere along the process. But that's a silly way to work, you learn so much about the image when you are neck deep in post, you learn so much about the story when you're in the thick of the edit, you finally really are getting a firm grasp on how exactly everything is going to come together--and now it's too late. The locations are gone, the people have moved on to their next project and you just have a big pile of footage that can't change.

The future in my opinion is going to be one of feedback loops. The editor has insights for the director on what a scene could use. The colorists can collaborate with the DP on lighting. Instead of working a fire-and-forget process you can react quicker to emphasize your successes and marginalize your failures. This will take some pretty significant advancements technologically to be manageable but I think the line between production and post is going to disintegrate. Production will be focused on capturing volumes of data. Pickup shots will be easy since you'll have captured every set and be able to trivially drop in actors. Lighting will become part of the grading process and a final step after the edit. Animated projects will look a lot more like live action production and live action will move to be a lot more like animation.

DITs will have to evolve pretty dramatically through this whole process though. Just as video engineers are out of place on a modern production, someone who is mostly concerned with video will be replaced by scanning and volume capture specialists. If things are confusing now, I suspect we're just starting to see the first wave of completely unrelated positions being hired as "DIT".

 

[M Most]

If the DITs that you are seeing don't have enough post knowledge, and that shoots post houses in the foot, then perhaps it's time post houses open their doors to DITs and help the conversation along.

Which, echoing Blair above, is pretty much the Light Iron model.

I think perhaps I left out something I should have said in the original post - a conclusion and suggestion. I think the best way to illustrate what I was trying to get at is by an example. The show that I was peripherally involved with that I would say worked the best I've ever seen in terms of getting information from the set all the way through finishing in a way that was useful was a show from two seasons ago that for the purposes of this conversation shall remain nameless, but it was a major network drama. During early tests, the DIT and the camera department wanted to use LUTs that would be tagged for the scenes they represented - not an untypical approach. But they wanted to be able to tweak those after the fact, so they looked at doing the LUT plus some CDL based corrections. That was getting a bit complicated to pass on, so ultimately the show's post producer - a very, very experienced, clear thinking, and level headed guy - stepped in. He looked at the overall problem, talked to the cameraman, talked to the DIT, talked to the dailies crew, talked to the editors, talked to the other producers, and talked to the colorist and others involved in final finishing (including me). His conclusion was that the goal of moving color information from the set through to final color could only be fulfilled if it were kept simple, unambiguous, and as automated as possible. So he eliminated the things that couldn't be carried through in an automated way - namely LUTs - and expanded the role of those that could - namely CDL's, because they can be put in Avid bins and recovered in the EDL, all without any real work on the part of editorial. He also wisely realized that limiting the on set color information to CDLs only meant that those color settings wouldn't really be intended for final color, or even as a base setting for final color. It would, however, serve to make the dailies look for the most part like the cameraman intended, and because those numbers would be included in the EDL, those settings could be there when the final colorist rolled into the scene. That would give him a very good idea of what they were going for, and then he could delete them and apply a better, more "final" version with the same visual intent, without having to refer to a separate element. The moral of this story, and the real point of my original post, is that those who are involved in the minutiae, on one end or the other, are not the ones to design overall workflow approaches. Those who are in the best position to do that are those without a personal stake in the matter, and those who can fairly look at all sides and come to a conclusion based on the desired result. Sometimes that's the non-technical people. Sometimes it isn't. But just as I wouldn't consider it a good idea for editors to come up with camera department procedures, I don't consider it a good idea for someone whose primary responsibility is the integrity of the data that is handed over for dailies and post work to presume to decide how that post work is done. That is the job of either the post supervisor, associate producer, post producer, or studio post department.

And as a side note, when the CDL-only approach was suggested, I thought it was, quite frankly, a bad idea. Applying color without de-logging or a color matrix was something I didn't think would work, even as a rough visual guide. I was wrong. He was right. It worked very well, and here I am two years later telling the story...

 

[M Most]

I disagree though that post and production are going to go their separate ways again. .... In my opinion post and production are on a collision course.

Gavin, I usually agree with you on a lot of things, but I really disagree on this. The creative process that has developed over many years is not about speed or lack of it. That is simply something that needs to be managed. It is, however, about getting a story told in the best possible way. The nature of production is that a lot of things happen during a production day that everyone who is there remembers, to the point that it often influences decisions as to what shots to use, what lines to keep. which performances are best, and lots of other things. Sometimes it's just that it was a "good" day and the director remembers that. Sometimes it was a bad day, and he remembers that too, even though he would rather forget. Sometimes a line is just hilarious on the day, even if it won't be hilarious to anyone who wasn't there. The beautiful thing about the current system is that the editor doesn't carry any of that baggage. He doesn't know or care how hard it was to get any particular shot, he only cares whether it works or not in the context of the storytelling. He doesn't really care if the actor was difficult or cooperative, or whether the note the actor was given got the intended result, he only cares whether the performance rings true and if it doesn't, how to make it work anyway. He doesn't care if it was raining or sunny, he doesn't care if it was cold or hot. He doesn't care if the location sucked or was great. All he cares about is what's on the screen. And that impartiality is virtually impossible when you're in the middle of the battle. The notion that decisions made on set, in the moment, are the right ones for the final product is, to me, very, very myopic. Speed and cost are important in the scheme of things, but doing things "because you can", without thinking about whether they are actually bringing value to the final product, is, to me, a bit misguided. You can't think your way through a car wreck when it's happening, you just have to rely on your best instincts to let you survive. Afterwards, you can examine it and figure out what you could have done better. The filmmaking process allows for that re-examination to be a part of the process. That's a very, very valuable thing.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Dits will go by the wayside as we all get used to the new model. Somebody needs to be in charge of the footage just like they did when it was on 400' rolls. But that guy doesn't get paid as much as the Operator, or get to call out the DP on exposure choices. Loader.

There were always dailies colorists and lab color-timers in the film days. As far as I'm concerned, that's all the DIT need worry about: getting a temporary look that represents something reasonable for the editor to work with during that process, and also is somewhere in the ballpark of what the DP and Director want. No harm in that.

The problem with putting the DP in charge of that is that it takes time away from the other work he or she needs to do in terms of lighting the set, worrying about the camera, keeping an eye on the clock, getting prepped for the next shot, and being concerned about the sun and location (not necessarily in that order). Putting the DP in charge of setting a look is yet another responsibility that just eats up time on the set. If having a good DIT on the set saves the DP even 45 minutes a day, they've earned their keep.

I don't dispute that there are smaller jobs that don't require a DIT. But if you're burning up $100,000+ a day on location, then I'd say having somebody experienced, cooperative, and competent to set looks, backup footage, check the sound, and control data management is all a good thing. I see no down side to that under those conditions.

He also wisely realized that limiting the on set color information to CDLs only meant that those color settings wouldn't really be intended for final color, or even as a base setting for final color. It would, however, serve to make the dailies look for the most part like the cameraman intended, and because those numbers would be included in the EDL, those settings could be there when the final colorist rolled into the scene. That would give him a very good idea of what they were going for, and then he could delete them and apply a better, more "final" version with the same visual intent, without having to refer to a separate element.

Mike, wouldn't it be just as useful to just cut together a temp version using the editor's dailies, then conform the original files and have the colorist make an overall setting that sorta/kinda matches the on-set version? I've done this just by dragging along two timelines -- one with the conformed original, one with the temp color version, and A/B'd them. Too often, I've found that the on-set color corrections simply don't translate into the DI room, especially when the location monitors are questionable in terms of calibration.

My other issue that I've often run into is showing DPs and directors what they approved on set (for features), then months later, having them say, "yeah, we thought that was good then. Let's throw it out and start over and go in a different direction." This happens a lot more than you might think.

 

[M Most]

I don't dispute that there are smaller jobs that don't require a DP. But if you're burning up $100,000+ a day on location, then I'd say having somebody experienced, cooperative, and competent to set looks, backup footage, check the sound, and control data management is all a good thing. I see no down side to that under those conditions.

I would dispute the need to always "set looks" in the first place. With an electronic camera - especially one that records using either a log curve or a RAW recording - exposure, lighting, shutter, and other tools of cinematography, combined with sensible camera setup parameters, are often enough to get you an image with no additional manipulation that's very representative of what's being shot. I've worked on at least 5 or 6 shows in which this was the case 90% of the time - apply a "standard" LUT and you've got the dailies, looking like they did on the monitor the DP had on set. For the most part, narrative drama doesn't really require "look creation", at least at dailies time, if there is a competent cinematographer shooting it and looking at a reasonably proper monitor. Not to mention that using that approach usually leads to a better final image, whether a "look" is created for it or not. I understand why it's done, and I understand that many want to do it. I just think it's often unnecessary.

Mike, wouldn't it be just as useful to just cut together a temp version using the editor's dailies, then conform the original files and have the colorist make an overall setting that sorta/kinda matches the on-set version? I've done this just by dragging along two timelines -- one with the conformed original, one with the temp color version, and A/B'd them. Too often, I've found that the on-set color corrections simply don't translate into the DI room, especially when the location monitors are questionable in terms of calibration.

What I was referring to was specifically for a television series, not a DI. When you deal with a DI, you're usually in a different colorspace, under different monitoring conditions, and with a different gamma than the dailies were made for. A/B'ing that with a live image is not going to help you. I have done what you're suggesting many times, but the advantage of doing it with the CDL's - at least from the post producer's perspective - is that the colorist is forced to look at the dailies version prior to doing the grading. That at least influences where the scene goes even if it doesn't dictate it, and in the case that I detailed, that was the post producer's intent. Dragging the offline can be just as effective, but in most cases, the colorist has to actively select which one to look at and often just bypasses the dailies version. Going between them is simpler on some systems than others (on Baselight it's easy, but on Resolve, until the most recent version, you could only toggle between loaded timelines quickly if you had the DaVinci panels - it's easier since version 9...), but you often have the problem that the offline is often an export from Avid with the wrong color setting (601 instead of RGB if it's Quicktime, yielding incorrect scaling in Resolve - which doesn't allow you to correct the offline image....), so it becomes useless as a reference in the color system. This is also the case if you happen to use things like display or output LUTs rather than attach them to nodes. In either case, it often requires work and workflow understanding that you and I both know, but a lot of other colorists really don't.....

 

[Nick Gardner]

I would dispute the need to always "set looks" in the first place. With an electronic camera - especially one that records using either a log curve or a RAW recording - exposure, lighting, shutter, and other tools of cinematography, combined with sensible camera setup parameters, are often enough to get you an image with no additional manipulation that's very representative of what's being shot. I've worked on at least 5 or 6 shows in which this was the case 90% of the time - apply a "standard" LUT and you've got the dailies, looking like they did on the monitor the DP had on set. For the most part, narrative drama doesn't really require "look creation", at least at dailies time, if there is a competent cinematographer shooting it and looking at a reasonably proper monitor. Not to mention that using that approach usually leads to a better final image, whether a "look" is created for it or not. I understand why it's done, and I understand that many want to do it. I just think it's often unnecessary.

I couldn't agree more.

Nick

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Different people like working different ways. That said, as Mike suggests, now that digital cameras like Epic/Alexa/F55 have decent latitude natively, decent bit depth and RAW or log data profiles supported - any competent DP should not require a DIT to finesse the signal on set.

As Nick G suggested, I have started not using a DIT when I DP lower budget gigs (rather have a good gaffer with a better package) and just have enough mags to shoot the whole day without downloading. Yes, you do risk not catching a problem until the end of the day but I do usually spot check the files in RCXP occasionally as well as in camera playback so I'm not exactly flying blind.

FWIW if I was doing risk management analysis for digital shows for a bonding company, I would offer production a lower bonding rate if they simply rented enough mags that nothing got recycled to set for at least 3 days after being shot. I'd still want a data manager to make at least 2 back up copies in the field in case the mags got lost, stolen or damaged but holding onto the camera original media is the gold standard in my book.

Cheers - #19

 

[M Most]

FWIW if I was doing risk management analysis for digital shows for a bonding company, I would offer production a lower bonding rate if they simply rented enough mags that nothing got recycled to set for at least 3 days after being shot. I'd still want a data manager to make at least 2 back up copies in the field in case the mags got lost, stolen or damaged but holding onto the camera original media is the gold standard in my book.

Cheers - #19

Good luck with that. And I mean that in an optimistic way.

 

[Christopher Mills]

real reason for setting looks on set is...

real reason for setting looks on set is...

DP not being in post chain. Which was always a problem in low budget shoots in film.
Now, if the cinematographer is no longer invited to determine the color and contrast and composition of shots on your typical project, that's a shame.
But if they can work with a DIT to set a look on set, then they may feel a little better about the likelihood of their artistic endeavors being seen in the final exhibition of the project.

If, however, we are not making that part of the DoP job anymore, but have shifted those responsibilities to Post from Production, then we should come clean about it.

I am disappointed if that's the case.. and will try to make myself the producer in charge whenever possible to maintain the look planned in the field.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

DP not being in post chain. Which was always a problem in low budget shoots in film.
Now, if the cinematographer is no longer invited to determine the color and contrast and composition of shots on your typical project, that's a shame.
But if they can work with a DIT to set a look on set, then they may feel a little better about the likelihood of their artistic endeavors being seen in the final exhibition of the project.

If, however, we are not making that part of the DoP job anymore, but have shifted those responsibilities to Post from Production, then we should come clean about it.

I am disappointed if that's the case.. and will try to make myself the producer in charge whenever possible to maintain the look planned in the field.

Now see, this is a thought I've heard a lot on these forums, and I get where it comes from, but I don't get why I never hear anyone argue against it. Scratch that. I think I never hear anyone argue against it on these forums because the majority of the people here work in Production, and so they view this matter through the lens of Production.

A Director of Photography is hired, in very succinct and simple terms, to make sure that everything hitting the film or digital sensor looks good.

But with modern productions being so heavy in VFX and DI, and with the possibility, even likelihood that the final product looks radically different in terms of tonality, color contrasts, and more, why is it so radical of a thought that the DP shouldn't have the final say? In other terms, in the past, there was a Director of Acting and a Director of Photography. The Director of Acting role morphed to become just the Director, and is typically the boss on set. Different Directors have different levels of knowledge and talent when it comes to composition, lens choices, framing, lighting, color, etc. Similarly, it is not the DP's role to give acting critiques, nor are they typically charged with, say, getting a convincing performance out of an unruly and uncooperative child actor. It's their job to have the camera rolling and the lighting right and the framing right when the child actor decides to finally stop crying and to giggle at the product.

In much the same way, are either the Director or the DP expected to be the most versed in the possibilities of post? Why is there no Director of Post? Why is there no person that lives in the Post chain who's role exists to offer possibilities on Look of the final product, or even has the final say? I guess that role does exist, and it's the Colorist; the oddity being that the person that spends all of their time making footage at the end of the chain look GOOD and UNIQUE could have their oppinion completely uppended and superseded by the person that specializes in acquiring good images at the very beginning of the chain.

It is not the DP's job to understand all of the possibilities of how their footage could look, yet it feels like heresy to suggest that they don't automatically get final say. It feels a little outdated. I get it, I see where it comes from, I see why that stance is so entrenched. It just feels like yet another piece of this whole puzzle that is there Because It's Always Been Like That, and not Because That's How It Should Be.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I'm in no way in the loop, but no Colorist I have ever heard speak, or have spoken to even admits to looking at the on set color. To some degree I expect that there is a bit of dick waving involved in these statements, but I am prepared to believe that the DIT's settings are no more than a casual reference for any of them.

DP not being in post chain. Which was always a problem in low budget shoots in film.
Now, if the cinematographer is no longer invited to determine the color and contrast and composition of shots on your typical project, that's a shame.
But if they can work with a DIT to set a look on set, then they may feel a little better about the likelihood of their artistic endeavors being seen in the final exhibition of the project.

If, however, we are not making that part of the DoP job anymore, but have shifted those responsibilities to Post from Production, then we should come clean about it.

I am disappointed if that's the case.. and will try to make myself the producer in charge whenever possible to maintain the look planned in the field.

 

[Nick Gardner]

There isn't some mysterious cabal that comes in and changes everything radically when no one is looking. I have never ever in my career had something I did radically changed in post. The production team gets together, talks about how it's going to look, and then you all work at making it that. If the DPs "vision" is radically different than the producers or the client, then that's his problem and he should get on board with what the people who are paying him want. The only times I have seen footage go off in a weird direction in post is when the footage looked like shit and post was trying to salvage it.

Nick