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 :)

Are the DIT's days numbered?

Dan Kanes said:
The Red One(and F35, and etc. etc.) are not "video" cameras or "camcorders" even with an easy workflow, you still must be a skilled technician and artist to achieve any level of quality with any of these digital cinema cameras.
Click to expand...

This is something that I think people pass over. DITs work with all cameras. I will treat any shoot I'm hired for be in using Canon's, RED One's or Sony's equally, DIT work is not something unique to the RED. They are all complicated pieces of tech that require a technician to get the best from them. Yes you can take one out solo and get something good, but if you want the best, and if you want to feel safe that that take where the talent really hit it perfectly is safe then do the right thing. We're not actors we don't charge the earth, just a reasonable amount for a very important job. If I don't do my job right an entire production can be scrapped, the stress alone should get danger pay :P
 
While the title of the thread is a bit over-dramatic, it's a valid topic of discussion. Certainly the role of a DIT keeps changing over time as the workflows and technologies change.

Here's where I'm coming from -- I did eight indie features on the F900, no DIT. Next I did two indie features on the Red with no DIT but our B-cam operator Conrad Hunziker, who created the R3D Manager software, helped coordinate our Red workflow and get the AC's up to speed, along with 2nd Unit DP Jim Mathers, who owns a Red. Conrad trained someone to handle all the data management.

Then I did a TV series on the Genesis with a DIT and have had a DIT on all my Genesis shows. I just completed a TV pilot on the Red with a local DIT. So my experience with DIT's is fairly recent.

First of all, the video engineering aspects of a DIT's work is less relevant to the way I shoot, I don't build looks during the shoot or do much other than set color temp, shutter speed, ASA, etc. in the camera. I tend to want a simple on-set workflow, as long as I know what I'm recording and will be taking into post. I don't believe in color-correcting on the set.

But here's the problem with eliminating the DIT position -- someone has to be responsible for the workflow. Now you can say that, if things are kept simple on set, that the work can be spread out between the AC's and the data manager, i.e. loader. But that does not leave someone in charge of the overall workflow. And there is the whole monitor village issue. If there is playback involved, then a playback person is usually hired as per union rules. But if there is no playback, then monitors are usually the AC's responsibility, which was fine in the days of single film cameras with one video tap monitor. But now you have at least two cameras, a DP/director's monitor set-up, and separate monitors for producers, writers, visitors, etc. plus the sound department often wants a feed. Some of those signals will be HD and others will be SD, some will be hard-wired, some wireless, etc.

All of that is a lot of extra work for AC's whenever there is a big move on a location, not with already moving cameras and carts.

So at the simplest, you need someone in charge of setting up the DP's monitors and making sure they are accurate, and then moving them over and over again on location. You need someone to feed those signals to whoever else needs them. I know, it's perhaps overkill for a well-paid DIT to basically handle monitors.

But combine that with the other work, supervising the data asset person, and coordinating all the workflow of the data on set and how it gets to the post people, and tracking any problems. Now some of that could be split up among the AC's and DP, but honestly, not having a single person in charge of all of that is asking for trouble unless the shoot is really small and simple. On my Red pilot, we averaged 3 to 4 hours of footage a day, between three Red's plus an EX3 and a Canon (not much from the Canon though.) That's a lot of complexity to throw at the AC's when they are running around for the set-ups.

So unless you are talking about a small shoot with a small amount of data being generated, it's hard to get around the fact that someone needs to be in charge of the overall on-set procedures for camera set-ups, monitor set-ups, data management, coordination with post, and tracking bugs and other problems. While the work, in theory, could just be spread among the crew, it invites all sorts of problem from lack of a single supervisor.

And this ignores issues that I don't get into generally, which is look management.

A producer can say "I don't want to pay for a DIT, I don't want any playback or playback operator"... but that doesn't get rid of the fact that there is work that needs to get done that falls outside or in-between that of the AC's and the data asset person on a bigger show. And it begs the question is to who is really in charge of the on-set workflow. On a small & simple shoot, certainly it's possible for the 1st AC, DP, and data loader to figure it all out, make it work, and this is probably the world that a lot of people are coming from here. But on a complex multi-camera, multi-format shoot generating a lot of data, maybe in multiple locations on the same day, plus toss in any look management systems, multiple monitoring villages, etc... you need an overall supervisor.
 
Karel Bata said:
Yes. But only until someone brings out a simple to operate system you just plug in.
Click to expand...


yes but haven't you noticed that the more things get simple the more complex they become...pretty soon an oil change will require specialized training.

but seriously, the liability and risk associated with losing data is so great producers will always want a solid DIT (team) in place. If anything I foresee DITs merging with assistant editors in the not too distant future, where they will be expected to continue their support into the post workflow.
 
Keep in mind also that the DIT gets the lucky job of informing those running things when something goes wrong. You may only see the DIT copying files... but do the job and you will quickly realize that it can involve producers expecting dailies, DOP's needing Camera support, Directors wanting to use you as playback several days after something was shot, and, unfortunately, the odd meltdown after its discovered that a portion of the sensor was exposed to light during a black shading calibration because someone in the chain was eager to put a lens on. When something that does go drastically wrong happens... Everyone turns to you waiting for the answer. " do we reshoot? can it be fixed? what does post do about it? Is it all lost?" and occasionally, just occasionally, you won't know the answer. It is not a fun experience. Then you get the joy of researching for the answer. knowing post tools, and special fx processes comes in handy.. knowing the line where it becomes prohibitive to repair in post...

Then of course there is working with post production who want specific file types to edit with, are wondering why the timecode is out, how do they fix it, decide that the file type they are working with is to cumbersome and want the first half of the show done with a different file type...

and of course the very definition of the job... making sure the IMAGES are being pushed to the best possible starting point. and that they are in fact in existance... as many times as feasible. Sometimes the job is easy... sometimes its hell... But i can't see a box automating all that..
 
Dan said: "What I don't like is the notion of a film-shoot becoming a "video shoot" in the notion that you can just show up, with one camera person, turn the camera on and shoot like with an HVX or something."

Wow. When exactly am I meant to have said that? And you've also decided I'm a 'segment producer' whatever that is. Let me guess that in your book it's not good.

'Video operator' is shorthand in 35mm land for Video Playback Operator. On complex shoots involving keying and mixing live on set, particularly with motion control, it warranted the term co-ordinator (and meant more pay) before DI made 'getting it right in camera' history. It used to require a lot more skill. I notice the guys who used to be big in it back then are often now 'video engineers', like Ian Kelly on Avatar.

This discussion has gotten ridiculous. Jay I never said nor meant to imply that the job wasn't skilled or important. But technology changes. I assure you, from personal experience, those skills that are important today will one day be history. You will not be a DIT up to retirement age. And in the same way, a dedicated clapper loader will one day also have to find new employment, but does that mean I'm suggesting he's not skilled and important? Of course not.

I was just wondering what the folks here saw themselves doing in a few years. Seems like that was a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
there is also the fact that DIT acts as a safety measure in itself too. When I manage a RED shoot as a DIT, it could be a wide range of duties, and the term DIT gets thrown around and is ending up with a multitude of definitions. Someone who just puts LUTS in 15 cameras for a multicam shoot is a DIT. But in terms of being on set, media managment, workflow supervisor, and image integrity, there are always things to do. I personally spot check every clip that comes after off load. I personally make sure my checksums are good and triple check all the file are there before a drive or CF card format. I'll load up some footage and check exposure, color, and so on, especially when the DP is unsure whether they are getting what they want or not, due to whatever circumstance.

And in some situations you can't afford that person to do that, or the job is so small you can risk it. But that extra level of security to me, is priceless. Just as it would be with putting a safety chain on a light, or extra supports for whatever contraption a grip just built to get the shot we need.
 
well if your asking what i hope too see myself doing in a few years... much less DIT work. I got pushed into the roll by owning a red. When you get the odd show that wishes to rent it and have an operator and DOP lined up, They need someone who knows the camera... and someone who works with it and its files everyday, tends to be a good candidate... I would much rather be shooting... unfortunately building up a decent reel and resume takes time... so in the mean time i use my skills developed long before red came out to make sure that red builds and maintains a good reputation. So no, i don't see myself being a life long DIT, though if i was looking to stay in the roll, I would say its pretty safe for several years yet and that once the time comes, if it ever does, that a DIT is no longer a necessity, the people performing the roll are so technically savvy, they will morph into another critical roll... Keep in mind these are people that if they are anything like me, enjoy being on the bleeding edge of what is possible. The knowledge they and I continually soak up in order to do better, and higher quality work, will just continue to grow. DIT as a roll may disappear at some future date that i cannot foresee, But the people that are performing the roll at the top of their game, will be around long, long after that.
 
I think the example of always needing gaffers/grips is the perfect comparison. No matter how sensitive to light sensors become, a DP will always want a good knowledgable gaffer there, and I agree that the same goes for the DIT, though the job description will always be changing.
 
As usual David chips in with The Voice of Reason. I'm inclined to agree with the other latter posts here too. I was never actually denigrating the role, but was maybe premature in predicting its demise. My apologies if I've given any undue offense. It was certainly not intended.
 
A show we completed in March had both. The DIT handled the monitors, gave advice for the DI, what could be done with VFX.

The loader handled the footage, workflow and coordination with editorial.

I think it's imperative to have a loader and a DIT every time. AC's have enough on their mind without having to deal with file management/backup/looks/troubleshooting.
 
Karel Bata said:
Jay I never said nor meant to imply that the job wasn't skilled or important. But technology changes. I assure you, from personal experience, those skills that are important today will one day be history. You will not be a DIT up to retirement age. And in the same way, a dedicated clapper loader will one day also have to find new employment, but does that mean I'm suggesting he's not skilled and important? Of course not.
Click to expand...
I wasn't disagreeing I was merely giving my opinion on it.
I definitely don't see DIT on my resume at 60, most likely holodeck maintenance technician. Or something of the like.

I see my role from an IT perspective, its my duty to be up to date and move with the times. If something can make the crews job onset easier its my job to know about it.

I choose my job title (I'm not in the US so I can generally do that) to be intentionally vague so as I can assist onset in whatever way suits that production. That can be anything from a Digi Loader to a Colorist to a Network Engineer to a Fibre Optics Tech, or I also do unit photography. (All things I can have called upon to do). I see myself personally (Not applying this to other DITs) as the onset digital skilled handyman. I have a broad spectrum of knowledge so thats what I try to impart upon the set. When the production is small I do all the jobs myself, on larger productions I hire technicians to do the physical loading and digital asset management and I take a supervisory role.

This is why I feel the DIT role will last, if one has the flexibility to do as David said, cover the loading, the monitors and the video village, streaming to art directors on set (Proxy Module yay!) there will always be a role onset for someone with these skills. Possibly not the job title but the position will last in my opinion.


Edit: I also don't think it should be the AC's job to data manage, they are trained in the camera and often won't have the depth of knowledge that comes from an IT perspective. I understand them possibly taking over the digi loader position but I wouldn't agree with them being in charge of data integrity. Unless they are versed in it as Davids AC's seem to be. I just don't think that idea would filter out to the majority of AC's I know. They are good at their craft, and I hope I'm good at mine so let us each have our own speciality.
 
Having some kind of futuristic, super-dependable automated back-up system still doesn't do what a good DIT can do, which is checking every shot that comes off the camera for a whole range of issues that wouldn't necessarily be picked up by a machine - even checksums don't catch every potential problem. For instance I've had DITs spot flickering HMIs in the footage that were missed on set; the green flash frame problem was also slipping through the net for many people unless someone was physically spotting it by reviewing each shot. A good DIT can be a real life-saver for a production.

IMO shooting without a DIT is asking for trouble - you might get lucky & get away with it a few times, or even many times if you're really lucky, but you never want to be in a situation where a catastrophe happens and you lose footage or have to reshoot...now that's painful!!
 
Karel Bata said:
Dan said: "What I don't like is the notion of a film-shoot becoming a "video shoot" in the notion that you can just show up, with one camera person, turn the camera on and shoot like with an HVX or something."

Wow. When exactly am I meant to have said that? And you've also decided I'm a 'segment producer' whatever that is. Let me guess that in your book it's not good.

'Video operator' is shorthand in 35mm land for Video Playback Operator. On complex shoots involving keying and mixing live on set, particularly with motion control, it warranted the term co-ordinator (and meant more pay) before DI made 'getting it right in camera' history. It used to require a lot more skill. I notice the guys who used to be big in it back then are often now 'video engineers', like Ian Kelly on Avatar.
Click to expand...

Thank you for informing me. This was always referred to as a Video Assist Technician in my world.

No need to be so defensive - I'm not being as hostile as you are setting me up to be here.
 
Jay Gannon said:
most likely holodeck maintenance technician.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA... perfect.

I think when it comes down to it, It really is what is being said here... especially Jay's comment about the set digital handyman. in a digital world they become infinitely more useful.
 
Obviously, I'm biased, because I make a good portion of my living as a professional DIT. But, my self-serving answer is that the DIT is becoming MORE essential as time goes on.

It's true, camera manufactures will eventually eliminate or minimize the 'dreaded' transcode workflow as time goes on, and some day compression formats will require less "hardware acceleration;" but for the foreseeable future, camera technology is becoming increasingly more complex and flexible, requiring a specialized expert a with multi-disciplinary skill set in camera / cinematography, postproduction / editing, and computers / IT, in order to keep up with the advancements and implement superior workflows.

Everything always becomes easier, faster, cheaper... But that doesn't mean it becomes simpler, or allows for fewer possibilities. The DIT must understand every chain of the pipeline from acquisition through final deliverable. And, he / she must also be a talented artist, capable of using the right tools to enable both the DP's and the Editor's combined aesthetic vision and logistical requirements.

I don't see this going away any time soon, and I don't perceive new camera formats and superior technologies to be a threat whatsoever to experts with invaluable artistic and technical talents.

- Jordan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top