Ask Mike Most Anything

[shashbugu]

Not trying to single you out, just felt like you were misinterpreting Mike's tone. I dont know your age or anything about you, but im young and after covering my basic needs I spend all the money I make shooting funding passion projects, equipment for my own productions etc. I care more about making content that I feel can affect people than making a decent living. Some may say that makes me naive, maybe theyre right. I hear you loud and clear. But understanding where the tools we use today come from, the limitations faced in the past etc. offer us a perspective that I think is necessary to appreciate just how lucky we are to have access to the tools and means of distribution readily available.

Thank you. Once again I apologize to Mike Most and Marc.

 

[Jaakko Rinne]

I just wanted to thank Mike for his posts and his time. I try to learn something new every day and I appreciate the perspective and thoughts of someone with lots more experience than I have.

I was also going to say that I'm a young filmmaker and don't see any of the condescension shashbugu is talking about, but who am I kidding: I'm thirty and I've been in the business 14 years now. To the young guns I'm an old fart. Still don't see any condescension, though.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Tip of the hat

Tip of the hat

I would point out that the trajectory of some threads does reveal a "glossing over" of salient factors impacting real world viability. Mike jumps in with a reality check, which many threads could use, and that's a good thing! I've had the pleasure of some in depth conversations with Mike and I can assure everyone he is broad minded and curious. I think the reason he comes across as a one note guy, is because that's the note many threads lack when he finds them.

FWIW I have great respect for RedUser oracles Mike Most and David Mullen not so much because of their stature in the industry, but because their approach is pragmatic and holistic. To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes: knowing the right answers is far less important than asking the right questions. These guys get that, either by education or intuition, and, believe it or not, they probably learn almost as much from us as we do from them. That brings me to another principle I firmly believe: if you really want to understand something deeply, put yourself through the process of teaching someone else, as that role forces you to create a "whole fabric" of definitions and relationships.

Cheers - #19

 

[David Mullen ASC]

This thread being an open topic and highly valuable would be hard to close if abused, so please let's just move on now.

I will say that technology history fascinates me in the way it is interweaved with stylistic trends -- Mike and I have talked a couple of times about how there should be a TV cinematographers version of "Visions of Light", perhaps centered on the "modern era" when TV cinematography stopped being the poor cousin to feature film cinematography. Obviously the high-end commercials of the late 1960's through 70's that influenced features is a whole other topic, but I'm referring to dramatic narrative TV work and when it started to rival what you saw in features, probably somewhere in the late-1980's. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences really should fund such a documentary...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

In cases like these I propose just clearing out the negativity related posts, once the issue is resolved. Or pabloed. Or baselighted.

That way lessons get learned, thread cleaned and it moves on smarter.
Small fall, getting up, wiping, moving on. All good.

 

[mikeburton]

Anyhow moving on I'd like to discuss P3 versus 709 and DCP's. Mike, I recently graded a film that did a 100 theatre release into Regal Cinemas nationwide. The grade was actually done almost a year before it received its limited cinema release but nevertheless we graded in Rec709 Full 2.2 gamma viewing on our JVC RS60u Projector (my reference was a Cine-Tal). It was a RED ONE MX project that had approximately 150 VFX shots and finished in 2K scope for our final DPX render. Took the XYZ rendered DPX's and put them through EasyDCP and created the unencrypted DCP package. Sent the unencrypted DCP to Deluxe who in turn created the encryption and mailed drives off to the 100 Regal theatres. Everything looked great in the theatre although i did notice some colors especially some Blues that had a gradation of color that i hadn't seen in our projection, probably due to the limitation of the REC709 color space. So thats the setup.
The question i have for you, is, moving forward, I'd like to work in P3 for certain films I finish. I have the opportunity to purchase a used Barco DP1200 2K Projector and want to know how my pipeline is going to change moving forward especially at the phase of creating the DCP versus finishing in Rec709 Full? Is there anything i should consider besides the financial obligation to owning a much more capable projector and finishing in P3 versus 709?

 

[M Most]

The question i have for you, is, moving forward, I'd like to work in P3 for certain films I finish. I have the opportunity to purchase a used Barco DP1200 2K Projector and want to know how my pipeline is going to change moving forward especially at the phase of creating the DCP versus finishing in Rec709 Full? Is there anything i should consider besides the financial obligation to owning a much more capable projector and finishing in P3 versus 709?

As far as the pipeline goes, nothing is going to change. The only things that will change are the viewing setup, the parameters that you use for the DCP creation, and how you create video deliverables. The projector will be set up to display P3 (I won't go into the details of that because I think you understand that part), which will set up P3 primaries and 2.6 gamma on the display end. Your grading software is always working in RGB, that doesn't change. What does change is the color decisions you make because those are based on what you see. When you're done, you'll create the DCP (and, I assume, DCDM) by letting the DCP software know that your source is now P3. If you have video deliverables to create, you'll need to use a P3 to Rec709 transform and probably do a trim pass. As long as your monitoring is accurate and you set up the transform parameters correctly, nothing else really changes.

 

[Marc Wielage]

You know Mike, Marc et al always rant about the early days of color grading, telecine etc, You guys should really write a history book or something as most of us on here (I should say then majority of us on here) don't care too much about that über expensive period in film history when we couldn't get our dreams out simply because of "money".

The money doesn't matter -- it's all about taste, experience, and expertise. You can't buy those.

More than one person has said it takes 10,000 hours of experience to become an expert at something. I think it takes longer than that to become a great colorist, a great sound mixer, or a great editor. Forgive me if I get temperamental when neophytes buy software (or even worse, get free software) and then assume they know more than a color mastering engineer who's been doing it for decades.

I always learn from the DPs I work with, and I like to think they learn from me as well. Once I know their inclinations, their preferences, and their style, I can move on from there and show them alternatives that they might have never even thought to ask about. This is the kind of thing you can't get working in a vacuum.

There are a lot of things I like about the business today, but some things never change. One of my most frequent rants is: "it's not about the camera; it's about the guy doing the lighting, making the exposure, and choosing the lenses." The camera doesn't necessarily make it any easier or harder. It's just a means to an end.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I will say that technology history fascinates me in the way it is interweaved with stylistic trends -- Mike and I have talked a couple of times about how there should be a TV cinematographers version of "Visions of Light", perhaps centered on the "modern era" when TV cinematography stopped being the poor cousin to feature film cinematography. Obviously the high-end commercials of the late 1960's through 70's that influenced features is a whole other topic, but I'm referring to dramatic narrative TV work and when it started to rival what you saw in features, probably somewhere in the late-1980's. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences really should fund such a documentary...

Not a bad idea, David. Two relatively-recent shows I would nominate would be China Beach (which I worked on in the late 1980s) and also X-Files, color-corrected by Phil Azenzer. Those two were the darkest shows on television in those times, really pushing the limits on exposure. I was actually in the control room working on a new episode when the phone rang and it was an angry ABC exec, screaming that "the show won't broadcast" because he thought it was too dark. Exec producer John Sacret Young took the phone from me and yelled back that he could see the show just fine in the control room. The show aired, the ratings were fine, ABC finally quieted down... and as I recall, that episode got nominated for an Emmy and an ASC award.

It is amazing how sophisticated TV cinematography has become in the last 15 years or so, particularly with the transition from film to digital. I see a lot more extreme, edgy looks for episodic TV, particularly for violent dramas and intense action shows. CSI: Miami was a show that pioneered some fairly intense color schemes that I'd never seen used on TV before. But there's also shows that looked just beautiful, going for a natural look with stylized moments; I'd put Smash, Homeland, and Breaking Bad on that list.

It's doubly amazing when you understand the short schedules and pressures those crews work under. Compare the look of TV shows in 2013 to what we had 15 years ago... it's incredible how far we've come. I don't dispute that Red and Alexa were part of that, but I think the skill of the cinematographer working in partnership with colorists were the biggest influences.

 

[M Most]

It is amazing how sophisticated TV cinematography has become in the last 15 years or so, particularly with the transition from film to digital. I see a lot more extreme, edgy looks for episodic TV, particularly for violent dramas and intense action shows. CSI: Miami was a show that pioneered some fairly intense color schemes that I'd never seen used on TV before. But there's also shows that looked just beautiful, going for a natural look with stylized moments; I'd put Smash, Homeland, and Breaking Bad on that list.

It's doubly amazing when you understand the short schedules and pressures those crews work under. Compare the look of TV shows in 2013 to what we had 15 years ago... it's incredible how far we've come. I don't dispute that Red and Alexa were part of that, but I think the skill of the cinematographer working in partnership with colorists were the biggest influences.

Well, 15 years ago was 1998. Doesn't sound so long ago when you say it that way, does it? And in that era - and, in fact, going back 20 years or more - we had shows like NYPD Blue, Murder One, Miami Vice, Crime Story, Party of Five, and, yes, the aforementioned X Files that all contributed to changing the concepts of television cinematography and whatever limitations are perceived within it. I would agree fairly strongly that episodic television - particularly drama - has never looked better. And a lot of that has to do with the ability to use less light, more camera mobility, and other things that come with modern digital cameras, but that were also available with the last generation of film cameras. Dark != good unless it serves the story being told. Creative use of lighting in television has been going on for quite some time, which is what the talks that Dave and I have had have revolved around. When we were discussing "breakthrough" shows, we came up with examples from literally every era the medium has existed, and they are all worthy choices. Shows like Battlestar Galactica (interestingly, both versions...), Star Trek TNG, Thirtysomething, Hill Street Blues, and, yes, shows like Batman and I Love Lucy all came up for consideration. If we ever get around to doing a documentary, I think you'd find that creativity has never been a slave to technology.

And BTW, although I know and like Phil very much, I would give the vast bulk of the credit for the look of the X-Files to people like John Bartley and, later on, Bill Roe. And I think Phil (who did not grade the later seasons, only the first 4 Vancouver seasons) would, too.

 

[Mike Nagel]

When we were discussing "breakthrough" shows, we came up with examples from literally every era the medium has existed, and they are all worthy choices. Shows like Battlestar Galactica (interestingly, both versions...), Star Trek TNG, Thirtysomething, Hill Street Blues, and, yes, shows like Batman and I Love Lucy all came up for consideration.

TWIN PEAKS

 

[shashbugu]

The money doesn't matter -- it's all about taste, experience, and expertise. You can't buy those.

More than one person has said it takes 10,000 hours of experience to become an expert at something. I think it takes longer than that to become a great colorist, a great sound mixer, or a great editor. Forgive me if I get temperamental when neophytes buy software (or even worse, get free software) and then assume they know more than a color mastering engineer who's been doing it for decades.

I always learn from the DPs I work with, and I like to think they learn from me as well. Once I know their inclinations, their preferences, and their style, I can move on from there and show them alternatives that they might have never even thought to ask about. This is the kind of thing you can't get working in a vacuum.

There are a lot of things I like about the business today, but some things never change. One of my most frequent rants is: "it's not about the camera; it's about the guy doing the lighting, making the exposure, and choosing the lenses." The camera doesn't necessarily make it any easier or harder. It's just a means to an end.

It does not take you 10,000 hours to become an expert at being a colorist, sound mixer, or an editor. That's just what you want to believe. The only reason it took you 10,000 hours is because you were among the few that had access to the equipment once upon a time, and the Internet didn't probably exist back then. So therefore you were in the studio for quadrillions of hours. I'm not in anyway disrespecting you for your wealth of experience and expertise in your craft. All I'm saying is the ,specialization, difficulties and limitations of the equipment of yester year gave birth to certain areas of technical professionals the extent of whose creativity could only be pushed as far as the equipment would allow. The how, whys and aesthetics of cinema are what they are and they will be the fundamental approach for a long time to come. If you want to work in an aprentischip at a TV station it might take you a few years before the old dogs will let you bite. You are only ready or experienced when they feel you are.

 

[Frank Cueto]

It does not take you 10,000 hours to become an expert at being a colorist, sound mixer, or an editor. That's just what you want to believe. The only reason it took you 10,000 hours is because you were among the few that had access to the equipment once upon a time, and the Internet didn't probably exist back then. So therefore you were in the studio for quadrillions of hours. I'm not in anyway disrespecting you for your wealth of experience and expertise in your craft. All I'm saying is the ,specialization, difficulties and limitations of the equipment of yester year gave birth to certain areas of technical professionals the extent of whose creativity could only be pushed as far as the equipment would allow. The how, whys and aesthetics of cinema are what they are and they will be the fundamental approach for a long time to come. If you want to work in an aprentischip at a TV station it might take you a few years before the old dogs will let you bite. You are only ready or experienced when they feel you are.

Shashbugu, once you put in your 10,000 hours and look back to today, you might think differently...

 

[M Most]

It does not take you 10,000 hours to become an expert at being a colorist, sound mixer, or an editor. That's just what you want to believe. The only reason it took you 10,000 hours is because you were among the few that had access to the equipment once upon a time, and the Internet didn't probably exist back then. So therefore you were in the studio for quadrillions of hours. I'm not in anyway disrespecting you for your wealth of experience and expertise in your craft. All I'm saying is the ,specialization, difficulties and limitations of the equipment of yester year gave birth to certain areas of technical professionals the extent of whose creativity could only be pushed as far as the equipment would allow. The how, whys and aesthetics of cinema are what they are and they will be the fundamental approach for a long time to come. If you want to work in an aprentischip at a TV station it might take you a few years before the old dogs will let you bite. You are only ready or experienced when they feel you are.

The value of experience, whether it be in creative endeavors, artistic understanding, depth of knowledge, or simply life in general, cannot be communicated or taught to those who lack that experience. It is virtually impossible for anyone who has the perspective that only comes with time to impart the importance of that to those who don't. The curse of youth is that you don't know what you don't know, and you don't understand things that can't be taught, only experienced. At some point in the future you will look back at what you just wrote and realize the truth of what I just wrote. You are just not at that point yet. But until you are, you would do well not to confuse confidence with youthful arrogance, especially when you're conversing with those who have the level of experience I'm referring to. You could learn a lot here if you'd stop trying to convince everyone that you're at their level and instead, listen to what they're saying and try to gain insight from it.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Wow, I can't believe someone is actually questioning the value of practical experience in becoming good at any endeavor that involves a degree of craftsmanship. Would you prefer to get operated on by a surgeon with only a few hours of experience, or go up in a plane with a pilot with only a few hours of experience?

Both Akira Kurosawa and David Lean both commented in their later years that they were only now getting the hang of moviemaking!

Modern technology makes it easier to jump in and get started in the basics of a craft, but perfecting that craft still takes years no matter how quickly you picked up the basics. It's one reason why many of the best camera operators and focus pullers are middle-aged or older, the skills go so far beyond the basic needs of the job.

 

[shashbugu]

The value of experience, whether it be in creative endeavors, artistic understanding, depth of knowledge, or simply life in general, cannot be communicated or taught to those who lack that experience. It is virtually impossible for anyone who has the perspective that only comes with time to impart the importance of that to those who don't. The curse of youth is that you don't know what you don't know, and you don't understand things that can't be taught, only experienced. At some point in the future you will look back at what you just wrote and realize the truth of what I just wrote. You are just not at that point yet. But until you are, you would do well not to confuse confidence with youthful arrogance, especially when you're conversing with those who have the level of experience I'm referring to. You could learn a lot here if you'd stop trying to convince everyone that you're at their level and instead, listen to what they're saying and try to gain insight from it.

I don't doubt the value of experience one little bit. And no where have I said experience is not important. Also at no point have I undervalued your experience ( I even praised you tonque in cheek, by suggesting you write a book about the good old days). It's Definetley not youthful arrogance either, all I'm saying is we're talking about an industry where technology continuously evolves, where the paradym shifts in technology can be so drastic certain types of experiences are negated.
For example how important is an experienced telecine operator today? The examples are numerous. I wholeheartedly agree that if you go buy a $45000 Resolve system today that does not qualify you to be, or call yourself a professional colorist working on other people's projects( sadly this what happens today when people buy the next big digital camera and call themselves cinematographers), but you can sure the heck learn enough tutorials to grade your own material. You couldn't do that 20 years ago... Please I'm not calling you guys old men, or myself young.

 

[shashbugu]

Wow, I can't believe someone is actually questioning the value of practical experience in becoming good at any endeavor that involves a degree of craftsmanship. Would you prefer to get operated on by a surgeon with only a few hours of experience, or go up in a plane with a pilot with only a few hours of experience?

Both Akira Kurosawa and David Lean both commented in their later years that they were only now getting the hang of moviemaking!

Modern technology makes it easier to jump in and get started in the basics of a craft, but perfecting that craft still takes years no matter how quickly you picked up the basics. It's one reason why many of the best camera operators and focus pullers are middle-aged or older, the skills go so far beyond the basic needs of the job.

Read what I write before you attack me. Don't just read Mike Most's reply. I said it does not take you 10,000 hours to become a good editor, colorist or sound mixer. After 1000 hours if you're somewhat attentive, passionate, intelligent and creative you should be able to get the job done.

We're talking about filmmaking here not surgery or rocket science.

 

[shashbugu]

Due to the excessive amount of colorgrading in broadcast TV and cable shows, obvious color grading in movies now seem very distracting, cheap,

 

[Oliver Peters]

After 1000 hours if you're somewhat attentive, passionate, intelligent and creative you should be able to get the job done.

That's 1/2 a year or less if you are doing it full time. Get the job done? Yes. Good? Probably not.

Due to the excessive amount of colorgrading in broadcast TV and cable shows, obvious color grading in movies now seem very distracting, cheap,

Hmmm... That's a rather subjective judgement call. Look at what was done on "Schindler's List", "Minority Report", "Barry Lyndon" or "Saving Private Ryan". Hardly influenced by broadcast TV or cable show grading.

- Oliver

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Isn't 10,000 hours only about four years of full-time employment?

Besides, this is just a metaphor, the expression just means that it takes time to master a skill to an expert level, not that it takes literally 10,000 hours.