Dp'ing in a world of RAW

[Marcus Friedlander]

With the advent of RAW capture systems, I'm curious to know, in your opinion, what is the difference between a DP and someone who hands off functional RAW files to Editorial?

I'm hoping this will jumpstart a discussion about how this position will evolve or adapt in response to this new(ish) form of image capture.



Thanks in advanced for the responses!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see much difference between handing a camera negative to post compared to a raw file. Why would my duties as a cinematographer be any different?

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

Thank you very much for your response David.

I've heard a lot of anti-RAW arguments that point out that the ultra-flexabilty of the format defeats the purpose of hiring a great cinematographer; but I don't really understand the logic behind that argument? It seems like there is so much more to being a cinematographer then just proper exposure right? If it was just about proper exposure then wouldn't DP's would have been replaced by digital camera auto exposures a long time ago?

I fell in love with the idea of shooting RAW because flexibility is almost always a good thing in the film production world, but I've run into a lot of people on set who think it takes away from what a great dp can bring to a project. I've only shot 16mm a couple times, early in film school, and I've never shot 35mm so I don't really have a frame of reference about the similarities between the two capture formats (especially in relation to post production). Would you care to elaborate on the less obvious things that you've noticed that I may not be aware of?



Again thank you very much for your time and information!

 

[Scott Crawley]

Thank you very much for your response David.

It seems like there is so much more to being a cinematographer then just proper exposure right? If it was just about proper exposure then wouldn't DP's would have been replaced by digital camera auto exposures a long time ago?

Any technician can achieve exposure. Cinematography is so much more than that; describing space and form, conveying mood, creating depth... all with light, exposure, lensing and camera movement to communicate a story. Those things are Cinematography. That is certainly a short list. What would you add?

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention that none of those things I listed are dependent upon RAW. ;-)

 

[Ted Parkes]

Yikes … Thats just crazy talk. There is a lot of horrible looking footage out there, shot by less then qualified people. The influx of reality TV, photography on iPhones, home videos on YouTube.. I think we are at a low point in true production value. The majority of people are use to seeing all these horrible images and don't appreciate a well crafted frame. David is absolutely right.. its a different work flow but the principles of shooting a good digital image is the same as it has always been with film.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

It could be argued that a RAW workflow opens the door to radical changes to the cinematographers intent, but going through that door is a choice. Moreover, when crafting a particular look there are a number of different techniques that can be employed - some of which are based on particular choices at capture designed to exploit specific RAW development strategies.

The chatter about RAW vs baked RGB taking away some of the cinematographers artistry is only true is those that hired the DP confine their DP's input on the image to the capture stage. That is a political and business conversation, not a technology or imaging strategy issue.

As the estimable Mike Most has pointed out more than once, an experienced DP who has a proper working relationships with their DIT and/or colorist is crafting an image that will come out of final color looking the way they intend - whether it exists during a portion of its trip through the imaging pipeline as RAW or RGB. That said, due to the vagaries of real world production, and the plethora of formats some projects expect to match in DI, the greater malleability typical of a RAW data set can keep a DP out of the soup (pun intended).

Cheers - #19

 

[Mike P.]

I think cinematography (and the DoPs/Cinematographer's job) has largely remained exactly the same... It's maybe gotten a little harder, as each camera/sensor responds a little different, and to get the best results you need to know the ins and outs of each (kind of like filmstocks, but to the nth degree, as everyone uses proprietary tech and sensors).

...What definitely has changed is being able to take your REDmag over to the nearest laptop, load up the file you just shot a second ago in RCXp or Resolve, and being able to instantly see what you just shot and take it 95% of the way to being a finished product in like 2mins. So awesome. None of it is the cinematographer's job, but it directly impacts (and potentially influences) their decisions for the better. You're able to adapt and react, rather than having to wait to see how the dailies turned out.

So while the job hasn't gotten easier, the chances for making mistakes has been substantially diminished, which relieves stress and allows you to push things further... Basically experiment without the consequences/cost, which is amazing.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I've heard a lot of anti-RAW arguments that point out that the ultra-flexabilty of the format defeats the purpose of hiring a great cinematographer;!

That's a truly absurd idea. Yes, raw (it's not an acronym, by the way, there's no need to capitalize it, I'm not sure how that started) allows a lot of aspects of look, lighting, and framing to be created in post instead of having to get it all "in camera." But that doesn't mean it's any less important to have a talented person to decide those things, it just means that person enacts those decisions through a different workflow than in the past.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Digital color-correction, which has been in use for more than a decade, has allowed an extraordinary amount of changes to be made to the image, whether shot on film or a digital camera, and whether that image arrives in raw, log, or Rec.709 form. And even if it arrives with the color and contrast "baked in", that's not going to stop a studio or producer from altering the image away from the intent of the filmmakers if they are intent on doing so, the results just may suffer more on a technical level, that's all, but then they'll just blame the cinematographer anyway. There is no real protection other than professional respect that hopefully will exist between the parties, but that generally happens on a case by case basis depending on the personalities involved.

But it's a real problem, the potential to make changes to the image (not just to color and contrast, but compositionally) that don't reflect the intent of the cinematographer and/or director. It's not just particularly due to the use of digital cameras, it's more related to the advances in digital post.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

...What definitely has changed is being able to take your REDmag over to the nearest laptop, load up the file you just shot a second ago in RCXp or Resolve, and being able to instantly see what you just shot and take it 95% of the way to being a finished product in like 2mins. So awesome. None of it is the cinematographer's job, but it directly impacts (and potentially influences) their decisions for the better. You're able to adapt and react, rather than having to wait to see how the dailies turned out.

Every route has advantages and drawbacks.
This route gives faster insight to evolve.

Burning money by the second, waiting for the lab to find out about messed up footage gives more motivation to evolve. Pointing a 14 stop 16 bit raw camera with reusable recording media at a scene gives less.

Evolution is fueled by challenge.

Second factor is a tendency to rely on amount of takes instead of proper preparation, forcing more the actors, set and post crew.
Third factor is perception of value.

 

[Nick Morrison]

For whatever it's worth, in feature films...it does appear like many established DP's are involved to some degree with the final color correction. Almost every article in American Cinematographer closes with a preview of how the DP and Colorist worked alongside the director to finesse (and/or push) the look of the film.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Every route has advantages and drawbacks.
This route gives faster insight to evolve.

Burning money by the second, waiting for the lab to find out about messed up footage gives more motivation to evolve. Pointing a 14 stop 16 bit raw camera with reusable recording media at a scene gives less.

Evolution is fueled by challenge.

Second factor is director's abuse of takes, forcing more the actors, set and post crew.
Third factor is perception of value.

This sounds quite true to me. OTOH many factors can come into play that effect evolution. As a student of cinematography I appreciate the abilities that Mike describes as an explosive accelerant to the learning process. I also believe that anything that facilitates learning opens doors for people who might otherwise not have the opportunity. That brings new depth and diversity to our ranks. That is likely to influence the evolution of the art in profound ways. Don't you think?

 

[Brian Merlen]

film was always raw, always needed to be developed... raw digital is the exact same thing, but cheaper cuz of reusable media, you can see your stuff on set, and you can pay much less as a result on the media costs and processing... i don't think a raw digital takes away anything from a DP that a raw film camera didn't...unless he moonlights at technicolor he was not developing it...and like stated above a DP always has control over his DIT and colorists... at least in the ideal world...

 

[Nick Morrison]

This sounds quite true to me. OTOH many factors can come into play that effect evolution. As a student of cinematography I appreciate the abilities that Mike describes as an explosive accelerant to the learning process. I also believe that anything that facilitates learning opens doors for people who might otherwise not have the opportunity. That brings new depth and diversity to our ranks. That is likely to influence the evolution of the art in profound ways. Don't you think?

I think it's worth nothing our industry has grown HORIZONTALLY as well as VERTICALLY. Yes, it's easier to learn faster. But there's also TONS more work. Technology has fueled both the volume and speed of production. One look at our bulging cable boxes and blinking browsers is reminder enough of the thousands of platforms that now exist...all demanding...and hungry...for CONTENT.