gate check protocol

[Mathew Mackereth]

looking at on-set workflow - wondering what people are doing for "gate check" on the RED One, in terms of media recorded, not sensor dust.

The Red One reports dropped frames (can anyone tell me what this looks like as i've been lucky enough not to have any yet - which is a very, very good thing!!)

...so do people feel that reviewing the last clip on camera for example is necessary as a substitute for a traditional check?

and if so.. does viewing the clip either from the camera or from a CF drive before transfer to another drive on the computer introduce any significant risk of corrupting the data?

macka

 

[Brian Reisdorf]

Our typical workflow on set is to copy footage from the card to our backup drive, verify, then visually scrub through the proxies quickly to make sure there's image data. The DIT then usually pulls up select shots in Redcine for a more deliberate inspection if time allows. We don't check the footage in camera very often (though now that client monitoring is easier to get set up, it's entirely possible it starts happening more frequently). I'd say we use in camera playback most when it comes to offspeed shooting, so the DP can see exactly what kind of effect he's getting between every shot. For what it's worth, we've shot around 20 music videos/spots and never had a clip compromised because we played it back in camera.

Also, when you encounter dropped frames, the first and most obvious thing is the dropped frames box and number turning red.

 

[Mathew Mackereth]

thanks Brian!

cool!- i pretty much always wait until i have a verified copy before viewing - have been hesitant to view of camera or from card reader - good to know on-camera viewing doesn't seem to compromise data. good for a quick eyeball!

macka

 

[Jim McKinney]

Also, when you encounter dropped frames, the first and most obvious thing is the dropped frames box and number turning red.

Where does the dropped frames box appear? I haven't noticed this yet.

 

[David Wyatt]

We usually just play back the last take at the end of each slate before we move on to the next set-up (I've noticed some crews also do this on tape-based Hi-Def shoots too). Sometimes we even review earlier selected takes on camera too. All in all it's also a good way of checking:

a) You actually recorded something!! (there are many stories of "lost takes" (even on film) e.g. the operator hits record on the back and then the focus puller hits record on the side (effectively cutting the camera when everyone thinks it's running, which is why only the AC should hit record!). We also once wasted a lot of time assuming we'd got a very complicated jib-down/top shot when the battery power-down warning came up half way through the shot - we completed the shot before the camera powered down BUT later discovered while playing back the recorded shot only went up until when the battery warning went off! Had to go back and re-do the shot later :blush:

b) There are no dropped frames/focus buzzes/boom shadows/nasties blah blah...

It's also quite a nice way for the cameraman (if he's also operating) to look back at the last take on a nice big monitor rather than a piddly little LCD.

 

[Brent J. Craig]

...
and if so.. does viewing the clip either from the camera or from a CF drive before transfer to another drive on the computer introduce any significant risk of corrupting the data?

Can anyone from Red confirm that the card is mounted in a read-only state when you are playing back on camera, or for that matter whenever it is not recording?

 

[John Brawley]

We usually just play back the last take at the end of each slate before we move on to the next set-up

a) You actually recorded something!! (there are many stories of "lost takes" (even on film) e.g. the operator hits record on the back and then the focus puller hits record on the side (effectively cutting the camera when everyone thinks it's running, which is why only the AC should hit record!).

Errr.

Don't see how hitting record twice on a film camera would go unnoticed. Flicker in the viewfinder and (lack of) noise would be pretty big clues.

However, I have to say that i generally don't like in camera reviewing because it tends to stop the entire production while everyone watches the playback.

Then this weird *democratisation* happens where everyone from make up to boom swinger gets to pass comment on the take, with the inevitable follow up discussion about shooting a safety take for BS reasons that have nothing to do with performance,

My preferences is for a separate record of the spllt, so the director ALONE can review a take if so desired. They can be independent and discrete. Meanwhile, the crew aren't distracted by watching the take and are turning around the next setup.

This of course assumes that all is well and isn't about checking the *technicalilites* of the event.

But lets face it. Film or video, 99% of the time everything is OK. I'd rather take improved productivity in favour of constant stop starting of the crew to watch *rushes*, with the associated running commentary about how the film should be made. Imagine how actors feel when everyone is watching their performances, not to mention the loss of momentum for them. Watching rushes on set also breeds in a fear and desire to be safe, which usually means safety takes are shot that aren't usually even needed.

I'm not saying get rid of reviewing of rushes, but if you take the review process away from the camera and give it to the director, they can do it autonomously and discretely away from the crew, who usually don't need to be involved in that process.

If somethings wrong and you find out 10 mins later once the card is downloaded and checked, then you've only lost 10 mins. But most of the time you gain 10 mins.

Of course there are situations where you do want to review, slow mo, and expensive hard to repeat events, or things where timing is critical. But I reckon most of the time it gets in the way of the flow.

jb