How to deal with a Red-hating DOP?

[Elsie N]

I never buy the "sharp" critique. The F65 it turns out is "sharp" and needs some BPM on it as well (all of Ater Earth is shot on 1/8 BPM). It all depends on how you USE the RED...if you filter it properly, match it with the proper lenses, it can look very "organic" and not so "sharp". I believe RED made the camera like this on purpose. It's up to YOU, the user, to make it sharp, organic, or whatever. By design it'a assumed YOU will be adding the personality, not the camera. Personally, I'm on board with that philosophy and applaud them for it. But that's just me.

It's been my experience that it is a better plan to soften a "too-sharp" image than it is to try and sharpen a soft image. It has also been my experience that if I want to soften a scene, all I have to do is adjust the lens focus to easily get that softer look.

As for Antony's DP, I like Bjorn's advice... figure out a way to enlighten him without challenging his authority.

Something like "Oh man... you shoot the Epic like a guy I worked with last month... 100 ISO. He was a nice guy too. I really hated to see him blamed for ruining the project. I think he's back working for Best Buy now." ;-)

 

[Mike P.]

It's frustrating... Knowing that they're (hopefully unintentionally) making the shot, and hence camera, look bad. It's very difficult to take the money and run and/or expect repeat business when they look at the stuff you shot and think, "we shouldn't've used RED even if the CamOp came with his own camera kit (for free/included)."

Echoing everyone else, you're best bet is to show them... Business101 says to do it privately/one-on-one, otherwise they'll think you're attacking/challenging them in front of everyone. The beauty is, unlike film, with digital/RED you can bring him a laptop at lunch and be like, "See I shot this two minutes ago at 800 with an CS1/8... and here's how we shot the same frame this morning." OR open the debate like you're an aspiring DoP and you want her/his input on why s/he shot it the way they did when the book says to shoot it your way (obviously have visual examples, otherwise s/he'll tell you that you're inexperienced.)

But yes, it's digital and anyone with a laptop can see examples of the work in realtime (essentially)... take advantage of that. And if they say "yeah, but it looks like ass on the monitor/videovillage" show them the exposure tools and then explain the metadata bit again (I'll admit it's a hard concept to grasp, but it's something that far too many people on set still do NOT understand.)

 

[Thomas Pierrepont]

I have to tell you Anthony, I recently went through something similar myself. We did a show for Discovery ID. I was the DP myself, but the producer on site had NEVER shot with Red. I like to monitor in RAW, so that I can truly see what I'm working with in the field and what I can work with in post, even if it's just transcoding to a format they want, which is what I was doing. As I was asking my PA to pull a layer of diffusion, the producer freaked out. She was VERY upset. She actually wanted it darker, and I wanted it brighter as there seem to be more 'noise' indicated in the EVF/LCD than I wanted. I tried explaining that the "look" she was looking at was not the final product, and that by lighting it my way, we'd have more latitude for them in post, and I could easily create the look she wanted in transcodes. "No way, uh-huh, we don't roll until I see what we're going to get, I'm not that gullible, you won't fool me. Make it darker, and do it now!"

So I went the Toia direction, and normally I'd agree with Mark. But like you, I was skeptical about their willingness to use our Epic M again, because I KNEW the footage was going to be noisy!

I made the transcodes, sent them to the client. They were not happy. "Fix it!" they said. I tried and tried. I worked on it in RCX, Resolve and Speedgrade. I just couldn't remove the noise. I ended up having to go into Premiere and use Neat Video's noise removing software. It did a TERRIFIC job, and the client was elated.

After this, I got to thinking on how I could avoid this situation in the future... One thing I came up with for my particular situation, and you could do the reverse... Next time I'll lower the ISO in my 'look' while maintaining the light levels I want and need in my RAW view! The client only truly cares what it looks like in the end. They didn't understand "RAW" footage. They're used to Sony XDCam. They wanted a specific look of shallow depth of field, and a particular ominous, dark feel. ISO could make that perception their reality on set, while making me happy for post.

Could you have done the same? Could you set up a look and blow out the sky in the look, but save the RAW integrity for someone who knows what they're doing in post? This way you make everyone happy?

Good read. One really solid piece of advice I got this year was "It's your own responsibility to cover yourself." Your idea does this.

Make the client / producer / dop /your wife happy. Whilst covering your back down the line.

 

[Ben Scott]

I never buy the "sharp" critique. The F65 it turns out is "sharp" and needs some BPM on it as well (all of Ater Earth is shot on 1/8 BPM). It all depends on how you USE the RED...if you filter it properly, match it with the proper lenses, it can look very "organic" and not so "sharp". I believe RED made the camera like this on purpose. It's up to YOU, the user, to make it sharp, organic, or whatever. By design it'a assumed YOU will be adding the personality, not the camera. Personally, I'm on board with that philosophy and applaud them for it. But that's just me.

Agreed Nick.


Rust and Bone looks nothing like Total Recall looks nothing like House of Cards looks nothing like Sharknado looks nothing like Prometheus.

Just because this particular tool happens to also be very good for VFX shoots it doesn't mean it is limited to sterile or inorganic aesthetics. Rust and Bone for example is one of the most beautiful and organic looking films I have seen in the last few years.

As for the main topic in here, as a DP, give me the information and the ability to save myself but once I've acknowledged it and confirmed I'm specifically doing something for a reason - I get this a lot when I prefer slightly dutch framings and my AC comes along and straightens up the frame thinking he is being helpful - or when I've gone out of my way to find a nice flare and he helpfully flags it - then leave it alone. Don't speak to someone else about it mid production and start to sew doubt into the minds of the other people I am working with who also may not be Red-literate. That then begins to add problem on top of problem to every single setup.

 

[Eric M Hurt]

Thank you for explaining, now I understand where your comment came from.

That isn't the situation here.

I was taken on already by the production, which wanted to shoot on Red cams. The DOP was brought in later and had no say in the choice of camera or ops.

" In the end you have no idea what the DPs final goal is, nor are they under any obligation to tell you, so all you can do is try and capture his vision as best as possible."
Maybe I didn't explain properly in my first post, so let me be clear here, this wasn't a particular "look" or "vision" they were after, they just didn't understand the way the Red's sensor and ISO setting works. And they refused to believe my explanation. They insisted that it worked the same way as film, i.e. they wanted to set it to a very low ISO in bright daylight.


Also with your analogy of other companies, if I worked for a company and my direct manager was deliberately harming the business, then I would certainly go to a higher manager to express my concerns. My loyalty would be to the company not to the bad manager.

Your frustration is understandable, but it's the DPs responsibility to understand the camera they are using (or ask for help), not yours as an operator to teach them or tell them, your responsibility is to help create the frame. You were brought on to provide the camera and operate I assume, so as much as you would like to believe otherwise, and regardless of when you were brought on you still work for the DP. There are always situations when one should go to a higher power, but you asked about the proper protocol in this situation and that is the proper protocol, but hey it's your career so you have to make the choices that work best for you.

 

[Antony M]

Thank you all for taking the time to post here. Some great advice from many of you here.

And it's also been interesting reading differing views and then learning why you have these views.

 

[Ben Scott]

By the way Anthony, was this in London/Sussex? I've found a massive massive slant towards Alexa or C300 and a real disregard for Red by those further along the chain with the exception of gigs like promos and stuff that wants sexy framerates. If I wasn't DP with a Red I'd be shooting tons more C100 and C300 I think.

I even had the makeup guy on the short I just shot telling me how the Alexa 'wipes the floor with the Red', something he'd obviously picked up on a set somewhere, and despite me having the Red in my hands at the time!

 

[Scott Crawley]

Antony, If I may offer one additional note:
A good leader does not complain in front of his subordinates. Bitching is supposed to go uphill only. After this one is finished you would do well to steer clear of this guy unless you hear testimony that he has matured as a manager.

 

[Spike Baumann]

I have to tell you Anthony, I recently went through something similar myself. We did a show for Discovery ID. I was the DP myself, but the producer on site had NEVER shot with Red. I like to monitor in RAW, so that I can truly see what I'm working with in the field and what I can work with in post, even if it's just transcoding to a format they want, which is what I was doing. As I was asking my PA to pull a layer of diffusion, the producer freaked out. She was VERY upset. She actually wanted it darker, and I wanted it brighter as there seem to be more 'noise' indicated in the EVF/LCD than I wanted. I tried explaining that the "look" she was looking at was not the final product, and that by lighting it my way, we'd have more latitude for them in post, and I could easily create the look she wanted in transcodes. "No way, uh-huh, we don't roll until I see what we're going to get, I'm not that gullible, you won't fool me. Make it darker, and do it now!"

So I went the Toia direction, and normally I'd agree with Mark. But like you, I was skeptical about their willingness to use our Epic M again, because I KNEW the footage was going to be noisy!

I made the transcodes, sent them to the client. They were not happy. "Fix it!" they said. I tried and tried. I worked on it in RCX, Resolve and Speedgrade. I just couldn't remove the noise. I ended up having to go into Premiere and use Neat Video's noise removing software. It did a TERRIFIC job, and the client was elated.

After this, I got to thinking on how I could avoid this situation in the future... One thing I came up with for my particular situation, and you could do the reverse... Next time I'll lower the ISO in my 'look' while maintaining the light levels I want and need in my RAW view! The client only truly cares what it looks like in the end. They didn't understand "RAW" footage. They're used to Sony XDCam. They wanted a specific look of shallow depth of field, and a particular ominous, dark feel. ISO could make that perception their reality on set, while making me happy for post.

Could you have done the same? Could you set up a look and blow out the sky in the look, but save the RAW integrity for someone who knows what they're doing in post? This way you make everyone happy?

I usually have a laptop I can dump to and do a quick grade to show what the final can look like in case there is this exact problem.

 

[Mark K.]

If you like to monitor in raw or log formats (I know I certainly do), and don't have the ability to run a LUT on the client's monitor, I think it's really useful to keep something like a iPad with examples of ungraded-to-graded footage of both low-key and high-key setups, as well as examples of what happens when you underexpose a low-key scene then bring it up in post. It might take half-a-day to put the video together. But it would make it much easier to explain to clients why we do what we do sometimes.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not a fan of monitoring in raw or log, I feel it tends to lead me to exposing so that the image looks as "correct" to my eye as much as possible, and in truth, raw and log images tend to place whites down the signal scale in order to record super-whites, overexposure detail, so in most cases the correct exposure should produce a somewhat dim image.

And in the shadow end, it's the same problem, the image looks so flat with so much shadow detail that not only do I think I'll never need fill light but I may even keep increasing the contrast of the lighting until it looks less flat on the monitor, again trying to make it look "right" to my eye.

And that doesn't even begin to deal with the fact that I'm not the only person judging the monitor image, I've got a director sitting next to me, and maybe even a producer.

I'd rather light for the more restricted dynamic range of a gamma-corrected image knowing that I have more information at either end to work with in post using the raw or log original, and then just occasionally check the raw or log image when I'm not sure about certain overexposed details, like hot curtain sheers for example, or a hot sky.

Now some log formats are rather mild, like Canon Log, because they are not dealing with as many stops of dynamic range as with ARRI Log-C, and one can live with monitoring in them and just goosing up the contrast of the monitor, as long as you don't try to make your highlights look as bright and poppy as you normally would.