Shawn Nelson
Well-known member
Leverage, great show, also completely Red, great in house workflow.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Open Letter to Variety - Warning: this is not a short 3 line posting
- Thread starter TedRed
- Start date
Leverage, great show, also completely Red, great in house workflow.
Not a network show (broadcast network, that is). The Cleaner was shot on Red as well, but that was also a cable production.
BTW, while Leverage may be interesting in terms of writing and performance, I have to say that I think it looks awful. Just my opinion, but to me it looks like a show that has its color correction done by someone who's never really been a colorist. And judging by what I've read about the way post is set up, that's likely the case (when the executive producer insists on doing some of the color correction work himself, all bets are off). Shots don't match, the picture is flat (i.e., no contrast), and the black level changes all the time. Just not a very professional post job. But that's only my opinion, and I'm pretty picky.
Lucas Wilson
REDuser Sponsor
I completely agree - in the *very* limited and rarified world of Major US Network episodic Production and post. Keep in mind that is what Mike is talking about. And taken against the industry as a whole... it's a very very small (but incredibly influential) chunk of production and post-production.
The best analogy I can think of here is the switch to HD. I'm pretty sure that the first big network show to do non-linear HD online was Crossing Jordan in the second half of the 2001 season at the now-defunct Complete Post in Hollywood.
From there to the point where most of the network shows were doing HD was about 5 years. And the switch from SD to HD was - at the post-production level - just software, decks, routers, and switchers. The workflow was essentially the same - tape-based with timecode/reels and BNC cables carrying everything around.
The workflow change really wasn't that dramatic - but if you were in the post world in LA at that time - you would think that Virgil himself was walking the post engineers and editors into the bottom level of The Inferno. The amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth and hairpulling was astounding.
And the switch to datacentric capture and post is a MUCH bigger change. In orders of magnitude. By and large, the Studios still remember the switch to HD and how incredibly painful it was, and they are going to fight with everything they have to avoid that kind of battle again. I have been in meetings with senior Studio Executives and Executive Producers where they look around the room and say something like, "anybody in here even *whispers* data capture and I will ensure you a slow and painful death."
Yes, it will change. But it will be a long, slooooow, painful procedure.
Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA
Yes, I do, because I was there (at Lorimar, the first studio to embrace nonlinear editing, all the way back in 1985, almost 8 years prior to the appearance of the first 24 frame Avid Film Composer). And the truth is that film editing for television did not really end until almost 7 years later, at least at Warners and Universal. And even at Fox, which to some degree embraced it prior to that, L.A. Law was still being cut on film as late as 1991 (I worked on it at the time). So the prediction was not as far off as you might think.
As I said, change comes very slowly in the network television world, regardless of the ultimate advantages. One could point out that 24p HD - a generally accepted medium today - has been around since 1998, and yet half of today's network dramas are still being shot on film.
That's just the way it is.
Thank you, Lucas.
And yes, I am the first (well, right now I seem to be the second) to admit that the part of the industry I'm talking about is, indeed, small and limited. But it is also the part that gets most of the press, the most visibility, and the most assumptions about how it's handled - most of which are usually wrong, which is why I post here about them.
If you look at Avid over the years, one could say that far more of their units were sold to commercial houses and broadcast facilities than network television shows and feature films. But probably 95% of their advertising featured, well, network television shows and feature films. That's indicative of the disproportionate amount of attention those markets receive. Even at Apple, they got a lot more attention when Walter Murch endorsed Final Cut than they ever did for the million or so seats that they had already sold up to that point to individuals and smaller editorial houses. So even though what we're talking about may be small in number, it is large in terms of perception.
- Thread starter
- #46
TedRed
"The Mouth"
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
To answer Brook from a few pages back now - man this forum stuff can get pretty chock full of info pretty fast 
Brook, you know I'm a big fan your your work ethic, and the level you have taken the on set RED ONE tech to. Your on set practices are among the best I've seen in the biz, and you have figured out the data cart, what's needed and how to scale your on set capabilities for various commercial, tv and feature work. I thought I covered the DIT vs. DT role in the earlier post, but perhaps not well enough. I am in no way saying this person should be eliminated from a pro-level job, what I'm saying is the role has changed from the days of HD video cameras shooting 24p, where the "imaging" part of the gig was very critical to the quality of the pictures being recorded.
My best analogy is to use the sports HD video world, where a critical crew position is the camera shader, or CCU control person - they are effectively painting pictures from the RGB video signal coming from the camera, before they go to air. The DIT role on a movie set shooting these HD video cameras (this includes the F900, F950, F23, F35, Varicam and others) was to do essentially the same thing, paint the RGB signal being recorded to the HD deck, before the recording takes place. The key crew members (DP, Director, Producer) and client, typically live inside a black tent on the set, watching an expensive, calibrated monitor, since what they are seeing in that tent is effectively as good as the picture is going to be in post - so they better get it right.
In the RED world, as I have discussed in depth in the previous posts and talked about in presentations world-wide - we see the camera as a Digital Movie camera, not a Digital HD video camera - it is not a video camera at all, as it shoots these RAW progressive, super high resolution frames, most closely linked to 35mm film frames, or high rez digital still images, which are also RAW. Therefore the painting images becomes a less critical, and more flexible part of the gig.
The most important parts of the RED TECH, DT, Data Wrangler, call it what you will, gig, are similar to what a 2nd AC would do - prepping the camera, insuring all is set up correctly for shooting the camera, and managing the media going to and from the camera (pretty much the same gig for a 2nd working with 35mm stock, the RED stock just doesn't need the changing bag) In my opinion the loading of the RED camera is pretty easy, but the "un-loading" is where skill and experience comes into play, as now that is hot media with footage shot on it, just like exposed film. So there has been a term I've seen many in the RED world call a critical crew position the "un-loader" instead of the "clapper loader" on a film gig.
The good news is, Brook and others, if they choose to do so, get to take on the role of the on-set lab. There are some exceptionally good ones I've seen out there that do this, (first names Dino, Steve, Casey, Von, Nate, Jeroen, Jonathan, Ryan, come to mind, and many others as well that I've spent time with) they end up being part camera tech, part on set lab, part loader/ unloader, part on set colorist if the job calls for it, and part advanced playback and video assist tech - it's a lot for one person to take on, and a place were smart producers know they should not skimp. If there are multiple cameras, multiple setups and a complex shoot, sometimes a few of these crew positions are required, no different than a 2nd AC for each film camera on a high end 35mm shoot.
So this is the new gig of the DIT, now turned DT (remember the DOP is quite busy doing the imaging part of his job, and may consult with Brook or these other Techs on exposure, since Brook is keeping tabs on the footage and can open and review the shots very easily on a Mac, and create on set color temp grades for the DOP if he wants to see them, but it is not a "must have" part of the job, especially when time is of the essence, you have perfect lighting or you need to get 6 more setups before you wrap for the day.
The big overriding point, is that you can take advantage of on set coloring, setting looks that get passed into post production via meta-data from monitor viewing of the footage while it's shot, or setting the look you want in camera, with the on camera controls, and going with that for the look. Every job is different.
Note, that you don't need to do any of this if you don't want to, since you are shooting RAW images, just like film you can just expose it right, and know you can get the look you want in post later, just like you do in the TeleCine stage with film. I understand in the newest versions of some of the HD cinema style cameras, you can choose to shoot the camera in a "log like" mode, so you can shoot more film style, and do not need to have critical color on set monitoring. I believe this is a step in the right direction, of course it's not the same as shooting RAW images on the RED , or latent images on Film, but it's an advancement. I don't' have enough personal experience to comment on it more than that, perhaps others do.
Now let me make one more point that may be taken as quite radical. The RED is one of the few cameras I've seen that can truly be shot with one person, all alone, no crew, no support, no nothing. Peter Jackson does this to get certain shots he wants, Steven Soderbergh does this, Rodney Charters does this, and Doug Liman does this, and there are many others that do this from time to time.
Not that this in normal recommended practice at all, just like I never recommend people fill up a RED drive all the way to full before downloading shots, and no I don't believe you can shoot an entire movie this way very effectively. But the only other camera I've seen that you can do this with is a film camera. (if you know how to load the film) If not, you have a set up guy get the film cam or the RED ready to go for you, and you go out into the world and shoot.
The RED makes a great tool for 2nd unit in this fashion - small crew, one or two people, go get the shots they need without a big crew or commotion.
I've done many, many shoots just with me, a handheld rig or a small tripod and a single drive, or a handful of CF cards. Including on camera audio, without any issue, in fact it's kind of fun, and the 4k results are amazing - way better than you could get with an HD camera. It just requires a good understanding of the camera, exposure and setting up a project (and focusing by eye, since we are talking 35mm DOF here.)
So that last group of statements may bring some interesting comments - bring em on.
And one more thing, since I just re-read Brooks post about post production dollars - even if you go the traditional routes for making dailies and delivering them on physical media like DVDs or tapes, even if you do telecine style layoffs to HDCAMsr tape from the RED master files, even if you follow the most expensive post routes available today, it still costs significantly less to start with shooting RED than shooting Film - period. Can't debate it, unless you literally do everything completely wrong and get bamboozled by an unethical post house or post producer… RED is cheaper to shoot, post and deliver, no question. And the images, well they speak for themselves over and over again.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, I know it's lengthy.
+ Ted
Brook, you know I'm a big fan your your work ethic, and the level you have taken the on set RED ONE tech to. Your on set practices are among the best I've seen in the biz, and you have figured out the data cart, what's needed and how to scale your on set capabilities for various commercial, tv and feature work. I thought I covered the DIT vs. DT role in the earlier post, but perhaps not well enough. I am in no way saying this person should be eliminated from a pro-level job, what I'm saying is the role has changed from the days of HD video cameras shooting 24p, where the "imaging" part of the gig was very critical to the quality of the pictures being recorded.
My best analogy is to use the sports HD video world, where a critical crew position is the camera shader, or CCU control person - they are effectively painting pictures from the RGB video signal coming from the camera, before they go to air. The DIT role on a movie set shooting these HD video cameras (this includes the F900, F950, F23, F35, Varicam and others) was to do essentially the same thing, paint the RGB signal being recorded to the HD deck, before the recording takes place. The key crew members (DP, Director, Producer) and client, typically live inside a black tent on the set, watching an expensive, calibrated monitor, since what they are seeing in that tent is effectively as good as the picture is going to be in post - so they better get it right.
In the RED world, as I have discussed in depth in the previous posts and talked about in presentations world-wide - we see the camera as a Digital Movie camera, not a Digital HD video camera - it is not a video camera at all, as it shoots these RAW progressive, super high resolution frames, most closely linked to 35mm film frames, or high rez digital still images, which are also RAW. Therefore the painting images becomes a less critical, and more flexible part of the gig.
The most important parts of the RED TECH, DT, Data Wrangler, call it what you will, gig, are similar to what a 2nd AC would do - prepping the camera, insuring all is set up correctly for shooting the camera, and managing the media going to and from the camera (pretty much the same gig for a 2nd working with 35mm stock, the RED stock just doesn't need the changing bag) In my opinion the loading of the RED camera is pretty easy, but the "un-loading" is where skill and experience comes into play, as now that is hot media with footage shot on it, just like exposed film. So there has been a term I've seen many in the RED world call a critical crew position the "un-loader" instead of the "clapper loader" on a film gig.
The good news is, Brook and others, if they choose to do so, get to take on the role of the on-set lab. There are some exceptionally good ones I've seen out there that do this, (first names Dino, Steve, Casey, Von, Nate, Jeroen, Jonathan, Ryan, come to mind, and many others as well that I've spent time with) they end up being part camera tech, part on set lab, part loader/ unloader, part on set colorist if the job calls for it, and part advanced playback and video assist tech - it's a lot for one person to take on, and a place were smart producers know they should not skimp. If there are multiple cameras, multiple setups and a complex shoot, sometimes a few of these crew positions are required, no different than a 2nd AC for each film camera on a high end 35mm shoot.
So this is the new gig of the DIT, now turned DT (remember the DOP is quite busy doing the imaging part of his job, and may consult with Brook or these other Techs on exposure, since Brook is keeping tabs on the footage and can open and review the shots very easily on a Mac, and create on set color temp grades for the DOP if he wants to see them, but it is not a "must have" part of the job, especially when time is of the essence, you have perfect lighting or you need to get 6 more setups before you wrap for the day.
The big overriding point, is that you can take advantage of on set coloring, setting looks that get passed into post production via meta-data from monitor viewing of the footage while it's shot, or setting the look you want in camera, with the on camera controls, and going with that for the look. Every job is different.
Note, that you don't need to do any of this if you don't want to, since you are shooting RAW images, just like film you can just expose it right, and know you can get the look you want in post later, just like you do in the TeleCine stage with film. I understand in the newest versions of some of the HD cinema style cameras, you can choose to shoot the camera in a "log like" mode, so you can shoot more film style, and do not need to have critical color on set monitoring. I believe this is a step in the right direction, of course it's not the same as shooting RAW images on the RED , or latent images on Film, but it's an advancement. I don't' have enough personal experience to comment on it more than that, perhaps others do.
Now let me make one more point that may be taken as quite radical. The RED is one of the few cameras I've seen that can truly be shot with one person, all alone, no crew, no support, no nothing. Peter Jackson does this to get certain shots he wants, Steven Soderbergh does this, Rodney Charters does this, and Doug Liman does this, and there are many others that do this from time to time.
Not that this in normal recommended practice at all, just like I never recommend people fill up a RED drive all the way to full before downloading shots, and no I don't believe you can shoot an entire movie this way very effectively. But the only other camera I've seen that you can do this with is a film camera. (if you know how to load the film) If not, you have a set up guy get the film cam or the RED ready to go for you, and you go out into the world and shoot.
The RED makes a great tool for 2nd unit in this fashion - small crew, one or two people, go get the shots they need without a big crew or commotion.
I've done many, many shoots just with me, a handheld rig or a small tripod and a single drive, or a handful of CF cards. Including on camera audio, without any issue, in fact it's kind of fun, and the 4k results are amazing - way better than you could get with an HD camera. It just requires a good understanding of the camera, exposure and setting up a project (and focusing by eye, since we are talking 35mm DOF here.)
So that last group of statements may bring some interesting comments - bring em on.
And one more thing, since I just re-read Brooks post about post production dollars - even if you go the traditional routes for making dailies and delivering them on physical media like DVDs or tapes, even if you do telecine style layoffs to HDCAMsr tape from the RED master files, even if you follow the most expensive post routes available today, it still costs significantly less to start with shooting RED than shooting Film - period. Can't debate it, unless you literally do everything completely wrong and get bamboozled by an unethical post house or post producer… RED is cheaper to shoot, post and deliver, no question. And the images, well they speak for themselves over and over again.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, I know it's lengthy.
+ Ted
D Fuller
Well-known member
Mike (and Others),
I think you are right today. But I think the change will come faster than you expect. And it will come because more people will figure out that there are other ways to do it than "the right way". And that will serve them better.
I just came from a meeting with a NY post house that is talking about building a floor for Scratch-based color correction. They're also in talks with networks about program production. These are no small-time guys, but a commercial post facility with q portfolio of major national clients. A year ago, their owner was totally anti Red. Today he's considering a major expansion to facilitate Red. And the new Arri camera. And whatever other file-based capture systems are out there.
So you're right that Hollywood is going to be slow to adopt. But the Red is disruptive, and disruption always starts at the edges and moves inward. And almost always faster than the entrenched businesses imagine.
I think you are right today. But I think the change will come faster than you expect. And it will come because more people will figure out that there are other ways to do it than "the right way". And that will serve them better.
I just came from a meeting with a NY post house that is talking about building a floor for Scratch-based color correction. They're also in talks with networks about program production. These are no small-time guys, but a commercial post facility with q portfolio of major national clients. A year ago, their owner was totally anti Red. Today he's considering a major expansion to facilitate Red. And the new Arri camera. And whatever other file-based capture systems are out there.
So you're right that Hollywood is going to be slow to adopt. But the Red is disruptive, and disruption always starts at the edges and moves inward. And almost always faster than the entrenched businesses imagine.
Gavin Greenwalt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,614
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Age
- 40
Axel Mertes
Well-known member
Ted,
first of all:
Take care of yourself. A heart is nothing to play games with (not saying you do so, just telling you: stay calm). When I first opened the threat and saw the new avatar - I immediately understood why you didn't go to IBC. Some post later in the thread you commented on it, so I found I was right with my interpretation. Good luck and health, thats what I wish you (and all other, of course). Beside that: Cool avatar!
I want to add some comments from our local experience.
We were actually the first in germany doing RED stuff, as we had the first cam in hands. We went through a lot of workflow hassle in the beginning, some by being just new to this, but most by trying to adopt customer specific workflow requirements that just weren't right for RED based productions at that time. A simple example: If a producer insist to edit on an AVID for offline, because his favourised editor simply can't deal with FCP, then its a major issue. While with FCP we could have started editing with out-of-the-RED-cam-footage, the AVID forced a meticulous bulk conversion step and introduced a lot of EDL hassle for doing the online after that.
Due to the invention of many neat tools, mostly from the forum members, some also inhouse if required (I am the coder of the inhouse tools here, so I know very well what I am talking about) we overcome almost all these issues. Sometimes just the right tool weren't in place before the whole thing started, or tools didn't work as expected, because the material was shot with the wrong (newer) firmware version, the editing app wasn't the right release or the tool used wasn't up to date.
Based on this experience we found and find that many producers are hesitating about RED because of a bad initial workflow experience. Whenever we - as a native post house - were involved from the beginning and forced them to adopt to a proven workflow, the productions went out "just fine". But sometimes producers behave a bit (sorry to be harsh here) "recommendation resistent". You can explain them forever why it is a bad idea to follow a "traditional route" to enable a proven RED workflow, but they end up trying to force the RED camera being their film or HD camera how they know it. So not rarely we ended up bulk converting RED footage to HD tapes, which were used for online production. A big big big waste IMHO. But they pay what they ask for, in the end.
Further, not rarely we got called because our advanced expertise in the field of RED based post production was required. When the first RED cams appeared in german rental houses (who by nature could not care that much about post production workflows in first place), many production and producers went into troubles by just thinking wrong and not understand the REDs principles. They ended up having shot on RED and not really knowing how to proceed, finding them stuck with a "no go" issue in post, often their own inhouse post. We rescued a bunch of productions that were otherwise blown up. But we never intended too.
The main reason that we, as a post house, bought the first german RED camera, where that we knew from the very beginning two facts:
1. The RED camera is the practical and logical answer for future workflow requirements, production and cost efficiency, output quality on a broad basis of productions (from web video to the cinema).
2. We as a post house have to play a magic key role by UNDERSTANDING, PLANNING and PERFORMING the RED workflow. We need to know best how to use the camera settings and how to deal with the data to have successful productions going on. And we were totally right, until today.
Its cool that over the last year most post production tool vendors have adopted RED workflows, RED SDK etc. So it becomes easier with any new release of their products. The hassle is going down, but its not yet "everywhere" and "well trained". So this forum, its members, the combined knowledge have become a key part of the success of the workflow advantage.
Another experience we have is the role of the DT or DIT or loader/unloader, however you call it.
We often find that the DOP or AC (not seldom one person on its own, in fact) have issues with focussing right at 4K. Many of them just have "rental" experience and don't know well the options on how to check for the right sharpness on set (like using 1:1 zoom, focus assist (please add selectable color like red-green-blue for the embossed sharpness outlines finally!!!!) or the peak waveform). We as the post house provide the service to send out our staff members as this DT position for many reasons you have already explained. I just want to add up a bit more on this:
1. The DT knows the camera, its tweaks and tricks, and could assist the DOP/AC to make the best use of the camera and its latest firmware (if the last firmware they - DOP / AC - used is way older than the currently loaded one, you understand were the problem is).
2. The DT takes care of downloading data, preparing fresh media, camera settings, enumeration of clips etc.
3. The DT can check on set that framing, exposure, sharpness of the material are good and as desired. Everyone on set can ask the DT and he should be able to give the right answers. Sharpness and exposure are the main issues that can go wrong here, even with experienced DOP / AC poeple, when the RED camera isn't their regular camera setup. Help IS required. And should be accepted by them. A EVF or LCD isn't by itself good enough to get "sharp".
4. The DT can do basic look tests, on set grading tests. Btw, we do not really recommend on set grading or on set editing, as this usually ends up in more delays than necessary. When the director is on set, he should take care that the team advances as quickly as possible with the shooting. Fiddeling around with DOP, editor, grading, director in front of a monitor while the whole set is waiting is - just nonsense to me, most cases. There are situations where checking is important and required, see below no. 5, but please, not for everything. Just "because you can" you must not, its not always wise...
5. The DT can be a VFX supervisor in on person (we do so, many times, mostly my collegue Mark is a specialist in this area, but others too). As he is theen often the one in charge to do the actual post production work lateron with the material, and especially when VFX come into play, no one can better judge on the required and recorded quality of the on set footage. We talk about things like green screen lighting, placing markers, sharpness range and whatever counts on to it. Simple things, just a few minutes on set, but hours or days in post - if things go wrong. As a founder of post house I can tell you one wise thing: "Fix it in the post" is a bad excuse for bad planning of a shooting or bad on set work. Sometimes its unavoidable. But mostly not.
Here in europe we often have to deal with extremely small budgets on film. We are not Hollywood block buster movies, but we use the same tools now, thanks to RED. So we often have to work efficient and in smaller teams. Thats why the DT can be the VFX supervisor in one person. It makes just sense.
In my opinion its a key situation that production and post house get together BEFORE planning the shooting. So a *working* workflow can be designed, proposals can be made, requirements can be discussed. From that starting point the production can be planned. The DT - if in our case coming from the post house processing the data lateron - plays a very important role for the success of a production. Most times no one on set can better judge on "how good or not" the material will work in post.
We have many examples where things went bad because of that missing knowledge on set. And that, very unfortunate, sheds a bad light on RED, RED cameras, RED workflows, and all who recommend it. And its actually never really their fault. Poeple need to adopt open and fairly to new workflows, must be willing to learn - for a change.
If he is a clever guy the DT can even assist in calming down customers on set who are in video village and "want to see if the material is looking right". That must not be, but depending on the work load it can get the head free for others on set to concentrate on their work.
Best wishes,
Axel
first of all:
Take care of yourself. A heart is nothing to play games with (not saying you do so, just telling you: stay calm). When I first opened the threat and saw the new avatar - I immediately understood why you didn't go to IBC. Some post later in the thread you commented on it, so I found I was right with my interpretation. Good luck and health, thats what I wish you (and all other, of course). Beside that: Cool avatar!
I want to add some comments from our local experience.
We were actually the first in germany doing RED stuff, as we had the first cam in hands. We went through a lot of workflow hassle in the beginning, some by being just new to this, but most by trying to adopt customer specific workflow requirements that just weren't right for RED based productions at that time. A simple example: If a producer insist to edit on an AVID for offline, because his favourised editor simply can't deal with FCP, then its a major issue. While with FCP we could have started editing with out-of-the-RED-cam-footage, the AVID forced a meticulous bulk conversion step and introduced a lot of EDL hassle for doing the online after that.
Due to the invention of many neat tools, mostly from the forum members, some also inhouse if required (I am the coder of the inhouse tools here, so I know very well what I am talking about) we overcome almost all these issues. Sometimes just the right tool weren't in place before the whole thing started, or tools didn't work as expected, because the material was shot with the wrong (newer) firmware version, the editing app wasn't the right release or the tool used wasn't up to date.
Based on this experience we found and find that many producers are hesitating about RED because of a bad initial workflow experience. Whenever we - as a native post house - were involved from the beginning and forced them to adopt to a proven workflow, the productions went out "just fine". But sometimes producers behave a bit (sorry to be harsh here) "recommendation resistent". You can explain them forever why it is a bad idea to follow a "traditional route" to enable a proven RED workflow, but they end up trying to force the RED camera being their film or HD camera how they know it. So not rarely we ended up bulk converting RED footage to HD tapes, which were used for online production. A big big big waste IMHO. But they pay what they ask for, in the end.
Further, not rarely we got called because our advanced expertise in the field of RED based post production was required. When the first RED cams appeared in german rental houses (who by nature could not care that much about post production workflows in first place), many production and producers went into troubles by just thinking wrong and not understand the REDs principles. They ended up having shot on RED and not really knowing how to proceed, finding them stuck with a "no go" issue in post, often their own inhouse post. We rescued a bunch of productions that were otherwise blown up. But we never intended too.
The main reason that we, as a post house, bought the first german RED camera, where that we knew from the very beginning two facts:
1. The RED camera is the practical and logical answer for future workflow requirements, production and cost efficiency, output quality on a broad basis of productions (from web video to the cinema).
2. We as a post house have to play a magic key role by UNDERSTANDING, PLANNING and PERFORMING the RED workflow. We need to know best how to use the camera settings and how to deal with the data to have successful productions going on. And we were totally right, until today.
Its cool that over the last year most post production tool vendors have adopted RED workflows, RED SDK etc. So it becomes easier with any new release of their products. The hassle is going down, but its not yet "everywhere" and "well trained". So this forum, its members, the combined knowledge have become a key part of the success of the workflow advantage.
Another experience we have is the role of the DT or DIT or loader/unloader, however you call it.
We often find that the DOP or AC (not seldom one person on its own, in fact) have issues with focussing right at 4K. Many of them just have "rental" experience and don't know well the options on how to check for the right sharpness on set (like using 1:1 zoom, focus assist (please add selectable color like red-green-blue for the embossed sharpness outlines finally!!!!) or the peak waveform). We as the post house provide the service to send out our staff members as this DT position for many reasons you have already explained. I just want to add up a bit more on this:
1. The DT knows the camera, its tweaks and tricks, and could assist the DOP/AC to make the best use of the camera and its latest firmware (if the last firmware they - DOP / AC - used is way older than the currently loaded one, you understand were the problem is).
2. The DT takes care of downloading data, preparing fresh media, camera settings, enumeration of clips etc.
3. The DT can check on set that framing, exposure, sharpness of the material are good and as desired. Everyone on set can ask the DT and he should be able to give the right answers. Sharpness and exposure are the main issues that can go wrong here, even with experienced DOP / AC poeple, when the RED camera isn't their regular camera setup. Help IS required. And should be accepted by them. A EVF or LCD isn't by itself good enough to get "sharp".
4. The DT can do basic look tests, on set grading tests. Btw, we do not really recommend on set grading or on set editing, as this usually ends up in more delays than necessary. When the director is on set, he should take care that the team advances as quickly as possible with the shooting. Fiddeling around with DOP, editor, grading, director in front of a monitor while the whole set is waiting is - just nonsense to me, most cases. There are situations where checking is important and required, see below no. 5, but please, not for everything. Just "because you can" you must not, its not always wise...
5. The DT can be a VFX supervisor in on person (we do so, many times, mostly my collegue Mark is a specialist in this area, but others too). As he is theen often the one in charge to do the actual post production work lateron with the material, and especially when VFX come into play, no one can better judge on the required and recorded quality of the on set footage. We talk about things like green screen lighting, placing markers, sharpness range and whatever counts on to it. Simple things, just a few minutes on set, but hours or days in post - if things go wrong. As a founder of post house I can tell you one wise thing: "Fix it in the post" is a bad excuse for bad planning of a shooting or bad on set work. Sometimes its unavoidable. But mostly not.
Here in europe we often have to deal with extremely small budgets on film. We are not Hollywood block buster movies, but we use the same tools
now, thanks to RED. So we often have to work efficient and in smaller teams. Thats why the DT can be the VFX supervisor in one person. It makes just sense. In my opinion its a key situation that production and post house get together BEFORE planning the shooting. So a *working* workflow can be designed, proposals can be made, requirements can be discussed. From that starting point the production can be planned. The DT - if in our case coming from the post house processing the data lateron - plays a very important role for the success of a production. Most times no one on set can better judge on "how good or not" the material will work in post.
We have many examples where things went bad because of that missing knowledge on set. And that, very unfortunate, sheds a bad light on RED, RED cameras, RED workflows, and all who recommend it. And its actually never really their fault. Poeple need to adopt open and fairly to new workflows, must be willing to learn - for a change.
If he is a clever guy the DT can even assist in calming down customers on set who are in video village and "want to see if the material is looking right". That must not be, but depending on the work load it can get the head free for others on set to concentrate on their work.
Best wishes,
Axel
Bill Anderson
Well-known member
How about doing a budget comparison for digital projection.
Television? Internet, ie. This Is Not a Love Song. ?
How about comparing indie scenarios where one
filmmaker has pretty much controlled, in house,
every aspect of production, compared to one that
has gone through the old school working model of
film production, a model where one has to relinquish
every aspect of post as it passed from hand to hand
and hallowed hall to hall. It worked in the past,
but it's no longer the only game in town.
Of course, having said that, we have to remember
that studios are no longer the only significant force out there.
Maybe I digress a bit from Ted's post- and Thanks Ted, and other posters,
for sharing your insights and knowledge:
But what is the real force behind publishing these budget comparisons?
They crop up from time to time, and seem to have more behind them
than just providing a few figures for or against one process.
Particularly when you consider just how well most production
Co's understand budget considerations of each method.
Is it to imply that budget comparisons are THE issue when
comparing each acquisitions worth or (more likely) future?
I suppose budget issues have their place but they are minor
ones when compared to the future of digital anything.
It's not like we're suddenly going to discover something about
film that, had it been discovered earlier, might have prevented
the success of digital cinema. Would it make much difference to
digital acquisition's future if suddenly the cost of using film were
cut in half? Or given away for free? Nope, I think not. It might prolong
the life of film, but it would do nothing to slow Digital's impetus.
Remember Kodak in its heyday? It was the amateur, hobbyist,
holiday snap happy hundreds of millions of disposable cameras
per waterfall weekend that made that Co. what it was. And the
Scorsese's were good at adding a certain luster to the yellow box.
(Scorsese's true worth aside). And that Kodak-like phenomenon
is pretty much happening in today's digital realm, only tenfold-
it's the millions of peripheral digital satellites that are pulling film's
future apart- not the difference between one budget and another.
Television? Internet, ie. This Is Not a Love Song. ?
How about comparing indie scenarios where one
filmmaker has pretty much controlled, in house,
every aspect of production, compared to one that
has gone through the old school working model of
film production, a model where one has to relinquish
every aspect of post as it passed from hand to hand
and hallowed hall to hall. It worked in the past,
but it's no longer the only game in town.
Of course, having said that, we have to remember
that studios are no longer the only significant force out there.
Maybe I digress a bit from Ted's post- and Thanks Ted, and other posters,
for sharing your insights and knowledge:
But what is the real force behind publishing these budget comparisons?
They crop up from time to time, and seem to have more behind them
than just providing a few figures for or against one process.
Particularly when you consider just how well most production
Co's understand budget considerations of each method.
Is it to imply that budget comparisons are THE issue when
comparing each acquisitions worth or (more likely) future?
I suppose budget issues have their place but they are minor
ones when compared to the future of digital anything.
It's not like we're suddenly going to discover something about
film that, had it been discovered earlier, might have prevented
the success of digital cinema. Would it make much difference to
digital acquisition's future if suddenly the cost of using film were
cut in half? Or given away for free? Nope, I think not. It might prolong
the life of film, but it would do nothing to slow Digital's impetus.
Remember Kodak in its heyday? It was the amateur, hobbyist,
holiday snap happy hundreds of millions of disposable cameras
per waterfall weekend that made that Co. what it was. And the
Scorsese's were good at adding a certain luster to the yellow box.
(Scorsese's true worth aside). And that Kodak-like phenomenon
is pretty much happening in today's digital realm, only tenfold-
it's the millions of peripheral digital satellites that are pulling film's
future apart- not the difference between one budget and another.
Bill Anderson
Well-known member
Film, for all its history and beauty, is now an island in a digital ocean on a digital planet in a digital galaxy in a digital universe. And the tide is steadily rising.
Chart 2 is wrong and false economy.
Making movies is business. You can't start a business without initial investment. Or without any employees!! And if u serious about making movies you won't stop at just making 1 movie.
So the chart goes like this:-
Initial investment - $160,000
RED package + Lens Package - $80,000
Editing and DI Workstation - $80,000
Production Cost For 1 movie.
Camera Rental - 0
Stock - 0
Processing - $2000 (100 hrs overnight R3D Processing)
Copying - $8000
Data Cine - 0
NLE - 0
Reconfirm - 0
Film Record - 35,000
DI Grade - 0
Total - $45,000
And you need to hire employees who can DIT,Edit,Data Cine, Reconfirm,DI- $ 15,000 Per Month
If i make 10 movies based on your digital chart - $1,665,200
If i make 10 movies based on my chart - $810,000 [($45K x10)+($15K x 24 months)]
If i make 10 movies based on film chart - 5,559,440
So i save - $855,200 Shooting Digital by investing $160,000. And a whopping $4,749,440 by not shooting film!
Making movies is business. You can't start a business without initial investment. Or without any employees!! And if u serious about making movies you won't stop at just making 1 movie.
So the chart goes like this:-
Initial investment - $160,000
RED package + Lens Package - $80,000
Editing and DI Workstation - $80,000
Production Cost For 1 movie.
Camera Rental - 0
Stock - 0
Processing - $2000 (100 hrs overnight R3D Processing)
Copying - $8000
Data Cine - 0
NLE - 0
Reconfirm - 0
Film Record - 35,000
DI Grade - 0
Total - $45,000
And you need to hire employees who can DIT,Edit,Data Cine, Reconfirm,DI- $ 15,000 Per Month
If i make 10 movies based on your digital chart - $1,665,200
If i make 10 movies based on my chart - $810,000 [($45K x10)+($15K x 24 months)]
If i make 10 movies based on film chart - 5,559,440
So i save - $855,200 Shooting Digital by investing $160,000. And a whopping $4,749,440 by not shooting film!
Disco Legend Zeke
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2008
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 84
- Location
- Vegas and New York
- Website
- blog.destination-fun.com
There is another aspect of shooting film, because of the $350 per minute cost of running stock through the camera, directors tend to rehearse and rehearse. With digital, there is essentially zero cost to record everything.
How much can this save?... Additionally, you get a fresher performance,
How much can this save?... Additionally, you get a fresher performance,
radfilm
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.danagonzales.com
Best tool for the project
Best tool for the project
I did not read every post but what I can tell you from my experience is I would choose RED or any other format based on the project.
The RED has proven itself as a valid tool that delivers in workflow, film-like shooting process and pleasing image quality. The fact that it is somewhat cheaper to rent with the added reduced cost of post is only a plus.
Does the cost drive it ? for producers yes, but as a Cinematographer that has shot his share of RED on high value projects, this has helped those very projects get made.
Will I shoot RED on everything I do? probably not but I can tell you I will be shooting it often and embrace the experience to the fullest as my goal is to make the best image possible...
I look forward to my projects shot with the RED and appreciate that the cost savings help get films made,believe me this is what we all want.
Best tool for the project
I did not read every post but what I can tell you from my experience is I would choose RED or any other format based on the project.
The RED has proven itself as a valid tool that delivers in workflow, film-like shooting process and pleasing image quality. The fact that it is somewhat cheaper to rent with the added reduced cost of post is only a plus.
Does the cost drive it ? for producers yes, but as a Cinematographer that has shot his share of RED on high value projects, this has helped those very projects get made.
Will I shoot RED on everything I do? probably not but I can tell you I will be shooting it often and embrace the experience to the fullest as my goal is to make the best image possible...
I look forward to my projects shot with the RED and appreciate that the cost savings help get films made,believe me this is what we all want.
Casey Green
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,101
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.redcamcentral.com
Great thread. If it hasn't been covered before, can someone go into the cost comparisons re: lighting with RED vs. other Film and HD Cameras?
I realize this one will probably be a bit more difficult to cover, and it is a moving target since the new sensors are right around the corner, but I'd love to learn more about issues such as amount of light needed and the costs associated.
Thanks for any info...
I realize this one will probably be a bit more difficult to cover, and it is a moving target since the new sensors are right around the corner, but I'd love to learn more about issues such as amount of light needed and the costs associated.
Thanks for any info...
Alex Vendler
Member
How is that D.I. Grading $0??
Also, did anyone think about the cost of shooting a feature on film and NOT doing a D.I.. Just print it at the lab...
jimhare
Well-known member
D.I.Y. Baby! :smilewinkgrin:
If a distributor likes it, let them pay for a real grade and film out later.
Kevin Lang
Well-known member
How are you giving dailies via iphone? Maybe a dumb question but I have been trying to figure out how to upload to ones iphone without completely re syncing it! Any insight to this would be greatly appreciated. Again sorry for the rookie iphone question.
