PRO REZ OPTIONS and CONCERNS for EPIC

[Dylan Macleod CSC]

People are renting RED-MX's for peanuts here now and there isn't an Alexa in the city that has a day off. That is a fact, like it or not and I would bet my bottom dollar it's happening almost entirely because of the pro-res option. The added cost of Alexa body out weighs the added cost of processing and conforming .R3D for commercial/video production companies at the end of the day, not to mention the faster delivery times and lower storage space demands.

Sorry to sidetrack...
Although the pro-res option is an advantage, I don't think this is the motivating factor. It's the additional dynamic range. I own a red and "if" I am asked which HD format I'd rather shoot - I am currently saying Alexa. I did a commercial recently where the agency producer had done his own test and was touting the "flexibility" of Alexa footage. It's a combination of factors giving the Alexa an advantage - DR and ProRes.

 

[Ned Wilson]

Thanks Dylan for an answer from the field. I too find in NYC more and more agencies for the same reasons going that route, and it's not all high end shows either.

 

[Ned Wilson]

I'm going to have to disagree.
The larger files and data rates that these cameras are pushing out, just means there is that much more of a reason to be sure the quality is there before it leaves set.
Sure, video assist can show you the shot, But that does not represent the recorded Media whatsoever. And I for one do not trust my 2nd AC to download, scrub, proof, Checksum, backup, checksum again, verify that what we thought we shot we actually shot, and then work with the DP to be sure his Creative vision is transferred off in a CDL, or 1st light Transcode or both.

As much as I love how easy it is to shoot on these cameras, I can't tell you how many time I have Saved a shot, because I knew what to look for. Or an Error in the media because of some type of error (user or otherwise) that came through as 1 bad frame in the middle of the take.
Or how about when the media was ejected wrong because we were running on AC power and had a surge so the whole drive was unreadable and I had to wipe and use red undead and then sit with the DP to verify footage.
Or that time we shot green screen and I went ahead and ran it through after effects on set (Just because something looked funny) and found out there was a problem that would have ruined the entire day had we not caught it.

I just don't trust anyone but a qualified DIT to run that footage before I mail it off to editorial.

There's still the DIT's primary role of onset grading. The DP's I work with Love having someone close to check shots, see how much they can push a look, and really get their creative vision processed before they sign off that they have what they want. And in my experience, the producers really love this as well!

Another thought. You wouldn't have a 2nd AC take the place of your film loader would you? I wouldn't. Because I don't trust anyone but a Loader to know that job backwards and forwards.
Same with handling media onset. I just don't personally trust anyone but a DIT to properly handle the media. (and this comes not only from experience losing footage, or sending off footage to Post that looks like A$$, but also from the countless phone calls I receive from people on location needing advice because their "Media Manager" they have has lost or ruined something)

As far as corrected Dailies, sure, as more producers have knowledge about "raw" they may understand the stale look they see in uncorrected dailies. But that doesn't mean that they don't want to see the vision everyone is working so hard to create, right there in their hand each day. I mean, with all do respect, I would rather see what the DP is thinking as far as his vision rather than just "Know" that anything is possible.

Now, I still do agree that because everyone has there own way, it's still very probably that the DIT's days may be numbered. At least for certain productions. And I appreciate seeing both sides of this! I for one do not want to be caught with my pants down either. (in most situations at least
But I do still believe that if handled properly, by a qualified DIT, you are getting SO much more onset for your money, than if you just had a 2nd AC, and possibly a media manager run with it. My 2c

I agree pretty much everything you say. But what I'm beginning to see more is no DIT and editorial being brought onto set. Last feature I was on as an operator, this is what they did. Personally, I'd rather have the DIT and the 2nd doing what a 2nd should. I just put it out there because I've noticed certain trends that we all should be ready for. For instance. the old school DIT who used to control the signal completely via paintbox, vectorscope, etc. is pretty much a footnote these days (except matching multicam shoots or broadcast).

 

[Ned Wilson]

In my own experience, most are willing once they see it in action. Some still won't as they are so FCP-OR-DIE minded that it's a bit disconcerting. The biggest issue most editors have in switching is they think they have to learn new software. However, any decent editor familiar with FCP will feel right at home in Premiere. They're so similar, almost identical at times, the transition period shouldn't last more than a day or so, one small project and you should feel right at home. You can use all the FCP (or Avid) keys too. All in the settings.




In terms of data management, sure. Many of my own one or two-man productions work without offloading. Many times we're in the field where offloading could be a potential hazard. With larger and more manageable SSD media, the need for immediate offload and data management becomes less. As for "DIT", that depends on what you feel the role of a "DIT" is... For many, they are primarily a loader and data manager. In that context the position of DIT has a visibly finite lifespan. However, as an imaging technician, the DIT is here to stay. Digital workflows that allow for immediate image analysis make it possible for productions to have a Digitial Imaging Technician on-set to inspect and validate the imagery as it comes in. The expense of that person could be invaluable and far better than simply shooting everything and dealing with it later -- only to find that something needs to be re-shot or someone wishes part of a scene was lit differently or there's too much noise in another shot, etc.. To me, one of the key tasks of a true "DIT" is to communicate directly with the DP, director and camera crew to let them know how the images are doing, let them know if they are getting the most ideal image from the camera or if there is something they need to be aware of.

Shooting whatever, getting your images into the can, and then sorting it out later is the way it's been done for over 100 years. It was really only the advent of inferior quality video cameras that offered an alternative to this approach. Now we can instantly review and analyze full-quality cinema footage right on set. It can be an invaluable tool. To me, that is what a true "DIT" is. If you're just a media jockey or data wrangler, that's fine too... But you're not a "DIT", you're a digital loader or data due, file monkey, etc... That can be a valuable position too and not necessarily the same thing.

Well said, I'll definitely keep this mind when someone suggest that a DIT isn't necessary.