RE: Ghetto Workflow?

[Harry Clark]

RE: Ghetto Workflow?

Considering the laborious workflow presented with Redcine etc., might not a more "ghetto" workflow for us lowly folk in the second-tier commercial and corporate film world be the use of the Quicktime proxies? Cut, render, color and finish without ever touching the r3d file? Yes, I know, I know, I'm missing the boat as far as high-end grading, and pushing in, and cropping, and whatever, but right now I need a solution that makes my low-rent work function. My high-end work seems to have smart post production people attached to it who can make it all work with e 4K files.
But have I overlooked the lowly proxies as a finish solution for the smaller jobs???
I was at my buddy's production office today and I think we did just that, fairly easily, with just a regular old Intel Mac Final Cut system with a Kona card...
Am I dreaming? Have I been ranting about Redcine needlessly?
Maybe we need a "post for dummy DPs" book...
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Frank Weeks]

from HarryClark

workflow for us lowly folk in the second-tier commercial and corporate film world be the use of the Quicktime proxies?

Good question Harry.

I also do a good deal of corporate and commercial work. A quick and easy workflow is of great interest to me. Please keep us informed.

Thanks
Frank

 

[Corrado Silveri]

Just one overnight render out in Redcine.
lt's simple, today you gave the look, tomorrow you have the clips.
Why not?
You really find this so annoying?

Just my two cents.

 

[Dylan Reeve]

FWIW importing proxies to Avid as Standard Def media yields quite nice pictures, but not great, and I probably wouldn't broadcast them. Although that was with 2:1, with 16:9 video the proxies scale to SD better.

 

[Paris Remillard]

Or open up .R3D import into Photoshop/lightroom/aperture. If I'm going to have to render overnight anyway, in some situations I'd prefer to batch process in one of these and have access to more/more precise controls. Just my opinion.

 

[Paul Leeming]

I second a batch function in Photoshop, as the colour tweaking is fantastic and most people who work still DSLR RAWs are used to its RAW functionality.

Cheers,

Paul

 

[Harry Clark]

Elcurado,
Because I sometimes work with people who still have trouble even with P2 workflow; because sometimes overnight is too slow; because these clients don't need more than 720p; because they are perfectly happy with my HDX-900 and Pro-35, but I wish to use the better camera (Red) on he front end; because despite the Emperor's new clothes, the more I work with RedCine the more I hate it (although post people seem to soldier through it without much grumbling)
Prior to yesterday, I had assumed that the proxies were too low-res to be of much use except for off-lining. But the high-res copy looked pretty darn good when output to SD. I ran out of time before I could have them try it with an HD output. I was just thinking that during my lengthy (and getting longer) explanation of the Red workflow that I could throw this in as an option.
Is there a timeline setting in Final Cut that I can recommend to work best with the high-res proxy?
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Costelloe Michael]

Maybe we need a "post for dummy DPs" book...
Cheers,
Harry

Harry,

I think you've put your finger on the button here! I've been following all the threads up to the point of comprehension but not execution, not being a 'post guy', but I would pay money for someone to do some hard and fast workflow work through's. I don't intend to take the work from the higher end post process and try to do it myself but I do want to be able to take personal stuff through post on my own or cheaper jobs. Furthermore it would be a boon to be able to understand through execution.

Mike C

 

[Harry Clark]

Parisrem,
I was on a job the other day and the stills guy was using one of those RAW management programs (I think it was Lightroom?) Beautiful OS X interface, easy to understand layout, pulldown menus, FAST and precise control over the image. He scrolled quickly down the side, each photo's thumbnail displayed. I saw words like "batch" that made sense to me. The font was readable and was of contrasting color to the box that it was in. He needed to do something else and hit command-H and the program hid!
I was thinking, "Boy, if we had something like this on the back end of Red, we'd really be in business"
But alas...
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Harry Clark]

Costelloe,
I don't even really want to be involved with post. But I realized about six years ago, when I got an SDX-900, and kept getting calls that the deck would not play back my tapes (it was an older, DVCPro 25 only deck) that I would have to be proactive and know as much as I could. Over the years, discussions with editors and producers have ranged from interlace vs. progressive to 24p vs. 24pA vs. 24pN to SD anamorphic 16x9 to the now ubiquitous call from the editor about why the .mxf files don't open in Final Cut. In a way, it's been shocking to learn how little SOME editors know about different formats and processes. SOME editors... please don't jump on me here...
There is a layer of business out there where the editors, by and large, don't want to learn new tricks. And they can be very influential it torpedoing a DP's choice of camera. I've lost SDX and HDX rentals because the editor only has a Digibeta (or worse) a Beta SP deck. And I'm forced to use an inferior camera!
I'm just on a mad hunt here to simplify the process for that layer. And in the end, I do believe that it is a good thing for a cinematographer to be as knowledgeable as possible about the post process. It's just in the old photochemical world it seemed simpler and more straightforward.
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Scott Simmons]

Costelloe,
I don't even really want to be involved with post. But I realized about six years ago, when I got an SDX-900, and kept getting calls that the deck would not play back my tapes (it was an older, DVCPro 25 only deck) that I would have to be proactive and know as much as I could. Over the years, discussions with editors and producers have ranged from interlace vs. progressive to 24p vs. 24pA vs. 24pN to SD anamorphic 16x9 to the now ubiquitous call from the editor about why the .mxf files don't open in Final Cut. In a way, it's been shocking to learn how little SOME editors know about different formats and processes. SOME editors... please don't jump on me here...
There is a layer of business out there where the editors, by and large, don't want to learn new tricks. And they can be very influential it torpedoing a DP's choice of camera. I've lost SDX and HDX rentals because the editor only has a Digibeta (or worse) a Beta SP deck. And I'm forced to use an inferior camera!
I'm just on a mad hunt here to simplify the process for that layer. And in the end, I do believe that it is a good thing for a cinematographer to be as knowledgeable as possible about the post process. It's just in the old photochemical world it seemed simpler and more straightforward.
Cheers,
Harry

You have hit the nail on the head that SOME editors don't want to learn the new tech and that can be bad. But being an editor myself I must defend a bit.... editors and post houses are expected to be able to work with everything under the sun and this can make it near impossible to keep everyone happy. A DP might spend $30,000 - $80,000 on a SINGLE hot new camera format but the post house has to spend something like that on the FOUR hot new formats to be able to properly support it all. and that's every couple of years. Technically I would say it's much more expensive and difficult in post to properly support it all.

 

[Harry Clark]

editblog,
I agree; the infrastructure investment for editors is HUGE and clients wish for the stars and expect that you will have every format under the sun covered by hardware... obviously that's not realistic. What amazes me is the reluctance to use new formats even when they are data-centric and cost next to zero for post houses to implement.
Anyway, I'm hoping that the ghetto workflow will suffice for my smaller clients for now.
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Andrew Kimery]

editblog,
I agree; the infrastructure investment for editors is HUGE and clients wish for the stars and expect that you will have every format under the sun covered by hardware... obviously that's not realistic. What amazes me is the reluctance to use new formats even when they are data-centric and cost next to zero for post houses to implement.
Anyway, I'm hoping that the ghetto workflow will suffice for my smaller clients for now.
Cheers,
Harry

Not to hijack the thread, but most people find that they prefer the devil they know than the devil they don't. It's the same reason I still see 5 or 6 year old Macs running 5 or 6 year old Avids cutting network or cable TV shows. The post people (producers down to editors) know and trust that workflow. They know how to avoid and/or readily address problems and would rather render longer on a slow machine than risk more down time running into an unknown problem on a newer machine. Also, most editors aren't "tech heads" and just want to cut.

I'm in the process of helping facilitate a move from tape to tapeless at the company I work at right now (it will be a mix of tapeless field acquisition and direct capture onto our xSan) and I'm pretty much having to toss out the old workflow book and create a new one from scratch as well as tackle unforeseen "growing pains" type problems. Now, in the long run I'm glad we are doing this, but in the near term the teething process is going to suck. I dig new toys as much as the next guy, but I'm also a big fan of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."


-A