Red Online Costs and Procedures...

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Buy $2000 i7 Pc, cs4, edit r3d in prem, grade in afx, export to everything, works great for me, obviously afx is no great grading solution, but for short work you can get the job done if it's a low budget production.

Don't know about you guys, I've graded all of my shoots in AE with excellent results. Maybe I'm doing something different?

 

[Craig Parkes]

Don't know about you guys, I've graded all of my shoots in AE with excellent results. Maybe I'm doing something different?

AE isn't realtime, has interface hassles, doesn't offer any sort of conform that I know of without Automatic Duck (or editing in Premiere - although I am not sure how stable that is?) has a bit of a steep learning curve for people who are used to other sorts of grading.

From a technical point of view, After Effects is great for grading (assuming you are using the right plug ins etc and can get accurate monitoring via hardware.)

But it's not designed for grading, and when compared to software that is, the differences show.

 

[GlennChan]

But it's not designed for grading, and when compared to software that is, the differences show.

AE can do windows/splines and glows that look right. Other software doesn't. e.g. Final Touch didn't do windows correctly... you get this Mach banding effect in some cases.
And there are some systems that do glows that don't look right.

Yes, AE is a pretty slow way of doing things (because the interface isn't designed for color, conform takes longer, and rendering). But you'd probably prefer a lower budget and be able to get good results (as long as the operator is good) as opposed to getting it done fast.

2- The other reason why AE is good for indie films is because you can stabilize shots, paint stuff out, etc. etc.

And of course, if you do get short distribution, which won't pay the bills generally but can be nice, having a broadcast spec master will allow it to be shown of television without you getting a phonecall on delivery saying it's all way of spec and you have to spend a how bunch of time and money that you don't have, and it should have been done yesterday, otherwise it can't be aired

That's not how it works.

The broadcaster won't put itself in this situation since it knows that not all masters meet their criteria/requirements (especially since broadcasters all have different requirements). Getting masters rejected happens to experienced post houses and is not necessarily a big deal.
In any case, it's extremely unlikely that you'd get a television broadcaster anyways and if you do, you'd have to do additional work on your master anyways to meet their specs / make a version of it that meets their specs.

The stuff about souring relationships is spreading FUD.

3- This is not going to television. To make the colors broadcast legal (which varies from broadcaster to broadcaster anyways), you'll have to make them fit with broadcast safe colors and this will impair your colors / impair the technical quality of your film.

4- The big picture is that almost all independent films go nowhere, but you gain experience making them, hopefully gain some recognition for your skills and/or network with like-minded people.

I wouldn't pay for online editing and/or additional finishing (e.g. audio)... defer this cost until you need it.

 

[Craig Parkes]

Glenn, I like to think it's not FUD, just a point of view.

Lots of project go to television, or at least to DVD. I'm not talking about have music & effects on the correct track or legal blacks here so much as being able to see your short on a decent monitor for broadcast if that's your output, and not doing it yourself and getting an NTSC version sent to PAL land etc.

I should mention that around these parts, if it's a short, everyone does extremely cut rate prices, or often helps out for free, if they like the film maker.

From the point of view of a short film maker who has produced shorts, on my own dime, that have ended up being broadcast, and has used the experience going through the process to get industry work - I am preaching from my own experience.

The understanding you gain from working with other people if you DON'T already have that knowledge is very valuable.

Now, if you let it cost you a lot of money - then I don't agree with that.

But if you are SERIOUSLY looking at getting festival acceptance, some form of short distribution other than on the net (much more viable in countries other than America - there is a market in the rest of the world, albeit a small one.) and also want to expand your knowledge of the technical side of things in general doing all this stuff doesn't hurt at all, if you have made the effort to make the contacts and the work you are doing makes someone sit up and go "You know what, I'd like to help them out.".

I agree with deferring costs until you need them. However, if you can get them for cheap/very little and expand your contacts at the same time, that should be your aim.

Maybe it's different where you are - and people aren't willing or able to help out those trying to make it with their shorts, in which case you can certainly do it all yourself to great effect. But you shouldn't start from the point of view of not ASKING for help, if you ask, it often is delivered, and there is advantages to building the relationships that come with that help.

Also, you should always aim for the highest achievable standard for your short - saying it's just a learning experience is fine if this is a hobby - but if you want to make it a career you should always be aiming to deliver the best possible master that you can that has the most likelihood of getting you noticed on an international stage.

 

[GlennChan]

Fair enough.