THE WORKFLOW OF ENDER'S GAME

[Michael Cioni]

Michael, are you sure that isn't a typo? On the pictures we deal with, 50TB is less than 3 weeks of production. For us, 50TB total would be a very small show. And I'm not talking stereoscopic here...

Not a typo;-) Rather, let me put it this way:
How does one define "big" or "small?" It's relative to the individual, company, or project. In terms of motion picture negative, a terabyte is not a fixed unit of measurement because each camera captures a different gig-per-hour count. 50TBs with judicious shooting on Epic 5:1 is the equivalent of 105TBs of ArriRAW or 165TBs of CanonRAW. Clearly one is bigger than the other, but because it changes, it's difficult to clearly define what is "big" and what is "small." But perhaps we can agree on this: 50TBs and up has a more serious affect on the metrics of storage than under 50TBs. That's why I choose that number.

Because of this, I find that many companies rely heavily on LTO for VFX pulls & conform, especially when over 50TBs. And just to be clear to the other readers here: typical LTO data management is cheaper to store yet slower to retrieve than the spinning disk alternative, which is more expensive to store and faster to retrieve. The math in determining what is best for a project changes on every film because:
A) the datarate per-gig changes
B) the amount of VFX pulls and temp-conforms vs. full-conforms changes
C) the schedule of turnaround and delivery changes
D) the budget changes

I find that weighing the above 4 elements together helps determined the best way to move data around, and for this particular case study on Ender's Game, 96TBs spinning disks served as the best way to maintain optimal efficiency. In fact, a number of people in the cutting room and VFX vendor claimed this workflow as "the fastest turn-arounds in VFX data pulls we've ever experienced."

Do movies shoot more than 50TBs of data? Yes. Do they all move that data as efficiently as they could? Nope. Not even close.

m

 

[Corey_O]

Can you explain which programs DIT were running on lillypad.
Color on set you mean only at Redcinex or he does color on resolve or pablo too.
does he sync sound on redcinex and match?
his main job was Dit on set or data wrangler?

I believe Light Iron uses Express Dailies from Colorfront on the lillypad for sync and color.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

I'm not sure this is a definitive answer, but the 128GB are kind of a sweet spot for amount of data you want on a card at any time (to minimize risk) and allow a good rotation of offloading, keeping the data flowing all day long. I'm sure there are times when 256 and 512 are useful as well but I see 128GB a lot more often.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

In terms of whether or not this will change with Dragon, there are a few things to consider in terms of long, large scale projects such as these (smaller, independent projects or commercial projects with either a non-standard crew or a one or two day schedule are a beast of a different color):

1) Offload times. USB 3.0 is fairly ubiquitous now, and Thunderbolt is getting there. The above video mentions eSATA, which was more of the standard back when Ender's Game started shooting. If 128GBs are the norm now, and take X amount of time to offload, but then you get a new setup with a faster method of transfer, that is Y times as fast, then you can use cards that are (Y * 128GB) and still perform the offload (but not necessarily the QC) in X amount of time. If 128GBs are the norm right now and transfer methods are not changing, then the DIT and Loader(s) will prefer that 128GB stay the norm. Otherwise, this starts to affect turnaround times, and could also affect #3 below.

2) Reload frequency. If the card is too small, it has to be reloaded too often. I find, if the camera is in a harder-than-normal to reach place, the AC would rather hold off on the reload. Likewise, if they're in the middle of an emotional setup or scene, the feeling on set is "don't interrupt the mood if you can avoid it".

3) Data integrity and Quality Control. If a card lives on camera all day, and then you get it after wrap at the end of the day and find out that . . . something is fucked. Well. That's bad. You want to minimize the impact that a catastrophically bad mag or bad setup can have. If you catch a bad setup right after a turnaround, then you likely can get the setup turned back around afterwards and redo the bad setup. If there's a bad setup at 9AM, and then at 3PM there's a company move across town, and then at 10PM you find out that there was a bad setup at 9AM . . . well I wouldn't be surprised if someone gets fired.


#1 is affected by data transfer rates, as well as camera data-creation rates. #2 is affected only data-creation rates and mag-size. Both affect when #3 can be assessed. Point being, the answer to the question isn't entirely cut and dry. 128GB is pretty standard because it lines up well with all of the factors given all of the options. When the factors change, so too will the mag size. If Dragon truly looks cleaner at a greater compression, then I wouldn't run out and replace all 128GBs with 256GBs just yet.

 

[Darren Orange]

128GBs. I'm sorry but I maybe I'm the rare fish here but I'd want to swap cards based upon time shot not space recorded. There has to be a pretty good excuse to record more than 20 minutes to a card before switching cards. If there is a good time break with a card that has over 10 minutes on it swap it.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

Very nice presentation. Thank you.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

128GBs. I'm sorry but I maybe I'm the rare fish here but I'd want to swap cards based upon time shot not space recorded. There has to be a pretty good excuse to record more than 20 minutes to a card before switching cards. If there is a good time break with a card that has over 10 minutes on it swap it.

Yep, swaps generally happen with 10-20 minutes of material on a card. With Epic at 5K 5:1 @24fps you can't get more than 25 minutes on a card anyway and you will rarely want to take the card to roll out.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Took the words right out of my mouth.

In terms of whether or not this will change with Dragon, there are a few things to consider in terms of long, large scale projects such as these (smaller, independent projects or commercial projects with either a non-standard crew or a one or two day schedule are a beast of a different color):

1) Offload times. USB 3.0 is fairly ubiquitous now, and Thunderbolt is getting there. The above video mentions eSATA, which was more of the standard back when Ender's Game started shooting. If 128GBs are the norm now, and take X amount of time to offload, but then you get a new setup with a faster method of transfer, that is Y times as fast, then you can use cards that are (Y * 128GB) and still perform the offload (but not necessarily the QC) in X amount of time. If 128GBs are the norm right now and transfer methods are not changing, then the DIT and Loader(s) will prefer that 128GB stay the norm. Otherwise, this starts to affect turnaround times, and could also affect #3 below.

2) Reload frequency. If the card is too small, it has to be reloaded too often. I find, if the camera is in a harder-than-normal to reach place, the AC would rather hold off on the reload. Likewise, if they're in the middle of an emotional setup or scene, the feeling on set is "don't interrupt the mood if you can avoid it".

3) Data integrity and Quality Control. If a card lives on camera all day, and then you get it after wrap at the end of the day and find out that . . . something is fucked. Well. That's bad. You want to minimize the impact that a catastrophically bad mag or bad setup can have. If you catch a bad setup right after a turnaround, then you likely can get the setup turned back around afterwards and redo the bad setup. If there's a bad setup at 9AM, and then at 3PM there's a company move across town, and then at 10PM you find out that there was a bad setup at 9AM . . . well I wouldn't be surprised if someone gets fired.


#1 is affected by data transfer rates, as well as camera data-creation rates. #2 is affected only data-creation rates and mag-size. Both affect when #3 can be assessed. Point being, the answer to the question isn't entirely cut and dry. 128GB is pretty standard because it lines up well with all of the factors given all of the options. When the factors change, so too will the mag size. If Dragon truly looks cleaner at a greater compression, then I wouldn't run out and replace all 128GBs with 256GBs just yet.

Love this post. Perfect midnight Reduser reading.

 

[M Most]

Not a typo;-)

I find that weighing the above 4 elements together helps determined the best way to move data around, and for this particular case study on Ender's Game, 96TBs spinning disks served as the best way to maintain optimal efficiency.

I think the danger is presenting "case studies" is that out of the group of people who will read them, there is a good percentage that will understand that the decisions made were arrived at through careful consideration of the needs and circumstances of everyone from production, to post production, to the studio, to the VFX vendors, etc. Others will read it and think "OK, that's how you do this. So I'll do it that way," without understanding why it was done that way in those particular circumstances.

The fact is that there are a myriad of considerations, and they sometimes go considerably beyond simple file recovery speed. On every project, things are handled differently based on specific needs and wants. Some projects want to set up large storage on their own premises (be that editorial, studio, or whatever) and do all of this themselves. Others want to set that up on location (this is sometimes the case on very large, very long shoots). Some are ready and willing to use media management software (things like Joust) to manage the storage, the visual effects shots as they are delivered, and the manufacture of plates from original camera material all in one fell swoop. Some want the pulls to be in the form of original complete files, others want specific frames with specific handles in a specific format. Some want color baked in, some want no color baked in. Some want color metadata from either an on set solution or the dailies colorist. Some don't. Some need to store all of their original material for over a year prior to the DI conform, some only have a month or two between production wrap and the DI. My point is that one size has never fit all in this business, and that's more true now than it ever has been. While spinning drives have their advantages, they also have a number of disadvantages. They require constant power, they require some type of host (be it NAS, DAS, or SAN, they all need some host in order to work) which means at least a minor amount of infrastructure. They need proper environment if failures are to be avoided. They require either some type of management software solution or very computer conversant operators, which you don't always find in the editorial department (most of the time these days, but not always, especially on bigger features). If VFX pulls are going to involve any kind of transcoding, they require software and hopefully a render manager/queue to handle that. LTO's minimize some of those requirements. They don't require any power during the storage period. Once catalogued (a step essentially all LTO using facilities do) they are rather simple to keep track of. They are, as you said, relatively cheap, and they are considered very secure and reliable by those whose opinions on such things matter (namely, the studios that demand them). They can be easily moved either as a complete group or as individual tapes. Since they are cheap and portable, you can make multiple copies during production and place them in different locations, adding to the security/reliability factor.

Every project has a different mindset and focus, and it doesn't always come from the budget per se. There are projects that want to self manage, and there are projects that want a vendor to manage the material in secure conditions. There are studios (well, at least one that I can't name here....) that value security above all other considerations, to the point that even the editorial SAN is shut down every night and kept under lock and key, and every shuttle drive is encrypted. In most of the larger facilities that deal with a lot of big studio productions, LTO doesn't mean what it means to a lot of people on RedUser. LTOs in those facilities are handled by large tape robots and managed by software, right down to the physical movement of the tapes from shelf to drive. They are usually written in formats that allow very quick access to files, and with multiple drives files recovery is a pretty efficient process. If you're feeding tapes by hand to a single LTO drive, or even a small autoloader, then yes, it is a rather laborious process compared to disk based recovery. But there are other prices to be paid for that, and while that may be somewhat inconsequential on do-it-yourself or individual productions, it is not always appropriate when you're trying to handle huge amounts of data on multiple productions in the same building at the same time.

I like the fact that you see fit to present your working methods on various projects to others here and elsewhere. I just have the feeling that sometimes those who read these accounts take them literally, even though you take some pains to point out that these things need to be tailored to each project. Your facilities are not set up the same way as places like Company 3, EFilm, Technicolor, Colorworks, and some other large DI providers, who have particular infrastructures in place based on the needs and demands of their client base as well as the needs of handling multiple very large titles simultaneously. Part of that is through conscious, intentional choice, but part of it is also based on your particular mix of clients and projects, which are unique to you. I'm very well aware of the continuing decentralization of all phases of our business, from production through post. Hell, that's exactly what the department I'm a director of facilitates. But even in a changing landscape - perhaps especially in a changing landscape - there are many choices available for these things. One size never fits all.

 

[paulherrin]

I think the danger is presenting "case studies" is that out of the group of people who will read them, there is a good percentage that will understand that the decisions made were arrived at through careful consideration of the needs and circumstances of everyone from production, to post production, to the studio, to the VFX vendors, etc. Others will read it and think "OK, that's how you do this. So I'll do it that way," without understanding why it was done that way in those particular circumstances.

oh, please... cut the politics. hard for me to be gracious responding here, mike, but i'm trying.

the whole point is to challenge the traditional infrastructure (that you're in and trying to find a way forward with) and saying we can start fresh, even for each project. it's absolutely ridiculous to ever say that 'case studies' shouldn't be presented. THE ENTIRE POINT is that it's about one specific example, not meant to be decontextualized and extrapolated as a general theory of best practice.

that being said, i think michael's simple formula is a good starting point for what he's talking about. you really can't just load a post with as many obvious details about data transferring and pass it off as wisdom - sorry, but we already know you're intelligent and you bring up some good points and details that maybe everyone doesn't know (or need to know) about.

the point is that there are options and this is ONE case study. of course, you provide 'case studies' of your own all the time on these forums, and we appreciate that. so if you want to say something, i'd encourage you to thoughtfully respond with an oral/av presentation in like manner. i'd be happy to help you post it

in the meantime, i'm excited to go see this in the imax before it runs out! thanks for your contributions, michael.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I think the danger is presenting "case studies" is that out of the group of people who will read them, there is a good percentage that will understand that the decisions made were arrived at through careful consideration of the needs and circumstances of everyone from production, to post production, to the studio, to the VFX vendors, etc. Others will read it and think "OK, that's how you do this. So I'll do it that way," without understanding why it was done that way in those particular circumstances.

The internet is such a dangerous place.

 

[M Most]

oh, please... cut the politics. hard for me to be gracious responding here, mike, but i'm trying.

I honestly don't see where I was political in the least here. I simply stated what to some is the obvious, and to others is not, which is that a single conclusion (in this case, that large capacity spinning drives are "the answer") is not to be taken literally, and that different approaches are very valid in various circumstances. Sorry if you find that hard to graciously respond to. Did you read my last paragraph, or did you stop after the first one? Allow me to quote myself:

"I like the fact that you see fit to present your working methods on various projects to others here and elsewhere. I just have the feeling that sometimes those who read these accounts take them literally, even though you take some pains to point out that these things need to be tailored to each project."

Enough said.

the whole point is to challenge the traditional infrastructure (that you're in and trying to find a way forward with) and saying we can start fresh

Regardless of what people here (including you) seem to think, I am not "in a traditional infrastructure." The On Location Services department at Technicolor, of which I am a director, is charged with location based support for on set and near set production related operations (including but not limited to color management, dailies, and archival) and location based post support (such as remote finishing). Nothing we do uses a "traditional infrastructure" even when it might be used to feed one. In fact, for much of our set related activities we happen to use almost exactly the same equipment and software that Lightiron does (we used it first, though :001_cool:, and we supplement it with some additional pieces that we developed...). But what you and others here consider "traditional" really means "large," because all major post facilities today are almost completely file based, especially for DI work but for television work as well. There seems to be some feeling here that "small" means more forward thinking and technologically advanced. Except that it doesn't. Most of the things discussed here have been in use for quite some time at what you consider "big iron" houses, and a lot of what Michael touches on is not foreign to those of us involved with larger companies. I think Michael is very clever, very original, and presents ideas very well, and I've told him that numerous times, here and face to face. But to assume that the techniques referred to here are somehow completely foreign and "challenging" to established players is to show a lack of understanding as to how those players have evolved over the last few years. THAT is what I sometimes try to bring to the table. And, apparently, unsuccessfully.

that being said, i think michael's simple formula is a good starting point for what he's talking about. you really can't just load a post with as many obvious details about data transferring and pass it off as wisdom - sorry, but we already know you're intelligent and you bring up some good points and details that maybe everyone doesn't know (or need to know) about.

Paul, you're usually pretty intelligent and gracious, so I don't know what you're trying to say here. I don't "pass of as wisdom" anything. That's your label. I just post things I want to say, just like you or anyone else here does. I don't hold myself as any kind of sage. You don't have to take anything I say seriously unless you want to. So, in this case, don't. But please don't insult me just because you didn't happen to enjoy something I posted.

the point is that there are options and this is ONE case study. of course, you provide 'case studies' of your own all the time on these forums, and we appreciate that. so if you want to say something, i'd encourage you to thoughtfully respond with an oral/av presentation in like manner.

One of the facts of life when working on large projects with major studios is that you have to go through many levels of permission prior to revealing anything about the inner workings of how things were done. I can't always talk about things we do even when I might want to. And because our department is not the one doing the finishing, I usually don't have a lot of conversations with directors or producers, which are required to get that kind of release. So before you try to make this some kind of personal thing, I suggest you consider that.

 

[paulherrin]

Did you read my last paragraph, or did you stop after the first one?

haha, i assure you i read each word - even the tedious stuff in the middle. what i'm wondering is if you watched the video because michael made it very clear that this was NOT a one-size-fits-all solution. i think what's dangerous is making assumptions about the intelligence of 'literal' people to be able to understand a literal statement that covers exactly what you're worried about for some reason...

i guess you're more worried about what's going on in the wild west and i'm more concerned with what's not going on in 'hollywood' (i.e., the established industry). believe me, it would be my preference that those with access to major capital, infrastructure, and influence would more consistently make outstanding, creative content in innovative, creative ways. i also realize that it's a business and there are balance sheets, but honestly i'd just as well the banks stay in their own money-making business unless they have a real passion for arts and media, and you know... doing good things for people (before and after profit).

case study: http://www.3news.co.nz/NZs-film-industry-under-the-sword/tabid/817/articleID/320176/Default.aspx

you def make some (if not all) good points, the problem is that there's been a lot - as you imply - 'special knowledge' and trade secrets that haven't been shared for financial and political (i.e. exercising or seeking power/influence) purposes. okay, fine... but i'm really just getting into this stuff and i'm coming with a different perspective and philosophy that wants to challenge those notions for the good of communities and the advancement of art, technology, and economics. i certainly respect the craft and the work you're doing and it's cool to hear a little bit about that, so i have to apologize for my assumptions and moreover my tone. some ideas are just worth fighting for, but i am sorry my frustration got unfairly flung on you.

do i get any slack for being unseasoned and restless (or, at least stupid and reckless ?

please don't insult me just because you didn't happen to enjoy something I posted.

you're right. i'm sorry. and for the record, you do have a lot of wisdom - so again, i seriously appreciate you sharing anything at all.

 

[M Most]

haha, i assure you i read each word - even the tedious stuff in the middle. what i'm wondering is if you watched the video because michael made it very clear that this was NOT a one-size-fits-all solution.

I confess I did not. I was responding purely to the text in his post. Probably a mistake. :embarassed:

i guess you're more worried about what's going on in the wild west and i'm more concerned with what's not going on in 'hollywood' (i.e., the established industry).

Bingo. One of the unfortunate things about "democratization" is that many of us find ourselves having to deal with finishing projects made by people who have gained just enough knowledge to be "dangerous" but not enough to make for a trouble free project. In many cases this is because they did exactly what I referred to - they read a few articles, had some great creative ideas, and made assumptions based on limited knowledge and limited exposure to the way things are actually done. We (the aggregate "we," namely those of us involved in the finishing end regardless of where or for whom) have to do a lot of work to either undo what they have done that won't work, or figure out what they actually should have done and try to do it with limited information (and funds, but that's a separate issue....). THAT is the "Wild West" that you referred to and that's the unfortunate side effect of access to cheap equipment, cheap or free software, and the dissemination of incomplete information.

the problem is that there's been a lot - as you imply - 'special knowledge' and trade secrets that haven't been shared for financial and political (i.e. exercising or seeking power/influence) purposes.

I know that's the way it seems to a lot of people. Except that I don't see it that way at all. I worked very hard to learn what I learned at the beginning of my career in order to find my way into the business. And I continue to do so to this day, because the only way you learn and keep your skills and knowledge current is by finding out all you can, and combining that with experience. Everything takes time. There are no power driven "secrets" and there is no special knowledge conspiracy. If anything, there are simply not enough efforts to provide those coming in with the knowledge and skills that they really need to succeed. I'm involved in something that can potentially be a rather serious attempt at remedying that (can't talk about it quite yet), so I'm trying to be a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem. But I would caution against these type of statements because you will eventually understand how untrue they really are, even if they appear to be the case to you now.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

One of the unfortunate things about "democratization" is that many of us find ourselves having to deal with finishing projects made by people who have gained just enough knowledge to be "dangerous" but not enough to make for a trouble free project.

We (the aggregate "we," namely those of us involved in the finishing end regardless of where or for whom) have to do a lot of work to either undo what they have done that won't work, or figure out what they actually should have done and try to do it with limited information (and funds, but that's a separate issue....). THAT is the "Wild West" that you referred to and that's the unfortunate side effect of access to cheap equipment, cheap or free software, and the dissemination of incomplete information.

This is true. But I's also like to point out that projects at larger, "well-established" companies are not always "trouble free" either. I've worked directly with "leading brands" in the post finishing world - and in my experience - there's more than a few folks who have earned a position or title at several of these companies and somehow that has gone to their heads and are convinced they know everything and the only good workflow is the one they used on the last project. They are even MORE "dangerous" than the young guns who don't know everything yet as far as I'm concerned. But yeah, I know all too well that post production is often all about cleaning up other peoples messes - but ... sometimes those messes are actually created by well established folks at well established companies and there's always someone available to throw under the bus and blame.

Nobody every got fired for buying IBM

If anything, there are simply not enough efforts to provide those coming in with the knowledge and skills that they really need to succeed.

Efforts like Michael Cioni's case study I'm actually amazed at the number of resources available for people to gain knowledge and skills in post finishing today.

 

[M Most]

Efforts like Michael Cioni's case study I'm actually amazed at the number of resources available for people to gain knowledge and skills in post finishing today.

But unfortunately many of those people want the quick fix, the magic button, or the one important fact that they think is the key to being suddenly experienced. And both you and I know it doesn't work that way. What's missing in many cases is the low level knowledge that lets people come up with the larger concepts on their own. Along, of course, with the willingness and eagerness to learn it. I see too many cases of those who call themselves data wranglers but don't know basic data management operations beyond drag and drop copying on a Mac laptop. Or those who call themselves editors but don't know how to interpret a lined script. Or those who call themselves DIT's who don't know how to properly calibrate a monitor. It's attention to and knowledge of low level detail that should be second nature but often isn't even part of the equation. That's what I think isn't really being addressed, because too many today want to skip all of that, and are given feedback that says they can.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

But unfortunately many of those people want the quick fix, the magic button, or the one important fact that they think is the key to being suddenly experienced. And both you and I know it doesn't work that way. What's missing in many cases is the low level knowledge that lets people come up with the larger concepts on their own. Along, of course, with the willingness and eagerness to learn it. I see too many cases of those who call themselves data wranglers but don't know basic data management operations beyond drag and drop copying on a Mac laptop. Or those who call themselves editors but don't know how to interpret a lined script. Or those who call themselves DIT's who don't know how to properly calibrate a monitor. It's attention to and knowledge of low level detail that should be second nature but often isn't even part of the equation. That's what I think isn't really being addressed, because too many today want to skip all of that, and are given feedback that says they can.

Michael Cioni knows how to calibrate a monitor, wrangle data and interpret a lined script - as do many folks here on Reduser.

I think it's safe to get back to some actual learning on this thread, don't you agree Mike?

 

[paulherrin]

I'm involved in something that can potentially be a rather serious attempt at remedying that (can't talk about it quite yet), so I'm trying to be a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem. But I would caution against these type of statements because you will eventually understand how untrue they really are, even if they appear to be the case to you now.

I figured you were doing stuff, rock on! And I think I just used some strong rhetoric there about so-called secret knowledge, I didn't meant to imply some grand conspiracy, just talking about a general sense I've gotten that there is hesitation to provide important details about post/finishing - in fact, I think we're in agreement based on your comments, there is a lot of stuff out there on a basic level but there's a lot of REALLY basic stuff that slips between the cracks or just gets ignored and left out, not to mention little tricks and tips and advanced methods. I'm not really a 'colorist' or trying to be as that's not all I want to do, I've come towards this kind of stuff in a really roundabout way through discovering a more creative outlet of vfx/compositing skills and doing personal studies in art, philosophy, psychology, phenomenology/perception, and whatever else i 'waste' all my time with (depending on who you ask). i think it's obvious that experience is debatably the most important aspect of just about any craft, but i have to say it would kind of be nice to be able to do some intensive technical training... that's all i'm referring to when i talk about special sauce

Michael Cioni knows how to calibrate a monitor, wrangle data and interpret a lined script

hehe... this guy ^^^

 

[Marc Wielage]

But unfortunately many of those people want the quick fix, the magic button, or the one important fact that they think is the key to being suddenly experienced.

Very wise words. I think what Mike is saying here is that it's possible for a neophyte to read Michael Cioni's methods and assume they can easily adopt them for their own. Light Iron's methods work because they have bright people and have tried all this stuff out over a period of years. I think Mr. Most's point is not to ever assume that workflow issues can't or won't crop up, or that any of this is easy. And there is no substitute for experience.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Very wise words. I think what Mike is saying here is that it's possible for a neophyte to read Michael Cioni's methods and assuming they can adopt them for their own. Light Iron's methods work because they have bright people and have tried all this stuff out over a period of years. I think Mr. Most's point is not to ever assume that workflow issues can't or won't crop up, or that any of this is easy. And there is no substitute for experience.

I understand the point that Mr. Most is trying to make ... but I just personally find that point to be counter to the underlying concept of this entire forum and certainly a thread where someone posts a detailed case study about a specific workflow. Should someone like Michael Cioni, or myself for that matter, not share workflows, case studies and techniques because "unqualified people with little or no experience might think they can just adopt them and have zero issues"?

That's just crazy to me. I guess I have an entirely different attitude about sharing information and learning. People want a "quick fix, the magic button" by human nature - that's not specific to this industry or post production. That's human nature. And it's certainly not going to change.

What often frustrates me on this forum specifically, is that many threads start out with a real exchange of technical information - good questions, good answers - and somehow it ends up ... here.

I re-read all the posts here - just to make sure I wasn't going crazy. It's pretty bizarre to me that we start with someone sharing a technical case study of a large project - something that a lot of readers on this forum would never even get close to - and it becomes a debate about the "danger" of sharing such information because a neophyte might think it's easy. Really?

The fact that Michael Cioni posted that case study publicly speaks volumes. Many well known, famous chefs publish their recipes in cook books - doesn't mean everyone that tries to follow the directions will make the dish that tastes the same and can be a "famous chef". But many can achieve the same result (the dish) - and many learn more just by trying. And I can assure you that many famous chefs read cook books written by other chefs.

There is no substitute for experience for pretty much everything in life. But free exchange of knowledge and global, real-time Q&A with experts can help lots of people learn and refine their experiences. And yeah ... maybe a few neophytes will blindly reach beyond their means with confidence to try to achieve success and fail ... but they will learn too. And some will try again - apply what they learned - and continue to learn. That's certainly what I did.

Maybe every cookbook should have a disclaimer that says "Following the recipes in this book might result in food that does not taste as good as when the author cooks it".

I'm more than happy to discuss and/or debate anything related to our industry with Mr. Most - or anyone for that matter - just start a ask me anything thread or something - but it would really be great IMO if this thread could get back to discussing ...

THE WORKFLOW OF ENDER'S GAME case study.

 

[paulherrin]

somebody really needs to change my status from senior member to neophyte - mods?

i don't know if this is straying off, but what i'm interested in mostly has to do with vfx. i know digital domain has been cooking on this thing for awhile... what kind of preparation or interplay went on between you guys before or during production?

for example...
were there already fx elements/plates to match when you were shooting greenscreen?
or what, if anything, did your guys (and/or girls) on set (or near-set) do to assist fx cinematography?

don't violate any NDA's, but if there is anything you can share that you found interesting about your side of interacting with the vfx team i'd love to hear about it