This "I'm a DIT"-nonsense has to stop

[Mark L. Pederson]

I'd say it's the opposite around. Loading film and handling the tent has been done in the same matter for I don't know how long. You learn and you do. Handling files with all the knowledge it needs is more then just drag and drop.
Digital technology change all the time so the Data Wrangler or the DIT need to stay updated.... by the day. Otherwise they will loose jobs or opportunities to get knowledge of workflows that improve for productions.
Trust me, I've dragged and dropped enough to know there's more than meets the eye. Just try to handle an advanced camera on a remote location with little to no power avalible for the equipment. A tent don't need a power supply.

There are rather large differences between IMAGE MANIPULATION & PROCESSING (live on set CDL, etc, near-set or in a facility) and "MANAGING MEDIA".

The skills and expertise needed to do each are pretty much night and day.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Are you talking about film versus digital now? Because the difference between them are certainly night and day, I just think you underestimate the important knowledge both the data wrangler and the DIT has, that's all.

Underestimating this is why productions hire people that don't have knowledge and I've seen a lot of productions having a lot of problems because of it.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Are you talking about film versus digital now? Because the difference between them are certainly night and day, I just think you underestimate the important knowledge both the data wrangler and the DIT has, that's all.

Underestimating this is why productions hire people that don't have knowledge and I've seen a lot of productions having a lot of problems because of it.

My point was simply that IMO - and I know this is a hot button topic - if a person is ONLY managing media - they are not performing the function of a DIT. I don't underestimate any of this stuff - I know it all very intimately - I've trained many people to become data managers and DITs - even mentored a few DITs who are now at the very top of the game.

Back to the topic of the post - there are a lot of folks who call themselves DITs and they expect to make a DIT rate - and in reality - they are only qualified to copy files.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

If the media were cheaper, we wouldn't even see that, we would just see cases full of cards and no one offloading and screwing with data on-set.

Already starting to see this - and when (not IF) the recording media does get cheaper - this will be become more common.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

I've always felt that the DIT role is two very different jobs. It's always felt weird to me.

Job A) Data management: understanding secure file transfer, proper backup protocols, data integrity, drive maintenance, transfer speeds, folder structure, data recovery, file metadata management and creation, transcoding, bitrates, and computer (and camera) tech/troubleshooting.

Job B) Look/LUT creation, noise/blowout protection, image quality, optical interactons (lights, filtration, lenses).

Job B is much more Art driven, and while knowing the stuff for Job A is helpful, you can be great at Look/LUT creation and not know much of Job A.

Similarly, Job A is very Science driven, and knowing how to do everything for Job A doesn't teach you a damn thing for Job B, and certainly doesn't train your eye in an artistic sense.

So, the job, as it is, is both Art and Science, and most people on set want me to know the Science. The DP may or may not want me to know the Art, and in general the Producers, Director, and Camera Department don't care much past that as long as the DP is happy. And in fact, for every feature I've worked on, the DP has wanted me mostly hands off on the Art. That doesn't mean that I don't keep an eye on the image, and it certainly doesn't mean that I'm not tweaking the image in ways that it should be tweaked. But, on my current feature, for example, the DP wants to mostly see what he was looking at on set, and everything on set is done in camera. I've altered maybe 10-15% of the shots for the dailies/editorial (neutralizing the green of the filtration/lens, tweaking saturation, matching the Arri to the Red), because that's the way that the DP wants to work.

So for every feature, I have been strained way more by the Job A part than the Job B part. I'm not saying this is good or bad, preferred or annoying, just that It Is. And the DP's in question are both oldschool ASC members, as well as young up-and-comers.

'Course, both the Science and the Art will be getting easier, and move more and more into camera and into the hands of the DP and Operators and AC's. But my role is certainly not set in stone. It's a moving target. By the time it gets negotiated and written into a contract, it'll be outdated. As it is, it's so dependent on the personalities of the specific production, that I can't imagine any contract properly covering all of the ways that all of the DITs work (and by 'work' in this sentence I mean "work to the utmost satisfaction of the DP, Director, and Production", not just cash a paycheck).

Which all is to say that I am it, I know the job won't exist within a matter of years, and yet I still don't have completely solid opinions on any of it. I just want to work in a way that enables the DP, and I want to evolve with the technology.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

on my current feature, for example, the DP wants to mostly see what he was looking at on set, and everything on set is done in camera.

And that is the future. As tools for wifi control of non-destructive image parameters and creation/translation and manipulation of 3D luts become more popular - working this way with confidence will become the norm.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

My point was simply that IMO - and I know this is a hot button topic - if a person is ONLY managing media - they are not performing the function of a DIT.

Back to the topic of the post - there are a lot of folks who call themselves DITs and they expect to make a DIT rate - and in reality - they are only qualified to copy files.

Well, yeah, this was my point entirely, that there are two much misunderstanding of the DIT role and productions keep underestimating the level of knowledge they need to have and people who claim to be DIT without the knowledge tend to screw up productions.

You might have trained people to become DIT's, but that's a small portion of people compared to the world and to my knowledge there are no real education to the DIT role in Sweden and probably elsewhere as well... which is in my opinion alarming.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Well, yeah, this was my point entirely, that there are two much misunderstanding of the DIT role and productions keep underestimating the level of knowledge they need to have and people who claim to be DIT without the knowledge tend to screw up productions.

You might have trained people to become DIT's, but that's a small portion of people compared to the world and to my knowledge there are no real education to the DIT role in Sweden and probably elsewhere as well... which is in my opinion alarming.

It's alarming - but - nobody wants to invest in a solution to a problem that so many (including the unions) have declared as "temporary".

So yeah .... you and I agree ... it's the wild west out there and the problem only undermines the good DITs who add value.

Fact of the matter - at least on the East Coast - the cream rises to the top. Most show runners and producers don't even want a DIT - so if they are compelled to hire one by the DP or Post Supervisor - they seek out the "best" - and like all races to the bottom - the middle falls away and the rockstars keep getting the best jobs.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

I'd argue that an appliance can copy and verify files. Hard to find an appliance to unload a 35mm camera

Yeah anyone can copy files... but can they meet deadlines? It's all about speed, data integrity and being prepared for speed in different storage formats. That's where the computer knowledge of the Data Wrangler stands out. It's hard to find an appliance to unload recorded media on digital cameras also. I know of no appliance that can take a REDMag card out of the camera and offload it to a clients drive.

 

[Mark Toia]

The DIT who does on-set transcodes, image checks, look creation, etc... is going away. Post workflows are getting easier and computers are better able to handle the 4K+ media and newer file formats. Tech-savvy AC's and DPs are handling many things themselves on the newer cameras and there isn't as much of a focus on the fast turn-around transcodes with the use of compact external recorders or the paranoia over the "does it look OK? Do I have too much noise in the shadows?" or whatever, so most productions just need a data wrangler now, not a full-fledged DIT. If the media were cheaper, we wouldn't even see that, we would just see cases full of cards and no one offloading and screwing with data on-set.

Yes exactly what Jeff said ...

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I've managed data for an 11-camera shoot (Jason Mraz at Red Rocks) and a 13-camera shoot (Audi/Ducat on Pikes Peaki), where the media was flying fast and furious.

"All" that was required was copying, checking, and organizing. But those were sweaty days.

When little things go wrong with that much media to manage, it can go wrong very fast and have a big impact.

The data person who can copy and check files and hand over a tightly organized, pristine hard drive full of data ready to edit, at the end of a shoot, is value added. Period. At any level.

Just because some jobs are easier than other jobs doesn't make the job any less important. That's your investment in a box.

On the wrap day for DEAR ELEANOR, a feature film project, it was my job, as the production supervisor, to wrap the DIT, who handed off all copies of the film to me to transport back to the production office. As I was driving home, sleep-deprived and exhausted from a long eight weeks of prepping and shooting, I hit a poorly marked detour on the way home, in the dark at 3am, which took me all around the foothills in an unusual and circuitous route. Fortunately, it's Colorado (mountains to the west), so I was able to get back on track. It was kind of a nerve-wracking moment, though, with everything that we had all worked for, all those long, hard weeks, in the back seat of my car....

But it doesn't matter to me whether I am carrying someone's $3 million investment or their $30,000 investment in the back seat of my car. Behind that box of hard drives is a lot of blood, sweat, energy, creativity, and tears. And someone else's money. It's a responsibility that should never be taken lightly, at any level.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

It's hard to find an appliance to unload recorded media on digital cameras also.

NEXTO DI is just one example.

 

[Timur Civan]

Also - the scale rate for a Local 600 DIT is equal to the camera OPERATOR who is paid more than the 1st AC.

Now ... depending of what the DIT is doing on the production - this might be perfectly justified. I know some DITs who are worth triple the rate of an operator.

Thomas Wong 600 - thewongcut.com phantom tech, DIT
Ben Schwartz 600 - 3d tech, DIT
Ben Cain - DIT , 3D tech

All worth their weight in gold.

 

[Craig Parkes]

I disagree slightly with one principal - that if media was cheaper on set checking of footage would entirely go away and mags would only be handed over in post as before.

Accurate visual verification of takes on certain types of production are going to remain something of an advantage - where once productions would check the gate and hope the dailies came out all right before breaking down a very complicated setup, on set verification of the actual take (not a video split) is very advantageous.

Now, if the video split/playback is true wysiwyg - 4K+ monitoring on set etc, then this role will diminish, but for complicated set ups or vfx heavy productions where on set decisions have large ramifications in post, the DIT/Video Viillage/Dailies all combining to be on or very near set is a practical advantage.

It's not that way on EVERY production - But unlike film, it's an option, and sometimes it's an advantage.

Sometimes, it'll become increasing unnecessary (generally any time "one more for safety" is good enough).

Cheaper media will mean on set media management will become less ubiquitous - well organized productions with appropriate equipment will have few disasters, near set/on set media management and DIT workflows will be useful on a more case by case basis, and low budget, seat of the pants productions will have the similar rates of disaster.

A good comparison really is driving a vehicle - An F1 car requires a pit crew, a Rally car requires a pit crew, a Toyota Hilux requires gas and a toolkit and a driver who knows what they are doing.

Some productions will be F1 scale, some will be Rally scale, but a great many will be like driving a Hilux. Trying to point Hilux like ease of use and reliability into a Rally or F1 car is counter productive.

However, in saying that, if every Hilux could do 300 kph and still corner well, who would need an F1 car, let alone a pit crew? Once technology reaches the point where the specialist features are ubiquitous and low cost (High Speed, High Dynamic Range, Ultra High Resolution), that's when reliability and ease of use will completely take over as the must haves and the real investment in doing away with Data Wranglers and DIT's altogether will kick in.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I disagree slightly with one principal - that if media was cheaper on set checking of footage would entirely go away and mags would only be handed over in post as before.

Since I think I was the first to bring this up, I think I should state that I wasn't saying anything against checking footage here and there. But if the economies of media allow for ample recording stock and no need to offload and wipe cards, it won't be done. It isn't being done now in situations where this is afforded. For my own projects, this is how I roll, I may copy off cards or verify data, but I don't ever wipe a card on a shoot anymore. Why risk it? And as for checking or validating reliability, the SSD mags or other digital media in common use out there is very reliable. And just think back on how you have worked in the past with other forms of recording media. Did you verify all your Beta/ HDCAM/ DV tapes? Did you go through and check/ verify everything you shot to P2 cards? Much of the paranoia over checking R3D footage comes down to the offloading process. Copying your only copy of something over from the acquisition media to another storage solution puts you in a situation where it really does need to be checked. After the copy. And hopefully a proper checksum or other verification method was employed at the time of the copy so that subsequent copies can be matched up via automated processes rather than visually scrutinizing every clip.

Accurate visual verification of takes on certain types of production are going to remain something of an advantage - where once productions would check the gate and hope the dailies came out all right before breaking down a very complicated setup, on set verification of the actual take (not a video split) is very advantageous.

Of course it's advantageous and I was not discounting this procedure in any way. But there are times it won't be necessary or economical. And for many, this is becoming a process handled by the DP and/ or director and not so much a separate dedicated person in the form of DIT.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on DIT's. I've done lots of DIT jobs, rolled a few DIT carts of my own and all that. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I'll maintain that I'm a pretty damn good DIT and I'd like to think I've been able to help out other DIT's in this community with various questions related to the job. However, I have to say that the writing is on the wall. Has always been there. Like any technical job or service, it must evolve or die.

Now, if the video split/playback is true wysiwyg - 4K+ monitoring on set etc, then this role will diminish, but for complicated set ups or vfx heavy productions where on set decisions have large ramifications in post, the DIT/Video Viillage/Dailies all combining to be on or very near set is a practical advantage.

agree.

 

[PatrickFaith]

I like a title more like "Image Engineer", which would be a similar role to something like a modern sound engineer - someone that understands, manages and validates the entire image process. I'd like to see a further split, "production image engineer" and "post image engineer", since it would be hard to be proficient in both.

 

[joe hedge]

One of the advantages of on-set transcoding I'm not seeing mentioned in this thread is quick-turnaround. I do tons of jobs where speed is of the essence, and I'm sorry, gentlemen, but nothing gets you into editorial faster than having deliverables made on-set. I do jobs where I see the footage I DIT on-air the next day, or the day after that - in those situations, post-production definitely does recognize the value of having someone on-set following their instructions. Does the phrase "missing the bird" (not making that day's satellite upload) ring any bells?

 

[David Battistella]

Data wrangling is the most important thing. Look creation can come later an more DPs are taking look creating into their toolkit (rightly so)

I have trained a lot of people in this job over the years. I've taken people from virtually no computer knowledge to paid gigs on set. I'm training someone right now and the first few days is just setting up and dismantling the station to get it ready for back up. Just so that when you are sleep deprived you have that part in your muscle memory.

Then I take them through how to make 4 copies of media, how each day is laid out, how each roll is copied and how to do a visual verification before sending a card back into the record pool. Then we run simulations. The system works well and I could send any of these people on your set tomorrow as a data wrangler. That also covers the very basic need of what any production shooting digitally needs.

Onelights, daillies, renders, etc. that is phase two. Those skills require different training, more software knowledge etc. that takes more time. Depending on the level of production and the turn around that changes.

More than anything you need someone who is patient, detailed and organized. Someone who is very thorough and loves to make lists, check, recheck and double check everything. It's hard to determine the exact colour of a shot until it is edited into larger the context of a whole film.

The creativity stuff is less important. I can lean on a full blown colorist for that.

On set is about backing up data. Maybe getting in the ballpark or to the plate for the look. The home run happens in the colourist suite, after the shots have been edited together.

Battistella

 

[JanneJansson]

During last years (in Sweden) DIT's have caused many problems by giving bad advice and creating problems. I have been on several shoots the director and DP blindly truts the DIT despite giving advice resulting in poor result. I think a good DP should know the workings of a sensor and data transfer, like knowing the filmstock.

There's bad trend where many productions I encountered features DIT's doing data management jobs and that's all they do and all they can. During the last years I've heard so many times about productions (in Sweden) where whenever there's a problem with the camera or files the "DIT" can't solve it because they lack knowledge of the camera they are working on. There's this idea that if you can move files and back them up you are a "DIT".
Back when I started working as a DIT (I've moved on from that now), the concept was new and not very defined. But it was pretty clear that whenever there was a problem everyone looked at me for the solution. So I studied both Red One, later Alexa and all digital cameras I would encounter. Whenever there was a new camera on the market or for a project I studied that camera for days or weeks before production. This was fortunate because I could start working as a phantom operator which has pretty high rates whenever they are used.

But the main thing was that when people had a problem and looked at me I damn right could fix it, or knew how to work around it or knew how to come in contact with people and solve it fast.
I've heard stories of productions brought to a complete halt because no one knew how to fix an issue, where there was no DIT or the DIT didn't know and needed to learn on the spot.

So, the "nonsense" I'm speaking of is that if someone don't know every part of a camera, they CAN NOT claim themselves to be a DIT. They can be data managers and handle backups, but they can not call themselves a DIT because it requires much more knowledge.

So this trend of misunderstanding of the role of the DIT must end.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

NEXTO DI is just one example.

Unfortunately there's no solution for this problem.... take the Nexto DI... that's a device to backup media to.... but it doesn't have the ability to automatically offload to a clients hard drive.... unless you plan to make the Nexto DI the client drive... that would be one very expensive client drive.

I'll say it again.... even a Data Wrangler supersedes a focus puller in technical skill. Perhaps even many more people on the camera crew... most of the time even including the DP or even the entire production crew. I know on most sets that I'm on... very few people could do my job just Data Wrangling even without DITing. They just don't understand computers enough... that's what I get paid for. The same people because they don't understand computers.... don't understand the features of the cameras they are working on. A DIT or Data Wrangler is an Information Technology specialist.

People would not be paying DITs or Data Wranglers so much if anyone could take on that responsibility. I've had local buddies try to do DIT (really Data Wrangling) jobs without being prepared and failing horrible. I also believe that a Data Wrangler is a job that its hard to train someone for unless they have a passion for computing and camera technology that is always changing at a furious pace. Sure you can train someone in a simple scenario... but it takes years of experience for a Data Wrangler to work on say a three camera RED Epic shoot with a tight turn around after wrapping. A professional Data Wrangler would have to be prepared for various scenarios and have different strategies in place to be successful on a tight deadline. Anyone can copy files... not many people can copy a shit load of files from and to different medias in a good turn around time.... while doing other things like visually checking the files or transcoding. That's not easy... it usually takes a substantial investment in resources and knowledge. You can't just have anyone with a 4 year old laptop do that.

One of my most difficult jobs one time was offloading CF cards from a multiple Canon C300 shoot. The cards would get hot while in the CF reader and just stop transferring or transferring with errors. A person that is not experienced... wouldn't know how to handle that situation and the production would grind to a halt if there wasn't enough CF cards.

I do agree that most people are using the term DIT inappropriately. I've been on many DIT jobs and very rarely was I a true DIT. The production crew doesn't understand the role of a DIT and depending on their knowledge/workflow most never will. Nowadays cameras are computers... but only a rare breed are true geeks with an understanding of the technology. It's almost like the camera crew are jocks doing physical jobs and the DIT is a research geek. lol

Going back to the OP.... Heck I'm tired of people buying a RED Epic or lately borrowing one from a friend and instantly becoming a DP with no lighting experience. Also people downloading Davinci Resolve Lite and instantly becoming a colorist. Our generation loves to use professional titles... back in the 80's/90's a guy with a pro camcorder and a lighting kit would just be a "video guy". Now it's filmmaker, cinematographer and DP. I'm appalled when on some jobs and realize the level of incompetence.