TV Program workflow

[Kaku Ito]

I was asked to think of a workflow to adopt RED ONE for a weekly TV drama production.

I've done many feature films, TV commercials and PV but weekly TV drama seems to be somewhat challenging.

Are there things that anyone can share to realize this? This will be first real TV drama (besides program for kids) that will use RED ONE in Japan.

 

[MichaelP]

On the shows I have consulted on - they do a transcode of dailies to a proxy format. The ROCKET CARD will be a huge time-saver for this. Then a pull list, then regenerate new high resolution format using gamma of choice to an HD format for color correction and delivery. This is what has been done for the primetime shows in the US I have been involved with.

Depending on type of show - they could go directly to a high resolution HD format and forgo the offline/online re-conform stage - the above is done to give the offline editors, producers a basic color space to work in, and when going back to the reconform, they work in a more flattened color space to allow for more control in color correction.

Michael

 

[M Most]

On the shows I have consulted on - they do a transcode of dailies to a proxy format. The ROCKET CARD will be a huge time-saver for this. Then a pull list, then regenerate new high resolution format using gamma of choice to an HD format for color correction and delivery. This is what has been done for the primetime shows in the US I have been involved with.

The two that I know of (one a cable show, one a network show - I'll leave it to you as to what network show I'm talking about) didn't do a reconform. They transcoded to either ProRes 422 (in the case of the cable show) or DNxHD 115 (yes, you read that right, 115), and used those files as the source for final color correction. Now, in the case of the network show, color correction was done at the dailies stage and the show was not meant to have perfect continuity in the first place. Additionally, the R3d files were also available during final color correction (a very brief session) if serious changes needed to be made, but that wasn't common as they generally stayed with the original, more disjointed look.

It always amuses me how people here (and elsewhere) make assumptions about what is necessary and how the "big boys" do these things, because those assumptions are often wrong. For all of the talk here about requiring 4K, or even about going back to R3d files, it's not always done that way, even at the higher levels of the industry, unless there is a tangible, clear benefit and sufficient time and money available.

 

[Chris Parker]

i like the idea of creating AVID DNxHD36 (or ProRes) for offline, then doing a conform and grading on the .r3d files, then online and output as needed. I would recommend that they do a 2K master output so that in the future, they could repurpose the programming for 2K broadcast if and when TV begins broadcasting in 2K.

Of course, as Mike says, this is not always done, but it is a good way to go for quality and future-proofing the master.

 

[Kaku Ito]

Happy New Year everyone and thank you for your input. It almost works as how I prepare the footage on HDCAM SR for TV commercial work. If the AVID operator is experienced then maybe provide DNxHD like Chris says. I'll see how much the broadcast people understand the file base workflow. If not, go with the tape.

 

[M Most]

i like the idea of creating AVID DNxHD36 (or ProRes) for offline, then doing a conform and grading on the .r3d files, then online and output as needed. I would recommend that they do a 2K master output so that in the future, they could repurpose the programming for 2K broadcast if and when TV begins broadcasting in 2K.

Of course, as Mike says, this is not always done, but it is a good way to go for quality and future-proofing the master.

Having been through this type of conversation with a number of studio and network post executives, as well as some producers, I would say that you may like the idea but it generally isn't done for a number of reasons. First, the production companies are looking to eliminate or minimize costs, not increase them. So they see the cost of a conform as one they can eliminate if they use an HD format for the original editing. Second, conforms have gotten more and more complex as editors now do multipanel shots, weird speed ramps that aren't advertised, multilayer effects that aren't always advertised, and other things on a very regular basis. If they're turning out the actual conformed master, none of these things are an issue. If you have to conform a show with all of these things, it can take a long time and still not be accurate on some of the odd speed changes. I would also say that advising the studio to do a "2K master" is a bad idea for a number of reasons. First, you might think you're doing them a favor, but all they want and need is HD, and that's what they want to work in. Second, doing a "2K" master doesn't really accomplish anything positive for the HD product they're actually paying for, because it requires either cropping or scaling to get to HD dimensions. Saying that there might be a broadcast 2K format is not sensible because for one thing, there isn't any, and for another, if the standard were to be amended, it would surely go to a larger format than 2K, which only represents another 128 horizontal pixels - certainly not worth creating a new standard for. Not to mention that it would affect the 16x9 aspect ratio that virtually every flatscreen television is manufactured to. And lastly, the studios, like seemingly everyone these days, harbor a "good enough" mentality, even as they nitpick color decisions. They want HD, they're buying HD, they're delivering HD. That's the way it will be until it isn't. To confuse the issue by suggesting something else is not really helpful, even if you think it should be.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Having been through this type of conversation with a number of studio and network post executives, as well as some producers, I would say that you may like the idea but it generally isn't done for a number of reasons. First, the production companies are looking to eliminate or minimize costs, not increase them. So they see the cost of a conform as one they can eliminate if they use an HD format for the original editing. Second, conforms have gotten more and more complex as editors now do multipanel shots, weird speed ramps that aren't advertised, multilayer effects that aren't always advertised, and other things on a very regular basis. If they're turning out the actual conformed master, none of these things are an issue. If you have to conform a show with all of these things, it can take a long time and still not be accurate on some of the odd speed changes. I would also say that advising the studio to do a "2K master" is a bad idea for a number of reasons. First, you might think you're doing them a favor, but all they want and need is HD, and that's what they want to work in. Second, doing a "2K" master doesn't really accomplish anything positive for the HD product they're actually paying for, because it requires either cropping or scaling to get to HD dimensions. Saying that there might be a broadcast 2K format is not sensible because for one thing, there isn't any, and for another, if the standard were to be amended, it would surely go to a larger format than 2K, which only represents another 128 horizontal pixels - certainly not worth creating a new standard for. Not to mention that it would affect the 16x9 aspect ratio that virtually every flatscreen television is manufactured to. And lastly, the studios, like seemingly everyone these days, harbor a "good enough" mentality, even as they nitpick color decisions. They want HD, they're buying HD, they're delivering HD. That's the way it will be until it isn't. To confuse the issue by suggesting something else is not really helpful, even if you think it should be.

I agree. Also its best not to over deliver whats actually required.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Happy New Year everyone and thank you for your input. It almost works as how I prepare the footage on HDCAM SR for TV commercial work. If the AVID operator is experienced then maybe provide DNxHD like Chris says. I'll see how much the broadcast people understand the file base workflow. If not, go with the tape.

Exactly! And +1 for Mike Most - as usual.

BTW, if you go to tape, you get the added bonus of charging slightly inflated prices for tape stock - usually the most profitable business of any post company

Once you've gotten to know the folks you're working with, then you can always offer them other workflows. But reliably and quickly delivering HDCAM or DNxHD files with a decent 1-light from RedRocket seems a good way to get started and to get them to trust you.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Chris Parker]

mike, i agree with you.....and i don't. i agree that a 2K master might not be entirely appropriate, but i do work with major studios who ARE buying into the 'proper' way of doing things, which involves a conform. It won't happen every time, but it happens enough in my world that i wouldn't throw a blanket over the situation and say that doing it this way is 'over-delivering' as the DPs I work with are keen to work with RAW footage during final grading process. I will work either way, but certainly push for the higher quality route.

 

[Ravi Kiran]

In the 80s and 90s, did the studios conform the negatives of their film-originated TV shows? Or is SD the only format for the edited episodes of many shows?

 

[M Most]

mike, i agree with you.....and i don't. i agree that a 2K master might not be entirely appropriate, but i do work with major studios who ARE buying into the 'proper' way of doing things, which involves a conform. It won't happen every time, but it happens enough in my world that i wouldn't throw a blanket over the situation and say that doing it this way is 'over-delivering' as the DPs I work with are keen to work with RAW footage during final grading process. I will work either way, but certainly push for the higher quality route.

I re-read what I wrote and I think you misinterpreted it, albeit very slightly. I said that most of them don't want to pay for a conform, and in my experience that's true. I didn't say it was a bad idea. I did say that suggesting 2K instead of HD was a bad idea, and I stand by that.

Having said that, I would also say (via experience) that if the dailies are converted sensibly, and especially if they are given basic color correction, the difference between a color correction from RAW files and a color correction from the dailies is very, very minimal on all but a few shots. And that's one of the primary reasons they usually don't want to pay for a conform. I wouldn't say this attitude is universal, there are some, shall we say, more enlightened producers who want the best they can get and are willing to pay for that. But you have to pick your spots.

 

[M Most]

In the 80s and 90s, did the studios conform the negatives of their film-originated TV shows? Or is SD the only format for the edited episodes of many shows?

That depends on the studio. Warner Bros. conformed negatives on all of their shows for a number of years and still do on selected shows. Lorimar, the studio that really originated electronic post for single camera shows, did not. Neither did Paramount, Fox, MGM, Viacom, or just about anyone else. Universal cut all of their shows on film until the early to mid-90's, electronic post for them didn't really begin until about 1992. So the quick answer to your question is that Warner Bros. is really the only studio that conformed negatives on video assembled shows as a matter of policy.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Best of both worlds?

Best of both worlds?

As Mike, Chris and many of you know I run around in a mobile unit that is designed to give the DP a chance to oversee a decent one-light grade of the material and then I transcode the r3d media into the format the client prefers. My most common requests are ProResHQ and HDCAM-SR which I create using the SDI output from the Scratch system. I use the AJA io/HD for hardware encoded ProResHQ via FW800. For SR the nVidia SDI daughtercard can do single link 4:2:2 or dual link 4:4:4 to the deck.

The core theory is that by doing the first color pass on the 12 bit RAW R3Ds you can make fairly aggressive moves on the look (if necessary) without the image falling apart. On the second color pass any subtle shot to shot tweaking or other creative color work done on the 10 bit 4:2:2 YUV ProResHQ media should look just fine as long as the grading is not too radical. With 4:4:4 SR there is even more latitude available for the final grade.

A big plus of using ProResHQ or DNxHD is that the offline and online media are one in the same, so no conform is required. Many of the editor's tricks (speed changes, layers, etc) that Mike noted as bugaboos in conform are no longer an issue.

Another upside is that the DP has more control over the look and that throughout the editorial phase everyone sees the intended look.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, the cost of my van solution is typically less than many productions spend just creating dailies/offline media. If you're interesting in knowing more, contact me...

Cheers - #19
alacritymedia.com
blair (at) alacritymedia (dot) com

 

[MichaelP]

...and while conform of negative were no longer required in the 90's, the delivery of a cutlist with KeyKode based metadata of the cut was a requirement - the same can be said of R3D - as long as you manage the metadata of the original sources through all the post process - then a production can choose to go find/fix one shot, or all of them.

Michael