Thought....

[Miguel Bunster]

Hi,

I am going through this post process selection now.

Originally production looked at shooting RED but for some respectable reasons the director who is great (and his first film, big hollywood writer) decided RED or viper were not right for his film visually and production looked at shooting super16mm and then go DI. We are actually pushing things and trying to work out on 35mm not only for the extra quality but optically wise (perpspective, depth of field, angle of view etc) is a better choice for the film. We being talking with a couple bigger houses and a smaller one I workedwith before which I had a good experience for a HDSR 444 LOG post workflow from where we will get a lowcon master daily and from that pre timed dailies for the offline in HDVCpro quality and then get a final version in HDSR444 LOG and sub formats so they can go sell the film and if so then make a print.

 

Number been around in one place for 100,000 aprox for all the post DI and post sound included (no composer or music) and to the other end to all DI post workflow with out sound to 70,000. All based in 100,000 feet of film. Some are big post houses and other smallers but is the range we been looking at. Which is actually really good considering. Kodak is giving a killer deal and so Deluxe so things may come together and get 35mm.

 

One more thing we been looking at and are getting the numbers is going the optical way and from the final print get a low con print and from that make an HD transfer and so on for sales. This is cheaper to a certaini degree (well it is) because post house which do image and sound and are related to lbas give a good deal package at least in our range. The final tradition price will depend on the amoun of optical and etc but to a certain degree this is more marginal.

 

But the producers had a fair question: why if we are going 1.85 35mm dont we go optical? so looking into it more price wise.

 

As well wanted to ask any1 opinions in the followin because I wont be able to compare the tests but this is one thought:

 

1-shoot 1.85 and do HDSR 444 LOG workflow

or:

2- Shoot Super 1.85 and Do HDSR444 LOG workflow, curious if is it worth it the extra negative from looking at it, not from number wise.

Problem of doing this is that locks production into going DI but well this is decided before all takes place of course.

 

Where we are shooting there is only 1 camera that is 3 perf which was an orignal pln to go that route and do a DI but things look like a 4 perf show.

 

Any thoughts?

Thanks and best!

m

[John Brawley]

But the producers had a fair question: why if we are going 1.85 35mm dont we go optical? so looking into it more price wise.

 

As well wanted to ask any1 opinions in the followin because I wont be able to compare the tests but this is one thought:

 

1-shoot 1.85 and do HDSR 444 LOG workflow

or:

2- Shoot Super 1.85 and Do HDSR444 LOG workflow, curious if is it worth it the extra negative from looking at it, not from number wise.

Problem of doing this is that locks production into going DI but well this is decided before all takes place of course.

 

Where we are shooting there is only 1 camera that is 3 perf which was an orignal pln to go that route and do a DI but things look like a 4 perf show.

 

 

Hi Miguel...

 

There's no question that the best LOOKING result there would be a traditional film finish. A DI, especially a HD version, is not going to be the same. What you do get with a HD DI is the ability though to push things a lot more. The thing is though is that the DI is usually more expensive than the 35mm optical process. It also means you can use 3 perf, which will perhaps offset the greater expense. The super 35 1.85 does give you a little more resolution and every little bit helps of course.

 

With a DI you can also mix and match your formats. On a film called Lake Mungo, I shot 35 (3 and 4 perf) and Super 16. 35mm for the wides and landscapes. Often Super 16 for the close up's and interiors. We did a 2K arriscan and finished uncompressed HD and finished on film it's not always obvious which is which. We had lot's of VFX so we were painted into a corner doing a DI. We did test for a traditional film finish though.

 

It really depends on the look you're going for and if it can be achieved using traditional processes it's likely that the optical path will be cheaper and look better.

 

jb

[Miguel Bunster]

Hi couldnt agree more with your thoughts.

 

Production had in mind a super 16mm budget (we are about a 1mil movie) adn then go DI. I prioposed if i was able to get a good deal DI wise and camera wise and film wise we should go 35mm, the love the idea but make it work so there I was for 10 days on the phone and things came together. The DI made sense for the 3 perf thing but turned out that here in Minneapolis there is one camera (may be wrong) thats 3 perf and bringing cameras from LA is expensive for shipping, insurance etc so going 3 perf kind of cancels its way out for a 100,000 feet of film.

 

Now Optical si stil a posibility but I worked before with a place called Local Hero Post Production based in LA and had a good experinceon my last film which was bigger. We are still seeing some place by production side but Local Hero cme in with a good workflow/bid with post sound included that theproducers like so they keep eveything under one roof and make their life easier too.

 

Will see how everything works out but I looks like we will be able to shot 35mm. Is a teen comedy so no heavy DI or anything heavy dutie is needed but a reason I want to use it is becasue the stor takes palce in winter and runs into summer but we start shooting in May till june for a 22 days shooting plan. And it not winter!!! so the DI makes sense to refine certain things in case we require it.

 

So we are actually looking at Super 1.85 24fps -SD dailies - HDSR444 LOG selects - FINAL DI in Scratch ( I think) and then get multiple masters in corresponding formats.

 

I think we would gain going and finishing all the way optical and have no problem but the "Weather" and time for shooting may come down and a DI may help smooth certain things like sky, shadow colors, contrast etc...

 

I feel comfartable. Some people ask me why a smaller house (money is a reason) and I had a good experince with them but as well small i not equal to bad, not at least now a days that there is access to knowledge and gear and etc....

 

thats my thought at least...and well for bigger palces you pay the price and that menas maybe s16mm.....

 

And we are doing test ending in HDSR 444 or HDCAM for wiewing, I am testing the lenses optically and getting a print and as well shoot 1 to 2 minutes of film and go through the whole post process and get a final print out for that footage and see it on the big screen...

 

But will see al resultas a few days out...thigs jsut comming together...could have tested earlier if going s16mm but I believe is worth the hassle and extra work....

 

Any thoughts on this would be great.

M

[Miguel Bunster]

[O one thing that catched me attention for say the least I went to one of this big post houses (big for sure) and they were timing in really big plasma monitors (expensive but not crazy) there work and of course at the end had a projector for final printing stage but all ther suites were on this 60 inch palsmas or 45 whatever the number was...

I think I so Samsung and Panasonic monitors...any optinions?

M

[Guest tylerhawes]

Hi Miguel,

 

You should come see us. We are a small facility but with a lot of experience, having performed DI for over 30 feature films. We're on Sunset Blvd. near Fairfax. We don't grade on plasma screens, but in our theater on a 15ft. screen with DLP Digital Cinema projection in a completely 3D color managed environment (not simply to Rec.709 as so many low-end houses are offering, which is not at all good enough IMO). I'd hate to be making my decisions for a theatrical release looking at a plasma. I realize your budget is low, but considering the numbers you posted it is not unreasonable.

 

I don't know if the book is closed on digital, but we have a lot of experience with most of the cameras. Viper, Genesis, DALSA, RED, others. Right now we're grading a 4K RAW DALSA film and a 4K RED RAW film, so if you need more discussion about those alternatives...

 

Otherwise, most of our work is 35mm or Super 16 anyway. We have a new process that can remove the grain from 16mm without apparent softening, if that's a concern.

 

Hope to speak with you...

[Miguel Bunster]

Hi,

Thanks for your replay, well the pre timing will be done on the plasma but then for the final part will be done on a screening room at a bigger facility so to much the LUT and do minor tweaks. I would love to get your info. The deal is almost closed and I passed the ball to production becasue I been two weeks on the phone and now I am trying to concentrate on the script...figure that...but is worht the hassle to shoot on 35mm.

 

Shoot me an email and best.

M

[Guest tylerhawes]

I understand that workflow, but I'd have serious concerns about it myself. It puts you in a situation of choosing between wasting a lot of time revisiting decisions that you've already made, or letting it slide and being sloppy. In general, filmmakers want to make the best decision the first time and move on. DI is pains taking enough without having to go back and second-guess all your grading choices in a different room where things look completely different. Odds are by that time your eyes will be glazing over, you'll have lost objectivity, and you'll either want to just call it "done" or else be questioning the whole process. Either way, something suffers.

 

I obviously have strong opinions about this and I'm sure the vendor your talking to will disagree, but of course they have to if they don't have a projection suite to offer don't they?

[Michael Most]

I obviously have strong opinions about this and I'm sure the vendor your talking to will disagree, but of course they have to if they don't have a projection suite to offer don't they?

 

I have to agree with Tyler on this. You do get what you pay for, but color decisions need to be made in the proper context. If you're color correcting for video, you do it in a video color correction environment. If you doing it for theatrical projection, you do it in a darkened theater with reasonably large screen. It's not just the colors themselves that dictate creative color decisions, it's the environment, which can lead to different decisions based on the impact of the image on the viewer in that environment. Lookup tables alone can't turn a 40" plasma display into a 20 foot theater screen regardless of how accurate the emulation is. And unless you work in a darkened room, you can't really judge brightness properly.

 

You might get acceptable results with a "pre-correction" approach. But you'll likely never know where you would have gone had you been in a proper theatrical environment because you won't have the opportunity to start from scratch in the theater.

[Miguel Bunster]

I agree and i have been in great DI room and in low end ones and understand the process. But you pay what you have moeny for and I trust this guys, may not have the 40 foot screen but still.

I have a good udnerstanding of the process and the trade offs and the cliche sentence thats is real you do the best with what you have.

Instead of SR would be 2k and so on.

But you dont do things thinking on what you could have or not. This is what I have and I feel good about it and the movie is gona be finished in HD for sales and if sales go through a Print out. I am pretty clear how I want the movie to llok before the DI scene per scene. I am not trying to find it in the DI really.

 

Would be epic a certain workflow but what I need to figure is hwo to achieve the look i want with the options I have.

The rest will be for the next film....

M