That Ain't My Job!

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

As long as the 1st AC or DP doesn't have to worry about dumping cards, I've found it helps production along immensely. As a 1st, I've always either had a 2nd AC or DIT who's primary responsibility and priority was getting the footage safely onto two hard drives and reviewing it to make sure it's all "in the can". So once a card is full and needs to be swapped, that 2nd AC or DIT needs to drop everything and get to it.

 

I've been the P2 wrangler as well on a couple shoots, and found that it's also good to have someone who is capable of reviewing the footage as if they were "dailies". A while ago I worked a gig where I was seeing that the handheld work being done seemed to dutch to one side unintentionally, which I don't believe the DP was aware of. I'm not sure if it mattered, but I would surely appreciate it if someone had the sense to let me know if something odd was happening that I couldn't see in the little LCD screen.

[Brian Drysdale]

I've just worked on a RED shoot that recorded on CF (there was a hard drive, but the cards were considered safer) which records 4 1/2 minutes and used 35mm cine lenses and kit. As on a 35mm film shoot, the 2nd AC was extremely busy getting kit etc. for the 1st AC, but instead of mags he kept the CF cards (being careful to keep the exposed cards in a separate pocket), these were handed to the editor (who in this case was also the producer) and he downloaded them with 3 back up hard drives.

 

I asked the editor about the 2nd AC doing the data downloading and he thought it was a job for an assist. editor. The reasoning being that the 2nd AC was always under pressure to be on the floor and the downloading needed to be done calmly without being rushed, so that everything can be checked.

 

There may be less pressure with longer recording time media, but the 2nd AC would always need to be allowed the time and a place to do the data transfer safely with checks and be given good training.

 

On this shoot 1st AC knew the RED and was able to work all the menus, so perhaps the traditional role of the DIT on HD shoots will change on a RAW shoot because they won't be creating a "look" in camera.

 

However, using shooting uncompressed RAW I suspect will involve a lot more time in the transfer than the compressed RAW of the RED and SI, so it'll be a matter of deciding the best crewing levelling in each case.

[Mitch Gross]

I agree that on a busy shoot with a 2nd AC that this person may have too much to do to then also be burdened with downloading media. That's why there is a separate Loader position (aka Clapper/Loader).

 

Seriously, every mention here of having the Assistant Editor or Producer or the Director's girlfriend or whatever all comes down to the same thing -- it is important enough of a job duty that there should be an individual who's primary function is to do this task. The fact is that for the last century or so we've already had a handy job position set up for precisely this kind of work, the loader. So again I ask, why change now? I have yet to hear a reasonable reason to change and there are plenty of reasons why one shouldn't.

[John Sprung]

I think DIT's are the modern version of a CCU or video engineer.

I think they're much more like the Technicolor Consultant of the 1930's. It's a job that only exists because of the inadequacies of the technology, and like the Technicolor Consultant, it'll disappear when we get the technology right.

 

Mitch is absolutely right. Preserving the finished work from the camera is the job of the second AC/loader.

 

The only time the editor and assistant editor should be on the set is on the first day of shooting. It's nice if they can come by to say hi and have lunch with the crew. But from day two onward, they have plenty of work to do, usually in a little windowless room miles away.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brian Drysdale]

I agree that on a busy shoot with a 2nd AC that this person may have too much to do to then also be burdened with downloading media. That's why there is a separate Loader position (aka Clapper/Loader).

 

Seriously, every mention here of having the Assistant Editor or Producer or the Director's girlfriend or whatever all comes down to the same thing -- it is important enough of a job duty that there should be an individual who's primary function is to do this task. The fact is that for the last century or so we've already had a handy job position set up for precisely this kind of work, the loader. So again I ask, why change now? I have yet to hear a reasonable reason to change and there are plenty of reasons why one shouldn't.

 

Unfortunately there are quite a few shoots on which there are only 2 assistants - the 1st A.C. (the Focus Puller in UK) and the clapper loader. If the latter is doing it, reasonable time must be allowed and mustn't be something done over the lunch break.

[Michael Belanger]

In my view it's definitely an important enough job to warrant it's own position and it doesn't really belong to either the traditional roles of the Camera Department or Editoral. It's replacing what used to be done off-site by the lab, mainly safeguarding the original footage from the camera making copies available for editing.

 

The only reason this is an issue right now is the price of tapeless media. Because most productions don't have enough cards/etc on hand to shoot a days worth of footage we're forced to do the backing up and downloading on set instead of over-night at a lab.

 

I'm not suggesting that on individual shoots it might not make sense for this to be a Loader's job or an AE's job but it can also certainly be a job for a 3rd individual as well. The question of having an AE on set for instance really comes down to the tastes of the producer and director. If they want production and post to overlap a bit then more power to them. And in fact that's been going on on some shoots long before cards got into the mix.

 

Another thing we haven't talked about much is the ability to screen footage the day it's shot for the director, DP, etc. One one of my features we had at least one day where lunch turned into a screening session for a difficult sequence shot that morning (the producers and I did try to keep this to a minimum because it tends to grind things to a halt).

 

I also did a few extracted still frames from previous days footage to check prop placement, etc for reshoots. I don't know if I'd consider that "editor work" since I wasn't really worried about shot selection for the actual edit, etc. Again it's more of that no-mans-land between camera and edit.

 

On another film I consulted on their P2 downloading (they had a third AC I believe doing it, but delivering footage to an on-site editor as well). I also did their over-night dailies onto DVD, so in that instance I was much more of the "lab" for the project.

[Mitch Gross]

Understood, and as I said before, there are certain job delineations and just because a given production chooses to merge some of the responsibilities doesn't change who would be responsible based on a different form of media.

 

Remember that for the most part these download systems are designed to be something one sets and then walks away, later returning to spend a short time performing a verification. If it is not a standardized and simplified process then it is a science experiment.

[Michael Belanger]

Understood, and as I said before, there are certain job delineations and just because a given production chooses to merge some of the responsibilities doesn't change who would be responsible based on a different form of media.

 

Remember that for the most part these download systems are designed to be something one sets and then walks away, later returning to spend a short time performing a verification. If it is not a standardized and simplified process then it is a science experiment.

 

Unless the new form or media offers new possibilities. An AC can unload and safe film from a magazine, but he can't develop it, print it, or look at the footage nearly instantly. He's also re-loading magazines with fresh stock, not re-using the actual film to shoot again, so the two media aren't equivalent.

 

While the loaders job is detail oriented and has no room for error on a film shoot, that portion of his job stops once the load is done. For tapeless there's more to do after that initial transfer (assuming you want to take advantage of those new possibilities of course).

 

So your 3 options are probably:

 

#1 - your loader does the download and verify and then recycles the media. Everything else gets handled by editorial later on off site.

 

#2 - same as above but with an Media Manager on site. The loader is pulling the media and delivering it to the MM and returning and loading blank media.

 

#3 - some verison of the above, but with an editor or assistant editor around somewhere doing some "editor stuff" with the footage once it's downloaded.

 

I think it comes down to what the Producer and Director are looking to get out of the tapeless workflow. If they're big on viewing footage, rough cutting as they go, etc they'll go with an AE. If they have a really detail oriented and tech-savy loader they'll skip everyone else.

 

I think its important no matter what that the integrity of the camera unit stays intact so cards are still in and out of camera by an AC.

[Brian Drysdale]

An important part is the backing up of the rushes before the media is returned for use in the camera. If the download systems are self verifying and can be left to chug away, perhaps in the camera truck darkroom, that would take a lot of pressure from the loader. They can just run final checks and confirmations on the back ups before reusing the media.

 

I'd be more concerned if it involved a lot of hands on switching and plugging drives into a laptop, during which operating errors could easily slip in under pressure.

[Jamie Metzger]

I agree that on a busy shoot with a 2nd AC that this person may have too much to do to then also be burdened with downloading media. That's why there is a separate Loader position (aka Clapper/Loader).

 

or the Director's girlfriend or whatever all comes down to the same thing

:lol:

 

I've seen that and similar before.

 

I think what we; in the indie world are saying, is that we would love a loader! It would give another job to our friends, but the reality of the situation as that most RED shows are going out without a 2nd! So if I can't have a 2nd AC, or if I am 2nding, I'd rather have an asst editor/editor handle the responsibility than I, since I've been called back to set multiple times because I was handling footage.

 

once the dust settles, I hope we can get back to the way it should be; with at minimum 2 ac's and when permitted; a loader.

 

What could a "loader" being doing to sell themselves better to a production besides loading/downloading footage? Does a "loader" now have to become sort of a DIT to seem some kind of reasonable?

[John Sprung]

Does a "loader" now have to become sort of a DIT to seem some kind of reasonable?

No, the DIT job is mainly concerned with getting the picture into the limited dynamic range of the recording system. With raw, that goes away. The loader job requires knowing for sure how to get the ones and zeroes from the camera to whatever is going to preserve them for post and beyond.

 

The DIT affects the look of the show. The loader's competence merely determines whether or not there's a picture at all. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Phil Rhodes]

With raw, that goes away

 

I'd qualify that with... "a bit."

 

P

[Chad Stockfleth]

This seems to be a bit of a semantics game with Loader, Asst. Editor, Media Manager and P2 Wizard all serving the same purpose. You NEED someone who understands the workflow focusing on maintaining the integrity and security of the footage. I couldn't agree more that this position should fall under the umbrella of the camera dept.

 

Obviously when crew is short people have to pull double-duty. This is why the DP is also the operator and the Producer is setting up craft services. When budget/crew is cut, risk is assumed. End of story.