35mm workflow

[Landon D. Parks]

Hey guys! I put togehter a sort of makeshift workflow for a 35mm film production with a Digital Intermediate.

 

Does this look right? is there anything I need to change or edit?

 

Thanks!

 

[Dominic Case]

Right at the bottom - your film-out. It's not usually referred to as a scan - that's the term for the film-to-digital stage. I'd suggest the term "Film Recorder".

 

What comes out of that stage is actually a 35mm negative. The lab still has to make a print from that before you can say "ready to view".

 

You've obviously been to the ARRI website to get your icons. SO you've used an Arri Film Scanner icon for your telecine stage, which is a little misleading. Scanning and telecine are really quite different although they may seem similar. It's a different bit of kit for the job, anyway.

 

Similarly I recognise the final stage as an Arri Locpro projector, which is a great piece of equipment, most often used for location rushes screening, but not necessarily typical of projectors in general. I wouldn't be showing an answer print on one, for example.

 

Apart from that (others might have a few nits to pick),it's a good chart.

[David Mullen ASC]

I've never heard of a DP's "workstation" nor having their own monitor, except maybe on a studio-bound HD production like "Attack of the Clones." Usually the DP and director share the same monitor. And I'm not sure what's the separate "set monitor" either -- where are the DP and director if not on the set? Why split them up in a diagram? Just have a arrow going from the camera to on-set monitors, as many as needed, with one of them going to the video playback person's station if needed. It's one video tap out from the camera split-up various ways. And the video playback person usually sends the recorded picture back to the director's monitor on request; there's not a special, separate monitor to watch playback.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure even why you need to show any of that since it has nothing to do with making a DI.

 

The telecine for video dailies and offline editing is the same telecine -- it's the same transfer, only the betacam (usually) master goes to the editor and dubs to VHS, Mini-DV or DVD go to the director, etc.

 

The film recorder output is either a camera stock negative, IN or IP. If an IP, then an IN has to be made. Multiple IN's can be output for mass release prints or an IP & then multiple IN's can be made from the IN originally output. Or if you had output an IP, then you can make multiple IN's from that.

 

Digital efx aren't always done from the scan done at the time of making the DI -- they may have taken the negative for those shots much earlier and done their own scan.

 

After color-correction for the creation of a final 2K or 4K master, you then would split off in two directions, one for making various HD and SD home video masters and the other for film recording to 35mm.

 

You skipped the whole audio post path but I guess that doesn't really matter.

[Dominic Case]

Digital efx aren't always done from the scan done at the time of making the DI

Absolutely right, David - but I've had a go at drawing these flowcharts myself, and you generally have two choices: either to make them simple, straightforward, easy to understand and aesthetically pleasing, OR to make them accurate, comprehensive, and useful to people beyond their first five minues of thinking about the whole thing.

 

BTW, I just noticed "EDL signal" as a line from the offline editor to the film scanner. It's actually usually a disk or a file, which requires human intervention before it's any use. And between "film processing" and the scanner, there is usually a human intervention of negative extraction . . . and so on. How detailed should this be?

 

You skipped the whole audio post path but I guess that doesn't really matter.

That would make it ten times as complicated - and it's only sound - better to leave it out:blink:

[David Mullen ASC]

either to make them simple, straightforward, easy to understand and aesthetically pleasing, OR to make them accurate, comprehensive, and useful to people beyond their first five minues of thinking about the whole thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree, which is why all that stuff about on-set video monitoring and playback, etc. should just be dropped because it has nothing to do with DI's... and you do that stuff with non-DI projects as well anyway. The video tap signal is a dead-end issue since it is not used in post.

 

Here's an example of a diagram I created, pretty stripped down:

 

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I think you might want to draw an arrow from the DAT to the camera with the words JAM SYNC or something.

 

Phil

[Dirk DeJonghe]

For sync rushes more and more productions are using the new Aaton Cantar. At the end of the day the sound recordist makes a two-track temp mixdown (WAV or BWF format) and burns it to a CD or DVD. This CD is inserted in the Keylink with audio option (Keydaw) or in the Indaw (Aaton audio workstation). The audio files are copied to the internal hard disk and the telecine session can begin.

 

Much faster than copying a DAT in real time.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, one of the dilemmas I had in writing the new edition of "Cinematography" was the changes in sound recording. People tell me that DAT is on its way out and hard drive recording or DVD-RAM, whatnot, is the next big thing.

 

However, since the book is for student filmmakers, I sort of assumed that they would be using the level of technology one generation back than what's being used on major productions. So I figure that DAT will still be around in film schools although maybe I'm wrong and students will just be using their laptops to record audio...

[Keith Mottram]

Yes, one of the dilemmas I had in writing the new edition of "Cinematography" was the changes in sound recording.  People tell me that DAT is on its way out and hard drive recording or DVD-RAM, whatnot, is the next big thing.

 

However, since the book is for student filmmakers, I sort of assumed that they would be using the level of technology one generation back than what's being used on major productions.  So I figure that DAT will still be around in film schools although maybe I'm wrong and students will just be using their laptops to record audio...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The end of DATs, that will put a smile on my face. In this day and age they really are turning into a bit of an anachronism. If I never saw another DAT......... David, the only thing I'd add would be Titles/ FX- perhaps an arrow off the offline and then another joining it to the conform?

[Michael Most]

For sync rushes more and more productions are using the new Aaton Cantar. At the end of the day the sound recordist makes a two-track temp mixdown (WAV or BWF format) and burns it to a CD or DVD. This CD is inserted in the Keylink with audio option (Keydaw) or in the Indaw (Aaton audio workstation). The audio files are copied to the internal hard disk and the telecine session can begin.

 

Much faster than copying a DAT in real time.

 

The time it takes to copy from DAT (or any other linear recording medium) to a hard disk, if used that way, is usually insignificant, because the sound arrives at the post facility long before the negative does - usually at least 5 to 6 hours earlier - because it doens't require any processing. Any sound transfer is done during that lead time. That's how a facility like Laser Pacific can get as many shows through the plant on any given night as it does.

[Landon D. Parks]

What comes out of that stage is actually a 35mm negative. The lab still has to make a print from that before you can say "ready to view".

Well I did leave it out on purpose. I did not want to show the whole process exactly as it happends. Thats also why I left sound out, and other steps like CG process.

 

I was just refering to the "General" workflow of a 35mm film w/ a DI.

 

I've never heard of a DP's "workstation" nor having their own monitor,

When I say DP's workstation, Im refering to a very small amount of equipment that may be operated by the DP on a Set. Like the Camera's remote control unit (To adjust Irs, ect) away from the camera. And maybee a few other small devices.

 

The closest image I could find to that was an HD controllers workstation from Calirmont's website.

 

SO you've used an Arri Film Scanner icon for your telecine stage, which is a little misleading. Scanning and telecine are really quite different although they may seem similar. It's a different bit of kit for the job, anyway.

I understand there is a difference in Telecine and scan. I thought however most scanners could also telecine and most telecine could also scan? But reguardless, Thats the only image I could find to represent the Telecine without doing a lot of homework and stuff, And I wanted to keep this simple.

 

I put this thing together in like 20 minutes.

 

imilarly I recognise the final stage as an Arri Locpro projector, which is a great piece of equipment, most often used for location rushes screening, but not necessarily typical of projectors in general. I wouldn't be showing an answer print on one, for example.

Well, I was just using the locpro to "represent" a basic film projector. I didnt want to have to go and find 10,000 images from 1,000 different sites to get this done, so I used some images on that workflow that may not be the exact product, but in general it represnts it.

 

As to the EDL Line from the offline to the online, I could have sliped a CD-Rom ijmage in there, but in general "EDL Signal" gets the point across. I did'nt actually think it was sent via a signal (Satalite, Internet, ect). I was just using it to generally represent it.

 

I also understand that there is personal contact with the film print's and the EDL, But I did'nt want to make this a 10,000 MB mega-image to represent EVERY little step of the entire production priocess.

 

Hope that explains some of your questions to me...

Edited January 25, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[David Mullen ASC]

Gee, I could have sworn in your original post that you wrote:

 

"Does this look right? is there anything I need to change or edit?"

 

But instead, you point by point defended every error and inaccuracy pointed out to you by a bunch of working professionals. Why did we bother to respond if you were just going to disagree with all of our corrections? Sometimes I feel I'm wasting my time responding to your posts because you act like it's more important to let everyone think you know something than to actually learn from somebody.

 

You ask us for our corrections and then you get all defensive for being corrected!

[Landon D. Parks]

Sorry David. I was not meaning to dis-agree with anything you guys where saying. I'm not disagreeing, just corrected where it needs it.

 

I agree with everything you guys have said, and I find it very helpful. But then you guys asked all the question that I answered, so did you ask the question but not want me to answer it?

 

Sorry, but I don't see how I was making it look like I'm trying to disagree with anyone.

 

I was not trying to "Defend" myself, I was only answering the questions that you guys asked.

 

And its true, all the stuff I said in my above last post is true! I did know all these things, but as I said, I didnt want it to be a 10,000 MB file. However, I also learned a lot of stuff from what was posted from you guys also. I did not correct "Everything" you gusy told me, just what I felt needed to be corrected.

 

I stated in my first post: This is just a basic Workflow.

 

I'm sorry if it offended anyone.

 

P.S) Thanks for all the advice guys! Found most of it VERY useful. I may even Make a more complete workflow and add some of the stuff that I have learned from you guys into it.

Edited January 25, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Dominic Case]

Well I did leave it out on purpose.

You asked for comments. We made them. I realise that you might not have wanted to spend all day looking for icons, and I'm sure that you knew it was only a rough draft. But 319 other people (so far) have viewed this thread - and if there's anything in your diagram that goes uncommented on, then there's about 300 people who probably think it is a perfectly accurate diagram.

 

Most scanners can't do telecine. Most telecines aren't scanners. I want those 300 people to understand that.

 

You've put more detail into the camera end of the system than I normally would in such a flowchart - because in the lab, I get an exposed negative: director's monitors don't come into it. But other people see the process from a different perspective. So I let that go: however, David has made some very well informed remarks on that - and many of us have learnt from what he had to say. So our remarks (I think I can speak for David - and Dirk and Mike Most and the others who have chipped in as well) are for everyone's use, and not intended just for you.

[Landon D. Parks]

I'v never really viewed it that way I don't guess. But, your right.

Still, I was corrected what I thought needed to be corrected to, well, defend myself I guess (Sort of). I Don't want people to think I don't know something when I do, because that looks bad on my part (At least to me it does).

 

Maybee I should not have corrected in the first place.

 

But again, thanks for all the help guys.

[Landon D. Parks]

This is more than likly a stupid question: I understand that you can print only selected take on 35mm, but is it a requirement to PROCESS all of the film, rather you plan to use it or not?

 

I dont see how they could even look at the stock to choose your printed takes if ALL the film is not processed.

 

One area I guess I dont understant 100% is the processing and lab part. I always though you sent the exposed filmt o the lab, they someone how looked at the negative and processed only the selected takes. Then they Scan the selected takes to Video dailies (Or print it to film dailies). Then if you liked the take after vieiwng the dailies, they would telecine the selected takes to be edited.

 

Due to you guys, I found out that you usually telecine the editing version at the same time as the dailies.

 

I am still wondering how the whole "Processing" part works. Would someone care to lay it out in a bit of detail for me?

 

Thanks again!

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

One area I guess I dont understant 100% is the processing and lab part. I always though you sent the exposed filmt o the lab, they someone how looked at the negative and processed only the selected takes. Then they Scan the selected takes to Video dailies (Or print it to film dailies). Then if you liked the take after vieiwng the dailies, they would telecine the selected takes to be edited.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unprocessed film has no visible image. You must process it all to be able to see what is on it.

However.. you can be selective as to what you send the lab. If for example, you know that Roll 5 was entirely overexposed because you forgot to stop down from T2 to T22, you can toss it in the garbage, or use it as a dummy load. If you know that you only made this mistake on the first half of the roll, then you can wind it back in the dark and cut the overexposed half off roughly where you figure it ended.

It's very unlikely you'd be able to find a lab to do things like this for you. If they did, it's probably not worth the money to pay them to do so.

 

If you have a chance, learn a bit about how still photography works from the darkroom side of things. These are exactly the same physics and mechanics. Go play around in a B&W darkroom some time if you have access to one.

 

-Sean

[David Mullen ASC]

You process entire rolls. Now if you want a workprint of selected takes in 35mm, they actually cut the negative, extracting the circled takes, and create a new roll of just the takes you want printed, and then print the roll. So if you don't want the camera negative cut up, you will have to talk to your lab.

 

When I print the first day's footage to check it, even though I'm getting video dailies for the rest of the show, I ask that the entire roll is printed so that it doesn't get cut up into a printing roll.

 

Now when doing telecine transfers of the negative for video dailies, you may transfer whole rolls or just circled takes. Sometimes I've had entire rolls transferred for video dailies but only had the circled takes get the audio added.

 

For digital intermediates, you could transfer a cut negative but it is more common to use the EDL to be able to just transfer selects off of the camera rolls and then go into a digital conforming session -- similar to an online session -- to created the edited master from the selects. Or you could cut the negative first but single-strand with frame handles, then trim the handles off in the digital conforming session, which would be pretty fast.

 

Next you'd go into a color-correction session and then there would be a dust removal step.

 

The thing about circled takes in dailies is that you have to decide which takes you like on the set right after you finish shooting the scene. You tell the script supervisor which takes you liked and they circle them. The script notes will also say which take was your favorite so the editor knows that even though you circled three takes, let's say, one of the three is the one you'd prefer to use. Or you can watch the dailies and THEN tell the script supervisor "last night I watched the dailies of the three takes I circled and I preferred Take 4." Then a note is made for the editor, although perhaps the editor watched the dailies with you and already made that note.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

What happens if you ask for a whole roll printed, and it's not all in rack? Say you changed mags to different stocks, or unlaced for some other reason. They'd have to go at it with a splicer then, unavoidably, not that it would be a problem to do so at that sort of point.

 

Phil

[Patrick Neary]

-usually (unless you plan on snapping the mag right back on) the AC will short-roll it on the spot so you send the exposed bit to the lab and keep the short end for later. If you had two shorter rolls of different stocks from the same set-up, they could just print those. Another reason for organized camera reports!

[Dominic Case]

What happens if you ask for a whole roll printed, and it's not all in rack?

If the negative is uncut, then the print will go out of rack - it would be the assistant editor's job to go through the print and cut that as necessary - traditionally that was done at the same time as syncing to the sound for a rushes screening.

 

There are siginficant issues involved if the negative is cut at all (even one perf), when it comes to logging the negative for keykodes and timecodes. Normally keykodes increment one per foot, so the keykode of any frame can be computed from the timecode in the EDL by reference back to the logging point at the start of the roll. If the neg is cut or the telecine transfer is interrupted, you need extra logging points.

 

I dont see how they could even look at the stock to choose your printed takes

I have (and treasure) a couple of lab instruction notes sent in with some 16mm neg shot on a band tour, for processing (many years ago now). Basically, the first note explained that the first part of roll 42 was underexposed by two stops, and asked the lab to cut the film where the concert interiors finished and the daylight exteriors started , and push process the first part(!). The second one said that due to an error there were two roll 42s. One of them should have been marked roll 47. (which one?).

 

I guess the camera assistant was enjoying the concert tour in many ways! Probably doesn't remember any of it now;-)