Michael Most

You haven't said how long the piece is, so I'm assuming it's a "typical" 90-100 minute picture. You also haven't said how many cuts are involved, which becomes significant for finishing. Assuming you deliver a proper offline copy and an accurate, complete pull list and EDL, I would say that it will likely take the facility a day or two to organize the footage for transfer, about a week to transfer, two days to conform, and another 2-3 days to color correct. You'd then need another day or so for titling, sound layback, and creation of delivery elements. That's assuming they can schedule all of this within that time frame. So you can probably figure about 2 to 2 1/2 weeks from the day you deliver your offline and lists. All of this also assumes that you're only looking to create an HD video master, because that's all it will get you (well, standard def downconversions as well, of course). If you want a film print, you should rethink how you're doing this and consider color correcting using log format scans in a DI theater. You can then create your HD video deliverable, but hold off on the film recording and answer print until you're ready - the color corrected film frames can be saved as files on a data tape backup. But working that way will allow you to do a film version that looks the way you want it to look (because you've color corrected in a theater environment on a large screen) and a video version that mimics that. It likely won't cost much more than going the video finish route, but it will add a day or two to the conform, and probably another day or two to the color correction as well. So figure about 3 to 3 1/2 weeks at the minimum for that approach. Cost? David's $50K figure is not out of the ballpark, but it seems a bit high if you're not working in one of the major facilities in Los Angeles, New York, or London. There are a number of "boutique" type operations that can do a very good job, and should be considered. Feel free to contact me privately if you want more information.

That might be the case if someone actually manufactured a 2K telecine, or if there were a 2K video standard. They don't, and there isn't. I've never gotten a straight answer from AJA as to what they mean by any of this, other than the ability to import information from an HSDL connection - a non-real time transfer solution that is not used much today. The term "2K" is thrown around very easily these days, but in almost all cases, it's not what's being described. What is being described is dual link HD video. That's 1920x1080, not 2048x1556, and it's 16x9, not 4x3. I really wish people and companies would get their terminology correct so that their product descriptions could actually match reality. They also don't supply any kind of control software that would do what I previously described needs to be done for any kind of efficiency - i.e., VTR emulation, to allow edit system control. That is correct, which is why I said "Symphony" and not "Symphony Nitris" ;-)

As I learned when I moved to Miami after nearly 30 years in Los Angeles, L.A. is not the world. The way things are done there is not necessarily the model for the way they're done elsewhere. There are a number of different ways to record to a computer, depending on what type of files you're trying to create. Some can be created only on a Mac, others can only be created on a PC. On the PC side, there is software and hardware available to create a vtr emulator that can be treated like a tape machine, so you can control it and record to it as if you were going to tape. On the Mac side, such software does not exist, but you can use a program called Virtual VTR to allow start/stop recording, with time code. This means you have to take a bit of time to color correct the entire roll prior to recording it (you can't edit), but it does work and eliminates the extra step and extra compression of a trip through an HDCam machine. This is how we do direct to hard disk transfers for various clients - we control the Mac directly from telecine for stop and start recording, and at the same time, make an HDCam backup that also supplies time code to Virtual VTR. This gives the client what is essentially a first generation recording, but allows us to have backup and repeatable time code for that backup in case the file or disk gets corrupted (gee, that never happens, does it??). Ironically, Avid built a system to do this years ago (Avid Media Station Telecine), but was never really able to get it to work reliably, and ultimately abandoned it - although I believe the functionality is still present in the Symphony. There are also devices that are built specifically for this task - Maximum Throughput's Sledgehammer (Windows based), Drastic Technologies' QuickClip Pro (Windows), DVS' Clipster and Pronto (Windows), and SpectSoft's RaveHD (Linux based) come to mind, although you obviously can't do Mac specific Quicktime formats - which are generally the most requested for this kind of work, primarily in the form of DVCPro HD Quicktimes, and probably in the near future, ProRes - on any of them.

Actually, the original version was developed for both the Mac and SGI. The Mac version was originally supposed to only support up to HD resolution (and that was a stretch at the time). The SGI version was designed to process up to 4K, if you were willing to invest in multiple Onyx 4's. This is one reason the program looks like something designed for Irix/XWindows (because it was developed on Irix). Time took it's toll, the SGI version was eventually abandoned, and the Mac version was eventually able to accommodate up to 2K with newer hardware.

And talent? And the ability to actually produce a deliverable element? And the know-how as to how to set up that monitor/projector for the type of deliverable you're actually producing? Apple would like everyone to believe that buying $1000 software makes you an editor. Or a sound editor. Or, now, a colorist. Hopefully, enough people still understand and at least somewhat respect the notion of talent and experience. I guess we'll find out.

Yes and no. The camera and the recorder are two different things. If you record the HVX material using DVCPro50, you're getting roughly the same performance as the DigiBeta recorder. However, DigiBeta cameras (in general) have far better sensors, far better glass, and considerably less noise, so the image is arguably superior, which sometimes helps in terms of matte extractions. Bottom line: You get what you pay for, even with the most modern technology. A $75,000 camera and recorder will produce a superior product when compared to a $5000 camera and recorder, even when you're only shooting effects elements.

1. Slates. 2. Key numbers.

You make some good points. I can't help but notice, however, that practically every one is about convenience. None are about image quality or image capture latitude, nor are they about the quality of the final product. But then again, you did say this was from a producer's point of view, and from that perspective, as I said, you make some good points.

Absolutely. I was just laying out another alternative, if the 18fps "look" is something that was creatively desirable.

What would those be, other than financial?

There is no such thing as a 24p standard definition videotape format. So the basic answer is no. However, you could transfer to a 24p HD format. In that case, what I previously described would likely be the case: the telecine would transfer at 18fps, printing every 3rd frame twice, thus yielding 24fps with proper sync. It would be a difficult exercise to reconform this using 2K scans. But if you plan it this way from the start, it is possible to do the original transfer to, say, HDCam SR at 4:4:4 10 bit, and use that for an "indie" DI through to a film out. If it's necessary to cut in standard definition, this could be done either by downconverting directly from the HDCam SR transfer master to a file (Quicktime, for instance), or by making DVCam downconversions and ingesting from that (hopefully converting back to 24fps for editing, although that's not technically necessary). Just about anything is possible if you plan it correctly. Even a 24fps print from an 18fps original.

Only Rodriguez' portion. "Death Proof" and the trailers (I believe) were shot on film. Agreed, although in certain cases, there are some extenuating circumstances that favor one or the other. For instance, in the case of Robert Rodriguez, you're talking about a director who likes doing his own cinematography. However, he's not a highly experienced cinematographer, so the immediacy of video feedback is what allows him to have some confidence that what he's exposing is what is actually wants. In fact, he's said in numerous interviews that he believes that with film, it's something of a guessing game. Well, for him, it probably is, even if it isn't for an experienced film shooter. Whatever other reasons there might be for him to shoot digitally, at least as far as I can see, pale by comparison to that one. And then there's the motivation of visual effects needs. In the case of green or blue screen work - and I say this with my visual effects supervisor's hat on - a digitally shot element is far better for matte extractions than film in almost every way, provided it's of a sufficiently high resolution and free of any compression/chroma subsampling artifacts (i.e., it's not HDCam, or any 4:2:2 subsampled recording system). This is the case primarily because the digital element has no grain, which is one of the primary inhibiting factors to clean matte work when working with film. As evidence of this, I offer "Sin City" - in which every hair on everyone's head was retained without noise in almost every matte, even when that hair was blonde and windblown - and "Star Wars Ep. 3," which for all of its weaknesses as a movie, had compositing work that was generally as close to flawless as anything we've seen. Both of these pictures were shot with Sony F950's (4:4:4 camera), and recorded on HDCam SR, thus fulfilling my "requirements." I was just happy to hear someone finally say it.

But that's not what you're asking about, and it's not what you seem to be planning to do. The comment wasn't made as a "cheap shot," it was made because far too often here, people (not necessarily you) seem to be under the impression that you can make "anything" out of "anything" because it's "digital" - without regard for such minor details as frame rates, proper tracking of keycode, and an understanding of the nature of projected film (i.e., that it's projected at 24 frames per second). And the questions asked are almost always asked after the fact.

Just go down the ASC membership list. There are members from every corner of the globe, many who are also members of their own national honorary societies. There are members from Canada, Mexico, Australia, South America, almost every country in Europe, and just about everywhere else. The ASC, while it may have the word "American" in it, and be headquartered in Los Angeles, is truly an international organization. I don't know where you get this notion from. The ASC has nothing to do with the studios, and studios have no say in who gets invited to join. Only an invitation from the members themselves can get one into the ASC. Studios couldn't care less about the ASC membership status of the cameramen they hire, other than as an indication of a good reputation. The fee is to keep the organization solvent, as any organization - even an honorary one - must be run as a business. You are completely confusing the ASC and the ICG (International Cinematographers' Guild, also known as IATSE Local 600). The ICG is "the union." The ASC is an honorary society, a private organization that has nothing to do with negotiating contracts. On the contrary, many "big time DP's" are often among the fastest and most frugal cameramen in terms of how quickly they can work and the package they use. Any experienced cameraman tailors the package to the needs of the individual production, and doesn't ask for what they don't need. They don't always go out with a large package if it isn't warranted, and many are absolute masters at doing a lot with very little. Some even enjoy doing smaller productions for this very reason.

1. A track record of achievement as a cinematographer (for active membership) or in other industry positions related to the art and craft of cinematography (for associate membership). 2. An invitation from the ASC board, usually generated by being nominated for such by a current member. 3. Sponsorship by 3 current active members. 4. Payment of an initiation fee.

It seems to me there really isn't any way to come up with any post path for this particular case other than the obvious one (use what they've got and hope for the best). Will people never learn to ask questions prior to beginning a project rather than after they've already made a mess of it?

Going the optical route, you're print every 3rd frame twice to get from 18fps to 24fps. I had to do that quite a while back for some home movie footage that was being used. The result doesn't actually look a strobed as one might think, particularly given that 18fps photography is a bit stuttery to begin with. Even if I was doing this digitally, I'd consider using the same approach, as it avoids frame blending which can lead to other problems.

That is the goal. I don't think anyone is currently stating that it isn't. It's also unaffordable right now to all but the largest studio pictures, for many reasons - as are multiple printing negatives, when compared to the considerably less costly, and much faster to create IP's and IN's. I really don't think anyone is taking their eye off the ball in our industry, it's just that current technology has limitations, very real ones. It's very easy to say something should be done a certain way. It's another thing to justify that in terms of increased revenue if it's going to cost considerably more to achieve it. Unfortunately, show business is, well, a business. And it will continue to be run like a business - a dysfunctional business, but a business nonetheless.

He also introduced 3 perf 35mm a number of years later. Quite the innovator, and a character to boot.

On studio based productions - that is, shows based on studio lots in Los Angeles - there is usually only catering for special occasions. Breakfast is usually supplied by craft service, not a caterer. Lunch is an hour off and the crew is on their own. If you want to have lunch on the lot, there are commissaries for that, or you can go off-lot as long as you're back in an hour - which, in L.A., is not a lot of time to leave and come back, especially if you drive. Second meal, if required, is often either pizza, Poquito Mas burritos and tacos, or In-N-Out burgers. On location, of course, there is catering, for both breakfast and lunch, although breakfast is often done as a walking breakfast. This only changes if you are warehouse based, in which case catering is usually provided every day.

Especially after you discover that your clients aren't willing to pay any more for the more expensive gear in the first place. The "lower end" - and I mean price-wise, here - of the market is at that point for a reason. The price points are already established, and are not going to up, regardless of what happens to be in the videographer's hands. If anything, they want it cheaper every year. Would they like better images? Sure. Will they pay for it? Not on your life.

There is no "dark art" and there are no "secretive techniques." There is only talent and experience, as in anything else. If you want a good source, try Steve Hullfish's book, "Color Correction for Digital Video."

Either you're going to do a 2K scan - to data files - or you're going to do an HD telecine to HDCam. There is no such thing as a 2K HDCam format. 1920x1080 with HDCam compression is not 2K. Now, if you're talking about a 4:4:4 RGB transfer to HDCam SR, that would be closer. Not the same, but much closer.

Phil, it's one thing to criticize companies, individuals, and institutions. It's another thing to come in here - in what is essentially a worldwide forum - and criticize a foreign government. You have absolutely no idea what life is like as an American, even though you seem to think you do. Some of us have some pride in where we come from (even if we criticize it), even if you don't. I don't see Americans - including myself - coming in here and pointing out how incompetant and pompous we might think the UK is. Don't come in here telling me that my country and my government is incompetant. You can think whatever you want about your own country, just as I can think whatever I want of mine. But I'm not interested in what you think of the US, and I'm not interested in your "disdain" for it, at least not here. So keep your bitterness and air of intellectual superiority concentrated on corporations and individuals, and just shut the hell up about things like foreign governments that you have little experience with or knowledge of.

Not to nitpick, but both of these pictures owe far more of their look to CGI and matte painting work than they do to live action photography. The only things that were "photographed" in either of these pictures were generally the principal actors and occasional small set pieces, especially in "Sin City." I would add, however, that in "Star Wars" much of the miniature photography (although, contrary to what George has said, not all of it) was done with the 950 as well.