OK so lets say digital becomes standard....

[danny bartle]

ok so lets fast forward in time....

 

HD or digital movie cameras become mostly used on movie sets & film is rarely used. You can get the latest Super Duper George Lucas Signature Sony Model HD super proton pixel digital movie camera for budgets that even most indie filmmakers can afford. You dont have to worry about film costs etc, the camera does a lot for you, correcting many of your mistakes or can easily be fixed in post by a 13yr old computer whizz kid.

 

ok maybe i'm being a bit to futuristic but is it just me or is anyone else slightly worried about their jobs if the above statement is sort of true? I know some new jobs will come from digital cinema but what about all the film related jobs? the loader, processor, telecine jobs, assistants, etc etc.

 

I can only assume less people are needed once digital acquisition becomes used more, or am I wrong? This is the main reason why i'm not a huge fan of digital movie making....

 

Your thoughts...

[Nate Downes]

it will never be at the price range of indies. By the time any of the high-end equipment gets down to our level, it will be so obsolete as to be impossible to distribute.

 

If you controlled the distribution, production, and the tools used for it, would you honestly let the price drop to the point that your competition can use the tools and kill your business?

[danny bartle]

If you controlled the distribution, production, and the tools used for it, would you honestly let the price drop to the point that your competition can use the tools and kill your business?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Downix,

what did you mean by that statement, I didn't quite understand

[David Mullen ASC]

In terms of the professional film industry overall, there would not be any major downsizing due to digital technologies. A low-paid film loader on a set would be replaced by the more highly-paid Digital Imaging Technician (DIT) or a video engineer. Colorists would just be doing more tape to tape corrections instead of film dailies. There would spring up more positions in post to deal with data management, plus things like film recording.

 

In an all-digital future, most of the job losses would occur at film manufacturing plants and film processing labs, not so much in production and post-production (except for the labs as mentioned).

 

Most positions in making a movie are format agnostic -- you still need focus-pullers and second assistants, operators, electricians, grips, make-up, hair, wardrobe, AD's, PA's, transportation, etc. and you still need sound and picture editorial people in post. How many jobs were lost when editing switched from film to NLE? At the sound editorial houses, there are fewer assistants to the sound editors but there seem to be more computer workstations than ever, so I'm not sure there was much loss in number of jobs other than some of the lowliest ones (the guy schlepping boxes of 1000' reels to the mix stage, etc.)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> A low-paid film loader on a set would be replaced by the more highly-paid

> Digital Imaging Technician (DIT) or a video engineer

 

I'm not sure that position is even necessary if you assume that the DPs will eventually gain competence with the video technology.

 

Phil

[Sam Wells]

the camera does a lot for you, correcting many of your mistakes

 

Your thoughts...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My thought: This is exactly what I DO NOT DO NOT want the camera to do.

 

-Sam

[Rik Andino]

Hi,

 

> A low-paid film loader on a set would be replaced by the more highly-paid

> Digital Imaging Technician (DIT) or a video engineer

 

I'm not sure that position is even necessary if you assume that the DPs will eventually gain competence with the video technology.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even if they gain competence with the video technology

They'll still want a DIT to be there to handle all the details

That they just don't have time to do...

because they're either directing the lighting folk

or working on the composition and watching the blocking

or on the phone convinving their wives

That they're not flirting with the young actress :)

 

A DP doesn't only work with the camera dept.

[Nate Downes]

Hi Downix,

what did you mean by that statement, I didn't quite understand

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The majority of these new HDCAM's are coming from companies that also produce and distribute movies. I would not expect them to cut prices so as to make them affordable anytime soon, as a result, or else they would be hurting their other businessess.

[Michael Nash]

Looking at the economics of it, as long as there is a paying market for film/video product there will naturally be different levels of quality of that product. Some producers and/or studios will go after the top-notch quality, using the best equipment and the best craftspeople. That will naturally cost more than lower-quality crews and gear.

 

What movies will actually cost and what the crews will be paid remains to be seen, but since the camera/audio/editing technology is only a part of the whole budget it can't shrink the payscale TOO much. All the other departments are still doing the same work and will expect the same pay, even if one department shrinks.

 

Whenever these "evolution of technology" questions come up I'm always reminded that these changes are not without precedent, and we have comparisons to look at and evaluate. For example, the changes in creative workflow and filmstocks with the advent of DI are essentially the same as what we already have in place with television (in the larger sense, at least). The desktop video "revolution" that put power in the hands of independent fillmakers was preceded and forecast by digital audio advances. And before that the printing industry was re-shaped by desktop publishing.

 

Most of the time the worst of the gloom-and-doom predictions never come to pass, although significant changes in the industry do take place. Whenever a "quantum-leap" technology becomes available there is a period of growing pains within the affected industry, which eventually settles out to a restructuring rather than an all-out collapse.

[Michael Nash]

Getting back to the question of job security, I learned early on in my career that your livelihood depends on the talent you bring to a craft, and not just the skill you have with a piece of gear. When the piece of gear becomes obsolete, so does your job.

 

I was getting my start in video just as the first Avids were being introduced, and I realized that with the possibility of complete post in one workstation, an editor's livelihood depended on his ability to edit -- in the larger, creative sense of the word. The specialized jobs of running this or that gizmo were disappearing, and an editor's job was becoming more of a "director of post." You still had to learn the skills needed for the new technology, but the value to the client was in your talent for the craft.

 

If the technical skills of a DP such as exposure and whatnot are eventually replaced by technology, the ONLY value a DP can bring to the show is his/her ability to lend talent and creativity to the execution of that show. The skills you have are just tools, a means to an end.

[Alessandro Machi]

Getting back to the question of job security, I learned early on in my career that your livelihood depends on the talent you bring to a craft, and not just the skill you have with a piece of gear. When the piece of gear becomes obsolete, so does your job.

 

And yet, some DP friends of mine are now automatically asked if they have worked with a certain kind of camera.....

 

Meaning no matter how good their show reel is, the producers want to know if they've actually worked with the specific camera that they plan on using for their production.

 

So nowadays it's BOTH talent and skill with a piece of gear. Funny how when it comes to film production that is not necessarily the way it is.

[David Mullen ASC]

Meaning no matter how good their show reel is, the producers want to know if they've actually worked with the specific camera that they plan on using for their production.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're talking about pretty low-budget stuff where the producers have some deal on a video camera and THEN go about looking for a DP to shoot with it.

 

Most productions will hire a DP and THEN discuss the optimal format to shoot in, relying on the DP's knowledge and experience with a wide variety of equipment to advise them how to procede. You look at DP's who have shot some digital features like John Bailey or Ellen Kuras (or my own experience on "Jackpot") and they weren't necessarily experienced with the particular digital camera chosen to shoot those movies. NOW they have experience but that doesn't mean they will chose that particular camera on their next digital feature (besides, with new cameras being introduced every year, you'd be better off hiring someone with more general knowledge than someone being tied too much to one camera model.)

 

Anyway, if someone doesn't want to hire ME to shoot a feature because I haven't used a PD-170 before, or whatever, that's their loss... I'd prefer to be hired on something where I'm allowed to throw in my 2-cents regarding the format.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Hi,

 

> A low-paid film loader on a set would be replaced by the more highly-paid

> Digital Imaging Technician (DIT) or a video engineer

 

I'm not sure that position is even necessary if you assume that the DPs will eventually gain competence with the video technology.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most DPs can load film and pull focus too but I don't see that happening on many shoots. It behooves productions to have a DIT.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

In terms of the professional film industry overall, there would not be any major downsizing due to digital technologies. A low-paid film loader on a set would be replaced by the more highly-paid Digital Imaging Technician (DIT) or a video engineer. Colorists would just be doing more tape to tape corrections instead of film dailies. There would spring up more positions in post to deal with data management, plus things like film recording.

 

In an all-digital future, most of the job losses would occur at film manufacturing plants and film processing labs, not so much in production and post-production (except for the labs as mentioned). 

 

Most positions in making a movie are format agnostic -- you still need focus-pullers and second assistants, operators, electricians, grips, make-up, hair, wardrobe, AD's, PA's, transportation, etc. and you still need sound and picture editorial people in post. How many jobs were lost when editing switched from film to NLE? At the sound editorial houses, there are fewer assistants to the sound editors but there seem to be more computer workstations than ever, so I'm not sure there was much loss in number of jobs other than some of the lowliest ones (the guy schlepping boxes of 1000' reels to the mix stage, etc.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yup! Well put. Every digital production, as well as the one I'm currently on, is surprised to find that I need the same amount of lights, the same crew. I also insist, if hired, on a tape to tape. This also surprises people becasue they think it's ready to show out of the camera.

 

The example of NLEs is a good one. I'm also wonderig if yet another position in addition to the DIT will be created on bigger shows that record to disk (Viper,F950,etc.). You'll need a computer tech to mangage the data bank on set.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Even if they gain competence with the video technology

> They'll still want a DIT to be there to handle all the details

> That they just don't have time to do...

 

No. That's like saying they'd want someone else to decide whether to bleach-bypass the neg. Drivel.

 

> Most DPs can load film and pull focus too but I don't see that happening on

> many shoots. It behooves productions to have a DIT.

 

Again, no. DPs should learn their craft. I'm expected to learn film, even if all I want to shoot is video. This is directly analogous to people making grading and chemical processing decisions. The DP should do make the decisions and the ACs should implement them technically, if it involves modifications to the camera. If you need another person to do it, the ACs and the DP don't know what they're doing and shouldn't be working the show.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

If you need another person to do it, the ACs and the DP don't know what they're doing and shouldn't be working the show.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Speaking as someone who has shot eight HD features without a DIT, I can see the argument for one on a bigger show with more complex set-ups, dealing with the problems of matching multiple cameras, or switching between different looks, etc. -- it's not a question as to whether the DP and/or AC have the knowledge so much as it is whether it is more efficient to have someone dedicated to dealing with those issues on the set. A basic camera crew barely can handle the picture & audio cabling issues without putting someone in charge of just that, let alone setting up & moving (often) equipment such as waveform monitors and scopes, if needed.

 

On "Dot" I spent some time on Day One just dealing with downconversions issues for various reasons (was given an HD monitor with no HDSDI card and THEN was told it was the only one in town, this created a cabling problem with our downconverter, etc.)

 

While I can play around with the menu of an F900 just fine without a DIT, if I ever venture into the realm of recording to hard drives and/or external decks, that really starts to be more time than me or my AC has to deal with those issues AND do what we regularly do on a production. So I certainly can see a future where bigger digital productions have essentially a digital supervisor / traffic cop / technician to coordinate all the menu set-ups & changes, cabling and monitoring issues between camera, sound, script supervisor, video playback, and any external recorder, etc.

[John Sprung]

It's all a matter of time, money, and proportion.

 

Can a DP load a film mag or twiddle all the settings on a digital sub-sub-menu? Sure they can. But is it a wise use of the DP's time to do that? If it's just you and an associate producer shooting inserts, maybe you do it that way. But on a big shoot where you're burning hundreds of grand a day, it's more cost effective to offload those tasks onto others.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tenolian Bell]

Well it appears the new digital cameras will be without sub-sub-sub menu's.

 

I'd prefer not to deal with 'em.

[Ilmari Reitmaa]

The majority of these new HDCAM's are coming from companies that also produce and distribute movies.  I would not expect them to cut prices so as to make them affordable anytime soon, as a result, or else they would be hurting their other businessess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Allow me to sidetrack here a little...

 

I must say I see it a practical impossibility that the price of any digital equipment could be artificially kept unaffordable. Anytime soon is naturally a relative term though, but considering the rate the price of digital technology keeps coming down, business competition will bring the prices down in this case also.

 

Roughly, both hard drive storage capacity and integrated circuit component density keeps doubling every year and a half, data bus bandwith takes a little longer. A pessimistic prediction is that this development will continue for the next ten years. Today, you can get a 3.5" 300GB hard drive for $200 that would accommodate roughly 12min 30s of 4k 16-bit Bayer-data; in five years, the same $200 buys you 2.4TB or 1h 40min; in some ten years you get 19.2TB or 13h 20min. The cost of the in-camera circuitry will also drop accordingly. Not implying that there aren't any technical issues in putting the components together to make up a camera, but the price development of the underlying digital hardware (which today, along with R&D, makes up a major portion of the cost) is pretty drastic.

 

Pardon me for getting technical :).

[Sam Wells]

Well it appears the new digital cameras will be without sub-sub-sub menu's.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Omigod I hope you're right.

 

The Kinetta approach seems the most interesting, RAW capture with LUT you don't have to get married to.

 

Having a film lab on location has a surface appeal but for the way I work and want to, no, "include me out" --

 

I don't want to see the photographic art of cinematography get lost here in a sea of so-called "looks"

 

-Sam

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

Allow me to sidetrack here a little...

 

I must say I see it a practical impossibility that the price of any digital equipment could be artificially kept unaffordable. Anytime soon is naturally a relative term though, but considering the rate the price of digital technology keeps coming down, business competition will bring the prices down in this case also.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

this can really be seen in HDV, canon chose not to make the xl-2 hdv so when sony announces their hdv cams the xl-2 is regarded as an also ran. i doubt that xl-2 will really be relevant for any amount of time, especially with the new camera from JVC that seems to implement all of the features that sony ignored so as to not take business from their higher-end cameras.

my point is that if sony or someone else doesn't lower their prices, then the competition will undercut them on price or implement a superior camera for the same price.

[Tenolian Bell]

I must say I see it a practical impossibility that the price of any digital equipment could be artificially kept unaffordable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hope the future shows this as true.

 

I've seen these new flat screen LCD televisions that use LED for backlighting. They are brighter than plasma or flourescent backlighting. And have a higher color rendering, reportedly higher than CRT even.

 

But they cost $15,000 USD.

 

I can't imagine paying $1000 USD just for a television.

[Tenolian Bell]

I don't want to see the photographic art of cinematography get lost here in a sea of so-called "looks"

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree from what the Panavision guys were saying with the Genesis they are moving away from menu's also.

[Ilmari Reitmaa]

ok maybe i'm being a bit to futuristic but is it just me or is anyone else slightly worried about their jobs if the above statement is sort of true? I know some new jobs will come from digital cinema but what about all the film related jobs? the loader, processor, telecine jobs, assistants, etc etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This or that, I wouldn't think one should be particularly worried about it all. I mean, constant re-education and learning new stuff as going along is vital in very much any profession. The jobs, whatever they will be called, will probably be there, it's just a matter of filling the positions with the most competent people; people currently working in the film business are in an excellent position to re-educate themselves to be the most competent, should the need arise.

 

In any case, streamlining the production process and cutting human resources costs, should this come to pass, is unlikely to be a generally bad thing in the long run.

Edited March 29, 2005 by Ilmari Reitmaa

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I must say I see it a practical impossibility that the price of any digital equipment could be artificially kept unaffordable. Anytime soon is naturally a relative term though, but considering the rate the price of digital technology keeps coming down, business competition will bring the prices down in this case also.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not true for professional video equipment.

 

DigiBeta hasn't dropped a dime since it was introduced in the early 90's. Don't think ANY of Sony's stuff in the professional field has dropped a dime in price. They're in this business to suck every single penny out of even the oldest formats.

 

Pro gear don't follow Moore's 18 month laws for some reason.

Edited March 29, 2005 by AdamFrisch