Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Often for the ASC Master Class, we shoot our exercises on an Alexa in either ARRIRAW, ProRes, or both, and take the footage to a D.I. theater at E-Film. Truth is that looking at same footage shot both ways, they are rather similar on the big screen.

 

The dynamic range of Log-C recorded to ProRes 4444 is the same as ARRIRAW converted to Log-C, roughly 14.5-stops according to ARRI. What's different is the compression of ProRes and that some things like a basic level of sharpening are baked into ProRes. Basically you have a little less flexibility for big corrections compared to working with an uncompressed Log-C conversion from ARRIRAW -- which technically means that the latitude is slightly less, not the dynamic range, i.e. the latitude to make corrections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shot XAVC UHD on the last three features. We transcode to Pro-Res HD, so that dailies can have a LUT applied to them. My DIT transcodes and syncs at the same time. No big deal. In fact it's the exact same workflow that I would use if shooting Pro-Res on an Alexa. No additional work for anyone, and certainly not a problem.

That's exactly the workflow, never said anything else BUT that. Everyone who uses XAVC transcodes and it works fine if you do that.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about dynamic range and codecs.

Not trying to say anything, XAVC 410Mbps iFrame 4k has plenty of dynamic range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely your not editing in full 4K..?

Umm yes, that's what I'm talking about. I know it sounds odd, but it's a VERY common thing to do today. Computers are very much up for the task and on very fast turn around shows, where you literally can't afford the transcode time, you need to edit material right away. Also, when you need to deliver a cut 24hrs after the shoot finishes, you simply don't have the time to futz around with transcoding. All of your off-line editing duties should be syncing, logging and doing an initial cut, not waiting for 4 days to transcode everything. That's an exaggeration, but it's really not. As I said before, it took 9 days to transcode the material from XAVC 410Mbps to Pro Res 1080p HQ, with a very fast Mac Pro chewing 24/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw what you said about Rager Dekins , this is not true currently all his latest films were shot in OPEN GATE which you can only shoot in RAW.

Yea, I saw my mistake. I misread the article and assumed based on what I read that Deakins uses Pro Res whilst shooting. In reality, the entire workflow is Pro Res until final color, where they go back to the Arri Raw and color that. Sorry about the confusion.

 

Feature films don't normally use Pro Res. Where did you get this info because its false.

Most features are mastered in Pro Res XQ. It's the "common delivery" format today, with DNX being the "backup" deliverable. For television, Transport Stream 50Mbps 1080i 59.94 is what most people will request. Most studio's also request DCP's, but that's ONLY for digital cinema projection, it can't be used as a master like what you'd use for marketing and make BluRay/web versions from. That's why they request a more mainstream codec.

 

Shooting is a different story, there really is no good reason to shoot Pro Res vs Cinema DNG, Red Code and Arri Raw. The file formats aren't much bigger for RAW and obviously there is a huge advantage of RAW being frame based, which means less likelihood of corruption.

 

With that said, we're seeing a steady trend of more and more shows either being shot in Pro Res or being transcoded and never going back to the camera originals. These aren't necessarily features, though there have been a bunch of very well-known documents of this workflow on major features like 'Focus', of which I'm intimately aware of their workflow because I had meetings at lightiron to help them develop it years before they shot the movie.

 

I would ask that you change your post so you don't give too much false information, as people use this site to learn and I have noticed you give a lot of false information.

The only mistake I made was with the Deakin's quote, you couldn't even spell his name right.

 

Also if you shooting things on red its easier to edit in the NATIV codec . Prores UHD is harsher and the system then red files .

Actually the JPEG2000 codec that RED uses, requires special hardware to decode at full resolution. Most high-end GPU's can handle it without too much fuss, but there is a pretty heavy cost associated to get it playing back 1:1.

 

Pro Res 4k, is a multi-threaded codec that decodes using the CPU. So if you have a crappy processor, it won't decode. The more cores and threads you have available, the better it decodes. I don't have a crazy computer, but it decodes every codec flawlessly outside of XAVC 410Mbps 4k. That's the only one I've ever found to simply not work properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No special hardware required to decode full res red footage. Back 10 years ago when I had my first red one camera I was decoding it full res on a cheap computer with a very basic CPU and GPU , took a while though . . You can use any over the counter GPU. Kids use old Mac laptops all the time to export red footage .

Also my statement was on editing.
I think your getting confused with deliverable vs master . A deliverable could be a h.264 file for Instagram but that would not be the master .
If your shooting film the master is the film hence when they release criterion collections or new blu Rays of old films the "re master" them going back to the film sometimes .
If you shoot raw then your master and would be raw .
I did say master in DCI in my earlier post but I miss spoke .

Again I was speaking of large budget features like Roger Deakins normally shoots these days . Anything comparable will shoot in the camera specific raw format like arri raw .. I'll say 98 percent of the time. after editing they will go back to that "master" and do the final color correction and "mastering" if you will on the arri raw or what ever the cameras format is . What the editor does or works with is a different story and a different topic then what I was saying .
And I my statement about prores still stands
I own both a weapon and an Alexa
If I shoot prores 4444 UHD I will get less FPS on export then with a 4K 7:1 .r3d.
GPU's are relatively cheap these days and .r3d files rely on GPU. Vs prores .
Your thing was on mastering , which is what I was commenting on . What the DIT does , editor does are different they are encoding the "masters" for various reasons .

also my

Edited by Martin Ubilluz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t followed all the posts, but it all seems too complicated. I hate to say but why don’t you use 16mm for the look you want? It’s less complicated and cheaper. Have you really looked at how much it will cost?

 

Pav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm yes, that's what I'm talking about. I know it sounds odd, but it's a VERY common thing to do today. Computers are very much up for the task and on very fast turn around shows, where you literally can't afford the transcode time, you need to edit material right away. Also, when you need to deliver a cut 24hrs after the shoot finishes, you simply don't have the time to futz around with transcoding. All of your off-line editing duties should be syncing, logging and doing an initial cut, not waiting for 4 days to transcode everything. That's an exaggeration, but it's really not. As I said before, it took 9 days to transcode the material from XAVC 410Mbps to Pro Res 1080p HQ, with a very fast Mac Pro chewing 24/7.

 

 

You need to deliver a cut within 24 hr,s of a shoot ending... !!! what sort of "feature" films are these that require you to edit in 4K because you have to edit with 24hrs.. this is very common..?

 

Why did it take 9 days to transcode XAVC 4K footage.. 24/7.. when your average DIT can do it very easily ,as Stuart points each day.. then you say yes thats what you were saying.. but then why 9 days of transcoding to 1080 HG pro res.. I think some one was building up the overtime :)

Edited by Robin R Probyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent followed all the posts, but it all seems too complicated. I hate to say but why dont you use 16mm for the look you want? Its less complicated and cheaper. Have you really looked at how much it will cost?

 

Pav

Hi,

 

Yes we have access to a S16mm camera, but my knowledge isn't the best with them. From what I've heard, it can be quite a long process in post-production and that's something we'do have to set aside in the budget. Would you have any advice on shooting 16mm, as I am quite new to it.

 

The strange thing is, I'm currently studying in my final year at film school and we've only just been introduced to 16mm film, this is because the primary learning resources for filmmaking now are by using digital cameras. I wish I had my experience with 16mm to decide for myself.

 

Thanks for the reply Pav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You need to deliver a cut within 24 hr,s of a shoot ending... !!! what sort of "feature" films are these that require you to edit in 4K because you have to edit with 24hrs.. this is very common..?

 

Why did it take 9 days to transcode XAVC 4K footage.. 24/7.. when your average DIT can do it very easily ,as Stuart points each day.. then you say yes thats what you were saying.. but then why 9 days of transcoding to 1080 HG pro res.. I think some one was building up the overtime :)

 

He keeps switching from features to tv shows to high school productions to try to prove his point .

yes days is a lot most dits can encode in faster then real time things like that . Wouldent be a very good DIT if at the end of the day you didn't have your dailys or proxy files .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most of the lower budget features I know of which are shooting with Alexa shot Prores 444 or XQ instead of RAW. it is just that the visual quality difference is so small that it rarely justifies the added workflow difficulties and cost of arriraw shooting and post prod, especially if there is multiple cameras. this is for most of the "low budget" features under 10M budget and almost all the Finnish features where the average budgets are between 1 and 3M€.

most of the directors are happy to shoot more material and get the dailies faster than to have visually 5% nicer looking image. effects stuff etc. is of course different matter but for example drama, comedies, family films benefit a lot from the simpler and faster workflow.

 

wavelet compressed raw like Red is relatively easy to process and natively playback but it is still much more time consuming to make dailies from and playback and grade.

 

Nine days for xavc footage sounds like complete madness, did the DIT have a 486 as a computer or was it 10 camera reality shoot with tons of cards?

Tyler mentioned earlier some customers requiring full top notch color grading of the dailies, was that the case because the rendering itself clearly does not take that much time?

or was there a requirement to make all the dailies with top notch grade and highest quality debayer and downscale so that the rendering took forever because of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Yes we have access to a S16mm camera, but my knowledge isn't the best with them. From what I've heard, it can be quite a long process in post-production and that's something we'do have to set aside in the budget. Would you have any advice on shooting 16mm, as I am quite new to it.

 

 

 

It's actually quite simple to do post. Looks like you're in the UK, where there are currently two labs running baths on pretty large shows. Kodak-owned iDailies and Cinelab (not to be confused with the US one).

 

The workflow is (hopefully Test) --> Shoot --> develop --> (and if you want to edit/finish digitally) scan. Often labs can do a transfer straight to your choice of format (DPX, ProRes, DNx). The color grading is the same as you would do with a Sony or Alexa.

 

Talk to your local Kodak rep and arrange for a student discount - you'll find them tremendously accommodating. Alternatively, Frame24 is UK based and has good prices including a fully-prepaid package deal.

 

And before you balk at the runtime a roll of 16mm affords you, I frequently work with people who are surprised at actually having shot less than they'd thought and budgeted for. If you rehearse enough, and have a good script supervisor, you'll be fine. Let this site be your resource.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t followed all the posts, but it all seems too complicated. I hate to say but why don’t you use 16mm for the look you want? It’s less complicated and cheaper. Have you really looked at how much it will cost?

 

Pav

The poster has access to a Sony F55 and Super 16 - but on what planet would super 16 be cheaper? So kit costs don't figure - just the stock/lab costs

 

It would be many times more expensive. The cost of storage for the F55 is vastly cheaper then the super 16 stock, processing, transfer costs. Sure you may have to transcode the F55 material. But its essentially free to do just takes time. At film school your normally in a cash poor/time rich situation.

 

These days its simply wrong to state that film is cheaper then digital in nearly 95% of situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't argue the point of economy - but I will say shooting on film to get a film look means considerably less time spent in post compared to emulating it. I liked the way "Vinyl" was shot, but even with the Livegrain, I don't feel that it looked like film. Which isn't a bad thing, but worth considering.

Edited by Kenny N Suleimanagich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality we can’t say anything concrete about the costs, as we don’t know much about this production, its length, shooting ratio, is there a lot of dialogue etc. All we really know is that a certain look is desired, a look which is specific to 16mm. I am sure it can be emulated with digital wizardry, but at what cost? Surely time is a cost. The OP state he has access to 16mm, so renting isn’t an issue, he then says he’s not entirely comfortable with 16mm. Hiring 16mm gear isn’t as expensive as hiring digital gear, in the current climate there are better deals available with 16mm gear.

 

There’s an automatic assumption that film is expensive and therefore difficult, I disagree, as I think it depends on many factors, I spend a lot of time encouraging individuals to find out for themselves and then make an informed choice. I think that people should find out what the real costs are for their production before dismissing film and not to listen to others when the say; it’s hard, expensive and it’s a long process in post-production. A lot has happened in the world of 16mm and it HAS become cheaper and more accessible. I know a few years ago labs didn’t care about individuals and students, they were only interested in their big clients, well today labs are welcoming and more supportive to individuals and students.

 

 

Pav

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No special hardware required to decode full res red footage.

I'm discussing playback, which is a "decoding" process. To playback in real time 1:1 R3D files, requires special hardware. My system will make LUT applied Pro Res XQ files from 4k RED code at around 30 - 35fps. Most computers without the special hardware, are around 5 - 9fps.

 

I think your getting confused with deliverable vs master.

When I mean "master" this refers to the final edit and color correct with embedded multi-track audio from the final mix. This will be the file used for the entire life of the product. Nobody goes back to the camera originals unless the "master" has been lost somehow -which has happened many times.

 

For television, they want the master to be the same format as broadcast, so again Transport Stream 50Mbps 59.94 1080i. We'll also do DNX115 29.97 or 59.94 1080i deliverables for syndicated shows, as this is the codec MOST shows finish in, so many distributors will accept it today. Once one of these files is handed off, we will make an archive Pro Res master and textless master with splits. We'll also do a decompose/consolidate and store it on LTO.

 

For commercial work, almost all of it is done in Pro Res, with the exception of a few Avid editors who refuse to switch from DNX because they have older systems. We'll make final deliverables based on the requirements, 9 times out of 10 its Pro Res HQ, with a few companies asking for lower-res DNX files as well -generally DNX115 like broadcast-. Again, once finished we'll make textless masters with splits and decompose/consolidate. The entire workflow is Pro Res though and the masters are 100% Pro Res.

 

For industrial work, it's slightly different because most industrial clients don't know what they're talking about. So they don't have specs. We generally shoot and edit in 1080p 29.97 and deliver Pro Res masters with .h264 Quicktimes at varying resolutions with textless masters and splits. Again, the masters are always Pro Res.

 

For feature, documentary and narrative, the workflow is pretty much the same. The only difference is making a DCP, which is not required for any other workflow but cinema. The DCP's are generally sent to a different department then the master, as we have different Aspera login's. The master hand-off is 9 times out of 10 Pro Res with some clients using DNXHR as a backup incase the post house is using PC's.

 

Most content distributors -not ma and pa clients, but the big boys- pay for a 3rd party to make those files during the archiving process. All we do is upload the files to Aspera and the rest is done through the archiving agency. They also QC the files to insure there aren't any technical issues and they'll securely upload the necessary files to the different delivery locations.

 

...after editing they will go back to that "master" and do the final color correction and "mastering" if you will on the arri raw or what ever the cameras format is . What the editor does or works with is a different story and a different topic then what I was saying .

- A "master" is the final finished edited and color timed show.

 

- "Camera original" are the original camera files.

 

- "Camera transcodes" are the files an editor will use to cut with.

 

- "Mastering" is the process of taking the camera originals and conforming them to the edit.

 

- "Deliverable" is a file a client requests based on the "master" in most cases.

 

And I my statement about prores still stands

I think you'd be surprised how many shows use Pro Res camera originals and/or transcode from camera original to Pro Res and never look back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly the workflow, never said anything else BUT that.

 

 

Not trying to say anything, XAVC 410Mbps iFrame 4k has plenty of dynamic range.

You said 'for smaller productions, it's a problem'. It quite clearly isn't, as just about anyone with a copy of Resolve on their laptop can do it. Transcoding is hardly an unusual step. Anyone who shoots Log will transcode to a lesser codec and add a LUT for dailies anyway, so where is the problem?

 

I'm still not clear on how you are connecting a codec to dynamic range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to deliver a cut within 24 hr,s of a shoot ending... !!!

Well, on the last two shows I worked on, we were delivering scenes during production and had quite a bit to watch the day after the show was done. This is the new way to make low-budget shows, you literally cut as you're shooting.

 

In order to make that workflow possible, you've gotta work with camera original formats which work natively with fast editors like Premiere and Final Cut X. With those editors, we can bang out scenes so fast, it'll make your head spin if you're watching from the sidelines.

 

On the last industrial show we just wrapped, it was 5 x 20 minute shows, wall-to-wall dialog, 2 camera with one AC between the two of us. I was the cinematographer and A camera operator and the AC was the DIT. I'd bring the drives home at night and transcode right off the A drive set to my raid. It would actually just about finish before I had to leave each morning. So 24hrs after the shoot was over, I'd have everything into Avid and ready to edit. I had first cuts of all 5 shows by the end of the first week. That's how fast we do things today because sometimes client notes take a week to turn around and we've gotta get moving onto the next project.

 

Why did it take 9 days to transcode XAVC 4K footage.. 24/7.. when your average DIT can do it very easily ,as Stuart points each day.. then you say yes thats what you were saying.. but then why 9 days of transcoding to 1080 HG pro res.. I think some one was building up the overtime :)

So here is the math...

 

It was 10TB of total footage = 3300 minutes (a and b camera)

 

The transcode engine (with lut applied) was rendering at 14fps. So one second of processed footage took around 1.5 seconds total.

 

That means it took around 4500 minutes to process everything. So it took 3 days +/- a few hours, to transcode everything.

 

Then we had to sync all of the audio. I used Pluraleyes for the bulk, but because we had wind noise in the camera and no timecode thanks to the cinematographer and audio guy not thinking it was important since we had a timecode slate... dumbo's. So I had to sync around half of the project by hand, which is very labor intensive.

 

So that's why it took 9 days... 3 days to transcode and 6 days to get the audio synced so we could start editing.

 

The show we just wrapped, I was the DP, so we had audio put to the camera via wireless and the timecode matched on all the equipment including the slate. Obviously with digital that's the only way to do it and it's annoying when people choose not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said 'for smaller productions, it's a problem'. It quite clearly isn't, as just about anyone with a copy of Resolve on their laptop can do it. Transcoding is hardly an unusual step. Anyone who shoots Log will transcode to a lesser codec and add a LUT for dailies anyway, so where is the problem?

Anyone with a laptop? We had the last generation Macbook Retina onset for the feature I just finished cutting. It was a 2.8ghz i7 quad core with 16gb of memory and we had very fast thunderbolt storage. It was transcoding at around 6fps from XAVC 410Mbps 4k to Pro Res HQ 175Mbps 1080p. It would have taken weeks to do what my tower did in a few days.

 

Honestly, with modern software like Final Cut X and Premiere, the LUT is applied within the software automatically. So you don't need to transcode anything, which saves tremendously on time. Again, on bigger shows with a lot of moving parts, time isn't a problem because you can fight it with manpower and hardware. It is a problem on smaller shows where you don't have the money and you've gotta turn around product in a week or two WITH client notes. Lets face it, most shows these days are small. I rarely get to work on bigger shows and honestly, I don't like it because I get frustrated being pigeonholed doing one job. I like being a cinematographer/operator and editor/colorist. It's fun to have so much creative input and work with the director on multiple levels on set and off. You're a true collaborator when as a cinematographer, you're thinking about how something will cut together. It's one of the reasons I like working on smaller, more intimate shows with directors who are open to having one main collaborator.

 

I shoot most of my personal projects in LOG with my Pocket Camera. I edit the whole thing in LOG directly from the camera originals. I then push the project to DaVinci, apply a LUT to everything, do some basic correction and spit the project out from DaVinci. Yea, it doesn't look pretty whilst cutting, but I know it will look fine in DaVinci, so I'm not concerned and there are no clients over my shoulder.

 

On bigger shows with clients over your shoulder, I understand the necessity of having good color for clients, it's a huge problem we have today in this industry, people need to see what the final is going to look like even before it hits coloring. I waste so much time doing pre-color and cleanup shot replacements whilst I edit because someone on set screwed up and the shots aren't even close to matching.

 

I'm still not clear on how you are connecting a codec to dynamic range.

Each codec has a specified dynamic range. Nobody really discusses this because everyone shoots LOG today, so the dynamic range is compressed into the codec.

 

However, I've been doing lots of tests and have studied the codecs very closely. There is absolutely a pattern with higher bit rate, higher bit depth and greater color space codec's, rendering a higher dynamic range imager over their lesser bit rate, lesser bit depth, lesser color space alternative codecs. IE; 10 bit 4:2:2 XAVC iFrame 410Mbps vs standard 8 bit 4:2:0 AVC Long GOP 50Mbps, using the same camera/imager. It's hard to do these tests because not very many cameras support both a high quality and super low-quality codec, but some do like the Canon C300MKII. Next time I get my hands on one, I will record a test to show what I'm talking about. Until then, there is no reason to bicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with a laptop? We had the last generation Macbook Retina onset for the feature I just finished cutting. It was a 2.8ghz i7 quad core with 16gb of memory and we had very fast thunderbolt storage. It was transcoding at around 6fps from XAVC 410Mbps 4k to Pro Res HQ 175Mbps 1080p. It would have taken weeks to do what my tower did in a few days.

 

 

My last feature shot XAVC-I UHD, 2 cameras. DIT transcoded to Pro-Res HD, applying a LUT at the same time, using an iMac. Dailies were encoded within 30 minutes of wrap every night. On recent pickups for the same movie, my AC doubled up as DIT and did the transcoding on his Mac Powerbook. Again, no problems at all. In fact, one night he actually finished and left before I did. My experience on this, and other features, directly contradicts what you're saying.

 

In questioning why it's necessary to transcode and apply LUTs for dailies, you're ignoring the purpose which dailies serve in the first place. Starting with the DP and Director, and continuing all the way down the line, it's important t be able to see exactly what the material looks like. For the DP, it's to judge lighting and exposure choices, for the Director, it's to see that they appropriate moods are being conveyed. For production design, make-up and wardrobe it's to see that the creative choices they are making are working. Many editors are not familiar with applying LUTs in their editing software (and also don't want to deal with 4k material). Producers hate to see Log material. Many of them don't understand it, and don't want to watch it. Dailies are also often uploaded to secure websites for viewing by investors and executives, who also don't want to watch Log footage. Dailies are an essential part of the process, and seeing as they can be easily created by any competent DIT, there is no reason not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last feature shot XAVC-I UHD, 2 cameras. DIT transcoded to Pro-Res HD, applying a LUT at the same time, using an iMac. Dailies were encoded within 30 minutes of wrap every night. On recent pickups for the same movie, my AC doubled up as DIT and did the transcoding on his Mac Powerbook. Again, no problems at all. In fact, one night he actually finished and left before I did. My experience on this, and other features, directly contradicts what you're saying.

Well, there are a lot of variables. I mean, every show has a different shooting ratio. I was giving you the show with the highest ratio as an example. I've worked on 4 XAVC 410Mbps 4k shows this year so far. Some of them we had zero problem doing the transcodes as we went along because we were so inefficient in our days (shooting 2 - 4 pages max), we weren't racking up the media. On other shows, we were pushing the DIT to the absolute limit, shooting 10 - 12 pages a day.

 

When you can spread the shoot across a lot of time and all you've gotta do is transcode a few hours worth of content a day, that's nothing. There is no magic... if your DIT has time to download AND transcode during a given day, you aren't feeding him much material.

 

In questioning why it's necessary to transcode and apply LUTs for dailies, you're ignoring the purpose which dailies serve in the first place. Starting with the DP and Director, and continuing all the way down the line, it's important t be able to see exactly what the material looks like. For the DP, it's to judge lighting and exposure choices, for the Director, it's to see that they appropriate moods are being conveyed. For production design, make-up and wardrobe it's to see that the creative choices they are making are working. Many editors are not familiar with applying LUTs in their editing software (and also don't want to deal with 4k material). Producers hate to see Log material. Many of them don't understand it, and don't want to watch it. Dailies are also often uploaded to secure websites for viewing by investors and executives, who also don't want to watch Log footage. Dailies are an essential part of the process, and seeing as they can be easily created by any competent DIT, there is no reason not to.

I didn't question the necessity of making dailies... My comment is about an all-new method of editing which has become more of a reality in recent years then in the past. Editors are working with camera original 4k material without any transcoding and coloring as they go along. You'd be surprised how many writer/directors are cutting their own stuff today and for many of them, thats the workflow they use. This is where things like Pro Res really come into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we were pushing the DIT to the absolute limit, shooting 10 - 12 pages a day.

 

When you can spread the shoot across a lot of time and all you've gotta do is transcode a few hours worth of content a day, that's nothing. There is no magic... if your DIT has time to download AND transcode during a given day, you aren't feeding him much material.

 

 

On a TV movie, with a 12 or 15 day schedule, you are always shooting 10 pages a day. Usually with two cameras rolling on every setup. The only time I have ever had a problem with DIT not having time to transcode was when a line producer mistakenly told him to transcode at 4k. Other than that, no problems.

 

I regard it as being the DITs job to apply LUTs. I'm not going to rely on an editor to do it, particularly when there may be multiple looks being used. In my experience, editors don't want to cut from camera originals. 4k material slows their machines down and increases render times. They'd much rather someone handed them a drive every day with HD dailies that they can ingest and start cutting with a minimum of fuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's actually quite simple to do post. Looks like you're in the UK, where there are currently two labs running baths on pretty large shows. Kodak-owned iDailies and Cinelab (not to be confused with the US one).

 

The workflow is (hopefully Test) --> Shoot --> develop --> (and if you want to edit/finish digitally) scan. Often labs can do a transfer straight to your choice of format (DPX, ProRes, DNx). The color grading is the same as you would do with a Sony or Alexa.

 

Talk to your local Kodak rep and arrange for a student discount - you'll find them tremendously accommodating. Alternatively, Frame24 is UK based and has good prices including a fully-prepaid package deal.

 

And before you balk at the runtime a roll of 16mm affords you, I frequently work with people who are surprised at actually having shot less than they'd thought and budgeted for. If you rehearse enough, and have a good script supervisor, you'll be fine. Let this site be your resource.

 

Believe me, 16mm film is something I really want to work with and I haven't had the chance as of yet. For the sake of the short film I'm DP for, I'm going to compromise and shoot digital to achieve the look I want instead, because the crew and myself don't seem to have the up-to-date creative skill set needed to deal with 16mm. I imagine that the workflows are completely different to working with digital and I just hope that 16mm film is represented more in the coming years so young filmmakers like myself have more of an understanding about how it works from pre to post. I hope to shoot 16mm some time in the near future and no doubt about it, I'll most likely be using this site as my resource. Thanks for your advice Kenny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a TV movie, with a 12 or 15 day schedule, you are always shooting 10 pages a day. Usually with two cameras rolling on every setup. The only time I have ever had a problem with DIT not having time to transcode was when a line producer mistakenly told him to transcode at 4k. Other than that, no problems.

Sounds like we're performing the same transcode. I mean maybe the specs of the computers being used are way more then anything I have access to. A lot of DIT's I know carry TWO, $10,000 super fast 12 core machines, so they can have one chewing on camera A and one chewing on camera B. I don't live in that world unfortunately, my shows RARELY have a DIT at all and when they do, it's a kid with a Macbook Pro.

 

I regard it as being the DITs job to apply LUTs. I'm not going to rely on an editor to do it, particularly when there may be multiple looks being used. In my experience, editors don't want to cut from camera originals. 4k material slows their machines down and increases render times. They'd much rather someone handed them a drive every day with HD dailies that they can ingest and start cutting with a minimum of fuss.

In the world of making "dailies" for people to see, yea you want someone on set to make that decision, so the files are somewhat approved before people see them.

 

It's also my experience that professional editors don't want to cut with anything but off-line, proxy media. That's simply because they perform one job. When they're done cutting, they move onto the next project. When you're a filmmaker and perform multiple tasks, with quick turn arounds, being able to work in the camera original files is critical. Remember, not very many people are capable of performing one job their entire life and making a living out of it. Most of us have to diversify in order to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again wasent talking about show or doc's was talking big budget features like you mentioned Roger shooting . im. It surprised about tv shows that common knowledge .

 

All my statements still stand you don't really say much but you typed a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you did say you "DIT" now you changed it to a kid downloading footage to make your original statement true . Like your other statements .

 

Your confusing the masters with mastering .

Confusing tv shows and doc's with high budget feature films .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • FJS International



    Just Cinema Gear



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Serious Gear



    Visual Products



    G-Force Grips



    CineLab



    Tai Audio



    Wooden Camera



    Metropolis Post



    Abel Cine



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Glidecam



    Ritter Battery


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...