Topics

ACES workflow in lower budget productions

Geoff Boyle
 

This was originally posted on Cinerant…

I just made a comment on CML-vfx-post-ACES about DIT's and once again I get a backlash from DIT's.
Lets get this straight, I do not wish DIT's harm its just that I think that for the majority of shoots theirs is a job that may have been required during the transition from film to digital but that in the majority of cases it's no longer needed.
A message to me of "that's not how we do it in Hollywood" is utter nonsense.
For one thing a huge amount of very low budget films are made in Hollywood and they cannot afford a DIT.
Second, the working practices of huge budget films bears little relationship to what is done in the real world. Anyway, most of those huge films are no longer made in Hollywood.
Which brings me on to my third point, Hollywood is to film-making as Detroit is to the car industry. Once the great centre of production but no more.

So lets get back to crewing...

I believe that the cinematographer is responsible for the overall image and together with their collaborators is the one who creates the look of the movie.

Those collaborators include the conventional camera and lighting crew, the colourist and the production designer.
The jobs that the traditional camera crew do may have changed, i.e. the AC may well be using all kinds of focus assist tools that he didn't in the past. The 2AC may be responsible for unloading rather than loading, i.e. simple copying of data cards to multiple HDD using something like Shotput Pro.

On movies or TV series with a budget of less than $10M there is no time or budget for onset colouring.
The best approach is to frame, light and expose it properly in the first place.
If the project requires an overall "look" then this should be created with a colourist in pre-production. Not a whole bunch of looks, a maximum of 4.

The simplest way to keep control of the image and to know what you are actually shooting is to work within the ACES workflow. This is a predictable, repeatable way to show your images. Any post house using ACES will get the same look if your material is loaded with standard IDT's & ODT's.

To make it simple to reproduce this look on set Nick Shaw of Antler post & I have created a series of LUT's for most cameras that takes the log output of the camera and replicates the look of the ACES workflow on a standard 709 monitor on the floor.

What you see on the floor is what you will get in post, no DIT, no onset colourist. It's possible to create these LUT's in such a way that they contain the look that you may have created in prep.
Personally I prefer the vanilla versions and will then use, err, oh yes, lenses, lighting and exposure to get the look I want.

ACES LUT's for use in a non ACES workflow

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC

Zoetermeer

Robert Ruffo
 

On set coloring is the dumbest idea I have ever come across for new technology set "improvement".  

Yeah, let's color while a set is running at perhaps thousands of dollars an hour, under the miles-from-ideal-lighting conditions of a video village and before a timeline has been assembled and context can be properly observed.  That's a much better idea than just waiting for the grade after the edit - or even better, doing a one-light in the comfort and extremely low cost of a facility hired AFTER the shoot, then editing, then doing a final grade.

We deliberately use shitty monitors on set with awful color and good brightness and contrast - great for seeing framing and focus but useless for anything else.  Then we say "Don't worry about the monitors - it's all RAW, and they suck - they're just for framing."

That and...  We always shoot RAW - whether Arri or Red.  No need for LUTS or on-set settings-futzing of any kind.  Just light, choose lens and filter, choose iris - shoot.  A lot like the "good old days" with film.  

Some clients complain - but only until they see how fast we move - and most stop when I show them how easy it is to manipulate colors by just changing around the raw settings - then they stop worrying about the shitty monitors and realize they're just a preview of endless future possibilities best decided in a post suite, not while actors are waiting.  Many clients get this without even being shown anything.

As for DITs - I like to assign that job to a smart and eager P.A. - never the AC.  It's while you're shooting that cards must be changed - and it's while you are shooting that the AC should have no distractions, and the PA who's job is otherwise mostly related to set-up has likely nothing else to do.  

We only ever use an Alienware laptop and use it to simultaneously back-up to three drives - no fancy carts or other nonsense.  There has never been a problem, never a single lost file, just no issues ever.  Once we had to wait an extra 15 minutes after rap for the copy to end.  Once.

SO...  Yeah, DITs as a separate job...  No - I'd rather have another grip or gaffer, or maybe a few more Joker Bugs in my rental package.

I'm sure many will blast me for the above - but not my clients.  My clients -  and I - don't care.

 
Robert Ruffo
Amber+Robert Media
www.AmberandRobertMedia.com
514.448.1526
323.201.2709
Beauty will save the world.
                                     (Dostoyevsky)



From: Geoff Boyle <geoff@...>
To: cml-general@...
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 2:14 AM
Subject: [general] ACES workflow in lower budget productions

This was originally posted on Cinerant…
I just made a comment on CML-vfx-post-ACES about DIT's and once again I get a backlash from DIT's.
Lets get this straight, I do not wish DIT's harm its just that I think that for the majority of shoots theirs is a job that may have been required during the transition from film to digital but that in the majority of cases it's no longer needed.
A message to me of "that's not how we do it in Hollywood" is utter nonsense.
For one thing a huge amount of very low budget films are made in Hollywood and they cannot afford a DIT.
Second, the working practices of huge budget films bears little relationship to what is done in the real world. Anyway, most of those huge films are no longer made in Hollywood.
Which brings me on to my third point, Hollywood is to film-making as Detroit is to the car industry. Once the great centre of production but no more.
So lets get back to crewing...
I believe that the cinematographer is responsible for the overall image and together with their collaborators is the one who creates the look of the movie.
Those collaborators include the conventional camera and lighting crew, the colourist and the production designer.
The jobs that the traditional camera crew do may have changed, i.e. the AC may well be using all kinds of focus assist tools that he didn't in the past. The 2AC may be responsible for unloading rather than loading, i.e. simple copying of data cards to multiple HDD using something like Shotput Pro.
On movies or TV series with a budget of less than $10M there is no time or budget for onset colouring.
The best approach is to frame, light and expose it properly in the first place.
If the project requires an overall "look" then this should be created with a colourist in pre-production. Not a whole bunch of looks, a maximum of 4.
The simplest way to keep control of the image and to know what you are actually shooting is to work within the ACES workflow. This is a predictable, repeatable way to show your images. Any post house using ACES will get the same look if your material is loaded with standard IDT's & ODT's.
To make it simple to reproduce this look on set Nick Shaw of Antler post & I have created a series of LUT's for most cameras that takes the log output of the camera and replicates the look of the ACES workflow on a standard 709 monitor on the floor.
What you see on the floor is what you will get in post, no DIT, no onset colourist. It's possible to create these LUT's in such a way that they contain the look that you may have created in prep.
Personally I prefer the vanilla versions and will then use, err, oh yes, lenses, lighting and exposure to get the look I want.
Cheers
 
Geoff Boyle NSC
Zoetermeer


enkin1975@...
 

Each to their own Robert that's the advantage of working in a free market. On set coloring is not an idea it's a reality.
Dumb or not is a matter of opinion. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
One could also argue that handing media to a PA is a dumb idea too - again results speak for themselves.
My concern though and the reason I've taken a moment to reply is that there is a growing malaise within our Union.
When I read Geoff's comments referring to media loaders, a title and position awarded to fellow brothers and sisters in the Union that I am proud of being a member, as Data Monkeys it is upsetting. 
It's not about sticks and stones it's the attitude with which you approach your position as a leader of your department which irks me.
The fact that both of you have a lack of respect of the individual skills and knowledge acquired by those at the forefront of digital production process from whose feedback have proven to be invaluable to the numerous manufacturers that create the tools with which you hone your craft, well you get my drift. It's this narrow minded, blinkered noise that interferes with progress.
Compound the headline of I Don't Trust Post therefore I use ACES headline all readers will understand my point of view which is to say that division and separation - be it between production and post production or within one's own department - is not the solution.
As a whole the industry will benefit when their is trust and communication. 
Rock N Roll
mark

Steve Oakley
 

I agree. I’m happy to have a dedicated data wrangler / PA Tech when you will be shooting enough to re-use cards during the day or you have a lot of cameras shooting and simply have to start dumping cards during the day to keep up.  Thats worth a dedicated position which is basically like 3rd AC / loader.  Generally I  try to only dump cards at lunch and end of day during take down. Having enough media to not be dumping cards during the day is kind of a base requirement….

We now have good monitors with LUTS to take RAW output and make a decent preview. more than good enough to make basic decisions on things like mixing color temps and gels.

as a DP, its _YOUR_ job to know the camera and how it responds and not rely on some one else to try to grade it to your liking on set. If you haven’t been on the post and grading end, you’ll never know what a total cluster it is to track on set generated LUTs back to shots used in an edit and keep it all together into the first grade. then only to probably toss that LUT out and regrade the shot in context to match and flow with everything else. 

know and understand camera settings. its like knowing how different film stocks look and react, if you’ve ever had that pleasure. don’t rely on some one else. in fact just the opposite, once you try to start grading on location it invites even more cluster fouling with letting too many people start making too many comments as to what needs to be “fixed”. 

OTH if  your DIT is generating composites to check what you are shooting matches against plates, thats useful, but probably not your everyday need. So ya I’ll take another grip or some other extra bit for camera or lighting.

Steve Oakley
DP / Editor / Colorist / VFX Artist
Madison & Milwaukee WI
920 544 2230


On Feb 12, 2018, at 6:36 AM, Robert Ruffo via Cml.News <robert_ruffo=yahoo.com@...> wrote:

On set coloring is the dumbest idea I have ever come across for new technology set "improvement".  

Yeah, let's color while a set is running at perhaps thousands of dollars an hour, under the miles-from-ideal-lighting conditions of a video village and before a timeline has been assembled and context can be properly observed.  That's a much better idea than just waiting for the grade after the edit - or even better, doing a one-light in the comfort and extremely low cost of a facility hired AFTER the shoot, then editing, then doing a final grade.

We deliberately use shitty monitors on set with awful color and good brightness and contrast - great for seeing framing and focus but useless for anything else.  Then we say "Don't worry about the monitors - it's all RAW, and they suck - they're just for framing."

SO...  Yeah, DITs as a separate job...  No - I'd rather have another grip or gaffer, or maybe a few more Joker Bugs in my rental package.

Michael Borenstein
 

@Robert and Steve.  If your clients knew you were trusting the least qualified person on the shoot with their budget/cash; if they really knew the full scope and ramifications of your potentially disastrous decision making, they probably wouldn't hire you again.  At least they shouldn't.   You might want to rethink your workflow and budget/advocate a little more for someone qualified to backup and manage the thing that contains the fruit of every dollar that has been spent on the project you're working on.  

@ Steve RE: "
 If you haven’t been on the post and grading end, you’ll never know what a total cluster it is to track on set generated LUTs back to shots used in an edit" . 
---This is done every day on TV shows and features.  The reason it might have been a cluster f* for you is because you didn't have a DIT or a solid workflow.  I can tell you that when I send my luts/looks in tonight, dailies will know exactly where they get applied.  And the final color will take significantly less time in the grading suite because we've already roughed in the look that the DP and director want on set, thus saving money on the colorists/color suites hourly rate.   

Geoff Boyle
 

You mean just like it’s always been done in film?

The loader isn’t exactly the most experienced person on the set but they probably are the best at doing what they’re doing…

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC

Cinematographer

Netherlands

 

Oh and the change of systems hasn’t removed the requirement to sign your messages

 

From: cml-general@... [mailto:cml-general@...] On Behalf Of Michael Borenstein
Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 07:18
To: cml-general@...
Subject: Re: [general] ACES workflow in lower budget productions

 

@Robert and Steve.  If your clients knew you were trusting the least qualified person on the shoot with their budget/cash; if they really knew the full scope and ramifications of your potentially disastrous decision making, they probably wouldn't hire you again.  At least they shouldn't.   You might want to rethink your workflow and budget/advocate a little more for someone qualified to backup and manage the thing that contains the fruit of every dollar that has been spent on the project you're working on.  

,_

 

I am not sure if this is what Michael means, but I have been on productions (usually TV shoots) where the job of offloading is given to a runner with very little training or experience.   

They are told to copy via drag and drop on the Mac OS finder, usually using only one £40 WD USB hard drive - so everyone is there an hour after wrap taping their fingers.  

As they are usually doing quite a few things at once and don’t concentrate on the offloading, they don’t often have a organised workflow or the guts to turn round and say they’ve screwed up.

Yes this happens on quite a few TV shows I’ve worked on.  

Some people really don’t get it.


Michael J Sanders: Director of Photography 
  

Reel/credits  www.mjsanders.co.uk   M:07976 269818   Linkline Diary: 020 8426 2200    twitter: @michaelsandersdop

 

On 13 Feb 2018, at 06:26, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:

You mean just like it’s always been done in film?
The loader isn’t exactly the most experienced person on the set but they probably are the best at doing what they’re doing…

Geoff Boyle
 

Yeah well that’s just plain silly.

 

There is a way that’s between the extremes. A loader who instead of a changing bag has a laptop with Shotput Pro and, in my case, 2 * 1TB SSD’s.

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC

Cinematographer

Zoetermeer

www.gboyle.co.uk

Skype geoff.boyle

 

From: cml-general@... [mailto:cml-general@...] On Behalf Of Michael Sanders

 

I am not sure if this is what Michael means, but I have been on productions (usually TV shoots) where the job of offloading is given to a runner with very little training or experience.   

 

They are told to copy via drag and drop on the Mac OS finder, usually using only one £40 WD USB hard drive - so everyone is there an hour after wrap taping their fingers.  

 

 

ozawaToshiaki
 

On Feb 12, 2018, at 9:09 PM, enkin1975@... wrote:

When I read Geoff's comments referring to media loaders, a title and position awarded to fellow brothers and sisters in the Union that I am proud of being a member, as Data Monkeys it is upsetting. 


Though Geoff could often use some self editing (IMHO ;)), he isn’t the only DP with rough use of words. The “fellow brothers and sisters” on my set from the “guild” (as opposed to union) have less thick skin. (Ping me off list if anyone wants reccos). 

For accuracy here are Geoff’s original words:

Working this way enables you to use a conventional film style workflow, ie no grading onset, no DIT, just a data monkey :-)

For those not versed in English structure, “no DIT, just a data monkey” puts DIT in opposition to data monkey. DIT ≠ data monkey. To paraphrase:

A certified, highly skilled, experienced, and multi-talented set technician might be underutilized, so *instead* a species of mammal with some manual dexterity and the cognitive ability to repeatedly execute mundane tasks (which would be unbefitting to individuals with more developed neocortal brain function) might be called for. 
(My apologies in advanced to primates offended by being called data monkey. Not my words!) 

An analogous statement might be, “Why hire nuclear physicists to flip burgers?”


For the record, Geoff seems to have edited his post as below. Unfortunately, that made me dig for the original above (wasted *my time*), and makes careless recollection easier:

Working this way enables you to use a conventional film style workflow, ie no grading onset, no DIT, just a simple data transfer and backup:-)

Glad I was able to clear up any misunderstandings! ;P



••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

小澤俊明
ozawaToshiaki               
t.ozawa@...          
Skype: bokemono   
Europe: +41.78.675.0664   
U.S.A.:  +1.917.348.5697
LINK TO DEMO REEL


JD Houston
 


On Feb 12, 2018, at 10:17 PM, Michael Borenstein <michaelborenstein@...> wrote:

 I can tell you that when I send my luts/looks in tonight, dailies will know exactly where they get applied.  And the final color will take significantly less time in the grading suite because we've already roughed in the look that the DP and director want on set, thus saving money on the colorists/color suites hourly rate.   
_._,_._,_

I’m not so sure about this last phrase.

The instant feedback of “can I get there from here” is worthwhile [my plan is working as I adjust live on set] and is the most useful thing.
Saving money in DI is NOT the reason.    Imagine a combo in a slightly higher-end scenario, a dedicated colorist on set might run you $3000+ a week
for a 14 week shoot ($42K). The DI suite could run you about $1000 per hour for supervised grades and $600 for unsupervised grades.
The schedule often allocates about three weeks for DI which is largely unsupervised except for about a week of supervised (that totals $80K without conform
and the other services a post house provides. )  How much time does an on-set grade save in DI, at best, really only a week of unsupervised time  (thats $24K)
for those keeping score.  This is less than half the cost of an on-set colorist for a Hollywood level movie.

(while pricing may vary a lot and depends on where you are getting post done…)  I think this is one reason that some DPs just focus on data wrangling,
and there is nothing wrong with that.   One of the problems is Directors/DP falling in love with an on-set grade on a low contrast rec709 video monitor (or a laptop)
in not so good viewing conditions, and get surprised when a colorist suggest something else for a large screen in a dark room. (sometimes that matters)


… Every job on a Film is the most important you know …

Jim Houston
former VP, Colorworks, Sony Pictures

plug
p.s. of course ACES and CDL save you no ends of grief in post and VFX and getting intent from set to facilities. Thats a given. ;-)
Starting from the same place and looking at the same results cannot otherwise be taken for granted.  There was a time before ACES/CDL
when I had 1400 grade LUTs from set and I had to ‘steal’ the DPs laptop for a week and match them in the room — that was expensive.

Brian Heller
 

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP

Michael Most
 

On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:38 AM, JD Houston <jdhouston@...> wrote:

p.s. of course ACES and CDL save you no ends of grief in post and VFX and getting intent from set to facilities. Thats a given. ;-)
Starting from the same place and looking at the same results cannot otherwise be taken for granted. There was a time before ACES/CDL
when I had 1400 grade LUTs from set and I had to ‘steal’ the DPs laptop for a week and match them in the room — that was expensive.
That’s why CDL’s are supported in both ALE and EDL files. Tracking them is not an issue, particularly if the show is cutting on Avid. This usually allows VFX pulls and subsequent comps returned to editorial to match the dailies fairly closely.

And the final color will take significantly less time in the grading suite because we've already roughed in the look that the DP and director want on set, thus saving money on the colorists/color suites hourly rate.
I truly do not understand why so many people in production seem to think that’s the case, at least in studio level productions. It is very, very very, very rare that a final colorist uses set created CDL’s or LUTs, or even dailies created CDL’s. They often look at the assembly (built from dailies) as a quick visual reference, but no colorist worth the title is going to use those settings directly. They ALL throw that away and start from scratch. And correctly so, since the expertise of a professional colorist is to create whatever the client wants in the cleanest possible way, as opposed to DIT’s who are working in a lousy viewing environment, with a lot of distractions and other more important responsibilities, and often little to no training in color grading, and dailies colorists who are working under the restraints of matching set stills and only having CDL correction available, not to mention having to get through 4 hours or more of footage each night and make an early morning delivery. The notion of “the color we create on set carries all the way through to the DI” has always been a rather fanciful one, if only for the fact that actually doing it would lead to a lot noisier and mismatched results. There is real skill involved in doing “extreme” color work without ruining the signal integrity, and it takes a long time to become good at it.

Flame off.

Mike Most
On Location Services Director
Technicolor
Los Angeles, CA.

Luis Gomes
 

Amen to that. Mr Most had spoken and confirmed what I expected.
However. I do understand Geoff endeavor. 
The biggest problem is post re interpretation of the DOP vision. 

I can only hope we achieve balance and Zen. 

Surely going to have a hard look at Geoff’s IDTS. 

LUÍS. 

Sometimes I just check have I being paid. 
Finland. 
--
Gomes.luis@...
http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/luis-gomes/20/11b/335/
Freelancer video Professional. 
Finland. 

Robert Ruffo
 

I pick someone smart, eager and reliable to do a very simple task, and since we only hire by referral these are not flunkies we found on Craigslist.  

I tell them offloading is the most important thing they will do all day, and instruct the dep heads not to bother them if they are busy with that.

During set-up, there is no offloading so they can do other things thus creating hiring efficiency.

Not really sure how much experience is required to use shotput - setting up a c-stand safely is literally more difficult and prone to error, so...

Also, as mentioned, hundreds of shoot days later there has not been a single problem, not even once - so maybe - crazy thought here -  my clients feel they indeed should hire us again since they have been happy overall 100 percent of the time.

I defer to Mr Most of grading issues, and independently confirm that what he is saying bears truth every time. 

As for "reducing colorist rates" our color suite runs at 100-200 an hour, whereas our sets almost never run under 1000 an hour and often run at multiples way higher than that.  

So...  Where is time best spent cost-effectively?  Do I want some DIT selling looks I likely don't agree with to the client when I am busy setting up lighting?  Do I want to make my thousands per hour production wait while I chit chat about grades in the video village with some DIT with no proven expertise of any import instead of moving the light forward?

Seriously - WTF.
 
Robert Ruffo
Amber+Robert Media
www.AmberandRobertMedia.com
514.448.1526
323.201.2709
Beauty will save the world.
                                     (Dostoyevsky)



From: Michael Borenstein <michaelborenstein@...>
To: cml-general@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: [general] ACES workflow in lower budget productions

@Robert and Steve.  If your clients knew you were trusting the least qualified person on the shoot with their budget/cash; if they really knew the full scope and ramifications of your potentially disastrous  decision making, they probably wouldn't hire you again.  At least they shouldn't.   You might want to rethink your workflow and budget/advocate a little more for someone qualified to backup and manage the thing that contains the fruit of every dollar that has been spent on the project you're working on.  

@ Steve RE: "
 If you haven’t been on the post and grading end, you’ll never know what a total cluster it is to track on set generated LUTs back to shots used in an edit" . 
---This is done every day on TV shows and features.  The reason it might have been a cluster f* for you is because you didn't have a DIT or a solid workflow.  I can tell you that when I send my luts/looks in tonight, dailies will know exactly where they get applied.  And the final color will take significantly less time in the grading suite because we've already roughed in the look that the DP and director want on set, thus saving money on the colorists/color suites hourly rate.   


Robert Ruffo
 

I have only seen on set coloring once.  It was a shitty set that ran over budget due to myriad foibles, that being only one of them, as people sat around looking at what the DIT was doing instead of moving forward with shots. (not mine - I was friends with the producer and one of the actors)

The pudding you speak of is actually that smart people have realized this doesn't work, and doing this is only a reality for sets run by people who are bad at doing math when it comes to cost, or know very little about post, or have a very unusual situation, such as needing to go to air the same night, line up matched plates, etc. - but rare is the set with those requirements.

I'm sorry - but you guys, if you have colorist skills, get into that, build a reel, I wish you the best of luck.  If you have computer tech knowledge then use that - there are very obviously lots of ways to make money with compu engineering skills both in and outside of the production and post business.

But telling me that card offloading - basically Shotput operating -  should be a revered profession like gripping or set design or acting, no.  That's crazy.

 
Robert Ruffo
Amber+Robert Media
www.AmberandRobertMedia.com
514.448.1526
323.201.2709
Beauty will save the world.
                                     (Dostoyevsky)



From: "enkin1975@..." <enkin1975@...>
To: cml-general@...
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [general] ACES workflow in lower budget productions

Each to their own Robert that's the advantage of working in a free market. On set coloring is not an idea it's a reality.
Dumb or not is a matter of opinion. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
One could also argue that handing media to a PA is a dumb idea too - again results speak for themselves.
My concern though and the reason I've taken a moment to reply is that there is a growing malaise within our Union.
When I read Geoff's comments referring to media loaders, a title and position awarded to fellow brothers and sisters in the Union that I am proud of being a member, as Data Monkeys it is upsetting. 
It's not about sticks and stones it's the attitude with which you approach your position as a leader of your department which irks me.
The fact that both of you have a lack of respect of the individual skills and knowledge acquired by those at the forefront of digital production process from whose feedback have proven to be invaluable to the numerous manufacturers that create the tools with which you hone your craft, well you get my drift. It's this narrow minded, blinkered noise that interferes with progress.
Compound the headline of I Don't Trust Post therefore I use ACES headline all readers will understand my point of view which is to say that division and separation - be it between production and post production or within one's own department - is not the solution.
As a whole the industry will benefit when their is trust and communication. 
Rock N Roll
mark


Geoff Boyle
 

I don’t think Mike and I are disagreeing.

 

I don’t want onset colourists.

 

I want a very simple and reproducible workflow that isn’t dependent of any “special sauce” unique to a specific post house.

 

I believe that I should endeavor to get as close a look to the final image wanted by using lenses, lighting and my eyes.

 

If I use a LUT to the monitoring that emulates the ACES workflow I can present the colourist with material that is close to the final desired look, then the colourist will work his magic and make it better.

 

No complicated workflows, no BS, just a simple repeatable and independent process.

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC

Cinematographer

Zoetermeer

www.gboyle.co.uk

+44 (0)207 748 3238

 

From: cml-general@... [mailto:cml-general@...] On Behalf Of Luis Gomes
Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 19:20
To: cml-general@...
Subject: Re: [general] ACES workflow in lower budget productions

 

Amen to that. Mr Most had spoken and confirmed what I expected.

However. I do understand Geoff endeavor. 

The biggest problem is post re interpretation of the DOP vision. 

 

I can only hope we achieve balance and Zen. 

 

Surely going to have a hard look at Geoff’s IDTS. 

 

LUÍS. 

 

Sometimes I just check have I being paid. 

Finland. 

--

Gomes.luis@...
http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/luis-gomes/20/11b/335/
Freelancer video Professional. 
Finland. 

Robert Ruffo
 

100 percent agreed that the less far you have to push an image and the closer you get to a look on set the better the result - and I say this having worked both in post and as a DP.  There is nothing more depressing as a post person than to have a client show up and say "This does not look like what we intended, please fix it in post"  The result is always disappointing and expensive.
 
Robert Ruffo
Amber+Robert Media
www.AmberandRobertMedia.com
514.448.1526
323.201.2709
Beauty will save the world.
                                     (Dostoyevsky)



From: Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...>
To: cml-general@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [general] ACES workflow in lower budget productions

I don’t think Mike and I are disagreeing.
 
I don’t want onset colourists.
 
I want a very simple and reproducible workflow that isn’t dependent of any “special sauce” unique to a specific post house.
 
I believe that I should endeavor to get as close a look to the final image wanted by using lenses, lighting and my eyes.
 
If I use a LUT to the monitoring that emulates the ACES workflow I can present the colourist with material that is close to the final desired look, then the colourist will work his magic and make it better.
 
No complicated workflows, no BS, just a simple repeatable and independent process.
 
Cheers
 
Geoff Boyle NSC
Cinematographer
Zoetermeer
+44 (0)207 748 3238
 
From: cml-general@... [mailto:cml-general@...] On Behalf Of Luis Gomes
Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 19:20
To: cml-general@...
Subject: Re: [general] ACES workflow in lower budget productions
 
Amen to that. Mr Most had spoken and confirmed what I expected.
However. I do understand Geoff endeavor. 
The biggest problem is post re interpretation of the DOP vision. 
 
I can only hope we achieve balance and Zen. 
 
Surely going to have a hard look at Geoff’s IDTS. 
 
LUÍS. 
 
Sometimes I just check have I being paid. 
Finland. 
--
Gomes.luis@...
http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/luis-gomes/20/11b/335/
Freelancer video Professional. 
Finland. 


Brian Heller
 

Robert Ruffo wrote:

I pick someone smart, eager and reliable to do a very simple task, and since we only hire by referral these are not flunkies we found on Craigslist.  

Simple tasks are simple until they aren’t.

In any case, it would be helpful in advancing this discussion if a distinction were made between jobs where one person is the producer, director, and head of personnel and those with crews numbering in the hundreds.

The number of inquiries on these lists about “lost data” and the detailed replies based on hard experience about how to recover – or not – the data should be taken to heart.

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP

Rachel Dunn
 


Ditto.

Although I prefer carbon copy cloner.  I find it easier to set up and use than shotput pro, and it's very fast with verification and a good queuing system.

I also pre-set up an empty folder structure so that the process is as drag and drop as possible.

...and super easy to do it myself if I have a 'one man band' situation.

I'm not discounting the importance of a DIT, especially on a commercial shoot, where the clients need a good approximation of a finished look - provided they have the budget.

But there's plenty of projects where just getting it in the can is a major achievement.

Cinematography is not 'a one size fits all' type of thing.

- Rachel D

      310-562-5779


On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:44 AM, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:

Yeah well that’s just plain silly.

 

There is a way that’s between the extremes. A loader who instead of a changing bag has a laptop with Shotput Pro and, in my case, 2 * 1TB SSD’s.


Michael Borenstein
 

While only a tangential point in my post, here's my response:

"How much time does an on-set grade save in DI, at best, really only a week of unsupervised time  (that's $24K) for those keeping score.  This is less than half the cost of an on-set colorist for a Hollywood level movie."

--Great!!!  That's $24k saved!!!  In addition to the other value add's a DIT brings to a production, it's clearly money well spent.  

Additionally, in commercials we routinely see our on-set color being used for the final grade and it's more common that the DP doesn't get to sit in in the final grade so our color acts as a representative for their vision/look.

Regards
Mike