Topics

Hollyweird

Geoff Boyle
 

I'm still in Hollywood, waiting to do an ACES presentation on Tuesday to the International Cinematographers Conference at the ASC.

I had a great time at Cinegear, not enough time, they really have to make it longer. I missed a lot of people and kit because there just wasn't enough time. This Was made worse by the huge distance between the street booths and the studios.

Anyway this is about hollyweird, weird because my first day at the show I was approached by a senior union guy and told to stop talking about autofocus and getting rid of DITs.

We'll excuse me but I'm allowed to have an opinion and anyway although I am pushing autofocus or DAF I have never suggested that we don't need ACs. I've said that DAF and a tablet is another tool for the AC to use. If anyone is getting upset with me it should be Preston or CMotion or ARRi but I've never suggested we get rid of their kit, just that ACs have a new tool.

Of course on the subject of DITs well yes, I have said that most productions don't need them. Just as horseless carriage a don't need a guy with a red flag walking in front of them. Instead of defending the guy with the red flag refrain him to drive the horseless carriage.

I just read about a report that was published in 1890 saying that if expansion in Manhattan continued at its current rate that wall Street would be knee deep in manure within a hundred years.

Well they were right but not in the way they meant!

It's a clear example of not thinking about changes in technology.

In the transition from film to digital there was a place for a DIT as a kind of translator, but now everyone speaks digital. No need for an interpreter.

There is no reason to break a system that works, the 2 AC always dealt with unloading, it was film instead of digital but the job is the same. We have to give them the right tools for the job, a Codex Vault springs to mind, but it's not rocket science.

Dailies is a job for the post house just as it always has been.

You want an onset colourist? Then say so! Don't try and hide that within another category.

I suspect a lot of the anger directed at me is to do with territory rather than any real concerns about people's jobs.

Just know that I don't respond well to pressure and tend to hit back very visibly.

As a friend of mine said at a union meeting in the early 80's where we are trying to get the union to organise all the new area of work that they kept ignoring " if you insist in bending over, sticking your head in the sand and your arse in the air don't come crying to me when someone fucks you up that arse " of course a few years later the government did just that. 

Geoff Boyle NSC
Cinematographer
Currently in hollyweird

Glenn Lee Dicus
 

“"I suspect a lot of the anger directed at me is to do with territory rather than any real concerns about people's jobs.””

With the advent of the Internet and the subsequent overload of information, I believe that any advocacy of any kind is 
apt to be hijacked for nefarious reasons, to great effect. A willful ignorance has reared it’s ugly head and this just makes peoples jobs, those in the trenches, more difficult.  
In this case, those who are trying to negotiate the contracts.

My .02$

Glenn Lee Dicus
Hollywierdo Digital Loader
IATSE (ICG Local 600)
310.903.7069
glenndicus@...

Mike Sippel
 

“Of course on the subject of DITs well yes, I have said that most productions don't need them.”

I can’t speak on the behalf of anyone but myself here, but I suspect some of the pushback may be driven by a justifiable fear of the tendency of some people in our industry (and perhaps people in general) to ignore qualifiers or nuances to a statement if doing so lends credence to something they already believe or want to believe.  In this case the word “most” would be the critical qualifier.

There are some who will stretch that statement to be taken as “you never need a DIT” – which to your credit you did not say – because it justifies what they wanted to do anyway, namely not pay someone to perform that service.   These are same the people who see a camera advertised as high ISO and thus requiring less light, and understand that to mean “Great!  Now I don’t need any lights or a grip or electrical department!”.  In both cases that’s the wrong understanding of the statement, but that matters little when you’re in a position of having to argue with one of those people to justify paying for something actually needed to do the job which they’re dead-set on not paying for because they don’t understand what it actually is and they misread something on the internet.  Yes, it’s a slippery slope argument but that’s a slope down which all too many people will gleefully slip if it can cut their costs.

One further nuance: The opinion given is based upon your observed experience which, whilst evidentially supported I’m sure, is drawn from a limited sample size.  Were I to employ the same sampling methodology I could reasonably draw a conflicting conclusion that DIT’s are absolutely always necessary because 100% of the productions I work with make the determination that they need DIT’s and use them.  I don’t claim my sample to be representative, though, because I’m sitting in Atlanta and the primary clientele I’m working with are tentpole shows with big budgets and certain expectations.  They’re complex and have hundreds of moving (ok, maybe it’s mostly electrons moving) parts in the camera department alone and the DP’s performance is being constantly evaluated by a committee of studio executives who won’t care to understand the nuance that unsupervised dailies color is not the final look of the film if they don’t like what they’re seeing in dailies.  These DP’s reliably choose to hire DIT’s because they value the capabilities that position brings to the table – and that’s their right as long as they can justify it to those who have to pay for it. 

All this being said, I wouldn’t make the general statement that DIT’s are always 100% necessary because I recognize that there are jobs where everything’s straightforward and there is no on-set color and a loader is sufficient.  I would hope you would similarly concede that there are some jobs where a DIT is in fact warranted.  Since our respective assessments of the percentages of jobs that fall in each category are subject to the limited sample sizes of our own experiences, while I defer to your greater experience than my own perhaps it’s best for all concerned to leave questions of percentage share out of the equation and just say Some Jobs Don’t Need a DIT, just as Some Jobs Need a DIT.

While I’m not blind to the livelihood argument I agree that’s no reason (by itself) to justify anyone doing any job.  I do think, though, that’s it’s important to preserve creative options for those who want them.  I see parallels to a situation with camera operators in the US a few years ago where pressure suddenly mounted to de-mandate the position – not because DP’s suddenly didn’t want camera operators but because the producers wanted to save costs.  The DP went from a position of having a camera operator as the default to one where suddenly that choice had to be argued for.  Sure, the “official” default remained hiring an operator and the DP had to sign a waiver if she/he declined an operator to operate personally – but I think it would be naive to assume that once that practice became the new normal there weren’t suddenly a lot more conversations when selecting DP’s about whether or not an operator would be requested, potentially with implications for the DP getting hired contingent upon that choice.

The freedom to make any particular choice doesn’t tend to go away all at once but rather in a slow erosion by tiny nibbles at the edges over time until one day you wake up and that choice isn’t on the table any more.  If you don’t think you need a DIT then you don’t need to hire one – I don’t think anyone’s forcing the position on anyone.  But when you say it isn’t broadly necessary under most circumstances those words have implications for everyone – and even if I might not agree with the tone by which the concern was communicated I understand where it’s coming from.

Mike Sippel

All Opinions My Own &c.

 

Senior Field Support Technician

Arri Rental, Atlanta

 

 

 

 

Mike Sippel

Senior Field Support Technician

 

ARRI Rental
3980 Dekalb Technology Pkwy #800
Atlanta, GA 30340
Phone: (678) 248-5432
Website | Facebook | Twitter

ARRIRENTAL


This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.




This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

Michael Most
 



On Jun 4, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Mike Sippel <msippel@...> wrote:

 If you don’t think you need a DIT then you don’t need to hire one – I don’t think anyone’s forcing the position on anyone.  But when you say it isn’t broadly necessary under most circumstances those words have implications for everyone – and even if I might not agree with the tone by which the concern was communicated I understand where it’s coming from.


It would all make a lot more sense if Local 600 would finally re-define the DIT job classification. What Geoff is saying - and rightfully so - is that if you need/want an on set colorist, you should have that option. But that is not the current DIT job description. It is simply one part of the DIT’s job (if it is so decided), and not necessarily the primary one. The current job description is based on the original job concept, which was basically a video engineer on a single camera style crew. That means adjusting the cameras themselves (at a time when there were many settings involved), being responsible for connective cabling, on set monitoring, and data integrity (albeit at a time when we were primarily recording to videotape). And, yes, occasionally “painting” the cameras to match. As far as I recall, the morphing of the job into “on set colorist and data wrangler” came courtesy of our friends at Red, who released a product that did not fit into the previous categories, and the need for a job description that didn’t fit into the previous one. But to my knowledge that new job description has never really happened, and today the term “DIT” means, well, whatever the hell you want it to mean, and it’s different on different productions, depending on the specific needs and the specific working styles of the director of photography. And there are DITs today who are pretty good at color, and many others who are not. So in that sense, Geoff’s statement is really calling for the creation of a job classification of “on set colorist”, with attendant knowledge/skill requirements for that job, not necessarily the complete elimination of the other things that a DIT does, particularly on large shows.

I happen to agree with Geoff’s statement, but only if you read it the way it was intended.

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

Geoff Boyle
 

Thank you Michael

That is exactly what I meant.

We need someone to handle data, to me there's someone who has already got that responsibility, the 2AC.
If you want an onset colourist, great! But call them this.
And for replay? Well we always had a video assist op and I see no reason for that to change.
Dailies? That's a lab job.


Geoff Boyle NCS
cinematographer
no fixed abode




On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:20 AM -0700, "Michael Most" <mdmost@...> wrote:



On Jun 4, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Mike Sippel <msippel@...> wrote:

 If you don’t think you need a DIT then you don’t need to hire one – I don’t think anyone’s forcing the position on anyone.  But when you say it isn’t broadly necessary under most circumstances those words have implications for everyone – and even if I might not agree with the tone by which the concern was communicated I understand where it’s coming from.


It would all make a lot more sense if Local 600 would finally re-define the DIT job classification. What Geoff is saying - and rightfully so - is that if you need/want an on set colorist, you should have that option. But that is not the current DIT job description. It is simply one part of the DIT’s job (if it is so decided), and not necessarily the primary one. The current job description is based on the original job concept, which was basically a video engineer on a single camera style crew. That means adjusting the cameras themselves (at a time when there were many settings involved), being responsible for connective cabling, on set monitoring, and data integrity (albeit at a time when we were primarily recording to videotape). And, yes, occasionally “painting” the cameras to match. As far as I recall, the morphing of the job into “on set colorist and data wrangler” came courtesy of our friends at Red, who released a product that did not fit into the previous categories, and the need for a job description that didn’t fit into the previous one. But to my knowledge that new job description has never really happened, and today the term “DIT” means, well, whatever the hell you want it to mean, and it’s different on different productions, depending on the specific needs and the specific working styles of the director of photography. And there are DITs today who are pretty good at color, and many others who are not. So in that sense, Geoff’s statement is really calling for the creation of a job classification of “on set colorist”, with attendant knowledge/skill requirements for that job, not necessarily the complete elimination of the other things that a DIT does, particularly on large shows.

I happen to agree with Geoff’s statement, but only if you read it the way it was intended.

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

Art Adams
 

We need someone to handle data, to me there's someone who has already got that responsibility, the 2AC.

That's not a given. Not all those who work as 2nd camera assistants manage data as well. I just shot a job in Dallas and was told that most of the 2nds there are not comfortable managing data. I've run into that locally as well.

As best I can tell, data manager and 2nd camera assistant are still two different things in most places, at least where I work (around the U.S. but outside of LA).

--
Art Adams
Director of Photography
San Francisco Bay Area

Jen White
 

On Jun 4, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Art Adams <art.cml.only@...> wrote:

As best I can tell, data manager and 2nd camera assistant are still two different things in most places

Definitely. The data manager is always a separate human from the 2nd unless it’s a really small job/crew, which I find is usually only doc work, reality, or short films with short schedules. If there isn’t a DIT then there’s usually a specific person managing media even on lower budget projects. 

I disagree with the idea that DITs are unnecessary- I think quite the opposite. With production refusing to allow DP’s to supervise final color (or refusing to pay us even if we’re “allowed” in), DITs are more critical than ever. 

Jen White
Director of Photography 
323.540.0659
Los Angeles 


Sent from my Atari 5200


Geoff Boyle
 

I'm puzzled, you're not allowed in the grade but you think they're going to use the looks you create on set...
If in a traditional workflow you needed a 2AC and a loader I don't see that changing. However, in the majority of cases the 2AC managed pretty well.
I'm really in to ACES because if you simulate the process on set to your monitor and light and expose so it looks the way you want then a simple IDT & ODT on your dailies will show what you shot.
Isn't getting our dailies to look the way we want vital?
Isn't this the look that directors and producers get used to?
Doesn't my very simple workflow give you this?
Don't just react, think about what you want.
I want my pictures to look the way I intend and the less people and the least amount of variables will give me this.
My pictures
My pictures
My pictures...

Geoff Boyle NCS
cinematographer
no fixed abode

Franz
 

On 4 Jun 2018, at 21:30, Jen White <imajen@...> wrote:


DITs are more critical than ever

“Good” DITs for sure.
Unfortunately there are too many who improvise themselves as DIT, sometimes because they failed as DOP.
Met few… they did not last long with me, but for sure screwed enough DOPs with their bad attitude, silly games and yes, incompetence.
Franz

--
Franz Pagot AIC MBKS
Cinematographer
BAFTA 
http://www.franzpagot.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1219277/
https://vimeo.com/franzpagot
http://www.youtube.com/FranzPagot
mob +44 7770 520757
skype: acquademon
United Kingdom

Represented by WPA | Worldwide Production Agency
+44(0)207 287 9564 | www.wp-a.co.uk

CURT APDUHAN
 

Geoff, I find Hollywood a bit weird myself. But it’s a nice kinda weird. 

As for a DIT performing on set coloring I feel that is better suited for a proper color environment. LUT’s are handy to check the work but making real time color decisions on set is not the proper time and place. 

Data managing is a different matter. Many times a dedicated data manager off set has provided an efficiency that freed up my camera department to focus on creating the image. Many times while cards (I treat them as if they are film mags) are being cleared and the data organized and QC’d by the Data Wrangler the camera department was busy performing their most important function, keeping the camera system in the game. I would step off set, check the imagery with the Data Wrangler while the camera department would be setting up for the next scene. 

This type of efficiency is what I love in the digital age. Immediate confirmation of the integrity of the image and keeping the camera ready to shoot. 

My thoughts...

Curt Apduhan
Cinematographer 
Orange County, CA


On Jun 4, 2018, at 12:30 PM, Jen White <imajen@...> wrote:

On Jun 4, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Art Adams <art.cml.only@...> wrote:

As best I can tell, data manager and 2nd camera assistant are still two different things in most places

Definitely. The data manager is always a separate human from the 2nd unless it’s a really small job/crew, which I find is usually only doc work, reality, or short films with short schedules. If there isn’t a DIT then there’s usually a specific person managing media even on lower budget projects. 

I disagree with the idea that DITs are unnecessary- I think quite the opposite. With production refusing to allow DP’s to supervise final color (or refusing to pay us even if we’re “allowed” in), DITs are more critical than ever. 

Jen White
Director of Photography 
323.540.0659
Los Angeles 


Sent from my Atari 5200


Art Adams
 

Doesn't my very simple workflow give you this?

Not really. I don't know anyone among my clients who uses ACES. I can't insist that they learn ACES because, for commercials, they don't see the point. And then I become "that guy who needs us to change our post workflow in order to make his pictures look pretty." That's not good for business.
 
I want my pictures to look the way I intend and the less people and the least amount of variables will give me this.

That's why 90% of what I shoot uses the Arri 709 LUT. The rest use Sony's LC709A or RED's IPP2 settings. I make the creative choices with white balance, EI, exposure, lighting, filters, lenses and gels/LEDs. You can't get much simpler than that.

I do periodically send custom LUTs to post and say, "Use these or you'll be unhappy." They use them about half the time. I've had clients send me rough cuts in log, and when I ask them why did't they use the LUT I sent them, the next email is "Wow, the pictures look so much better!" Those are not the kind of people who will see value in ACES.

I'm not sure I'd do anything different with a DIT on set, other than maybe make a custom LUT for the project, make sure that made its way to post, and have an extra eye on the monitor/waveform for exposure and focus problems while feeding the right signal to the various monitors on set. But that's kinda what a DIT was supposed to do in the first place. This is completely separate to a data manager, who is the de facto loader now, and is separate to a 2nd camera assistant.

Whenever the 2nd camera assistant is tasked with data management then everything on set slows down because data managing requires someone to sit off set and stare at a computer screen for hours at a time. That's not what a 2nd camera assistant does. In the film days this was less of an issue: after blocking, go load mags while the set is being lit. That doesn't take terribly long, and then you're back on set by the time the camera rolled. Now lighting takes a lot less time, we have to light for every direction at once, and offloading data takes a LOT longer than reloading a film mag. It's a completely different situation.

I never get DITs. I do get data managers. A real DIT can be worth their weight in gold. I did a job a while back with multiple synced cameras and production hired a "DIT" who really wasn't more than a data manager. They didn't match the cameras right, didn't know how to set up sync, etc. I ended up having to do their job while they just went off an managed data. It sure would have been nice to have a real DIT on that job, but production often doesn't know the difference between a DIT, DAM, or a PA with a laptop.

If I ran into a "senior union person" at a trade show and had a discussion about DITs, I'd ask them why they are doing such a piss poor job of defining what a DIT does and showing the value to producers. It seems that union locals don't understand that a significant part of their job is sales: selling their members' skill sets to producers and showing them how a little more money spent now results in a higher quality product made with greater efficiency and few to no costly digital mistakes.

As for whether a DIT is necessary or not... I don't get a lot of projects where production budgets for one, but I will always take a DIT when offered. That's about a hundred fewer things for me to worry about. I don't take pride in working with fewer crew members. It may be possible, and it may be a necessity, but I would always prefer to have more people backing me up than less—especially now that budgets are so low, the schedules are so short, but the expectations for pretty pictures is higher than ever. (Well, sometimes—not so much in commercials, it seems.)
--
Art Adams
Director of Photography
San Francisco Bay Area

Michael Most
 



On Jun 4, 2018, at 1:21 PM, Art Adams <art.cml.only@...> wrote:

That's why 90% of what I shoot uses the Arri 709 LUT. The rest use Sony's LC709A or RED's IPP2 settings. I make the creative choices with white balance, EI, exposure, lighting, filters, lenses and gels/LEDs. You can't get much simpler than that.

I think you and Geoff are basically saying the same thing (i.e., control your images with the tools of cinematography, not the tools of post and DI) without saying it the same way…..

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

Michael Most
 



On Jun 4, 2018, at 1:21 PM, Art Adams <art.cml.only@...> wrote:

If I ran into a "senior union person" at a trade show and had a discussion about DITs, I'd ask them why they are doing such a piss poor job of defining what a DIT does and showing the value to producers.

I agree. And I’ve actually done that (asked that question). The answers I’ve gotten have always seemed to revolve more around an unwillingness to lose a crew position (one that they’ve largely lost already anyway) than they have properly defining the actual job and its subsequent value.

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

Geoff Boyle
 

I showed 12 "standard" Alexa to 709 LUTs at a recent event.
They came from different post houses and they were all different.
An IDT is standard from software to software and post house to post house.
If it's a post house that canyc select colour mangemmana and then click on ACES are you sure you want to work with them?

It's easy and makes your workflow smoother.

It doesn't matter what camera you're using or what your end display is.

I just don't get it.

Geoff
Confused in LA

Art Adams
 

I showed 12 "standard" Alexa to 709 LUTs at a recent event.
They came from different post houses and they were all different.

Right. So not "standard" at all, as the only standard Alexa-to-709 LUTs are the ones made by Arri. (The Classic 1D LUT for EV and XT, and the Arri 709 3D LUT for SXT, Mini and Amira.)
 
An IDT is standard from software to software and post house to post house.

Right. And it doesn't determine the look. It only brings the footage into ACES where it can be color corrected into anything. Or am I misunderstanding what an IDT does?
 
If it's a post house that canyc select colour mangemmana and then click on ACES are you sure you want to work with them?

If it's a production company that's doing their own post, do I have a choice? If it's a post house, why would the production company ask me which one I want to work with? No one ever has.
 
It's easy and makes your workflow smoother.

That's the problem. It's not my workflow. I don't get to choose. Maybe the DP gets a choice in post house on features and TV, although I have a hard time believing that the typical DP has tons of power over that.

Most of my clients do color in house, with varying degrees of failure. Often the less they do to it, the better it looks. That's why I use standard (built in to the camera and all common post tools) LUTs for most of what I do.
 
It doesn't matter what camera you're using or what your end display is.

The IDT doesn't impart a look. It just transforms the footage into ACES in a predictable way. How does this preserve your look, given that you're still going to have to give them a file down the line that makes it look roughly the way you want so that everyone sees your intent all the way through to the coloring stage? Isn't that an awful lot like handing a LUT to post for any other workflow?

--
Art Adams
Director of Photography
San Francisco Bay Area

Geoff Boyle
 

It no more imparts a look than your LUT does except, well it does a bit.

Im doing a presentation about this tomorrow at the Academy to 100 cinematographers from all over the world.

Lets see if they like the idea of the equivalent of 25 across in a lab or a telecine lined up to TAF.

You know, independent, repeatable, transportable.

Ive found no problems getting clients to change workflow as long as you can show them clear benefits.

I hope ive now managed to turn off all the correction crap that Samsung suddenly decided to turn on on my tablet!

cheers

Geoff Boyle NSC
cinematographer
travelling


From: cml-general@... <cml-general@...> on behalf of Art Adams <art.cml.only@...>
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 5:15:16 PM
To: Cml-General
Subject: Re: [cml-general] Hollyweird
 
I showed 12 "standard" Alexa to 709 LUTs at a recent event.
They came from different post houses and they were all different.

Right. So not "standard" at all, as the only standard Alexa-to-709 LUTs are the ones made by Arri. (The Classic 1D LUT for EV and XT, and the Arri 709 3D LUT for SXT, Mini and Amira.)
 
An IDT is standard from software to software and post house to post house.

Right. And it doesn't determine the look. It only brings the footage into ACES where it can be color corrected into anything. Or am I misunderstanding what an IDT does?
 
If it's a post house that canyc select colour mangemmana and then click on ACES are you sure you want to work with them?

If it's a production company that's doing their own post, do I have a choice? If it's a post house, why would the production company ask me which one I want to work with? No one ever has.
 
It's easy and makes your workflow smoother.

That's the problem. It's not my workflow. I don't get to choose. Maybe the DP gets a choice in post house on features and TV, although I have a hard time believing that the typical DP has tons of power over that.

Most of my clients do color in house, with varying degrees of failure. Often the less they do to it, the better it looks. That's why I use standard (built in to the camera and all common post tools) LUTs for most of what I do.
 
It doesn't matter what camera you're using or what your end display is.

The IDT doesn't impart a look. It just transforms the footage into ACES in a predictable way. How does this preserve your look, given that you're still going to have to give them a file down the line that makes it look roughly the way you want so that everyone sees your intent all the way through to the coloring stage? Isn't that an awful lot like handing a LUT to post for any other workflow?

--
Art Adams
Director of Photography
San Francisco Bay Area

Jeff Kreines
 

On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:

Im doing a presentation about this tomorrow at the Academy to 100 cinematographers from all over the world.
Any chance of posting this, or something similar?




Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
jeff@...
kinetta.com

Sent from iPhone.

Hans von Sonntag, Filmmaker
 

I've never shot a big Hollywood picture or a multi-camera show. My field of work are TVCs in Europe. This said, most of the crew members I met that called them selfs DIT were people with an, well, attitude. I fully understand that because coping data isn't exactly that what one would call a complex job that needs years off experience and some talent. So there is some vacuum that needs to filled with talk about colour spaces, sensors, sensitivity, skin tones, colour response, LUTs and whatnot. At some point chance are high there is a laptop with a collection of brilliant grades that eventually find their way to my clients without letting me know. 

I've met many ACs, 1st and 2nd from whom I can learn and who know things I don't. I never had that experience with a DIT (in my field of productions). 

Personally I prefere a 2nd AC who can stick camera media to a laptop and offload that to 2 separate disks. Perhaps she/he knows how to create dailies. If they don't I'll show them. That costs 20 seconds to set up and can be done between picking up lenses.

This said, I'm sure there is a reason why there are specialised data wrangler with a colourist history. But they are not always needed only because there is a digital camera that produces colour pictures and data.


Hans

PS: Would love to see a recoding of your presentation, Geoff! Digging deep into ACES myself I'm sure there is lots of stuff to learn. 

Geoff Boyle
 

The academy shot the whole event and ive signed a release for them so i guess itll be appearing somewhere once they have bleeped me!

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076
www.gboyle.co.uk

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, 17:45 Jeff Kreines, <jeff@...> wrote:
On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:

Im doing a presentation about this tomorrow at the Academy to 100 cinematographers from all over the world.
Any chance of posting this, or something similar?




Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
jeff@...
kinetta.com

Sent from iPhone.

Ben Rowland, Yonder Blue Films
 

I look forward to seeing that presentation as well. Please post a link when available. Thank you kindly. 

All the best,
Benjamin Rowland 
Currently in Atlanta, taking a break!

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:51 PM Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:
The academy shot the whole event and ive signed a release for them so i guess itll be appearing somewhere once they have bleeped me!

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076
www.gboyle.co.uk


--
Ben Rowland