Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: red scarlet  (Read 8086 times)
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2010, 04:11:01 PM »
ReplyReply

You CAN totally access all the R3D raw data via Premier, so that is a really strightforward workflow.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2010, 11:17:16 AM »
ReplyReply

But if I understand, (or not) the 3cp is not giving the advantage of native raw in editor like Premiere so in my understanding it is still keeping one more step?

At this stage I don't see the advantage of editing from master 4k Red files for a variety of reasons.

I know little about Premiere but in a quick test 4k red files seemed to bog the system down considerably in  both premiere and FCP.  (I haven't done an AVID test yet).   In my view is better to work the edit in 2k (regardless of nle) with proxy footage then going to outside sources for color effect/correction to insert back into the edit.

Though the workflow we've devised now is not using 3cp to it's fullest potential it will work well if we used mixed footage from RED and 5d2/7d.    To me the present advantage of using the RED is not in 4k resolution, but because the RED files have better compression, less aliasing and artifacts and a deeper file.

We will use 3cp to review on set and to produce 2k dailies both in AVID and QT format for the base edit.

At present time workflows for everyone are all over the place.  If your a feature film maker or commercial producer then the post process is more defined but if your working for web play, 2k client projection, in store, etc. etc then the workflow is pretty much make it up as you go along.

My view is to work in a commercial, broadcast based workflow with the correct gamma and color and then output in the various formats as required.

The workflow we have the the first of the year project in Europe is:

Shoot to cards.

Shoot with color chart (if possible)

Slate per take (if possible)

Name all master 4k files per scene.

Have presets in 3cp for color dailies review and to process out avid and prorezz quicktime formats.

In house

Cut short style cut and outline for editorial house.

Take still images from 3cp per scene, work in photoshop and print still hard copies for colorist reference.

Out of house (outsourced)

Editorial from outside source.  Editor uses our style cut and notes for reference.    When final cut is approved, editorial house produces edl and qt reference edit for colorist.

Colorist uses edl so located footage, hard copy prints from use to match for color effect and grading.

Final Edit out for sound sweetening, foley sound and  voice over (if required).

Editorial, inserts corrected footage from colorists, inserts effects and final titling.

This workflow is based on outsourcing the edit and the coloring, though if we work completely in house, the workflow will not change that drastically.

The days of 2k edit might be numbered, just like today few people edit for Standard Def NTSC and PAL, but until there is a standard 4k process from capture to delivery, we'll work 2k for motion.

Though I have been editing for 6 years, (depending on project) I have little desire to become a full time editor and colorist.  It's more cost/time effective to outsource.

Obviously nothing in the digital world is written in stone and workflows change as the budget and deadlines change.

IMO

BC

(P.S.  I wrote this reply very quickly as I'm flying today, so keep that in mind when reading).
Logged
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2010, 11:52:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Sounds like you have things nicely locked down.  I really wanted to avoid the proxy/edl/conform workflow for my sanity since I'm handling so much of it myself, which is why I'm exploring Premier. You can access all the original R3D metadata by right clicking clips in th bin which can cut out a step. The downside is that CS5 doesn't yet have access to RedColor2 and RedGamma2, but they're working on an update. Premier flies on Maczilla, but to speed up slower machines you can create your project at quarter res and then render at 4k later once you're done...  YAda yada, workflows will continue to evolve I'm sure.

Blame the bartender for any errors in this post

CB
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2010, 11:58:34 AM »
ReplyReply

... I have little desire to become a full time editor and colorist.  It's more cost/time effective to outsource. ...

I certainly agree.

In my situation, I'm in still very much in the learning (although I know we never stop to learn in imagery and that is what makes it exciting) in both still and motion imagery.

The importance of being able to do a lot of task by myself is related the the situation. I need to produce, to find a coherent style, and to have a consequent book of imagery.
But if I where in the situation of some of you guys, I would certainly delegate all the tasks except the strictly artistical where I want to keep control on them.
Ultimately, the only thing I'd like is to frame and press the shutter and control the output.

I'm seeing in my case that the barriers between still and motion are diluting into convergence. I think we might have loose a sort of golden age when photographers where photographers and cineasts where cineasts and budgets where real bufgets. But we are entering into a dimension that is extremely interesting. The consequences in terms of creativity are enormous. More I dig into that, more I feel like a baby who is discovering pincels and colors, but with incredible flexible tools. Now it's time to put order into that mess, focus and produce because it is also very easy to be dispersed and producing non sense stuff, or noise.

I think that we have the past for that. What I mean is using those tools for breaking barriers and express in a more complete way and looking at older values to avoid producing too much noise.

a link: http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/red_autodesk_whitepaper.pdf
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 12:01:18 PM by fredjeang » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2010, 02:58:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Another observation.
The Smoke is "officialy" not considered as a full NLE, in fact they put the emphasis on cutting first in FC. This is in fact a commercial strategy. Autodesk had a lot to win with Apple and therefore are keeping FC as a fundamental part of the chain in their marketing, but filmakers using Smoke & co are actually by-passing the FC stage despite the "official discourse".

Saying that Smoke boots your NLE, FC or AVID is a bit an half joke because I'm convinced that there will be 2 big players in the next decade: Adobe Premiere with all the circus and Autodesk products.

Dynamic link between Premiere and After effect is really good. You work in real time between both. That is a great advantage of the Adobe integration.
But there is a little problem, you can not work crossed. It's just one way integration or the other but not both at the same time in live.
It means that you can not import an adobe footage in after effect that you are editing if you already have a dynamic link with AE.

(not sure I'm very clear on my explaination)

I just find a tutorial in english that explains much better that I did in my confused english mess:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWZKjIaAHJ4&feature=related
 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 06:33:29 PM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2010, 01:18:27 AM »
ReplyReply


snip

I'm seeing in my case that the barriers between still and motion are diluting into convergence. I think we might have loose a sort of golden age when photographers where photographers and cineasts where cineasts and budgets where real bufgets. But we are entering into a dimension that is extremely interesting.

snip


Sorry for such a long reply and . . .

Sorry for taking this off topic, but since i only think about 12 people read this section I'm not sure if anything we write will have any impact.  (I hope I'm wrong).

I think knowledge is important and the more you know about the post production process obviously the better you will be a direction, photography or even knowing how to estimate and budget a project.

Given that, unless you truly want to be a hands on film maker like Robert Rodriquez where you touch every thing all the way to finish, it is going to be difficult to be partially good at conceptualizing, directing, shooting, post production all the way to purposing out the final piece and keep in mind Robert Rodriquez doesn't do it all him self when the budget is there.  It's impossible.

Now knowing all of this, I honestly don't believe that most photographers, regardless of talent are going to replace dedicated directors and film crews by breaking new territory or reinventing the wheel.  Let's face it in the world of cinema and commercial production, those guys are good and have done about anything you can dream of.  

I think our place will come mostly from budget. Not that we sell ourselves only off price, but still photographers of all levels are much better equipped to shoot a full on production with a crew of 20, 10 or even 5.  We're use to multi tasking, working as director, camera operator, gaffer, sometimes key grip, colorist, editor and understanding how to purpose imagery for multiple use.  We've been doing that for a long time.

Obviously some directors/film makers can make the drop down to smaller crews and make it work, but it's much harder to learn your skills with a 30 to 75 person crew and then be required to work with a 1/10th of that on set talent than it is for us as still photographers.

Now, the reason I think price will play such an important role is we are now into the age of supreme macro marketing.   You do a web search for a BMW, and the next 4 sites you click onto out pops a BMW banner or video.  Obviously somebody is tracking the consumer and not just in a generic way of "oh that guy is looking for a car" but in a very specific breakdown of "that guy is 30 to 35 years old, married, no children, 35% disposable income, wants an upper mid-scale import, preferably german and  . . . .)  

Today that is relevant for web advertising but in less than a year your satellite of cable provider will have learned the same singular demographic specifics and this will change even high end broadcast advertising.

That means advertisers will have to discard the one campaign fits all thought process and learn to  target multiple groups,  which means instead of spending 1 million for that mega commercial, they're going to need 10 targeted commercials and clients being clients they're not going to up their budget to 10 million dollars, they're just going to require 10 spots for the same 1 million.  (or less).

That is the opportunity that opens up for smaller, faster, more nimble and self contained artists, or for the larger productions a director that knows how to adapt quickly.

The upside to this is it slightly cracks the door open for a new breed of motion artist.   The downside is cost and time will be the over riding principle.

Creatively, the real upside is instead of shooting one size fits all and having to play to the lowest common denominator we "might' be able to really let the creativity fly and work a concept for someone that understands the message.

18 months ago I did a project that was split between motion and still photography.  The motion was shot by  an academy award winning director (who was very good).   The still photography by my group.

We ran completely separate sets and each had the celebrity talent for 4 hours.

This was a high budget project and my creative brief mirrored the motion imagery, except my brief was two pages longer.  

The motion crew was about 35 people shooting 35mm film (and bts video) along with computerized cranes, all mos.

Our crew was 10 running on two sets, one white one black, also with bts video and stills.

Now this isn't a knock on the director but I watched their set up, he watched ours.  For an overhead spot effect they hung a 800 lb box truss that took two flat bed cranes.   We hung two lights a 1k  and a strobe head with a trimmed down modifier on a section of speed rail.

Our look mirrored his, his look mirrored ours and he was amazed we could do it with such small lightweight equipment, I was amazed he had such overkill.

He as amazed we could adapt from one lighting style to a completely different look in 30  minutes, I was amazed that when the client asked him for the same he said it wasn't possible within the time frame.

Amway.

The results were similar, both of us got paid, both of us got good mileage from this project, the client was happy.  (both of us won awards).

Now this doesn't mean I could direct his next film because I'm not up to that yet, but for this project my crew could have easily rolled a RED into the still session, shoot the same thing and probably not added more than 2 crew members.

That's where we as photographers have an advantage, but let's not kid ourselves and think the film guys are just going to roll over and let us walk in with our 5d's, reds, arris, etc. and take their jobs.  

They are good and they will adapt.  Whoever adapts the best will win.  Whoever offers more will win.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 01:23:22 AM by bcooter » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad