FORESIGHT.

The DIT Dilemma

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:41:47 -0800

This entry was based on a reduser.net thread about building DIT carts. The thread asked a lot of challenging questions about the process, the tools, the players, the evolution and the future. For reference, the original thread can be viewed here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?88935-Building-a-DIT-cart

The official role of a DIT is one that continues requiring discussion. Defining the DIT is hard for anyone to “officially” quantify, though there are rules and regulations that suggest a textbook definition. But the more one talks to DITs, the more you find they are not “consistent” in their feelings on the job. This is not normal. If you ask pilots what they do, they tend to agree on their role. Same with directors or even script supervisors and DPs. This suggests that the future is not yet written for DITs, which means they have the unique opportunity to either shape the industry going forward in their favor, or let another entity define what their role is and even make the DIT an unnecessary expense. Going into 2013, there is significant evidence for both arguments.

[ Response to reduser.net thread]

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread since it started, and other threads like it. There are some good points made by all contributors and I take the time to read each one and “feel out” where the writer might be coming from. As they say, try to imagine yourself in another man’s shoes before you jump to conclusions.

That said, I want to make perfectly clear that what I’m about to write is based not only on extensive on-set experience, but on the relationships with production supervisors, unit production managers, producers, production companies and studios who run digitally captured features and television shows. Some DITs recognize that the “Light Iron way” of managing the DIT and data management roles differ from other entities. -Some prefer our arrangement, others do not. But the reason Light Iron manages the DIT process the way we do is because we largely designed our system based on the[I] feedback[/I] we receive from the people who do the hiring and firing. So take a read of my comments if you like and understand that I oversee the on-set dailies process of close to 100 projects per year - which accounts for more than 1,000 shoot days annually. -I don’t have every answer, but I’ve come across a lot in a short time and deal with DITs and the people who pay them.

Consider this: If you are interested in knowing what a DIT does, ask a DIT. They have plenty of ways to answer that question. But I am more interested in knowing what a paying production thinks a DIT [I]should[/I] do: so I asked the people who hire them.

From there, it should come as no surprise that the role of the DIT is one that carries along with it some controversy. -Some readers may feel the word [I]controversy[/I] is a bit extreme, but I can easily say that the role of the DIT is one that is consistently debated (partially proven by this post). But the debate of the DIT doesn’t stem from the DITs themselves - why would a DIT ever want to have to defend their own relevance? No creature on earth wants to have to defend its very right to exist, yet DITs constantly fall into this trap. No, the debate of the DIT comes from the top down and the growing number of productions that choose *not* to have a DIT as part of their arrangement. While I often feel the anti-DIT position is definitely short-sighted and (in many cases) flat our wrong, productions that regularly operate without DITs do not seem to demonstrate an inability to make their shoot days or create high quality content. So how is that possible?

Well in my experience, the DIT Dilemma is a lot more serious than some realize. There is no other production role on digital productions that is equally “in question” other than the DIT. No one is questioning the relevance of DPs, script supervisors, actors or camera operators. But whether or not a DIT is needed is a common discussion in the production office and above-the-line meetings. I have personally been in dozens of production meetings on large and small productions in which *not* having a DIT has been fervently discussed. Since I am ultimately in favor of the DIT, my vote counts in that direction, but there are plenty of cases in which DITs are not hired on a show or are demoted to another ancillary position. -If anything, that should be the initial reason DITs should be thinking about this issue: [I]they have been named.[/I] And once you are “named” and the momentum of defending ones relevance comes into question, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain favor as time goes on and trends inevitably shift.

Ironically, it was during this this observation that my partners and I continued to examine the role of the post house as well. While DIT’s have been named, they’re not the only ones: post houses are also being challenged. And then we thought: these two related areas represent endangered species in our changing media ecosystem. Consider this: if a measurable portion of the industry feels like they no longer want to rely on post houses, and another measurable portion of the industry feels like they no longer want to rely on DITs, then the beginnings of a predictable outcome starts to be revealed. -Clearly these two issues are related in some way! We can even assume that there is some portion of these two camps that believe the same thing. -Overlapping their no-post/no-DIT notion together! -Those became people worth targeting and inquiring as to “[B]WHY[/B]?” The results are typically plain and simple: economics. Everyone wants more for less. I don’t care if it’s a producer on a film or your mother at the grocery store. There is a perceived notion in the eyes of many producers that the DIT and the Post House are more expensive than the return service they provide. -And for many, that’s not a new perspective, but until now, an alternative simply didn’t exist.

The data that I’ve collected and successfully applied into my business suggests that the post house is less desirable than ever before and in terms of dailies provisions, will not exist by 2017. Mark my words. Likewise, the sophistication of cameras continues to increase and for the DITs who have been in the game for 10 years, you know that many of the tools you used to require to “normalize” images on your cart have been absorbed into the camera itself. In fact, I predict that by 2021, all the capture, transcodes (there won’t be transcodes, but the equivalent of the transcode), sync, color, windowburn, watermarking, versioning, color space conversions and even lined-script notes based on totalcode-timecode during capture will *ALL* be recorded and managed by the camera, saved to an online cloud server and instantly distributed worldwide. In other words, a significant portion of what Light Iron does today to make its money will not exists in 10 years (which is the same for thousands of people around the globe). Again, mark my words.

These predictions are based on following the data that has been compiling for 10 years, analyzing Moore’s Law, talking with targets of manufacturing, evaluating the market evolution and making a few educated guesses. The result: in 2021, we will not have DITs or dailies post houses. -Sure, I’m scared, too, but I know enough of my own abilities to predict the market that I intend to evolve along with it - as opposed to devolve in spite of it (as some foolishly attempt do). If you are a DIT today, I can assure you that you won’t be a DIT in 2021. -Maybe that’s a relief:-) But it means that one needs to find ways to A) build a career that leads to professional satisfaction in the future and B) find ways to extend your relevance today as far in the future as appropriate.

For those that are interested in what that exactly looks like, I can tell you what Light Iron does. Again, while some people disagree with the Li model, I can tell you that it has changed the lives of the producers who take advantage of the system and the people who are our regular operators. We call it “OUTPOST.” OUTPOST is not the only system out there, but it’s the largest fleet of mobile systems and has cumulatively done more shoot days than just about anyone else combined. To illustrate the significance of that point: Light Iron is a company of less than 30 people at the time this was written. Currently, there are 16 carts out in the field servicing shows internationally. Concurrently, we’re in the middle of 8 DIs. That’s a combined active slate of 24 projects. No post company has ever had a business model that can service nearly a 1:1 ratio of feature film projects to employees. That’s never been possible before and that is why my findings should be taken very seriously. When the implications of a statement that significant are fully comprehended, the future and the past will have finally and fully divorced.

On Light Iron systems, we have been tailoring our tools so they can provide these popular processes on a set:

• Checksum

• Triplication

• Visual QC

• Automated Scene and Take naming

• CDL color

• Advanced Live Grading (based on a new system we are announcing publicly in 2013)

• Sound Syncing with 1/4 frame accuracy

• Transcoding at over 90 frames per second

• Parallel rendering

• Advanced reporting (PDF, CSV, XML and TD, ALE)

• Advanced iPad integration

• LTO [automated robot support]

• (Virtually) unlimited camera support

• ACES or 709 color space management

• Transcoding to MXF & Quicktime with custom naming/automated Scene and Take metadata

• CDL/ALE/ArriXML/XML/FLEx/EMD/RMD sidecars

Admittedly, there are a lot of very smart people who can build systems that are capable of all of the above. But just as there are differences between a Dodge Neon, Dodge Ram and Dodge Viper, so there are differences between tools that claim to provide the same thing. On Li OUTPOST carts, we have operators that handle up to 4 hours of ArriRAW and provide everything listed above on the set. Even on our smallest mobile system, Lily Pad Case, we had an operator do an average of 6 hours of dailies in Africa which included backup, color, syncing, rendering to AVID MXF and H.264 for web uploading and ended up uploading to the web for dailies viewing. But on the average show that shoots 2.5-3.5 hours of footage per day, the operators are having fun doing all this so quickly and efficiently. Creative liberation is what speed delivers, and the creatives you serve sense that right after the first mag.

Sound people play along when we manage expectations correctly. Sound will be perfectly synced - in fact, I teach a syncing training course that gets people to learn how to sync takes in under 8 seconds per take (which means a 20-take magazine can be synced in about 2 minutes and 30 seconds - even with TC drifts). We build custom drives that eliminate slow downloads and transfers - as our systems take that into account with 500MB/s read/write for shuttles (ie: once off the mag, we move 1 hour of Epic 5:1 in 7.5 minutes to the Li shuttle drive). Smart people make it clear that doing this correctly is expensive - which is the truth. Be prepared to invest if you want to do this without compromises. But when LIght Iron is able to improve the horsepower with more significant investments, realize that is an answer to the call of the production, not a threat against weaker, less expensive owner-operator tools. I don’t set the pricing, I simply install what is required to solve the above list. That requires a good DIT to have access to the latest and greatest and even develop improvements, software and hardware.

The post house is at the end of its life, and unless DIT’s realize this is their last chance, DIT’s will share in the slowly fading demise of post houses. The DITs that quickly point out they don’t have time to do certain tasks, or that it’s not their job are the prey of the post house; big post houses absolutely love the DITs who don’t deliver things complete, correct or compliant because it enables them to charge production for the same services all over again. -Often at a premium! But for the enabler DIT - the ones that have desire and the skill set to provide the services that post is, they are the threat to the post house and the white knight to the producer. Remember: based on the changing media ecosystem, most post houses use similar equipment DITs use. -Only they are willing and able to finish the job. If you share similar tools, then it becomes more of a mental game of completing the task, not a physical one.

CONSIDER THIS:

In a matter of survival: focus on what you can bring to the production, not what you can’t.

Focus on how you can protect the filmmaker, not protect yourself.

Focus on what technologies exist that elevate potential and possibly, not just copying what everyone else uses (there are lots of bad DIT habits that are spread across the world).

Focus on practicing and improving on the areas in which you struggle, not ignoring them or pass them off to another person.

I have personally operated numerous jobs in order to learn the way and the truth and from that experience, I’ve applied it into some of the best DIT carts in the world. I’ve also done some of the hardest jobs in the world and probably do the largest jobs with the smallest footprint. -And our systems are getting better with 2 new massive upgrades in 2013. I love working with DITs and helping them make more money and provide more services and satisfying the creatives they serve in a completely new way.

If you are providing all of the above, then you know what I’m taking about. Your job is a lot more protected when you can demonstrate you are more relevant than a dailies post house.

If you are doubting all of the above, then I wish you the best. It truly is a dilemma and we can all agree it’s a complex issue. But know that the post house is dying and that it’s hoping that DIT’s make mistakes and refuse to provide services. The less DIT’s do, the more air in their lungs. And while that may seem good for both the DIT and post house, it’s bad for the creative. The truth is getting out and there are creatives who are experiencing life without a post house thanks to the talent of good DIT’s. By this, a new standard is being born and I have watched it explode over the past 3 years - which is why this is all worth debating. But one things is for sure, 3 years ago on-set dailies was but a fraction of a fraction of services on set. Today, it’s 100% of my dailies business and growing with companies all over the world. If you think the DIT as a post provider is a phase that will phase itself out, then you are already less valuable than your employers think…but they’ll figure it out soon. They always do.

| m |

The New Breed of Communicators

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:15:00 -0700

Think back to a significant or monumental moment in your life in which you were experiencing with many others around you. Try to find a moment you can easily recall, perhaps talk about often and remember where you were when you heard about it.

Are you thinking of a moment of monumental progress - like the Apollo 11 landing? Or are you thinking of something more destructive - like the September 11^th attacks in New York and Washington D.C.? As it turns out, when asked this question, statistics show most people tend to recall more traumatic events as opposed to more encouraging ones. In other words, when asked about profound moments in life they will never forget, people tend to recall disruptive events such as the death of a rockstar over something encouraging like their wedding day.

But the question I’m proposing is not about which end of the spectrum you choose to recall significant events; rather the question whether or not you even realize the event is significant when it’s happening.

When the event was happening, did you have the inclination to stop and document it while you were experiencing it? Did you get out a camera and take pictures of the event or the TV screen? Did you record the reactions of others in the area or in your home? Did you write in a journal what happened that day and who was there? In other words, when a significant event is happening, are we typically able to realize that it was, in fact, profound at all?

For most people, the significance or impact of an event only tends to become clearer as the passage of time physically distances you from the initial affair. Psychologists sometimes qualify a version of this as traumatic disassociation. For most people, the greater the impact on your life, the greater the traumatic disassociation affect. Admittedly, contrasting circumstances produce varying affects on individuals, but one thing is fairly consistent: the average person is not necessarily “aware” of a moment of significance until well after the moment has taken place.

It’s easier to quantify moments of massive trauma when they affect a nation or a generation - especially when heavily covered by the media. But what about circumstances of dramatic change that are not covered by the media? What about episodes that large groups experience over a long time period? What about instances that are happening “under the surface” of mainstream culture? I believe there is a connection between what is happening in digital cinema and the notion that most people are unaware of its pending affects. Without the clear realization that something significant is occurring, people, on average, are unable to prepare or even react to a moment of significance…until either a lot of time passes or a larger group of people collective agree on its significance.

Imagine being in a large room with a lightbulb that was dimmed 1% every 60 seconds. It might be hours before you notice that the room was slowly getting darker. A few people might notice when the ambient light level is at 50%. And for others, they might not notice until the light was nearly gone. But no one would be able to determine the change after only a few minutes. I believe the most dangerous element of our profoundly changing media ecosystem is that it is so subtle, so effortless and so orthodox that for most professionals, its affects are virtually undetectable. I don’t feel the word dangerous is an exaggeration in the least. Motion picture communicators are in the beginning of an era of change that will never be undone, and will never be outdone. To the most experienced professionals, the digital cinema transformation is, in fact, so traumatic an event that most people have yet to comprehend its significance. There is a divide in our professional culture, spanning every international territory, in which only a few are aware that the lights are dimming. This divide is creating more mechanical controversy over the creation of motion pictures than we will likely ever see. But for those of us that are aware that the lights are dimming, the conviction to technological resistance is starting to become increasingly frustrating. But I want to clarify that this is not necessarily a generational thing. My research shows that while technologically solvent people tend to be younger, it is not always the case. But while there are many masters of the craft who are acutely aware and in support of this transformation, there are actually very few industry new-comers who make arguments against the practices and protocols of progressive technical development. In other words, being older doesn’t mean you lack the ability to grasp imminent change, but that younger counterparts will adapt with less resistance, if any at all.

Man’s ability to create technology is one of the most fundamental components to consistent progression. Without routine technology development, talents, tools and techniques quickly become stale and obsolete. While that sounds fairly obvious, the last ten years working in the motion picture business have shown me that rapid advancements in technology are not necessarily welcomed by all professionals. For many, the technological side of creativity is liberating. For others, it can represent a serious threat. Because of this, I’ve tried to make education a normal part of my life. In a given year, I likely give in the neighborhood of 150 lectures focused on creative technological progression to all sorts of demographics. I also have done everything I can to be transparent in what I believe, why I believe it and how I do it. -So transparent that in some cases, I’ve been criticized for “sharing too much with competitors.” But I believe that the risk of sharing trade secrets is worth the gain in global education. That being said, sadly in some of these discussions, I have unfortunately ended up encountering people who make strong arguments against many aspects of technological development - particularly information technology (IT) components as they pertain to both production and post production.

But fear and resistance to technological change in creative outlets is not new. It’s not rare and it’s not unique to the motion picture business by any means. -It just seems new to generations of artists who are frustrated with (what many claim is) an unpredictable, unstable, unstandardized, undeveloped, unproven and un-led movement.

In the early 19^th Century, a mechanical version of the loom was invented and brought to England where it quickly became an asset to the growing textile industry. For centuries up until that time, skilled artists would hand-weave threads together to make anything from clothing to blankets and scarfs. But faced with the notion that a seemingly less-skilled worker was now adding value to manufacturing through the use of modern technology, creative artists felt they were being cheated out of their jobs and began to revolt. Known today as “Luddites,” this group of artists began breaking into manufacturing plants and destroying looms, burning materials and stealing from their employers in protest of producing textiles with machines instead of artists.

The Luddites were among the first groups of people in recorded history that were victims of a theory known as “Skilled Based Technological Change” (SBTC). Personally, I have witnessed a measurable increased Luddite mentality over the past 5 years as well as an increase in SBTC conditions along with it. While at first conditions seemed to manifest themselves in what I would consider appropriate amounts, today I believe it is reaching a level in which (for some people) political agendas and (more significantly) personal legacies are at stake. This means opposers of new technologies are becoming less comfortable because some of the introductory technology is beginning to become accepted faster, thus the balance of power is starting to list.

Assembling all this together, I believe this boils down to two key ingredients which are somewhat linked together:

Traumatic disassociation affects the people in today’s professional industry who fail to recognize the significance of the changing media ecosystem
Skilled Based Technological Change represents the people who resist and attack the change they are being forced to recognize

Referencing the past as an aid to predict the future, I submit people fall into one of three categories of professionals:

Those of us who believe in democratization and technological evolution for creatives is part of designing the best future possible = (I’ll get to this title later)
Those of us who fail to recognize the benefits will still reap all the benefits once the progressive movement has completely overcome the traditional = followers
Those of us who choose to resist the benefits of change delay the potential of expedited progress and create a controversial environment for all parties = Luddites

It is because of these groups that I feel today is perhaps the best time to be a working professional in the motion picture industry since its inception. Teaching, learning, challenging, preparing and evolving is paramount to what we must do to succeed in this, and yes, to especially help those who are impervious to it.

One of the most common arguments I run across is the criticism that digital cinema and the subsequent file-based transformation is without rules, without standards and without best practices. It lacks defined leadership which forces professionals to make misinformed choices in directions that I believe will have detrimental affects in the future. It’s even been likened to the extreme anecdote of 19^th century lawlessness in the form of “the digital wild west.” Actually, I feel this is a fair criticism in many ways. On the whole, the changing media ecosystem does lack the rigidity of more traditional approaches and many people can cite bona fide examples in which progressive techniques fail more often than they succeed. But for those of us who are a part of refining our craft, we are left with two choices: We can either yell louder than those who we feel are in error, or address the criticisms head-on in order to remedy them. It’s a classic case of aimlessly criticizing the powers that be, or do something positive to change their minds.

By far the worst thing we can do for the cause is to argue amongst ourselves. Fruitless arguments for the technical betterment of creatives have been camouflaging the real issues for years, holding both parties back from necessary development. Below are some examples of rampant arguments in the market that are not only counterproductive, but they act as a distraction of the real issues at hand:

AVID vs. Final Cut

The actual issue here is not which software is better for editors, rather that editors use nonlinear editing technology over linear tape or film cutting systems.

RED vs. Alexa

The actual issue here is not which camera is better for cinematographers, rather that images are being captured at high resolution and high fidelity instead on film or tape.

Tape Masters vs. Disks Masters

The actual issue here is not which format is better for archiving, rather that we are fixed on a digital direction instead of an analog one.

Compression vs. Non-compression

The actual issue here is not to suggest that non-compression is the best way for professionals to work, rather that advanced compression technology has yielded ongoing developments in lossless compression.

Resolve vs. Pablo

The actual issue here isn’t that expensive or cheap solutions essentially do the same thing, rather that color correction is all being done through computer-based tools instead of film negative cutting.

3K vs. 4K vs. 8K

The issue here isn’t that Arri or RED or Canon or SONY have different positions on sensor size, rather that all camera manufactures are building single-sensor solutions that produce higher fidelity images than film.

Satellites vs. Terrestrial Distribution

The issue here isn’t which technology is better and for whom, rather that we are getting away from film prints and tape cassettes for exhibiting movies and television programs.

RAW vs. RGB

The issue here isn’t which one offers more color, contrast or control, rather that we are all in agreement to move away from tape and film for image acquisition and rely exclusively on file-based capture.

On-set vs. The Lab

The issue here isn’t to figure out which one is better for you, rather to show that some legacy infrastructure are able to be replaced by progressive tools and reduce reliance on large, expensive corporations for support.

Indy vs. Studio

The issue here isn’t that good movies are high quality and bad movies are low quality, rather democratization is enabling people with less money to partake in shared technologies that generate images which compete with bigger budgets.

These are just a few examples in which people designate as battlegrounds worth fighting for, when in reality, I think there is a much bigger picture worth fighting for. If we could harness all these discussions and more and focus the energy on the bigger picture, I know we could build a new breed of communicators that could change the way the entire world tells stories.

Generals and politicians alike know that you need a plan before you engage in a conflict. Perhaps the lack of planning has been the problem all along. Perhaps it stems from the inability for many to recognize that this change is happening. Or perhaps it’s because much of the opposition holds high office and people tend to “look up” for direction. Whatever the case may be, I propose the beginning of a solution that starts with the most basic element. -An element that has been missing from the beginning. -An element that can be used to define a movement. -An element that people of all ages can relate to. -An element that people want to get behind. -An element that represents those of us who know the lights are dimming. I propose we start by giving a NAME to who we are:

We are Technatives.

We are technological creatives. Equally able to service both initiatives. We know we’re different from our mentors, we just didn’t know why. We are fueled by advancing technology and creatively applying it not just to our work, but our entire lives. We embrace change, often design it ourselves, and weave it into the creative outlets that are ultimately used to tell our stories. We reject the limits of being labeled either left-brained or right-brained. We are able to shoot, edit, configure, troubleshoot, write, direct and develop. We teach our children and our parents how technology can be used to improve the quality of life. We track changes in the market and are eager to set new trends. We seek out leaders in the industry that embrace technological creativity. We celebrate updates, upgrades and new releases instead of delaying them. We are comfortable with being uncomfortable. We are are early adopters. We take risks. We’re not afraid to be attacked. We’re not afraid to be labeled. When we discover something, we make our ideas a matter of public record. We are inventing new business models. We are most happy when we’re the first to do something.

So welcome technatives. The artists of tomorrow need us today to be the architects of the future. The lights are dimming, but our acute senses are already crafting ways in which we can capitalize change for the betterment of the art. Steve Jobs taught us that. Probably because was the very first technative. Steve made nerds cool and made artists nerds, all at the same time. That’s where I want to be. That’s where I feel normal.

| m |

iPad going invisible

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 22:06:41 -0700

On March 14th, Apple made good on a number of rumors with the release of its 3rd installment of iPad. While they don’t officially call it the iPad 3, people in my circle are quickly defining it as such so as to distinguish it from previous iterations.

About 2 weeks ago I had the pleasure of hosting a really cool group of people that belong to the Independent Filmmakers of the Inland Empire (IFIE) led by Eric Harnden. This was just before the latest iPad came out. It’s not uncommon for my company to host different groups and give tours of the facility. I always think that sharing knowledge with others trumps keeping it to yourself. That is why we pride ourselves as educators and do our best to maintain a transparent identity with the community. After the tours, myself and a few of my partners sat down to talk about tools, technology and techniques with the group. One of the members of IFIE asked a great question: “What is it that bothers you most about the current state of tools and technology?” I think a few of us gave answers because it’s always a rare opportunity to answer such a bold question. I think my colleagues and close friends commonly agree that what bothers us the most is the way in which technology can be an obstruction. It’s becoming clearer to us that there are people in different parts of the industry that are using technology in ways to influence or even validate their position. In some cases I feel there are types of people that are opportunistic, others are just part of a transition. But the equation remains:

As time goes on > Moore’s Law applies > new technology develops > people’s expectations go up > masters of the technology immerge > technology becomes innate > all people master it > need for masters goes away > and the cycle repeats

In other words, we are a society with the immense capability to acclimate. I think every sociologist would agree with that. And in that acclimation there are times where we need to be led, and then times where we take the lead. And in that transition to becoming a user/master/leader of a technique or technology the need for help dissipates. That is where some people use technology to create an overt level of complexity (in some cases unnecessarily), where the technology is literally designed to be a wall between the filmmaker and the end goal in order to justify existence. Almost no one does this maliciously, but this is a growing problem that few are able to detect until well after a technology has matured. After technological maturity and adaptation passes 2/3rds, the need for help becomes harder to justify. But it’s not all the fault of the masters, in fact some people ask me routinely, “Where do you think my job went?” I tell them the same metaphor, “Some hosts eventually accept the transplant.” Once a transplant is accepted, the host no longer needs a routine doctor or even medicine. But this isn’t all bad. I actually think for many it’s a sign of massive opportunity because as the cycle repeats, the same early masters of the technology can re-immerge and become new masters and lead people through the next wave! The mistake is when you ride the wave too long and wonder how you got so far out to sea.

And so comes quite possibly the world’s best example of this: the modern Apple company. This is a group of people who have found ways to repeat the cycle of architecting a new technology, then relying on masters to adapt it, then enabling everyone to adapt it, then making it so “normal” that the next iteration is accepted with less hesitation than the preceding cycle. They build and built upon this until they are not just leading the market, they (in many cases) control the market. An example of this is with Meg Whitman, CEO of HP, who recently spoke about a new tablet device HP is designing. She said it was going to be a great addition and impact on the tablet market. She was then corrected by someone in suggesting, “It’s not the tablet market, it’s the iPad market.” Apple iPad has greater than 90% in the tablet world…so if you want to get into the world of tablets, there is only one object to design against. And Apple is not selling people short, they start out their latest iPad introductory video with a statement that I identify with, I believe in, I focus on, and I want to live by example:

“We believe that technology is at its very best when it’s invisible.”

Man, I love that. I love realizing that the most complex item I own is the easiest to use. Could there be a better resolution to the evolution of the computer in which we initially measured them by size in square feet? Occam’s Razor suggests that the path of least resistance in a given problem is likely the best solution. When technology becomes invisible, then everyone can leverage its benefits. For some, that’s an invasion of space. For others, it’s purely liberating. And when I opened and turned on my new iPad, the cycle reset, fresh ideas poured in, and the technology continued to disappear.

3 years ago when the first iPad was announced I was in a meeting with a post production supervisor for a movie we were about to start shooting. I told her that 2 weeks after production started, the iPad 1 would come out and we would send a few to production for dailies viewing. She looks at me and says, “Why would anyone ever want to use an iPad for viewing dailies?” 3 years later, iPad dailies review has become the preferred method of image delivery (at least amongst my circle). The physically-limited endangered species known as “DVD” has been falling further and further behind the technological developments of file-based tools such as iPads. And when the rumors of a Retina displaying iPad was in the works, I knew that was the technological breakthrough that we needed in order to retire DVDs and tapes forever.

The A5X chip is enabling a major amount of pixels to be populated. With a screen of 2048x1536, the iPad is able to display nearly the exact same resolution of a 2K film scan. With 1 million pixels more than an HDTV, the new iPad is putting HDTV on notice. Consider this:

In 2002 Apple effectively told the music industry, “This is how you’re going to operate and why.”

-No one believed them.

In 2007 Apple effectively told the telecommunications industry, “This is how you’re going to operate and why.”

-Few believed them.

I predict in 2013 Apple will effectively tell the broadcast industry, “This is how you’re going to operate and why.”

-Who will believe them?

If I were laying the groundwork for taking on broadcasting and migrating it to broadbanding, I would need three major things:

1. I would start with releasing tools that enhance the viewing experience, not inhibit it (Retina). Every person that I show the new iPad to is literally floored with the pictures. And I realized this is the first step in getting consumers acclimated to images that make high definition seem mediocre.

2. I would need to find a way to integrate that tool into the existing monitoring system (televisions). Last year, Apple made a big push for AirPlay which allows you to easily and wirelessly push content from your computer or iPad to your television.

3. I would need a single place in which to control and distribute all content without the limitations of terrestrial broadcast, satellite or cable (Apple Television). While this hasn’t even been announced yet, I predict that Apple is building a device that enables the power of interconnected device control (iPhone, iPad, MacBook, etc) to a computer that is the hybrid of a television and computer in one. This cloud-centric device means you will control it with your phone (goodbye TV remote) and view what you want, when you want through an Apple Television application similar to iTunes (maybe iViews).

Clearly Apple has a plan and I think we’re experiencing some major foundational components that are required for the release. But that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy the isolated power of this latest chip set on the new iPad.

For me and my team, we took a moment to do some experiments with the display, the resolution and some high fidelity files that we had. First, we took some resolution charts and loaded them on the ipad to see how well the display handled. This picture is not the file itself, rather a 600dip, 6K (6299x4725) resolution file loaded onto the iPad, then screen captured on the iPad and off-loaded. The result is amazing. I can see nearly twice as deep into the zone as my 15” Macbook Pro.

***Note: the images on the Tumblr blog are 1/4 the resolution of the source. These frame grabs unfortunately do not exhibit the actual resolution of the iPad. For the exact files themselves, I encourage you to download and inspect them using my FTP site. You can find the images at:

webftp.lightiron.com

user: ipad

pass: resolution

This file does the same, only it shows 2K all the way to the edge without and banding or aliasing.

But the more important question is how does this affect dailies? I decided to go from some really good source material. I went to some high quality DI sources of some recent projects (The Muppets, Dragon Tattoo, Shanghai Calling, The Social Network) and decided to create some mock-dailies from this material. 2048 files are currently unaccepted by the iPad, so 2K dailies are possible on the Retina, but Apple will have to enable Quicktime decoding of that resolution in the future. Today we are limited to 1920x1080. So I made some H.264 files at 6Mbs, 8Mbs and 12Mbs per second. 8 and 12Mbs looked identical, so I’m considering a 1920 8Mbs H.264 the “butter zone” for iPad dailies. When I did this, I showed some of the content to a few of the DPs that shot these films who were conveniently in-house and the expression on their face was amazing. Not one, but two people actually said “it looks better than the DCP!” I agreed. With the brightness, contrast, detail, vibrance, texture and pure resolution of this display it literally takes on a characteristic all its own. While H.264 is not without its limits, what the latest iPad does with a good source outweighs the limits of the codec.

Here are some screen captures that were from the iPad itself. These were taken from a Muppets trailer at 8Mbs.

In frame one, notice how banding artifacts are very low.

In frame two, notice how Amy’s skin is soft and multi-coloered, yet her fly-away hairs remain alias free

In frame three, notice the smallest of details and the gradients of the the color separation

In frame four, notice the deep red, the sharp blue and the controlled blacks that do not clip

In frame five, notice how well low-light is rendered and displayed and even smoke is not breaking up and details don’t go too mushy on the sides.

By the above example, I believe the latest Apple iPad will have a major affect on the film industry and ultimately, the consumer exhibition industry. This is the first motion display device that works with consumer portability that out-resolves your home theater system. By a lot! A mere 4 years ago roughly 40% of the panel makers for HDTVs were still building 720p displays. And if you have not seen this device in person, I assure you: people will not need to be told the difference, they will instantly experience it. And what changes? That’s the best part, the technology in this devices is invisible. The migration to the latest iPad changes nothing about the ergonomics, the space, the touch and operation, and even the price change is minimal. This device is as much a portal into how clear the future will physically look as it is a nail in the coffin of DVDs. I am excited to begin offering dailies on this iPad immediately and it has nearly zero affect on the process in which we produce dailies today. And a device this advanced that automatically improves the quality work and doesn’t require one to change anything is, perhaps, what makes it, in fact, the most advanced. How transparent is that?

| m |

major league independents: Sundance 2012

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:52:19 -0800

It is no secret that independent film is the greenhouse for digital cinema trend development. Anyone arguing otherwise has not experienced the petri dish of digital development that the independent community is responsible for. And as much as filmmakers communicate with each other, it is the independent community (a common place where film-to-film in-breeding can often occur) where the story of “what is your movie?” is just as important as “how did you make your movie?”

My first Sundance Film Festival was in 2001 where I began to explore the roots of digital cinema through the stories of independent filmmakers who managed to successfully create a feature without the use of film. Even at that time, less than one year out of college, the interest of myself and my close friends was as much for the tools that storytellers use as it was for the stories themselves. It was at this time that Sundance took a very unique position on the concept of digital cinema, which was in its absolute infancy 12 years ago, by opening up what they called the “Technology Center.” Many patrons of the festival have no doubt visited the Technology Center, but in the early 2000’s, it was the most concentrated place to experience the most up-to-date developments of digital cinema. This place was so inspiring at the time that I visited it every day of the festival. Sometimes with my friends, and sometimes by myself. I caught myself talking to Sony about the F900 they showed off, Apple who showed Final Cut Pro 2, XPri, DVD printers and duplicators, Zeiss Digi Primes and Rorke Data raids capable of playing back uncompressed media were all over the room and they all had a role to play in the cultivation of a dramatic digital future. But the most profound impact it had on me was when I came to the most liberating conclusion: the tools that were being developed for digital cinema were merely upgrades of the tools that my friends were already familiar with…

Could that be true? Could the gap between the independent and studio worlds really be closed by digital technology? Could it be that simple?

In an attempt to define the word “gap” I would say that it’s not digital tools themselves that enabled independent movies to be any less independent. The word “independent” to us didn’t mean it looked better or was better, it didn’t mean it was more or less likely to be bought or that was more likely to be profitable. The term “independent” to us and many other filmmakers simply meant “freedom.” Freedom from the typical boundaries that studio projects were essentially forced to impose. For us, it was the digitally-driven technological advantages that simply made the cost of acquiring a project attainable to a degree that the money required for shooting and finishing on film was avoided and therefore put to better use. All the while narrowing the gap between independent films and studio films without the reduction any of a filmmakers aspiration for freedom.

Sundance seemed to recognize digital cinema’s sizable potential. 10 years ago, festival director Jonathan Wells said:

“Sundance’s increasing attention to digital filmmaking is really a stamp of approval. It gives recognition to this movement as viable and real. People from all of the [Hollywood] studios are in Park City, and they can suddenly see that digital filmmaking is something more than an amateur movement, something more than people running around with DV cameras.”

Wells was right. And 10 years later it took people like him, early adopting companies like SONY and Apple and festivals like Sundance that supported both independent freedom and digital tools to prove it could be done.

Even though Sundance looks a lot different in 2012 than it did in 2001, I think a decade of developing attainable tools and educating the community has paid off, but the bulk of that work was built for and in many cases by the independent community. It was this community that believed they could, in fact, improve exponentially and unearth ways to ameliorate the look and sound of their projects so they could syphon dollars away from the expense of high fidelity image acquisition and relocate it to more valuable areas of the budget. After moving to Los Angeles in 2001, myself and a group of my close friends dedicated our full-time employment to the cultivation of a company that delivered a professional independent resource to the community. Over 150 independents later, our “digital version” of Sundance truly moved from an amateur movement to center stage.

Through this objective, 2012 marks a year in which Sundance has become essentially a nearly digitally-exclusive film festival with not only the near-elimination of all exhibition prints, but the near-elimination of all acquisition celluloid. While this doesn’t change the potential for films to be all that different from decades past, it does improve the possibility to showcase works that without digital, may never have made it to center stage in the first place. This is true with 2 films that we had a hand in making that are being showcased at Sundance 2012. ”Goats,” directed by Chris Neil and photographed on the Arri Alexa by Wyatt Troll and “I Am Not A Hipster,” directed by Destin Cretton, photographed on RED MX by Brett Pawlak and produced by Ron Najor (one of my 2001 Sundance Tech Center friends) are the modern-day benefactors of a decade of digital cinema maturity.

That cinema maturity can partially be measured by how these films are made, which is where the notion of becoming a “master of the craft” is evolving. In the past, it was typical for post production infrastructures to offer a unique and often specialized “independent” pipeline that was designed to enable independent films opportunities to share access to talent and tools that were previously reserved for studio-driven projects. Only as the years went on, I find it has become the studio-driven projects that now share access to the tools and talent that were initially designed for independents. This “technological serendipity” is where I base one of my more popular theories of market development called “Evolving Creative Democratization.” In an ECD model, it is a bottom-up culmination of technological development that takes advantage of disruptive technologies and matures over 3-5 years until they are eventually adapted by studio-driven projects and ultimately become workflows, pipelines and even the standards for making any project. Nevermind the budget, the project origins or the intended destination. After this bottom-up approach reaches the apex of the motion picture community, new advancements from the top then work their way back down to the independent, further fueling the cycle.

Major league independents like Goats and Hipster are perfect examples of the ECD model in that they represent a process of filmmaking that is no longer unique (or limited) to an independent film. For example, Goats was shot on the Arri Alexa using the ProRes capture mode on SONY SxS cards. ProRes is a format that was never initially designed to be used for acquisition, rather a simpler alternative to uncompressed mastering and moving data at the same quality of an uncompressed signal at a fraction of the size. Initially controlled by Apple and for use on Final Cut Pro machines, ProRes was a massive leap for independents to move and use data with the look of uncompressed HD and the performance of DV25 video. With the release of the Arri Alexa, this model was essentially turned upside-down and ProRes became the point of capture for an estimated 90% of digitally acquired dramatic television shows in 2011. The result for a film like Goats is that the workflows pioneered by independents for nearly a decade paved the way for compressed high fidelity RGB capture and led to its use as a new capture medium. The workflow for a small independent film like Goats was cured by professional network television enabling an independent to take advantage of higher end professional development dollars and, thus, capitalizing on it. When people watch Goats on the big screen at Sundance, they are, in effect, simply watching a Quicktime movie. On paper, for people that use the most common independent creative editorial tool, Final Cut Pro, this workflow is something everyone on the production can not only get behind, but more importantly, can understand.

Similarly, Hipster is a project that represents an even more powerful ECD model in which a production with few resources is able to shoot in future-proof 4K files which almost certainly out-performs the resolution potential of the movie had it been shot on film. The workflow of Hipster used ProRes files only as offline media, then relinked back to the original 4K source and was color corrected to look like it was filtered using the iPhone application “Hipstamatic.” This process used the same color science, resolution and even toolsets that we regularly use on Hollywood’s biggest films. The workflow of Hipster basically is a mirror image of the workflow we used on 2010’s “The Social Network.” From camera to creative and technical processes, there is essentially no technical difference between TSN, Muppets or Haywire and Hipster, and Hipster spared no expense achieving the same fidelity and mobility as one of Sony’s largest films last year. For the smartest independent filmmakers, we find that mastery of the technology simply enables them to get the technology out of the way. Independents that seek or are enticed to uncover a unique or specialized workflow often leave something on the table. So I suggest to independents who understand these tools to avoid temptations of implementing an alternative pipeline when “the alternative” might not be “the ideal.”

For people attending Sundance, Goats is a fantastic film. It appears just about as professional as an independent movie can get (if there is such a thing). If it came off any more professional, I’m convinced people would assume it was studio-backed. With a leader like Chris and a film as well shot and told as it is, Goats is the ideal representation of using the technology to work for you instead of letting technology get ahold of you. In contrast, I Am Not A Hipster is literally as independent as it gets. It is clear that this film is made by a group truly creative friends that simply put together a story and photographed it with a camera on their shoulder. Examining these particular two titles is a testament to the difference of creative style and divergent stories. But under the hood, these films represent the brightest of futures for what digital cinema offers. For some films, it’s not about shooting something better, faster or cheaper. For some films, it’s about being able to do it at all.

| m |

The DI Difference of HAYWIRE

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:19:00 -0800

Last year, Light Iron had the opportunity to collaborate with director Steven Soderbergh and his top-notch post crew on his action-thriller, Haywire. This is a director who’s outstanding credits and generous personality make him an absolute pleasure to deal with, but what many people forget is how avant guard he really is. Back in 2007, Steven was the first true champion of 4K digital cinema as he shot 2 features back-to-back on the first RED cameras. As I’ve come to understand it, these were cameras that literally ran on the bare bones. We’re talking the most minimal of functionality and he managed to shoot two movies (“Che Pt1” and “Che Pt2”) that still hold up to today’s digital cinematography advancements…and he did it in the jungle. In 2009 we collaborated with him and his team on “The Informant” and altogether Steven has shot 8 feature films on various RED cameras and even provided cameras to other noteworthy directors and projects when he’s not shooting. It’s easy to forget the early days and these early leaders of the digital cinema transformation. In 2007, shooting major motion pictures digitally was still new and shooting them on files instead of tape was virtually non-existant. I think it’s critical to continue recognizing the people who slowly but surely helped pave the roads we so swiftly drive on. If digital cinema had its own country, Steven would probably be President.

Steven’s latest release, Haywire, brings to the screen some concepts that are relatively still “new” to digital cinema. Haywire is a film shot anamorphic and on a 16:9 native sensor, anamorphic is a bit tricker to deal with. Using Hawk lenses, this film has an amazing texture that differentiates it from other digital images. These 2x Hawks actually are designed for digital cameras so they can cover a 1.33 area of a 1.77 (in this case 1.89) sensor. The de-squeeze on the image takes advantage of the higher pixel count (in this case) of the RED MX and simultaneously allows for a reduction in overall resolution by not sampling the entire sensor. When you see the pictures and you evaluate what makes them look the way they look, it really is coming largely from the lenses themselves. But there are two results that are happening from this:

First, you are seeing a high resolution camera only sampling about 75% of it’s pixels. That has an affect on the overall “precision” of the picture. Secondly, the anamorphic glass means we have to de-squeeze the picture and stretch it from 1.33 to (essentially) 2.40. Once we do that, we end up with a scope picture that literally takes square pixels from the sensor and makes them oblong rectangles. The combination of less source resolution (4K to 3K) and stretching to fill a 2.40:1 aperture makes for a beautiful texture that goes well beyond the typical lens flares. I think this makes the images more accepting of natural and enhanced vignettes and concentrates focus to the center of the frame as the edges tend to fall off fairly quickly. A simple summation of the look of Haywire is this: optically driven texture. People have been using optics and filtration to get looks for over a hundred years. I always find it silly when people criticize an unfiltered digital image on modern spherical glass and say “it doesn’t look like film.” -No kidding.

Altogether, for people that want to explore a more gentle, classic texture, Haywire is a great example and shows off a technique that is sadly not yet very popular on the big screen with digital cameras - partially due to sensor design and anamorphic lens availability. But all that is starting to change as people see better looking digital cinema and the sensors increase in resolution and are better optimized for more textured glass like Hawks.

In the below stills, notice the vignetting, which is sometimes enhanced in DI, but it’s sourced in the lenses themselves.

Notice the falloff of focus from the center, even on the same focus plane. This is a nice touch to achieving a classic look with a digital camera.

The Hawks in combination with the smaller sensor area (3K) and filtration make for a very smooth textured image that looks organic, appropriately “imperfect,” colorful and smooth.

But there is another component of Haywire that I found interesting on this project and it has to do with the way in which the post workflow was evolving at the time of the DI.

In my company, we tend to favor a workflow that utilizes DPX frames as a means for optimized image manipulation. This goes for RED RAW files as well as P2 or XDCAM media. It is common for people to discuss the pros and cons of RAW image accessibility in DI vs. pre-debayered image accessibility, and I’ve been vocal that native support isn’t always a choice we have. Sometimes it’s the tool that controls the workflow, other times is the client and other times its the nature of the project (a feature with 1000+ visual effects, for example). But on Haywire, because the film was anamorphic, the director wanted to work with full resolution and still have access not only to the RAW files but to be able to do some color manipulation himself. It was at this time that the idea of exploring RESOLVE for the MAC came to our attention and the decision was made to grade Haywire on a Macintosh. There were two major components that made this idea very interesting:

1. We were excited about the prospect of pushing Resolve on a Mac in a large feature setting

2. We were interested in exploring the pros and cons of using native 3K anamorphic R3D files throughout the process

On Haywire, colorist Corinne Bogdanowicz used the latest release build of DaVinici Resolve for the Mac. At the time it was still version 7, which was first major version since BlackMagic Design acquired DaVinici in early 2010. First and foremost, Resolve has come a long way since version 7 and that’s important to this story, but on the other hand, I was excited and impressed that BlackMagic had decided to unleash this technology at a price point that made it accessible for anyone who has a computer ($1,000). Our system included a 12-core MacPro, RedRocket cart, Decklink HD card, NVIDA QuadroFX4000 and the Resolve panel surface. Because of the way BlackMagic does business, most people can get these components fairly quickly and fairly easily, which is a massive pro in my opinion as I am an advocate for accessibility of technology. But the challenge of Haywire was to work at full resolution in an anamorphic setting on a 6 reel feature film. This is where the real challenge came about that pushed Resolve and the Mac to the limits:

***Remember: EPIC and RED MX in anamorphic mode shoot an aspect ratio of 1.22:1***

1. We have a 3K anamorphic source R3D picture (2816x2304) which is roughly 6 megapixles

(this is 3x larger than standard DCI 2K and 3.5x larger than HDTV 1080p)

2. We have to debayer every frame using the RedRocket card at 24 frames per second

3. We have to desqueeze the X (east and west) every frame using the graphics card to 1.5x = 4224

4. We have to desqueeze the Y (north and south) every frame using the graphics card to .75 = 1728

(“Y” desqueezes are always 50% of the X)

This leaves us with the desqueezed resolution of 4224x1728. That’s the equivalent aspect ratio of 2.44:1 in 4K. So even though Haywire starts in 3K anamorphic, it ends up turning into 4K and the rendered grades, shapes, results, titles and visual effects needed to be all calculated in 4K.

5. Because the picture is 2.44, we are a little too big for cinema, so we have to crop about 1% off every frame and do a center extraction of 1% in order to make it fit academy 2.40:1

6. Then we take every debayered, desqueezed, cropped and center-extracted frame and scale it down 2048x1080 (2K projection on a Christie CP2000)

Each frame as it is played must go through every one of these steps prior to color correction. Only after these calculations are performed can we start to color correct…

For a Mac, a medium-qualtiy graphics card, a RedRocket and a Decklink, we pushed this machine to the edge. Literally. The amount of calculations over the course of 9 hour coloring days was so substantial that we had to remove the side panel of the computer and blow cool air into the machine while Corinne worked in order to keep it from overheating. There was a point in which CTO Chris Peariso actually burned himself on the NVIDIA card when inspecting it close up! If you look at the above list, this is a significant amount of cycles that are being taken up by a tremendous amount of on-the-fly geometry and playback, thus leaving less cycles available for color and image manipulation. This is something that owners need to consider if they’re exploring Resolve on a 4K anamorphic level with substantial VFX and plan on running it 60+ hours a week. Granted, Rev8 has included massive improvements which were unavailable to Haywire at the time, and this was the first time we used Resolve on the Mac with so many pre-grading calculations (which are not common for every project). But given these circumstances, were we disappointed? Of course not! This was somewhat of a controlled experiment that Steven himself wanted to explore. But I can say at the time we’re fairly confident Haywire was pushing a MacPro-based Resolve system to its absolute limit. And we were collectively in favor of seeing where it could go.

Since then, Resolve version 8 has been released and further enhanced the the power that can be harnessed inside a MacPro. BlackMagic has released a free version (Resolve Lite) and opened up control surface support to multiple systems starting as low as $1,000. We use Resolve systems on our mobile post lab systems, OUTPOST, and I see Resolve’s used on set all over the world. Resolve is a tool that is changing the face of image manipulation and it’s clearly picking up where Apple left off. But what impact will Resolve have on the industry as time goes on? Clearly there is friction amongst companies that paid $500,000 36 months ago for a system that I now run on my laptop. Clearly there is controversy stemming from a company like BlackMagic that is transitioning into selling products that require support contracts. And clearly there is optimism amongst a rapidly growing set of users that finally have an opportunity to practice and develop skills on the most popular coloring system in the professional world. I believe all of these concepts ultimately point to positive things, but the industry will have to sift through a few more growing pains until this topic finally stabilizes.

Working with the Resolve on Haywire represents a great style of DI pipeline and clearly demonstrates the level of evolving creative democratization the industry is experiencing. I want to encourage people who are exploring Resolve on all levels to keep at it because the evidence put out by BlackMagic over the past 3 years suggest they will surely keep at it, too. And while there are major benefits to the power working with R3Ds natively, there is a downside when faced with a tremendous amount of source footage in the conform (which can have an affect on GPU performance) as well as the cycles required to manage the complex arithmetic brought on by complex projects like Haywire. It is for this reason that we still favor the Quantel Pablo system, which is capable of working with native files such as R3Ds, but we choose to pre-debayer them into uncompressed files so that the load is lessened and the computer spreads the tasks of geometry, color, scaling, debayer, decode, etc., across more processors (pic-stores) which improves overall performance, speed and reliability. Unlike GPU-based systems like Resolve, pic-stores enable tasks to be farmed out to many dedicated parts of the machine, instead of a few. It is also why even on Haywire why we used the Pablo for the final mastering, titles and versioning outputs to different color spaces, resolutions and aspect ratios. It goes to show there will never be one way or “the best way” to do any task. As the tools evolve, the best users are the ones who learn and experience the pros and cons of every system and use the right tools on the right jobs, regardless (sometimes) of how many it takes.

But in the case of this subject, the most important thing to note is that Haywire was mastered in 4K (anamorphic) and was conformed and graded on a DaVinci Resolve using not much more than standard and available tools that fit inside your off-the-shelf MacPro. That, on every level, is significant.

| m |

4K+ Digital Intermediate

Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:33:10 -0800

If you really wanted to make a 4K end-to-end movie, what would that entail?

While myself and my team have been working with 4K material for close to 4 years, we recently got a chance to perform the mastering of our first 4K internationally delivered feature film; The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

In a way, it was really the summation of 4 and 1/2 years of planning that led to the 4K execution of this film and I am confident that enough audiences will feel the benefits of 4K to warrant a rapid international expansion. But as people all over the world begin to plan for 4K, this post is meant to discuss some of the technical and creative challenges we faced that may help people cultivate sound workflows so that 4K technology itself doesn’t get in the way of the creative process.

First and foremost, I must thank the director, David Fincher, director of photography, Jeff Cronenweth, post supervisor, Peter Mavromates and assistant editor, Tyler Nelson for allowing my company and my team to collaborate with them on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. These individuals are truly masters of their craft and I believe they are sincerely pushing art and technology in a direction that needs leadership as well as fearless augmentation. Regardless of how you feel about the past few movies this team has made, if you are going to make a 4K movie going forward, simply doing what David does is a great place to start.

OVERVIEW
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (GDT) is an end-to-end file-based feature film that represents much of the greatest technology available to us at this time. This includes cameras, codecs, color science, software, hardware, projection and distribution techniques that I am confident have never been used altogether, and at this level and at this speed. A good example of this is that when we were finishing The Social Network in September of 2010, GDT began shooting overseas in Sweden. At that time, the newest RED camera, EPIC, had not been fully completed and was not ready for use as principle photography began on GDT. By December, we started using the first EPIC’s on SONY’s THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN (3D) which planned to shoot nearly 100% in Los Angeles. With EPIC being “battle-tested” on SPIDERMAN, development on the camera and its stability took place mostly in Los Angeles while GDT shot on the RED One MX camera. Due to this scheduling, approximately 2/3rds of GDT was photographed using the RED ONE MX camera and 1/3rd captured on EPIC after camera builds matured.

There are scores of incredible moments in GDT that I believe audiences as well as filmmakers are going to be talking about for some time. David’s talent has a way of rubbing off on people who admire his work and this film is full of these moments. However I wish to highlight some noteworthy components which fashioned a technical and creative blend that I believe all filmmakers should consider…or at least aware of.

4K DATA

GDT is approximately 230,000 frames long. Due to the amount of visual effects in this film and timeline for editorial, vfx, conform and DI, the film was debayered to 10bit DPX files in 4K and 5K respectively in a 2:1 aspect ratio. RED MX files came in at 4352x2176 and EPIC files came in at 5120x2560. These files averaged out to be approximately 45MBs per frame. For those of you doing the math, this comes to a little over 1GB per second of data. It also means that much of the DI was done at 5K, not 4K. That’s roughly 33% larger than 4K. I was recently asked in an interview “What are 3 things people should be concerned about when preparing for a 4K future?” The answer is simple:

1. Playback

2. Playback

3. Playback

Most feature releases with heavy visual effects pipelines are going to need to do everything uncompressed. This is not the only choice people have, but it is the best choice when dealing with a 50%+ VFX ratio. It’s also an ideal way to work when there are numerous parts of the process being worked on simultaneously. But many people get concerned they will need a lot of space for 4K, which isn’t necessarily the case. With files that exceed 1GB per second, it’s not all about capacity. Today’s market for a single gigabyte of storage space is around $0.20 USD. So it is likely that many people have enough storage to easily hold a 4K movie in its uncompressed state. In the case of GDT, the uncompressed elements were approximately 55 terabytes of total storage. On the whole, that’s not that much storage-probably only around $25,000 worth of actual drives. But probably what many will need to consider is the speed in which these drives will need to play back reliably. At 1GB per second, drives need to be configured in two ways:

1. PLAYBACK DRIVES need to be optimized for a minimum of 1.5 gigabytes per second sustained playback per stream of playback. Drives will need to be raid protected (which slows them down) and need to be large enough that no more than 60% of them are full at any one time (or they slow down again). Plus, when dealing with the scale and schedule of a 4K DI, drives need to be configured to play more than one stream or version of the film simultaneously.

2. SHUTTLE DRIVES need to be optimized for a minimum of 500 megabytes per second sustained transfer rates. After a DI is complete, there are many agencies that need copies of the finished files which need to be delivered in a timely manner. FireWire or eSata are not possible for use of transferring because their bandwidth limit is far slower than considered acceptable (eSata tops-out around 300MB/s or 3x real time). Most of our transfer times on projects are scheduled to meet REAL TIME requirements. However with today’s drive technology, a series of small portable disks cannot currently achieve 1GB per second, so we have to settle for 500+ megabytes per second, which is as good as we can do right now. This means transfer times are approximately 2x real time, which is slow, but manageable. Li and the GDT team worked with MAXX Digital who helped optimize small shuttle SAS drives we call “shoeboxes” that enable us to move data at around 600 megabytes per second. Nearly 2/3rds real time, these small shoeboxes were used to move data to and from Light Iron as well as various other vendors dealing with the film on a 1-reel-per-shoebox configuration. This meant reels in their various stages could be managed in smaller, self contained volumes which made things a bit easier to track and manage without too much waiting time.

LIGHT IRON 12TB SAS SHOEBOX DRIVE

Putting this into practice, as we were getting down to the final push, it was common to have 2 reels of the film actively playing back, 1 reel of the an output being QC’d and another reel being transferred. This means our collective network was peaking around 4 gigabytes per second. Li post producer, Katie Fellion prepared the facility ahead of time by implementing techniques with CTO Chris Peariso so that 4 gigabytes per second would be achievable. My advice to the community is to perform benchmark tests well ahead of time so that the grading, QC and transferring are not affected in a network “tug-of-war” so that each of these steps can be executed without inhibiting the work in the room next door.

When most films are in DI, it is common to complete each stage and move the film from point A to B to C. With GDT, we were aware ahead of time the delivery might not allow for such time. So as the film was being finished, we created an assembly line-much like a car assembly-to which finished DCI P3 reels would be output, converted through 32-vertices cubes for film record, QC’d and transferred all at the same time. With a 9 reel film, a common step-by-step example of this data assembly line looked something like this, all happening at once:

• Reel 5 in the color assist bay with Monique Eissing being prepared for the final color pass (Theater 3 using Quantel Pablo #2)

• Reel 4 undergoing the final color pass in the premiere color bay with the client by Ian Vertovec (Theater 1 using Quantel Pablo #1)

• Reel 3 being converted from DCI P3 to film log (using a 12-core MacPro)

• Reel 2 being transferred to a shuttle shoebox drive (using a 12-core MacPro)

• Reel 1 being QC’d for the conversion from P3 to film log (Theater 2 using DVS Cliptster)

As the world continues to become more and more comfortable with 4K, post production teams will need to not only increase the capacity of their networks, but more importantly the bandwidth that it shares amongst users. BlackMagic makes a great free speed test tool that helped us evaluate your system performances and address potential bottle-necks in the process. As 4K becomes more and more routine for people, I recommend building an assembly-like plan and bench-marking all of your I/O speeds in each phase of the process. This will help you find cracks in the system and address them instead of investing in drives that you don’t need.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/blackmagic-disk-speed-test/id425264550?mt=12

BLACK MAGIC DESIGN DISK SPEED TEST

4K FRAMING

On The Social Network, David utilized a technique that allowed him ample choices for reframing and stabilization by capturing 4K and 5K images with a 10% look-around pad that was pre-framed in camera. In the case of GDT, because EPIC was used, the look-around image could be increased to roughly a 20% pad. In the past when shooting film, it was common for people to frame differently from what the viewfinder or gate was photographing on the original negative (hence one of the needs for shooting framing charts). With HD video cameras, there is not enough resolution to accomplish this and cameras typically displayed what they were recording with no look-arond area or padding. The result was more of a “WYSIWYG” (what you see is what you get) in terms of limited framing and limited resolution. With EPIC, I believe David’s technique of a 20% look-around is something filmmakers should consider on all projects. The ability to take advantage of ample look-around space becomes a key component in reframing and stabilization (which are techniques being adapted by more filmmakers and more departments) but this reframing also allows for a much better transition to varying aspect ratios in different deliveries. For example, GDT was photographed in 5K 2:1 and the theatrical release aperture is 2.40:1. But with the 20% padding, the same plate was used without the 2.40:1 matte which made it tall enough to be used in 1.78:1 versions that are required for different broadcast deliverables. This means the film did not have to go through the typical 1.78:1 blow-up in order to fit 16:9 correctly. The result is a visible improvement in image quality for broadcast deliverables, which is increased by shooting 5K for 4K.

On top of this, by doing a center extraction, there turned out to be (what I consider) an accidental benefit: By shooting 5K with a 4K center extraction (or “5K for 4K”), images shot on the EPIC undergo a subtle texture change. The texture becomes a bit smoother because the bayer-pattern pixels are not scaled down from 5K to 4K, rather they are instead cropped to 4K. While still clearly boasting a 4K feel, the subtle difference between a scale and a crop presented what I consider an aesthetic benefit that came somewhat unexpected.

Below is the framing chart for the EPIC on GDT that was created by AE Tyler Nelson. Because EPIC’s native resolution is so significant, one can create their own custom extraction that suits the project. There are numerous technical benefits, such as enhanced look-around, lens millimeters re-line up, older or wider lenses do not vignette, etc. But the slight difference in image texture due to the crop is the one that I think many people will like. There are many ways to get the image texture of any camera to be different based on optics, but when that option isn’t available or ideal, consider this technique which is responsible for the pixel texture you will see in 4K and 2K projections of the film.

GDT EPIC CENTER-EXTRACTION FRAMING CHART

4K TOOLS

Sometime during the long nights of delivering the film, I was passing by my server room on my way to deliver a shoebox drive to the vault. There was a point where I stopped and something hit me I hadn’t realized before: I was staring at all the blinking lights in the doorway of the server room (as most people know, blinking lights represent drive read and write accessing. -The more blinking, the more disk activity) and I it struck me how small and powerful the overall arsenal of tools has become in order to produce the type of content we’re producing these days. In other words, what struck me as remarkable is that the hardware infrastructure required to move, manage and manipulate all that 4K data was manifested right in front of me in those tiny blinking lights. Like a bulldog, this small array of technology was all it takes to push movie after movie out, 2D, 3D and 4K, version after version after version. I was recently at a post production facility auction and watched tens of millions of dollars of a 5-10 year old infrastructure go for a fraction of the price. After seeing powerful and popular equipment literally given away at the auction, it was clear that the tools that lost all of their value were tools that performed a single task. This small array of computers is exactly where the name “Light Iron” comes from: the blending of both light and big-iron systems together to stay nimble, remain efficient and manage the simplest and most complex tasks respectively.

With little exaggeration, the GDT DI required the use of just a few main components pictured below. 2x Quantel Pablo’s, 2x DVS Clipsters, 2x 12-core MacPro’s and a few dozen terabytes of storage that was optimized for multi-stream 4K playback. This is not the only way to do a 4K DI, but my advice to people exploring 4K DI is to make investments in systems that perform dozens of tasks and lower the reliance on tools that are powerful, but specific to a single job. Most super-computer systems people can buy today are capable of numerous tasks and cost less than single-task systems 5-10 years ago. Our infrastructure is a good example of one way to get the job done, which is why we started with a single set of this gear combination and continued to duplicate the tools as the company grew.

LIGHT IRON SERVER ROOM DOORWAY

4K LOOK

About midway through the DI of GDT, I went into the theater to talk to Ian and he told me to sit down as he wanted to show me something. He then pulled up some sections of the film which had only recently received their first color pass. He told me to watch this scene play and pay close attention to the skin tones. ”There’s that term again,” I thought, “skin tones…” Skin tones is a phrase I hear thrown around all over the place (sort of like workflow, which I’m also sick of hearing) but I find it has become the latest flagship criticism for what makes a poor digital camera image. In the past there have been numerous (what I call) “flagship criticisms” of digital cameras such incorrect framerate, low resolution, shutter type, deep depth of field, weak dynamic range, limited sensor technology, and so on. Today’s flavor of digital criticism just happens to be skin tone and tomorrow it will be something else. You watch the goal posts move…

Anyway, Ian has always been able to get good skin tones on numerous cameras, but this was something different. Much of what one can get in good skin tones does, in fact, start with the camera. Greater bit depth and more resolution is certainly going to help, but it also comes down to the exact range in which the skin is initially exposed. This critical range, perhaps just at or over key, enables an image with massive bit depth to undergo significant and more precise separation. This pushing and pulling of the image at the perfect exposure in the exact area of skin allows a DI artist to really find a way to reveal what is in the skin. Ian says to me “magazines have convinced a lot of people that good skin tone is about concealing of detail…sometimes to the point of a blatant blur. But beauty in faces shouldn’t be concealing, rather revealing.” Ian goes on, “When I work on a film, I challenge concealment (in a sense) by attempting to reveal everything in detail.” Ian doesn’t mean he wants to show off wrinkles or scars, but the more you see of someones true face, the more their face can be read thus the more realistic or perhaps better they look.

So Ian then plays a few scenes that demonstrate this very well. In reel 8 (about 2 hours into GDT) there are some good examples of this technique through a few shots of extreme closeups. These shots are truly full screen faces on their sides-to which Ian spent a lot of time massaging this sequence to pull as much color and separation as he could. Ian said to me “When you at your hand you will see the real nuances of what makes up true skin tone. Human skin has yellow, red, green, blue, brown and subtle colors in-between. I worked hard to isolate this outer-beauty and brought out as much of these subtleties as I could and let the millions of colors in their faces reveal exactly who they are.”

Doing this isn’t as simple as an actor having good skin. In DI, we need to have a color pipeline, a color tool and color talent that is designed to identify, manage and preserve this level of color separation. For more than a decade, people have been using film emulations and lookup tables to act as transforms of digital images into film. But what we have been able to observe is that if you look at things through a film lut, you are blending some colors together. So the dimension of some digital subtleties may go into a film lut and come out the other end as a single color. This doesn’t mean you can’t get good skin tones until now, but we believe it does mean today’s level of precision has improved over film and that the bar, once again, is raised. This is one of the best reasons to let files behave natively instead of filtering them through a film lut transform. GDT is one example from Ian’s work that followed this design and complex, controlled and revealing skin tones are a direct result.

4K DISTRIBUTION

GDT is a film that is truly taking advantage of the times we live in. While GDT is not at all the first 4K film, it is the first 4K film to be seen by mass audiences thanks to very recent developments from a number of agencies and technologies world wide. The exact numbers are difficult to quantify partially because they are changing so much and partially because they are managed by numerous companies. But the second half of 2011 showed a tremendous leap in the long-promised 4K digital cinema rollout and GDT happens to be perfectly timed to take advantage of the progress. Some estimations suggest 60% of screens are digitally screening GDT world-wide. That could mean people on average have a more likely chance of seeing it digitally than a print - even in smaller cities. There have been publications that predict the 2012 summer rollout may reach their target of 75% digital conversion in North America mid next year. This is some of the best news for cinema in general and is going to give to theaters what HD did for television in 2004. SONY produced GDT and as a technology company, made the right choice in preserving this film for the future. When a project is green-lit, not everyone is thinking about 4K and the way digital films will look in the future. That’s why shooting 4K is still a relatively new concept. And it is clear by watching the industry that some people are realizing the impact of 4K in capture and others are clearly not. But once people commit to shooting in 4K, the next phase is to convince people to do the VFX in 4K, which is difficult and often is the main barrier to 4K finishing. The next phase is to master everything in 4K, which is rare but happening more and more. The last and most difficult phase is to take the entire package and distribute it in 4K on both DCPs and 4K prints. Alongside the filmmakers, SONY seemed to clearly recognize the importance of this need, and have been pushing 4K on a lot of their Columbia films slated for 2012 release including The Amazing Spiderman. SONY professional has reportedly sold approximately 17,000 4K projectors which are being installed this year and next. Of 45,000 screens in North America, it is possible that over 1/3rd of them will be 4K by the time SONY is done with the installations in 2012.

What all of that means to me is that the creativity behind the crafting of these masterpieces can finally be seen by audiences without excuses. Each of us as filmmakers-whatever our department-need to consider the impact that 4K digital cinema has on what we do for a living. For many, 4K has become a criticism because of how it impacts the process. But I believe a serious impact like 4K gives us the opportunity to measure ourselves and therefore find motivation in how we change instead of asking should we change. 4K should change how we use makeup. 4K should change how we dress a set. 4K should change how we perform, direct, shoot, edit, affect and manipulate because we are no longer able to hide behind the imperfections of an exhibition format long overdue for extinction. If there is a criticism that “digital shows all” then I am totally for it. If the net iteration of your craft reveals more, then learn how to use it. I am a firm believer that it is unwise to change something for the sake of change. But I strongly believe in radical change when the change is unquestionably superior. Digital 4K capture, 4K effecting and 4K distribution is the 1-2-3 punch that movies have desperately needed ever since digital tools stepped into the ring. 15 years since the early experimentation of digital intermediate, we finally have the tools in place to do something that motion picture film was never able to do before:

Until now, audiences were given copies of copies of copies in order to see a movie. A four-point variation in color balance per channel and per reel was considered acceptable. Color balance, softening, distortion over time, high speed printing and lower-cost release stocks all contributed to making the mass distribution of great films a second-rate version the source at best.

Today, for the first time ever on this scale, thanks to more than 5 years of infrastructure and development of end-to-end 4K, mass audiences will see pictures from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as good as the filmmakers who created it.

It’s about time.

| m |

DRAGON TATTOO 4K DI WORKFLOW OVERVIEW

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:30:10 -0800

Thank you to Debra Kaufman who conducted this interview about our recent 4K DI workflow on “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” On this film, the director and editorial team presented a series of new and interesting challenges which enabled all of to explore territory we had not previously been before.

That last sentence, all by itself, is exactly why we do this.

Debra Kaufman
Santa Monica California USA

©2011 CreativeCOW.net. All rights reserved.

Article Focus:
Re-teaming with director David Fincher after their successful collaboration on The Social Network, Michael Cioni and the team at Light Iron built 5K workflows for real time, full resolution post for Fincher’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The running time of the 4K print is 2:38, creating a data size larger than six 2K features combined. Cioni and Light Iron co-founder Ian Vertovec spoke to Creative COW’s Debra Kaufman about how working that way in real time is even possible, working with David Fincher, and what frame sizes larger than 4K mean for all of us.

Re-teaming with director David Fincher after their successful collaboration on The Social Network, Michael Cioni and the team at Light Iron built 5K workflows for real time, full resolution post for Fincher’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The running time of the 4K print is 2:38, with a data size larger than six 2K features combined!

Michael Cioni, CEO of Light Iron, is a champion of 4K data-based workflows. Prior to starting Light Iron, he co-founded and built PlasterCITY Digital Post, a desktop-based post production facility in 2003. Michael has served as a Digital Intermediate supervisor on hundreds of feature films, and provided 2D and 3D data-centric post services and support for many film and TV projects.

As a founding member and instructor at REDucation, RED Digital Cinema’s training program, Michael is a strong proponent of empowering clients through education. He sits on the Board of Directors of the Hollywood Post Alliance and Filmmakers Alliance and was an adjunct faculty member at USC’s Annenberg School of Journalism.

Ian Vertovec, co-founder of Light Iron and PlasterCITY Digital Post, is a supervising colorist. In addition to many music video and commercial credits, Ian has also been colorist on numerous feature films including The Social Network,Goats, and Street Kings 2.

Cioni and Vertovec spoke to Creative COW’s Debra Kaufman about what it takes to work with full-res files larger than 4K in real time — on multiple workstations no less - working with David Fincher, and what frame sizes larger than 4K mean for all of us.

MICHAEL CIONI: To describe what Light Iron did on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I think the best place to start is to talk about our new facility in Hollywood. When we mastered The Social Network last year, we didn’t have a facility, so we worked at RED Studios. When planning the layout of our new facility, we wanted to build it so that individuals like David Fincher would feel creatively and technically comfortable. Looking towards the technological future as David does, and embracing the demands he places on facilities, we had to get down to the tiniest details to build this facility to be the highest fidelity. We wanted to build a future-proof facility with, for example, a network capable of moving multiple gigabytes of data per second, 4K projection and non-perf projection screens, which look a lot better than the more typical perforated screens.

Most importantly, our facility offers a fully viable 4K pipeline and the ability to master in 4K and beyond. Dragon Tattoo was shot on location in Sweden over 167 days, using the RED Epic MX and Epic, which shot 4.5K and 5K resolutions respectively. The shoot produced 483 hours of footage; they printed 443 hours of footage, which translates to over 1.9 million feet of film in 3-perf. This is among the largest 4K movies ever delivered, if not the largest. At 2 hours and 38 minutes, it consists of almost a quarter of a million frames at 45 megabytes each.

The post team that worked together on Fincher’s The Social Network reunited on this picture: editors Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter, assistant editor Tyler Nelson and colorist Ian Vertovec.

IAN VERTOVEC: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the type of film we built the facility for. It’s a purely data-centric movie with a very progressive workflow. A lot of people who design 4K equipment benchmark it at 4096; once it gets larger — Dragon Tattoo was done at 4352x2176 — things tend to slow down. This is why we initially designed Light Iron for a larger-than-4K pipeline.
The facility was also designed to be totally data-centric. We’re working very traditionally in the DI theatre with the colorist and the cinematographer and director, all looking at the output of our 2KChristie DLP projector. We did all the color correction off that 2K Christie and then viewed the DCP on a 4K Barco, which is in the same projection booth.

CIONI: A common question I hear is, are we a 2K or 4K industry? Most people say we’re 2K but we’re going towards 4K. That is to say, the technology is in transition. To do a 4K movie now we temporarily need both projectors. The 4K technology hasn’t matured enough to use it exclusively.

VERTOVEC: There are subtle differences between how each projector projects the images, like the subtle differences between Plasma and LCD displays. Even when the content has been captured at 2K resolution, it looks sharper in the 4K projection. We find the Christie 2K projector still has the deepest blacks and the best contrast. I haven’t seen any digital projection that can beat the Christie 2K projector in that category.

But the 4K projector is the only way we can look at every pixel. We also want to know if there is some noisy shot if we’re pushing the limits of the exposure how it’ll look at 4K. It’s diversifying how we view the material and better informing us overall.

CIONI: It’s also becoming very popular for audiences to see 4K projectors even though they’re not seeing 4K content.Sony has sold 17,000 4K projectors, and several theatre chains have stated their intent to switch to these projectors. 2K content looks better on the 4K projector because the distance between pixels is reduced, so the perception of higher resolution goes up because there’s less negative space. Dragon Tattoo was shot one-third with the RED Epic and the rest with the RED MX; these are essentially extremely low signal-to-noise-ratio cameras, very quiet, so they scale really well. So, although Dragon Tattoo will be released in 4K, it’s worth noting that 4K sourced projects that master in 2K scale up well to 4K.

We’re also doing tests for another film we’re starting soon which was shot 3K RAW with the ARRI Alexa. We did the blow-ups to 4K for a 4K DCP output and it looks amazing. New content can handle the blow-up better because today’s cameras start at greater pixel counts and are much quieter now.

VERTOVEC: David Fincher is a very post production-conscious director so he has a very strong post production team that manages the dailies all internally. Because they’re so post conscious, they don’t rely on us for front-end services. They only relied on us for color correction and finishing.

I think one of the most powerful techniques done was an intentional center extraction from the RED footage. The actual frame was probably 75 to 80 percent cut out of the center of the whole image they captured. We color corrected the full 4.5K plate, but only 3600x1500 made up the actual frame. We have almost 1,000 pixels horizontally to do repositions, stabilizations and blow-ups. David was able to come into the DI suite, look at a shot and then say, “…zoom in a little bit” or “pan left” without any resolution penalty.

This is the image extraction chart that Michael and Ian used to show how they did a center extraction from the RED file. Click on image above for larger view.

CIONI: This is a good way for people to think about shooting with high resolution data. With tape it was typical to shoot the full aperture or almost the full aperture and go to post from there. With high resolution cameras, people capture the full resolution. From David Fincher’s point of view, he had enough resolution to spare and used that as a creative tool to adjust the framing with more precision in post rather than when it was shot.

I think there’ll be a trend that people want to follow in that you shoot high resolution full aperture, but only intend to use 75 or 80 percent for finishing. Some people think that makes sense for 3D, to compensate for convergence. But David is saying why doesn’t that make sense for 2D as well? There was no resolution penalty and we didn’t scale down as much as you normally would, so you won’t feel like the film is blown up.

VERTOVEC: There is also another benefit. Editorial did a large number of split screens; Angus and Kirk pick the takes they want for the best performance and Tyler builds a split screen. Sometimes there would be three- or four-way splits. One of the reasons you need that center extraction is to match all the plates together.

The bird’s eye view of the workflow is that I talked to Tyler and we planned to use what they shot on set, unless we need to go back and re-bake it at different ISO settings. We get full reels at this 4.5 K resolution from Tyler, and sub-clip it out into shorter DPX sequences so what the conform in our Quantel Pablo refers to the original camera source time code.

There really are no more standards in terms of frame rates or frame sizes. For the longest time, the DI was only 2040x1586 and people designed tools specifically for that, but with data you can have any frame size and any frame rate. I think our non-standard resolution/extraction combination is the wave of the future. Post people and manufacturers have to be thinking in those terms.

Please click on individual images above for larger view.

CIONI: All those split screens created an issue, however, that we had to deal with. The connection to the original information for each shot gets lost because, when you do all those split screens and then conform and render it out, they don’t have original file names. What’s the timecode of a shot if it comes from 4 different takes? That level of metadata all goes away.

To solve this problem, Light Iron’s Stevo Brock built an in-house custom app we call Sub-Clipper that allows the Pablo to treat the 4K DPX files as “camera original” footage. Because of the amount of visual effects, Red RAW files cannot be used in the DI. However, the cut may change well after VFX are already processed. With Sub-Clipper, all editing changes and VFX shots can smoothly ripple through to the composited 4K DPX files on the Pablo, even though the offline editorial list refers to an R3D source. It allows the final conform to automatically be in perfect sync with editorial, up to and including the latest revision.

Without Sub-Clipper, it’s like having a picture of North America but not knowing where all the state lines are. With Sub Clipper, we see where all the edits are and the names of the visual effects. Now when we load it into Pablo, it looks like the original files. We see it organized as if in an offline.

VERTOVEC: It’s analogous to a standard tape-to-tape correction suite where you have the timecode of the long-play tape but not the source code or original footage. Sub Clipper reverts the whole DI to a simpler form of itself.

If you do a standard DI, the conform system looks for the camera rolls and loads the shots in. The problem is that we’re destroying the relationship of the clips to the original camera reels. If you move the shot, you’re changing its position in the reel and negating any relationship it originally had in the sequence.

Sub-Clipper re-establishes that, so we can leapfrog the metadata over the assistant editors. We can now spit out all those frames into smaller sequences and then re-stripe the timecode of every single one of those sequences. So we have actual VFX shot names and the actual timecode of the original camera timecode. The advantage is if there were a re-conform or editorial changes - which there always are — we reload the new edit and it’ll just move the shot to the new place in the timeline. With the long play timecode, and

Color correcting The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in such high resolution was a big deal. Being at 4.5K is about five times the file size of 2K and five times the processing power needed to calculate the color correction. Even if we had tripled our infrastructure and tripled our throughput, it would still be twice as slow as a regular 2K DI.

We’re working at full resolution in the Pablo at all times. The way I work with David, which we did before and was very successful, is that he’ll come in and set key frames with me. So we won’t work through the entire scene. He’ll show me the shots, we work on them together, and then he’ll ask me to match the whole scene to one shot.

This method saves David’s time and allows me to finish a reel unsupervised. Then when he comes in to review the reel that I’ve worked on, I’ll record our thoughts on a Flip camera and use this as my director’s commentary. That gives me a day or two’s worth of notes to address without monopolizing David’s time.

CIONI: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is 9 reels long, which is long for a movie. The fact that it’s 4K means the files are 45 megabytes per frame. If you think about that, the original source files from the RED camera are about 40 megabytes per second. So this is more than 25 times larger than the original source file, plus it’s 4K, plus it’s nine reels long. The data footprint of this DI, when you add it all together, is the equivalent of about six 2K 120-minute movies.

It’s really important to understand that when you’re engaging in 4K at this level, the data footprint is huge. It’s not twice or even quadruple 2K. On a linear scale, it’s five times the render, transfer, drives, waiting…there are so many levels that that can bite you. There were areas where it nearly did bite us - and areas where we were totally prepared.

Rooney Mara.

VERTOVEC: We had a traditional structure with an assist station loading files and out-loading files and doing conform operations while I was coloring in another room. Monique Eissing was responsible for loading and prepping all the material, utilizing the Sub-Clipper application to carry over color corrections to newly revised VFX or stabilized sequences.

One pleasant surprise was how well Pablo with Gene Pool, Quantel’s shared storage solution, worked. Gene Pool allows our two Pablos sharing the same media to have 4K or greater playback at all times. We never reviewed anything at less than 24 fps. Most systems struggle to play back even a single stream of uncompressed 4K at 24 fps.

CIONI: With Gene Pool and Monique, we could multi-task. It’s like having two colorists working at the same time. We also enlisted the help of two other additional components; we have multiple DVS Clipsters equipped with 4K acceleration boards that allowed us to encode different types of files in 4K in virtually real time. That helped us tremendously. Also, we had a 10-gigabit Ethernet link between the Clipsters and Pablos.

Daniel Craig.

We also used Shoeboxes, which is Light Iron’s version of a shuttle drive, but on steroids. We could push files around via “sneaker-net” or we could move them at greater than 500 megabytes per second. When we delivered the digital master — all 230,000 frames, properly organized — to Deluxe for film-out, the only way to move that number of terabytes and check it was to use Shoeboxes and a very fat pipe, a SAS connection. The solution is never just one component — it’s a series of steps that need to be planned.

On a purely technical level, the color correction was the easiest part of working on Dragon Tattoo. Delivering this film — which was invisible to Fincher — was the most difficult thing we’ve ever done as a facility: getting the footage into the facility and delivering it out of the facility.

When both Pablos and Clipsters were working — non-stop 24 hours — the facility was playing back 4 gigabytes per second. Our network operated at that level for days and days, and we’re impressed with that. It’s all due to due to SAS, fiber and 10-gigabit in unique configurations for each step, harmoniously working together

SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) is a protocol based off of E-SATA, but it moves the data 12 times faster than Firewire. It’s like taking four E-SATA cables and threading them together. It’s a very small connector that can push data almost up to 1.5 gigabytes per second on its own (provided the attached storage can support the bandwidth). That’s important for us with the Sony F65 because its files are enormous. And SAS is a connection that a lot of people need to take a serious look at. We’re still surprised that most facilities use antiquated protocols to move data around.

Rooney Mara.

VERTOVEC: People are used to film and videotape, which only runs at 24 fps. If you had to transfer footage from one place to another, it always transferred at real time. With 4K data, and files over 40 megabytes a frame — that’s 800 megabytes a second, and that’s the challenge. Few people have technology that runs at 800 megabytes per second.

CIONI: In a data-centric world, clients have looked into our machine room, saw a couple of Mac towers and thought they could do it on their own. But the complexity of technology has increased. In actuality, their ability to do it themselves is as out of touch as when we printed film. Working in 4K is like 2K was several years ago, only four times bigger and six times more dynamic.

Over the course of working on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I re-learned that every time technology comes out that advances something, an artist will use it. It’s our job as a facility to make that new technology as transparent as possible to the client. Directors like David Fincher will never stop pushing the boundaries, and companies like ours should always operate outside of our comfort zone. We need to keep inventing ways to make this technology as transparent — and available — and empowering as possible.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo images ©2011 Columbia TriStar Marketing Group Inc. Images with Rooney Mara by Giles Keyte. Daniel Craig in the snow photo by Baldur Bragason. Title image background photo by Merrick Morton. Please click on individual images above for larger views.

THE MUPPETS MEET 4K

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:16:00 -0800

35 years ago Jim Henson and his team began broadcasting its one-of-a-kind 1/2 hour television entertainment comedy program, “The Muppet Show.” Through the last three decades, 10 additional Muppet movies were made for the big screen and home video enabling this unique cast of characters to transcend at least 2 generations. Though the Walt Disney company purchased Muppets in 2004, the last major Muppet theatrical release was 12 years ago with 1999’s “Muppets in Space.” But the latest Muppet movie is taking the franchise to a new level and I believe Disney and the filmmakers have taken advantage of a powerful technological edge: file-based digital cinema. This result may seem small, simple or even typical, but a lot had to happen to make Muppets what I consider a digital cinema milestone. -And the story isn’t all about technology, rather how the technology breathed a new dimension of creative potential to an entirely new and exciting chapter of the Muppet history books and, thus, an entirely new generation of Muppet fans. Being a part of it is not only a privilege, but one of the most rewarding projects I’ve ever worked on.

So why does digital cinema mark any significance to a seemingly timeless act like the Muppets?

Like most stories, it starts at the beginning. In the late 1970’s, baby boomers loved The Muppet Show during it’s 5 year, 120 episode run, to the point where it’s hard to find people that weren’t fans of the original series. By the late 1980’s, way before I was old enough to have a Blockbuster card, my brother Peter and I would rent movies from our church library (I guess they thought renting movies to 8 year old children through a church was okay, even though it wasn’t cool with Blockbuster). Encouraged by our parents who loved the Muppets, I even recall renting the same Muppet movies several times a year (“The Muppets Take Manhattan” and “The Great Muppet Caper” being our favorites).

Nearly 10 years later by the time I was in high school, the Muppets were still making movies and keeping the attention of my generation. During high school, “Muppet Treasure Island” came out and my friends and I couldn’t get enough. I remember realizing I was finally old enough to understand all of the jokes that I wasn’t able to get as a kid. Until that time, I didn’t catch all the jokes most of the Muppet movies packed in for an older audience. But the effects and the modern themes they hidden in the story behind RL Stevenson’s “Treasure Island” seemed to make a perfect fit for a contemporary Muppet rendition. I even remember a strangely familiar “Muppet” that showed up in “Treasure Island” that looked a little too much like Kurt Cobain. Because Kurt had only died a few years earlier, old photos are all that could circulate and one of Kurt’s trademark striped sweaters and long blonde hair seemed to be the inspiration of this Muppet, which always made me smile.

In August of 2010, collaboration on a new Muppet Movie under the Disney umbrella ended up blowing in my direction. But a lot had to happen in order for this to work out - both creatively and technically - but the makings for the first digital Muppet movie seemed to be comfortable to everyone involved.

At this time, we were about 2/3rds through the shooting of Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean 4, which was the largest RED (MX) movie every shot at that time, one of the largest 3D movies ever produced as well as Disney’s first tent-pole film shot on a file-based camera. While Alexa had entered the market a few months earlier, ARRI RAW was not yet available and so my discussions with Disney prior to meeting the filmmakers was that RED was the right tool for the job. That notion, plus our collaboration with Freehill Productions on Pirates removed any concern Disney had about RED files, solid pictures, or a solid workflow.

I think DP Don Burgess had the same idea as Disney. Don had shot an early theatrical release on RED (non MX) called “The Book of Eli.” This highly stylized movie played an important role in pushing digital cinema forward, especially since 75% of that film is shot in direct sunlight and the whole film looked great. On September 9th, 2010, Jim Jannard, Jarred Land, Deanan DaSilva and I met Don at RED Studios to talk about RED MX, the latest color science, early EPIC cameras and my proposed fully on-set Muppet workflow. I was working at RED on The Social Network that summer, which was the first MX film, so I remember talking a lot about the sensor as it was still fairly new to the community. About a month earlier, Graeme Nattress had finished development on REDLogFilm and REDGamma (v1) and it was just coming out for experimentation. RLF was really offering a significant benefit in terms of additional dynamic range which we hadn’t yet been able to use on features at that time, including The Social Network. We knew this would be an added advantage for Muppets.

Don struck me as an instant master of the craft. I had always been a fan of his work because one of my favorite movies of all time was Robert Zemekis’ “Contact” and I love how so many of Don’s movies incorporated visual effects in ways in which they were nearly impossible to notice. But after getting to know him better, it is largely because of Don’s experience with visual effects, digital cinema capture and digital intermediate that “The Muppets” looks so amazing. He truly is a master of the craft.

On September 28th, we shot the first Muppets test at Disney Studios with the puppeteers. My partner Chris Peariso and I provided on-set data support with our OUTPOST cart and started to carve out a workflow with all the specific Disney departments that need unique versions of the content. The test we shot was hysterical. I was told that it might make it as an “easter egg” on the BluRay, but this was no ordinary camera test. I wasn’t the only person behind the camera laughing at the content, in fact, the test was shot in the executive offices on the Disney lot! Imagine Disney execs like Jeff Zacha and Leon Silverman working in their offices and when they walk into the hall, they are greeted by Muppets on skateboards being towed by a RED camera. Since Zacha and Silverman are big advocates of this technology, the whole day was probably like any other - part of me wants to think that on the Disney lot, Muppets in the bathroom is “normal.”

The test was as funny as it was educational and practical, and Don himself even made an appearance in the test when the Fozzie asked “Why are we even here doing this?” Kermit answers “It’s a camera test! (points at Don) We need to know how we look on a digital camera and figure out how to do perspective cheats!”

On October 28th, production began shooting for 3 months. Working again with Freehill Productions, Cory Schulthies operated one of our OUTPOST carts where the data for this job was 100% done on set. This was a big deal for Disney because it was the first time they were going to get everything done on set by (essentially) one person. On some previous works with Disney and ABC, the task of downstream data was shared across our onset OUTPOST systems and post houses. But for Muppets, the studio and filmmakers agreed to move forward with all of the data management taking place on set.

Even the dailies for the filmmakers were screened on set, which is never an easy thing to accomplish. Thanks to the help of Jeroen Hendriks’ mobile trailer, the filmmakers could review their work from ProRes 422 transcodes with a Panasonic projector right on location and on the same day.

Cory and the OUTPOST cart on set:

Don and James reviewing takes an hour after photographing right on set:

While there are projects out there in 2010 that did similar workflows, I’m fairly confident in saying that Muppets was the first movie of this magnitude and for a major studio that literally did not have a post house on the show at all until the DI. Archiving, LTO, dailies color, syncing, web deliverables, visual effects pulls and temp conforms were all done by the OUTPOST operator, Disney’s on-site DEPOT backup and the Muppet editorial team. Muppets followed our recommended workflow exactly, creating what was a completely self-sufficient machine that was independent of outside, 3rd party post production support. On the scale that Muppets was with the talent and politics involved, this was a huge task and couldn’t have been done without the blessing of Don and director James Bobin, Jeff and Leon, the talented and forward-thinking DIT Carissa Ridgeway and one of the sharpest and most up-to-date post supervisors out there, Jill Breitzman.

A good workflow on paper should always be simple. I’m shocked when I see workflows that look more like the electrical plans of an office building than a flowchart. If a workflow cannot pass the Occam’s Razor test, it means its overt complexity on paper is likely to manifest itself in practice, thus hard to execute in reality. The Muppets workflow was simple, streamlined and proximal. Cory was on set, and worked in between the production party (led by the DP and DIT) and the post production party (led by the post supervisor and assistant editor). Putting the heavy-horsepower of OUTPOST with Cory on set allowed him to satisfy the needs of both entities while simultaneously eliminating unnecessary 3rd party involvement such as post laboratory…including Light Iron! And that’s the way I like it.

The Muppets workflow as it was finalized:

As an example, while on set each day, Cory created the following elements as they happened. There was no entity outside of Cory and OUTPOST and Disney and their offline cutting rooms involved in this process:

Triple backups of R3Ds: 2x Raid 5 and 1x Raid 0

REDCode 36 @ 16:9 (4096x2304)

Color: looks set by Don or Carissa, applied by Cory

Synced sound: audio fed and synced in REDCine-X (v. 400+)

Avid files: DNx115 (MXF) were chosen because of expected test screenings in 2011

ProRes files: 422 (MOV) used for screening in a portable RV screening room made by Jeroen Hendriks

H264 #1: for Disney intra-net (1080 @ 8Mbs)

H264 #2: for Web & iPad distribution (720 @ 2Mbs)

It was actually during the camera and makeup tests that I started noticing something different about the Muppets. There was a small joke floating around the set based on an inaccurate rumor that people claim; “RED can’t get good skin tones.” While I personally have never had trouble with RED skin tones, the joke we made on Muppets was the very real concern over Muppet skin tones! -It sounds strange, but it’s actually very important. A major actor might have a slightly different look in tone from movie to movie. This can be based on the the time of year, type of lighting or filtration or the color correction at the end. But so long as the look is “natural” or “appropriate,” no one would probably notice. But unlike people, the Muppets have a very distinct set of colors. Kermit green is bright, but not electric. Fozzie orange is semi-saturated, but not too brown. Gonzo is blue with purple, not purple with blue. It is critical that the RED captures the colors of these characters that look, essentially, “perfect” based on 35 years of memory. Until now, most memories you have of the Muppets were photographed on film and almost none of them went through any precise digital color correction whatsoever. But it was clear after a couple days that Muppet skin tones were looking perfect and people were immediately talking about the content, not the technology (which is more important).

But as soon as people started looking closer at the iPads and the projected dailies, everyone realized that there was a new dimension of Muppets we have not seen before: texture.

You know what Kermit looks like, but when you see the Muppets, you will know what he feels like. You know what Rolf looks like, but when you see the Muppets, you will know what he feels like. This additional level of dimensionality brings these characters to life in an entirely new way. I didn’t see it coming, but it was clear to me that what Don was lighting and what the RED MX was capturing was a combination that the Muppets have never experienced before. This merging of elments: Don & Book of Eli, Disney & Pirates, RED MX & Epic, RedLogFilm and REDGamma, the list goes on and on, but it was a fantastic intersection of talent and trust that enabled this film to look the way that audiences will experience upon it’s release tomorrow night.

A common criticism of digital cinema in general is that the texture (or lack of grain) doesn’t produce a look as good as film. But with Muppets, I believe it was film grain itself that robbed Muppets of the unique multi-dimensional textures that were always there. When I first saw the Muppet puppets at an early camera test, I asked a puppeteer how old they were (since the looked exactly as I remembered them). He told me that some Muppets have multiple puppets, which is to be expected. For example, Kermit with legs is different than Kermit that you wear on your arm. But to my surprise, he also mentioned that some of the Muppets are still the originals! That made me feel good because it tells me that the characters I and millions have come to love are some of the same physical characters we’ve seen in the past. But it also told me that the same Muppet’s I’ve laughed with in decades past were never fully translated to film.

As I mentioned before, the only portion of “The Muppets” that was done at a post house was the final conform, DI and film record. We did the conform on a Quantel Pablo 4K using the RED Rocket for debayering in P3 using REDLogFilm and REDColor2. Other than small adjustments to some other metadata fields, our initial preparation for these files to look as good as they do are elements that I’m pleased to reiterate everyone has access to. Corinne Bogdanowicz pre-colored the film as the reels were locked one-by-one. Soon after, Don, Michael Burgess and James came in for what was some of the most efficient collaboration we’ve had in DI hands down. And because of the forward-thinking leadership of Disney folks like Jeff and Leon, “The Muppets” is a 100% end-to-end file based success. Not a single tape was made to create the content people are about to see or have seen. From trailers, the DCP, the Fuji film record or even the home entertainment deliverables such as BluRay and iTunes, only files were created from the 1:1 master (DSM) all sourced directly from the Pablo. By significantly minimizing the translations created by various tapes, “The Muppets” is among the most “pure” of films that is literally the closest to the original source an exhibition format can be. Props to Disney for taking a much-needed anti-comprimise stand in file-based acquisition, exhibition and distribution.

And so the latest chapter of the Muppet story brings with it an entirely new level of audience interaction. I am convinced that every person that sees “The Muppets” will have a strong, positive reaction to how it looks and feels - even those who are not savvy enough to fully comprehend the element that 4K digital cinema or file-based delivery brings to the film. Jason Segel, James Bobin, Don Burgess and many others deliver a film that will not disappoint on a creative and story level. But for people that are savvy enough to go beyond the great story and peer closer at the images as they unfold this Thanksgiving season, I encourage you to examine a level of textural detail rarely experienced on the big screen. Part of what make Muppets such believable and lovable characters is their very being - and thanks to the MX, Don’s lighting and Corinne’s skills as a colorist, the textures and nuisances of these beings hopefully enhances the experiences of new and old audiences so they can better suspend disbelief all over again.

|m|

SCARLET's WEB

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:40:13 -0800

In typical RED fashion, the latest announcement of SCARLET-X has as many people excited as concerned. There are a lot of opinions on the matter and I have enjoyed hearing the multiple perspectives from many corners of the market. But some of the discussions came from what looked like a “reactionary point of view.” Granted, many people have been making serious assumptions about what SCARLET was going to be, largely derived from RED’s own literature and demonstrations, but RED has been clear that everything changes. Disappointment is hard to avoid when you count on something that changes, but that has been a struggle bleeding-edge professionals have all gotten used to. SCARLET is affecting a slightly different set of consumers and those consumers are new to the “fringes” territory, and have yet to learn how to fully manage technological unpredictability. Satisfied and safe participation on this level means you must learn how to:

1. predict
2. prepare
3. adjust
4. trouble shoot

Without considering each of these steps, disappointment will be a familiar feeling. This can be seen in many of the reactions posted online, but these are often coming from people who are not used to this type of bleeding-edge development/implementation cycle. The “bleeding edge” has been coined just that because you routinely get cut. But in effort to help deconstruct some of the main points issues, I wanted to spend some time examining the situation, the market and the reactions and use that to draw some conclusions. To those concerned about Scarlet market disruption, pricing models or unnecessary specs, consider this:

SPECS
It is true that a Venn diagram of EPIC and SCARLET demonstrates a considerable amount of overlap. To some, this may constitute a disadvantage to EPIC:
• EPIC is perceived to now be priced too high
• EPIC does not offer enough features
• EPIC owners do not want to compete with SCARLET rentals

Ironically, to others, the same overlap constitutes a disadvantage to SCARLET:
• SCARLET is perceived to now be priced too high
• SCARLET offers too many EPIC features
• SCARLET owners do not want to compete with EPIC rentals

Can they both be right?
I agree, from varying perspectives, all of the above statements hold some water. Most of the statements sound like they come from a filmmakers perspective. But a filmmaking perspective is, in itself, incomplete. What needs to be done is also examine the Venn diagram from a business perspective, to which I draw the following conclusion:
All SCARLET feature-driven disadvantages are offset by its low barrier to entry.

This means that the price of getting a SCARLET is low enough that its feature set is then justified without cannibalizing EPIC rentals or owners. This is possible because SCARLET and EPIC (ironically) both are stand-alone products to which competitors do not offer similar systems. 4 years ago, the RED ONE body alone cost more than a fully-functioning SCARLET. Yet SCARLET’s feature set borrows more from EPIC than it does from the RED ONE. This means the economy of the RED ONE body ($17,500) has dropped by 45% to $9,750 in 4 years. That massive shift in a significantly lower barrier to entry coupled with the favoring of features from the EPIC make the SCARLET the best price-per-feature purchase, not the most over-priced.

SATURATION
The RED One is the first mass-produced cinema camera ever. The number of RED ONE cameras out numbers the Sony F900, Arri D20 & D21 and Panavision Genesis combined. You could probably add on the total number of Arri 435 cameras (around 2,000 built) and the RED One and Epic cameras would still outnumber the entire fleet of cinema systems combined. The side-effect of this is Jim gave birth to a significant number of owner-operators of cinema cameras. For the most part, this was a market that did not previously exist as there was no supply for high fidelity cinema systems in mass quantities from a single manufacturer. The market effects of this can be likened to a series of earthquake aftershocks as the earth slowly settles in after a large tectonic shift. Admittedly, because the market had never experienced mass-production of cinema equipment before, it is still carving trends that many people have been capitalizing on while others are missing out on. Adding SCARLET to the mix will be somewhat difficult for all parties because we haven’t yet fully recovered from the original “RED One quake.”

RENTAL
Every rental market is all about the shortest achievable amortization of equipment that is purchased. -Especially cameras because rental agents, production companies and owner-operators always know that when it comes to cameras “…there is another…”

There are different formulas for different pieces of equipment; some require years of amortization, some require months and others only require weeks depending on the product. A large Hollywood rental agent once told me when they purchased 8 SONY F35 cameras, “We buy F35 cameras at a total package price of about $240,000 each. We are forced to spend that money in order to keep our clients from going elsewhere, knowing we will likely never make a profit on the cameras themselves. The amortization period of the F35 is not necessarily as the camera’s own lifespan. The profit is found in accessories and glass. For the most part, HD tape cameras are largely an unfortunate cost of doing business for many prominent rental houses.”

HISTORY
In 1999, the two rivaling low-cost top-dogs were the Sony PD150 and the Canon XL-1. Both modestly priced around $5,000 USD. If you adjust for inflation, the same cameras today would cost $6,650 USD. A decade ago, the specs that these cameras provided were being used just about everywhere including a bit of narrative motion picture filmmaking. Cable, reality, independent, documentary, web and even a few specialty shots in films like “28 Days Later” were common places to see these two 25Mb/s, 525-lined cameras. But these cameras were not designed as cinema solutions. Most of us recall how important these cameras and the first native data transport into a computer was to progressive filmmaking. I believe that these systems were a very real part of the birth of digital cinema, even though they themselves were not designed for cinema use. But the success of this story is that 12 years later, the specs of the SCARLET out-perform the lineage of where Canon and SONY cameras have ended up in 2012.

CONCLUSION:
So after examining my thoughts on the categories above, this is the conclusion I come to with Scarlet-X:

If you are a cinema system owner-operator, you are in a market that Jim Jannard almost single-handedly created himself. While criticism is fair and I know Jim gives pause to all criticism, you must realize that criticizing how Jim is affecting cinema system owner-operators is actually criticizing the very person who created it. Similar to the criticisms of OS9 to OSX, Apple has the sole authority to evolve platforms it created. I personally believe it is well within Jim’s jurisdiction to evolve a market that he populates as the majority.

If you are a professional of any degree, meaning that you are paid in some form for your work, whatever that is, you will have the ability to write-off your SCARLET or even more likely, rent it out. A 15,000 SCARLET package is comparable to a fairly cheap car - like a used Honda Civic. Most of those cars have a 24-36 month payback with very low interest these days. If you considered yourself in the market where you do not use your SCARLET every week, then I would choose a 36 month payback. If you use it a lot, you might want to finalize the amor in 25 weeks. Everyone is different. A 36 month payback with 0% interest is $416 per month. A 25 week payout is $600 per week. Anyone who considers themselves a filmmaker on any level can fit within one of these groups. If you cannot fit in this, you also do not own a car, you do not have cable and cannot afford to eat.

What this comes down to is a skewed comparative perception:What is the right price for a cinema camera? Looking at the numbers without consideration to features is as follows:
Arri Alexa = 75K
Sony F65 = 70K
EPIC = 40K
Canon C300 = 20K
Scarlet = 10K
So SCARLET only seems expensive because some people are currently comparing it to the 5D and 7D. But that’s an inaccurate comparison and can be proven by last week’s Canon announcement. Canon has released the C300 as a digital cinema solution for 20K, roughly twice the price of a SCARLET. So features aside, the comparison of a SCARLET to a 5D is not a correct comparison at all because the 5D and 7D are not built for digital cinema. All this is to say that SCARLET is in a class all its own; giving the benefits of digital cinema at a price that no other manufacturer is able to offer.
SCARLET’s value is worth more than what many people are currently perceiving and that’s partially why they feel duped. If you look at the market and evaluate the other cameras, you will not find a cheaper version across town because there simply is none. In other words, it’s impossible to compare SCARLET’s pricing to anything because there is literally nothing to compare it with. The closest camera with SCARLET-like features is the EPIC, and (I revert back to a previous point) All SCARLET feature-driven disadvantages are offset by its low barrier to entry.

My guess is that the cost of manufacturing different camera systems (such as the 2/3rds inch or fixed-lens Scarlet) would cost RED more money than $3,000 per unit. That sounds backwards, but RED is doing consumers a favor by making the housing the same. This means the price per unit on each accessory can be amortized across two sets of cameras and therefore drives down prices across the board and increases saturation. The trade off is consumers get more features for a better price and they get them sooner.

FINAL THOUGHT:
The SCARLET is 47% more expensive than a PD150 or XL-1 when they were released. But far more importantly, the SCARLET is 47% cheaper than the nearest current models of those camera companies today. Consumers need both the past and the present lineage to determine if they are being ripped off. This data proves that SCARLET is properly priced right in the middle.Don’t think about the price of a SCARLET, rather think about the price per unit of features. SCARLET features are in a league all their own. It means the price of renting the camera will be as little as a 25 week amortization. That means the cameras will be available for the price of the accessories. That’s great for renters because they can purchase brains very cheap and rent the glass. This is also great for rentees because they can get access to the brain and shoot identical pictures to most EPIC feature films. Oversampling at 4K is still unfortunately misunderstood by so many people, but it’s a critical component that most camera companies are finally giving credence. When we shoot in 4K with REDCode, there are almost no disadvantages. This is critical for everyone releasing theatrically and on the web. To think that the SCARLET is overkill is extremely short-sighted. Just like anti-lock brakes eventually became standard on all cars, so will 4K on all cameras. I’ve been saying that since 2006. Now it looks like the majority is starting to feel that way.
| m |

Michael - RED has listed on it's website that REDCODE RAW is capable of 12 and 16-bit RAW : Compression choices of 18:1 to 3:1. Is there a way to select what bit depth is being captured? I couldn't find that anywhere in the menus. In my mind, the lower the compression, the higher the bit depth. If that's true, does that mean that from 3:1-10:1 the bit depth is 16bit and subsequently 11:1-18:1 is 12bit? Appreciate the opportunity to ask questions.

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:48:36 -0700

Great question!
Bit depth is not necessarily contingent on compression. WIth many cameras like RED, they do not specifically limit bit depth with the compression scheme. So it’s possible to record at multiple compression schemes while still maintaining the same bit depth. So if yo shoot 3:1 or 12:1 compression, you are still able to capture 12bit RAW data, only it is compressed into a smaller package. I will check with RED the exact bit depth options with regard to their compression relationship and let you know the exact numbers.

To Mr. Jobs

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:38:40 -0700

To Mr. Jobs,
You didn’t simply inspire people to be creative, you invented outlets so creativity could simply thrive. You paved a way for people like me to succeed on our own, but my career was only made possible because you possessed the foresight I didn’t.
I didn’t know how much you impacted my life until I was mature enough to start realizing I am not the only reason I am special. -You are a legitimate part of why I am special. I need you to know that I copied you in so many ways simply because I respected and wanted to be you; because you are better than me. I never copied you because I needed to make a product look like Apple made it (which I know has often been the case). I copied you out of recognition of a near-perfect track record and perfect execution. Imitating you makes me feel like your fingerprints are apart of my own ideas, and that has always been a safe place for us all.

No doubt, people will liken your life and tragic death to the death of a celebrity or rockstar. Needless to say I’ve cried over the like in my own past. But your contribution to this world was not so elementary to entertain it - it was something far more powerful and far more noble - your contribution to the world was to allow the world to empower itself.

More amazingly, your unparalleled ability to empower people to be creative has become such a normal way of life that it actually has made you invisible to the majority. Your ideas were breathed into life because you knew it was for the benefit of people who would not celebrate you. This is precisely why you will not be remembered like a celebrity or a rockstar entertainer. You were not self-seeking in your greatness and your ideas were not mean to simply “help us forget our problems” -the typical boundary line that so many entertainers are limited to. You’ve gone to the edge of potential and dared to go beyond for the benefit of others, not just the sport of it or to reap the rewards. Your ability to share what I believe is among the greatest gifts God blessed one of his children with was, in fact, to better our culture. Your hands paved a new runway for business, creativity and communication, to which no one has achieved on their own before. The ambition that you most certainly possessed was, in fact, for the betterment of strangers whom you would never meet. I am one of them.

In the summer of 1999, my roommate, Ian, and I embarked on a new journey that would truly change our lives forever. We were in school (Carbondale, Illinois of all places) and Ian began to do research on a better way for us to grow as filmmakers. The iMac was new, and there was a build you were releasing coined “The DV Special.” Coupled with the announcement of FireWire, the SONY DSR (DVCAM) series and the G3 tower, you began to build the beginnings of the most monumental change in content creation’s history. We were 19 years old and had our tickets to ride with you every day for the next decade. Thanks to the help of our families, Final Cut Pro and the SONY PD150 became our 3rd and 4th roommates. Barely men, Ian and I began learning the trade of software manipulation through digital capture and motion graphics. Within two years, we won 5 Emmy’s, went to Cannes, began distributing our self-authored DVDs, changed Southern Illinois University’s media program forever and moved to Los Angeles with nothing except our computers. Since that day, your tools have taught me how to create and I’ve taught other how to create with them. And it is through these tools that my own personal stories have been told and shared with so many others. Thank you.

In my opinion, the “deepest” of all your PIXAR films is “Ratatouille.” Though the undertones of this film are largely reminiscent of the struggles between a Walt’s original desires for the Disney company and his successor’s failed attempts, the heart of this film is wonderfully grand and pleasantly simple: In the film, Anton Ego doesn’t realize the impact of Gusteau’s doctrine “Anyone can cook.” But Gusteau was applying the humility of a great leader and mentor by trying to encourage as many people he could that they each possessed the potential for greatness amongst many. Ego eventually realizes this is what makes us human and best sums up his understanding that “Not everyone is a great cook, but a great cook can come from anywhere.”

By this act, you have literally created millions of millionaires. You have enabled millions of artists to create and compete. You have connected millions of people who are far apart. You have simplified millions of businesses and their transactions. You have influenced the look of an art movement and redefined advertising and branding for every company on the globe. You have inspired the development of other developers and made millions of us contributors of your brand. And while all this happened to millions of common people, you still had the foresight in 1986 to build an animation studio and managed to entertain us as a hobby.

I believe the greatest invention of the last 100 years is the iPhone. I also believe that was your greatest achievement. The iPhone is the most complex device on the planet that has no manual and requires no training. I’m convinced that if you were hired to build the space shuttle instead of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, it probably could be flown without much training. On June 29th, 2007, I excitedly and happily waited with my friend Steve and a few others for the iPhone. We actually took off work and waited for some 12 hours so we could ensure we would leave with an iPhone that day and be a part of what we recognized as history. The first photo I took with the iPhone was, appropriately, of an iPhone displaying a picture of an iPhone.

But as with a device that has become nearly a part of my being, never more than 24 inches away from me at any time day or night, it was your own invention that serendipitously delivered me and millions of others the news of your death.

What you did, Mr. Jobs, that so many others have not dared to do is empower God’s earth with an unparalleled level of potential for great cooks to come from everywhere. I am but one of many who have taken advantage of your generosity and I only wish I had the foresight to empower others in the way you have empowered me.

Thank you. I pray for your salvation in Heaven.
michael

Michael... it was a pleasure meeting you at RED Studios as well as getting an insider's look at Light Iron. Thanks for taking the time and letting us have a peek into your world. :-) I was wondering if you will be teaching the Reducation Post Production class on December 8th and 9th?

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:07:41 -0700

I will be:-)

REDucation will be very exciting this December as we have some very neat plans and some special guests that will make it a REDucation you will really want to be a part of. I am really looking forward to this one.

Quantel Spotlight

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:50:51 -0700

When Ben Le Foe contacted me to do a “spotlight” interview for Quantel, I was interested as I find the ways in which the company Quantel connects with consumers and customers is very genuine. But what was really interesting is to answer 10 questions about myself is an exercise that I rarely do. In fact, I realized this was fun and challenging at the same time. I enjoyed reflecting on some of these areas of my life and delivering honest answers to (seemingly) simple questions like “what’s the secret to successful collaboration?” Thank you, Ben and Quantel for the opportunity.

comment

Post production

August 11, 2011

This month we put Michael Cioni from Light Iron under our spotlight and ask him ten questions about his background, his work and how Light Iron exploit the benefits of collaboration.

Who are you and what is your background?

My name is Michael Cioni, and I’m the founder and CEO of Light Iron. My background has been mixed in the post-production and production fields since 1997, where I first worked as an online editor for the PBS affiliate WSIU-TV while in school at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. Taking from both my love for production and post-production, Light Iron has become a post-production entity with half of its business coming directly from the production side of our business.

Who are Light Iron and what are its specialties?
Light Iron was founded in the summer of 2009. Though we’ve been open for just under 2 years, we’ve assembled a talent pool that is the key to our rapid growth, expansion and award-winning inventions. After 12 months of construction, we only recently moved into our new 10,000 square foot Hollywood location. Since opening, Light Iron has provided on-set services with our OUTPOST systems on films like “Pirates of the Caribbean 4″ and “The Amazing Spiderman”. We’ve also provided the digital intermediate services on films such as David Fincher’s “The Social Network”, the adaptation of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” and Steven Soderbergh’s “Haywire”.

Who or what inspired you to go into your line of work?
My father was an animator in Chicago when I was growing up and he would show me post-production animation and also take me to online houses like Skyview and Editel back in the 80s. My interest in computers and storytelling from an early age paved the way for my love of story telling through motion pictures.

Growing up with that exposure made me comfortable in post houses and interested in technological developments (including animation, graphics, editing and colour correction). Between that exposure and a high school that offered TV production and editing courses in the mid 90s, it was clear to me at 16 or 17 that I wanted to make motion pictures in Los Angeles my career.

What was the first professional or paid project you worked on?
In college, my partner Ian Vertovec and a number of close friends were hired by PBS to produce and direct a half-hour show for the Southern Illinois region. While the pay was part-time, the effort we put it was (quite literally) all the time! The show we started was called “alt.news 26:46″, a news magazine program that is now in its 11th season and has won nearly 30 Regional Emmys since we started it in 1999. We were fortunate to have such a great opportunity so early in our careers. alt.news 26:46 took us all over the United States, including to California for the Student Emmys and even to the Cannes Film Festival in 2000 and 2001.

What makes Light Iron different from other post houses?
Light Iron is a 100% file-based facility designed without the need to migrate legacy or antiquated equipment into the next iteration of d-cinema trends. But assembling the right technology is honestly the easy part; the key to what makes Light Iron different is the next-generation approach to how we configure our technology, how we train our staff and how we configure our flow of work.

When you think about the technical barriers that allow post houses to compete, you realize that realistically there are very few: every post house has a massive component of overlapping tools and technology. The only thing that cannot overlap is the people. Most of Light Iron’s employees have never worked in post before and some have never worked in Los Angeles before. Some consider that a weakness, but the more experience I have with people in the community, the more grateful I am that Light Iron is not a facility full of politics, preconceived notions and jaded attitudes. The result is the freshest approach to our clients with new talent solving new problems.

Being an industry shaper inspires a lot of our staff as they sense they are part of something special. And these special moments become easier when you work in a facility specially designed to facilitate creative thinking on a file-based, future-proof level.

What one piece of equipment can’t you live without?
My laptop goes everywhere with me and it is my music, my movies, my job and my personal life wrapped in a notebook that I simply cannot live without: there is no doubt that I spend more time with my laptop than I do sleeping. I have been a iBook, MacBook and MacBook Pro user since 2001 and Apple’s toolset combined with its horsepower in a small lightweight laptop is amazing.

I create over 2 new Keynote presentations every week in addition to complex workflow flowcharts in Pages. I send diagrams to movie studios, directors and producers for major motion pictures from my Pages documents. For example: the workflow document that outlines the data pipeline flowchart for capturing The Amazing Spiderman in 3D came from a single document in my MacBook Pro.

I have even edited the last 7 company reels for RED on my laptop using Final Cut Pro transcodes of 4K and 5K RED R3D files.

If you were to describe your work in three words, what would they be?
Sleep when dead.

What is the secret to successful collaboration?
I find that the secret to successful collaboration is the marriage between people with whom you regularly agree, mixed with people who regularly challenge you. I have always found that being surrounded by people who don’t always agree with each other tends to be a powerful asset in collaboration. Like a hologram, ideas often change when you alter the perspective from which you examine them.

By surrounding yourself with people who share the same ultimate goal while not sharing the same immediate idea, a powerful combination of group evaluation can be experienced which almost always leads to the right conclusion. Most lawyers say when two people are in dispute: “The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.” So is the same with collaboration. Collaboration is the result of an appropriate balance between speaking, listening, and compromising. God gave us two ears and one mouth: use them that way.

What’s your top tip for managing teams to make sure projects run smoothly?
Communication is the most important component to ensuring the execution of smooth projects. With multiple moving parts, departments and personalities across multiple shifts, communication is crucial in keeping the train moving in the same collective direction. In addition to that is the communication with the client. In cases where clients are less experienced than they may think they are, our inter-company and inter-client communication serves as a protection barrier as well as a level of education that helps mature our clients’ experience with complex tasks.

The most common problem we find in post-production is the area of “hidden fees.” A process that post houses have learned to capitalize on based on “tech-talking your client to death.” Since most clients are far less technical than their post houses, it is imperative that post houses use that to improve a project, not exploit a client’s inexperience. And the way to breed that type of respect and avoid financial arguments is to simply communicate as often as possible. The best post producers I know are on the phone all day ensuring everyone knows what everyone knows.

What was your worst disaster from working with someone else?
Fortunately I have been able to steer clear of a significant amount of major disasters in collaborating with others. I suppose one that has stuck with me through the years was when I was first massively taken advantage of. I had just started my first post house in 2003, and I was working with 3 of my friends from college at a small post house called PlasterCITY Digital Post.

On one of our first projects the producers kept making promises for payment but it never came. I trusted them and we did the editing, the graphics, colour, and ultimately the delivery of the product but we were never paid. We were young and inexperienced and lost about $25,000 from these people. However I was told by my mentors that there was good news: I “only” lost $25,000. Many people that break into the industry have much worst stories than this and greater losses. For me, the price was hard to swallow (especially at the time) but we moved on. Learning how to identify untrustworthy people is something that we all unfortunately have to practise often. Luckily, they are the minority – nevertheless, their impact can be substantial.

Light Iron: http://www.lightiron.com

Final Cut Pro X

Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:38:00 -0700

Clearly I did not exhibit any foresight with regard to the emotional impact in which this particular topic has generated. Very interesting, very exciting and very important. Above all, the summer release of Final Cut Pro-X is an event that should be monitored carefully and evaluated as the program continues to mature every quarter. In effort to document some of the direct feelings I have on the matter, I have collected some of my posts from the RED USER forum and my contributions to the online podcast “Tech Media Planet.” m

POST TAKEN FROM REDUSER.NET

July 29th, 2011
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?60883-FIlm-professionals-petition-seeks-to-bring-back-old-Final-Cut-Pro/page3

I have spent a lot of time not only evaluating FCPX, but also evaluating technological advancements in general since the late 1990’s. Pointing out that FCPX is missing critical components to professional users is warranted and (more importantly) a large percentage of the reasoning behind limited implementation of this application in the workforce. But to suggest that FCPX is a step backwards is a gross misunderstanding of what is happening in this program, programs like it and Apple in general.

While it’s easy to establish “WHAT” is wrong with FCPX, I encourage people to explore the “WHY.” And when you can figure out the “WHY” you can always determine the “HOW.” For example, there are components inside the new architecture that are simply so advanced that there is no way to easily or efficiently upgrade existing project files from a previous iteration. But even more significant than that is the philosophical approach Apple is taking on editing in general and I personally am 100% behind Apple’s stand on the matter, even though it means I cannot use the program for much of my work at this time.

What’s happening with FCPX right now is no different than what Apple did when they switched from OS9 to OSX. The problems, limitations, dual-booting, limited functionality, restricted horsepower - all of this was part of a massive improvement that starts with massive causalities. And while there were few online message boards at the time of the OSX turnover, I am willing to bet the opinions of those feeling “marooned” due to their contentment was similar to the feelings now. -They just didn’t have as easy a time of expressing it. But forward-thinking leaders like Apple (and there are many others) are able to identify when it’s appropriate to sacrifice the few to save the many. So is the case of the current situation of FCPX.

Now a real risk: POLITICS;-)One thing that always bothers me with political discussion is that people tend to assume they know as much as world leaders in terms of evaluation of decisions. In other words, people criticize presidents or senators, military officers or even mayors from making what seem “rash” decisions when there is no way all of the information that went into those decision are clear to the general public. That is to say we often do not have the largest perspective on the matter, yet we do have the largest (collective) voice in the matter. This is why I cannot partake in this petition because it assumes I know more than Apple does about what’s good for the software and hardware they build for me…which I don’t.
Some of you may remember a radical change in Apple’s platform when in 1999 they removed the floppy drive from their computers. “How will we ever get content in and out of the CPU!?!?!” criticized many. But Apple knew of AT&T and Comcast who had been laying massive lines of cable (many cities with early fiber forms) that was going to offer high speed internet within 18 months. Steve said “You’ll just send 3.5MB files through the internet without any physical media.” But did everyone take this “organ transplant” well? Of course not, but the masses benefited hugely because Apple took a stand on a level of progressions that was necessary for it’s own protection and advancement of the tools we use. When a company with as much reach, influence and general inside information as Apple has knows something about the future, they tend to position their product in line with that trend. This is the very reason that when Apple releases (what I believe will be their last) tower, it will be without optical drives. Like the floppy drive, optical media is a limiting format and a bottleneck that’s lifespan is on a steady decline. While this will upset the tools of many, it will no doubt improve the tools for many more.

FCPX in a word: HORSEPOWER.
This system is by far the most advanced image and sound manipulation device that I’ve ever seen. Running incredibly complex tasks on my laptop in 2K resolution with this program is unmatched by any other software I’ve seen for the price of the tool and the hardware it runs on. For me, the road that FCPX is headed down is absolutely the right one, but it’s a road under construction. And while I’m fully aware driving on that road now is going to be full of unfinished pavement, narrow lanes and those annoying K-rails really close to the side of my car, I know the direction the road is going is exactly where need to be.

My friends Steve Beres and Suny Behar have a podcast show called “Tech Media Planet.” The show is fantastic not only because the content is good, but unlike many podcasts, Steve and Suny are hysterical. Making people laugh while talking about gear is about as rare as it gets, but that’s why people love the show. Tech Media Planet recently did a show on FCPX and had me as a guest. If you want to hear and see (we did a clip component to the podcast) what I highlight as the right moves for FCPX, take a free listen at the link below. It just scratches the surface on what FCPX’s positive affect will be on the next evolutionary trend of creative hardware and software potential.

http://techmediaplanet.com/2011/07/e…nal-cut-pro-x/

Apple clearly made mistakes in this release. And I’m as disappointed in the positioning of the application as anyone. But I have been a user and supporter of AVID, FCP and Premiere for over a decade and I like to think I know a good idea when I see one.

Taking in all that I just said, is it not clear what the real elephant in the room is here? Everything above seems strangely familiar with a significant, controversial and unfinished product release in September of 2007… ;-)
m

POST TAKEN FROM REDUSER.NET August 2nd, 2011
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?60883-FIlm-professionals-petition-seeks-to-bring-back-old-Final-Cut-Pro/page10

While I don’t feel the need to call out anyone directly, I do feel there are great points fed by both sides…well, on second thought, all sides, (as there is more than one side do this important topic:)

But there are a few components that I do wish to address directly:
REMEMBER THE PAST

In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, film was a largely unchallenged format for narrative acquisition. During this time, there were many discussions about the reality of professional level DP’s to learn and/or switch to digital capture. At a DGA panel I attended in 2002, it was concluded that (intentionally withholding names and paraphrasing here)
“Digital capture offers a strong alternative to film for independents and internet content” and that “because digital does not offer any qualitative, cost or pipeline advantages over film, it is unnecessary for many DPs to learn the medium given film’s present state.”

BEING MULTI-LINGUAL
We all obviously know what has happened/is happening to film v digital, thus rendering statements like the one above to be easily forgotten. While this obviously goes way beyond Final Cut Pro-X, given what you know today about cinematography, I find it just as constricting for a DP to rely on a single format to capture with as it is for an editor to rely on a single NLE to edit with.
By knowing each of the main software NLE options out there, myself and my team consistently swap between them and exercise the pros of one without being negatively affected by the cons of another. Suggesting that people need to make a single career choice on NLE software is similar to DP’s making a single career choice for a camera. I believe that choice is the best thing to each of us and guess what? -Lucky to us editors: NLE’s don’t cost 50K anymore:-)

INDUSTRY FORWARD MOMENTUM
Remember the quote from 2002? The reason I still tuck it away in the back of my mind is that I found the notion interesting that in 2002 many prominent industry leaders felt that “digital [did] not offer any qualitative advantages over film.” This kind of absolute and black & white thinking is exactly what slows down our collective forward momentum.
Good or bad, bona fide ideas that move the collective group forward are to the benefit of us all. Dalsa is a product many people on this forum might not have ever seen in person, and though the camera failed, Dalsa most certainly contributed positively to industry forward momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalsa_Origin).
In my opinion FCP-X has the potential for reinventing the NLE and clearly offers some very unique industry forward momentum. Fair question; will FCP-X end up like Dalsa?

SIMPLE = CONSUMER
This is the only element that kinda aggravates me. Since when is a product that is simple make it unprofessional? The iPhone doesn’t even come with a manual and yet it’s quite possibly the most advanced tool you own. There are great arguments for all sides on this forum, but the only lousy one I find isEVEN HINTING at the conclusion that FCP-X is simpler and thus makes it more of a consumer product. For goodness sakes, I hope I’m not the only technically savvy person who celebrates when products become simpler! I supposed at the very least that makes me a happy consumer in only 300 bucks.

FAN-BOY
I don’t care if I’m called an Apple Fan-Boy or not (that bit was hysterical). Call me whatever you want - I’m a happy person. If there is a myth to bust here then let me clear it up: I am a fan of many things and Apple is surely one of them. I don’t have any qualms about saying I’m a fan of FCP-X any more than saying I’m a fan of GoPro! I believe that Apple got it right and time will reveal that FCP-X is the first NLE that fuses the depth of FCP Studio with the simplicity of the iPad. Think, just for a moment, if that were possible, how truly sweepingly powerfully exiting that would be.

FORESIGHT
I brought up the notion that Apple knows more about the future and how to design things for creative users than the users often do. It was argued that this statement is incorrect. In attempt to be clear as to my intention; I believe Apple knows what’s coming around the corner (they are able to develop, manufacture and share private information enabling them to see further around the bend that most of us) and therefore can often know what we want better than we know. One simple example of dozens: in 2000, at the height of the SONY Discman, had you asked 1,000 users what they would do to improve the Discman, not a single person would have said “I want a Discman that’s 1/3rd the size, plays 5,000 songs and doesn’t require me to carry CDs around.” Apple knew the potential of this idea better than the users. They probably didn’t know their idea would bring down Discman in less than a decade (which is now a retired product) but they did know what the consumer wants more than the consumer knew. FCP-X has similar characteristics. Contrary to what it may seem like today, initial iPod penetration started slow, as will FCP-X. This is one of the tell-tale signs of a disruptive innovation.

PATIENCE
Apple is listening to much of this.

(And hopefully ignoring the rest)

September.

m

DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT INTERVIEW

Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:19:50 -0700

Michael Cioni on Digital Asset Management

Written by Mary Yurkovic

Growth of file-based acquisition requires more education while bringing changes in common expressions.

Over the past decade, CEO & Founder of Light Iron Michael Cioni has been a leader in file-based acquisition and desktop-based post production. Michael has served as a Digital Intermediate Supervisor on over 200 feature films. He has instructed several workshops and online courses for Createasphere. In 2010, Michael received the DAMMY Award for Best Strategy or Solution for Digital & Media Asset Management during the Acquisition of Content.

In preparation for the Second Annual DAMMY Awards, I asked Michael a few questions about the state of the industry:

How did you get into the digital asset management space?

My motivation for getting involved in the DAM space comes from a rapidly changing media ecosystem that is clearly affecting every corner of the market. Sort of like a significant climate change or volcanic eruption, everything that falls within a certain distance from the epicenter is affected in a cascade-like effect that starts small and gets bigger and bigger and bigger. This type of trend is great for our business because we know that investments, research and attention to DAM content are ascending businesses, whereas alternative and more traditional tools are on the decline.

What do you see as the biggest challenge(s) in digital asset management?

Education. Plain and simple. The more I research and evaluate past trends of all types of tools and technologies, the more I find that people forget to look to the past in order to help predict trends in the future. The transition to exclusive dependence on file-based acquisition and digital asset management is not unlike the transition from flatbeds to AVID, or vinyl to CD, or type-setters to word processing. Evolutionary steps towards file-based manipulation are nothing new to the world, but they are new to major motion pictures. Educating a group of industry professionals and master of the craft is where we focus a huge percentage of our time. In fact, an average of 6 hours per week is spent teaching producers, directors and editorial members about digital asset management at Light Iron. Our transparency and training are critical in building a better future for DAM.

How do you see DAM looking 10 years from now?

Ten years from now will be a very different place for data asset management. The main difference will be that the majority of our society will consider DAM a normal part of their life. The concept of “rewind” and “record” will be virtually forgotten. “Sound Speed!” will be a saying that people use, but they will forget its origin. “We’re filming right now” will even go away as society will start to replace the verb of “film” with words like “capture” and “footage” with “data.”

The transition from asset capturing systems like film and tape are declining at an alarming rate. So fast that many people are unaware of the change because it’s hard to tell the difference unless you are evaluating these technological and creative trends from the inside. The community should be aware that film-acquired narrative projects on the big screen and television now make up less than 50% of all captured media (print, television and feature film) and that 2009-2010 was (in my estimation) the last year in history where film was the dominant acquisition format. Furthermore, the speed in which file-based acquisition is being adapted is probably likely to double it’s penetration each year for the next 4 years, until it makes up 95% of the market for motion picture in (what I predict) will be 2015-16. By that time, file-based acquisition will run the market forever and the leftover few percent will be for formats that people choose to use for specialized creative reasons only because those formats will be expensive to shoot, expensive to post and in limited supply. That said, the desire to shoot a particular format like film and it’s actual availability might be two different stories. Especially with the elimination of Technicolor film printing (announcement last week).

How do you use DAM in your personal life?

I personally am dependent on file-based tools as much at home as I am at work. At home, I keep two databases of drive archives for all my past and present assets. I break down the assets of my life into “active” and “passive” categories, which allows me to store non-essential content from my past on a separate system than the more prominent assets I need on a more routine basis. I also have a set of drives that I no longer use from the past. Those drives are plugged in and spun-up semi-annually to ensure they are still in working order. With two copies and routine spin-up maintenance and mounting, I am easily able to make media last for more than 10 years with out expensive or time-consuming methods and without the risk of losing anything, no matter how insignificant. The longest drives that I own and still run with data have just turned 11 years old. It is 100 gigabytes with a single FireWire400 port and 1 USB 1.0 port.

Why is it important for people to attend Createasphere’s DAM Conference?

It’s important to attend Createasphere’s DAM conference because it’s one of the rare places where people can get focused and nearly exclusive access to the industry’s brightest minds that are building the roadmap for the future. Currently, it is fairly rare to have such a concentration of digital asset management companies all working together to explore and exhibit DAM tools. But even more important than the equipment at this DAM conference is the fact that there will be personalities there as well. It is the people that can make DAM sink or swim, not just the technology, and having the opportunity to interface directly with people is one of the most valuable components to Createasphere’s mission.

What have you been working on since receiving the 2010 DAMMY Award for “Best Strategy or Solution for Digital & Media Asset Management during the Acquisition of Content”? Does Light Iron Digital have any new strategies in workflow that you can share with us?

Since receiving the DAMMY Award in 2010, Light Iron has been developing a larger fleet of OUTPOST on-set post production. We have developed new additions to our fleet with our LilyPad systems for color correction, iPad applications and increased our impact on the market to by providing the post production on some of the worlds largest 2D and 3D feature films without the use of the post house. Like all good ideas, they start as small disruptive technologies and work their way-slow and steady from the bottom of the community until they become the normal way in which all people think, talk and execute their work, regardless of the budget.

Getting a 5K TATTOO

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:46:00 -0700

CHALLENGE

On Monday, April 11th, RED Digital Cinema debuted the Epic short film, “Tattoo” in 4K at their NAB booth in Las Vegas. When it was introduced, viewers were told “10 days ago, what you’re about to see didn’t exist.” This couldn’t be more true…

TRENDS

Over the past 4 months, I have noticed that discussions regarding a change in traditional post production DI pipelines have been on the rise. This issue is a common topic amongst filmmakers and post production circles, as well as a frequent topic with online discussion forums. The other issue that seems to have come across my desk a half-dozen times in the last 4 months is the notion that “Epic does not work and there is no workflow.” Rather than point out who is making these statements or discuss who is right and who is wrong, I felt that the best contribution I could make is to simply discuss exactly how the Epic “Tattoo” film was made from my perspective. This posting is meant to produce an accurate timeline of events in order for people to better gauge turn-around times, as well as offer technical information in order to help people make informed decisions about production and post production workflow. And since Tattoo happened so fast, I wanted to document some of the parts I still think about before I begin to forget them. Since there were a significant amount of credible people who worked on this film, you can probably contact some of them and verify that the following statements are, in fact, true and not exaggerated.m

TATTOO

Jim tells the ironic roller coaster story of the conception of “Tattoo” best, so in case he chooses to do so, I’ll leave that part out. What I will say is that I received a phone call at 3PM on Friday, April 1st from producer David Blocker. This was the moment in which I was informed this project was going to happen. David and I went over the challenge brought forth:

April 1st: green light the production

April 2nd: assemble the team

April 3rd: write the film

April 4th: rent the gear & rehearse the actors

April 5th: dress the sets

April 6th: shoot day 1

April 7th: shoot day 2

April 8th: edit the film

April 9th: color correct and mix the film

April 10th: deliver to Las Vegas

I knew this ridiculous idea was somehow going to get done one way or another (that’s just how things work at RED), I just didn’t know how. So I signed Li up and headed to RED Studios for a meeting. When I arrived, I quickly learned exactly how this project was going to be a success: Bill Paxton. Passion doesn’t even begin to describe this guy. Bill is a leader in every sense of the word. I asked Jim what the story was going to be and he said “You have to ask Bill - he tells it way too well.” Bill immediately yanked his phone away off his ear and began pitching me the story and acting it out as it unfolded (all the while someone is apparently on hold, I guess). I began to see pictures in my head and knew that this would not only be an epic production, but that Bill was going to be a total blast to work with. After pitching the ideas still freshly shaping in his mind, Bill cut to the chase, starts a hurried walk towards Jim’s office, and begins pitching people he wants me to contact for editorial, sound and music, etc.

After I left the meeting, I ran into Nate Heartt outside and saw him loading some gear. I said to him “Nate, I don’t know if you heard, but I’m pretty sure there is a tornado forecast to touchdown right where we are standing in about 3 days…” Nate looked up to the clouds and shook his head in agreement. I remember thinking that would be the last good night of sleep I would get for a week. I was more right than I knew.
Over the course of the next 3 days, the sets started rolling in, and the crew list grew to a near perfect team of professionals and volunteers that really made Tattoo come to life.

DIGITAL ACQUISITION SUPERVISION

Part of my job is sometimes referred to as a “Digital Acquisition Supervisor.” I think Dino actually came up with the name, but the concept is simple: when you take filmmaking talent with decades of experience and embark on a production that shoots on a computer instead of a camera, you need to have someone take responsibility for the overlapping processes of capture and post. This incorporates both creative and technical issues, each of which change (in my experience) as often as week-to-week.

For example: From a creative standpoint, it was decided to use two different optical approaches to the film. The film has 2 locations - one present day and one past. The present day footage was shot clean. The light levels were scarily dark and moody and the color tones lived in deep shadows of green and blue. The past footage was shot with filtration - Tiffen low contrast and black promist were used to accent the use of practical lighting, warm tones, wood, and metal. These two completely different looks worked perfectly at the hands of DP David Devlin. It looked so good on set, some might think this would make for easy color correction…but David had a lot of ideas for DI yet to be done. From a technical standpoint, while evaluating David and Bill’s schedule, it was pretty clear that data would need to be managed and prepared for editorial in near real-time. So we decided to setup editor Rob Brakey with an offline by at Light Iron, which is just 4 blocks north of RED Studios in Hollywood. Remember, we only had 2 days to shoot, 1 day to edit, and 1 day to do a 5.1 mix and 4K DI at the same time.
This is where the context of workflow come into play. Unlike tape based digital capture, file-based capture enables users to achieve near-instant backup, evaluation, color correction, processing, and deliverables without a significant brick and mortar infrastructure. Many people know about our OUTPOST systems, which are on-set processing labs. Tattoo would make for a perfect use of an OUTPOST on set, but since Li is only 4 blocks away, we decided to process on an OUTPOST cart at Li. Below is a breakdown of the process:

WORKFLOW

1. Shoot Epic 5K 2:1 @ 23.98 | 5120x2560 with A and B cameras

2.Bill Paxton directs for digital his first time

3. David Devlin mixes up different filtration for the past vs. present locations

4. Dan Duran runs QTake via SDI 1080p out from camera

5. Monitor QTake playback on 24” JVC

6. Camera shoots to 128GB SSD Mags

7. Location sound mixer, Shawn Holden, captures BWF files to compact flash

8. Justin Jones makes the initial checksum and copy on set

9. Runner takes SSD and CF cards directly to Li for 2nd checksum, copy and processing

10. Colorist Ian Vertovec sets initial look in REDCine-X (443) with Rocket

11. OUTPOST operator Aaron Kroger adds 2.40 matte and syncs audio in REDCine-X using audio auto-match

12. Files are rendered out as ProRes LT (clean, no window) for editing in Final Cut Pro directly to Li internal network

13. Editor Rob Brakey imports clips as they are processed out of REDCine-X for offline

After a full card (20 minutes of footage) is taken out of the camera, the timeline of processing was approximately as follows:

Download onset = 8 minutes

Checksum on set = 8 minutes

Shuttle to Li = 5 minutes

Download & checksum at Li = 8 minutes

Set color, framing, and sync = 5 minutes

Render to ProRes and deliver to FCP = 18 minutes

TOTAL: 52 minutes

That means that on average, from the moment the SSD was full, it was under an hour before the editor was actually working with footage including time to sync, frame and color. This also means that within an hour of capture, there were 3 copies in two locations: 1 spinning disk drive with checksum, 1 raid protected drive with checksum and the SSDs. Because the first day of shooting was over 16 hours long, we did this from about 9AM until 3AM without stopping. The important thing to take away from this “shot clock” is not only is this a best-practice scenario, but turn-around times like this should be the norm for file-based capture on Epic.

Remember:

• RED is capable of being downloaded approximately 2x faster than real time to backup drives on site

• RED is capable of being rendered to every flavor of AVID or Quicktime format in real time, or even slightly faster than real time

• REDCine-X is a free application that can sync audio, color correct with the R3D Raw files, playback images and export just about every modern codec in use today

• REDCine-X is available online and runs on both Windows and Mac OSX. This means RED has put the equivalent of an SR deck for playback and processing in the hands of everyone with a computer.

OFFLINE

After wrapping on Day 2 (this was now Friday morning), Bill came to Li after 3 hours of sleep. He looked surprisingly ready to work and says to me”when you’re going to shoot and edit in the same day, always bring your pillow” -which he did. Honestly, we only caught Bill stealing a short nap or two throughout the day. He had been up for nearly 3 days and his energy and direction was as clear as the first day we met. By the time he came in for cutting, Rob had the entire film assembled and was ready for a directors cut. This was also the first time Bill had really had a chance to look at the footage. The bay we had for Rob has a 50” Panasonic series 11 plasma and ProRes always looks amazing on a plasma. By Friday at 7pm, Bill had locked picture-amazingly we were somehow ahead of schedule!

CONFORM

Cinematographer David Devlin was eager to start setting looks - that night. So we started the DI instantly after Rob and Bill finished picture lock. Rob mentioned to me laster that “this was the fastest and easiest turn-over turn-over ever.” Here is how the turn-over looked:
1. Rob finishes cut and collapses timeline down to 2 tracks (A and B roll elements)

2. Rob exports OMF files for sound mix (remember all audio was synced with hero iso 24bit BWF files during original transcode)

3. Rob exports an H.264 reference movie for sound and picture

4. Rob exports an XML of the timeline out of Final Cut Pro

5. XML is converted to AAF via Automatic Duck - this trick allows us to avoid EDLs which are far more limiting when it comes to opticals, effects, multiple layers, speed offsets, etc,)

6. AAF is loaded into Quantel Pablo and original R3Ds are mounted as well

7. Pablo imports Epic R3Ds with Rocket in 4K - with Rocket support, we can bring the elements into Pablo as 4K or 5K at about 12 frames per second

8. Kelvin and Tint are maintained. For this film, all other meta-data fields are “zeroed” out and the curve of REDLogFilm is applied during import

8. Matt Blackshear conforms the list (which is 9 minutes) and checks it against the the H.264 reference (this whole process takes about 30 minutes)

9. After 30 minutes of work, the list is in Pablo in 4K, H.264 provides the audio guide track, and we’re ready for grading

DIGITAL INTERMEDIATE

That night, Jarred, Deanan, Graeme, David, and Bill worked with colorist Ian Vertovec to start the 4K DI. This initial session went for about 4 hours to start setting looks and building an overall style to the film. At Light Iron, we currently use Christie CP2000’s for our grading. While this DLP can only display 2048x1080, the Pablo is working in 4K and scaling down the output only. This is important because all the work, shapes, and manipulation is actually happening on 4K files, not proxies. When we QC the work and play it back, we are watching the actual 4K files. Some systems work with proxy files when resolutions are higher than 2K. This is one reason we prefer Pablo some other systems.

COLOR SCIENCE

When we do a film project, we will work in log space. Last year we did 2 films that were shot on 35mm and transferred to log DPX. When doing this, we need to put our projectors in P3 space with a print emulation that matches the print we will be film recording to upon completion. When we first started loading in RED footage in summer of 2007, we initially experimented working with the same approach. At that time, REDLog was the only log curve RED offered, and we used that as a starting point with our film LUT for color correction. After working this way on the first RED reel (RED 100), we realized that the images were not behaving as well as they seemed to in RED Alert. Every time we used RED Alert, we were looking at files in Rec709, full code range. After talking with Graeme, we confirmed our suspicions that working with RED files does not require (or prefer) a film LUT to coincide with a traditional LOG workflow. So we turned off the emulation LUT, left log space, and reserved that workflow for formats that were designed for log grading. This is an important step in taking RED files from good to great. Tattoo, The Social Network, Atlas Shrugged, Haywire, Manure, S. Darko, and many others are good examples of how we find working with RED files natively with the REDLogFilm curve applied in a gamma-corrected setup (often referred to as “linear”) such as Rec709 or DCI P3 will yield better results than working through a log workflow such as log print emulation. Once you apply the REDLogFilm curve to your files and start working in 709 or P3, the most common reaction we get from our clients including David Devlin is “Wow. That looks great!” While there is a large number of people who feel this workflow is not in the best interest of digital intermediate, we find that it’s less dependent on color talent, rather more dependent on your philosophy. While most people can agree film makes for a beautiful (albeit cumbersome) format to photograph with, most people will also agree film makes a lousy format to distribute with. Today’s estimations are that nearly 12,000 digital projectors have been installed in North America (of a possible 40,000). 10 years ago that number only a few hundred. With the rapid growth of digital distribution, including the start of 4K projection, along with its superior image quality, digital exhibition is now where the largest percentage of viewers will see a project. So the philosophy is simple: favor the format that will exhibit to the largest audience. Since Tattoo was shot digitally in 5K and will exhibit exclusively digitally, twisting the color matrix to a log print emulation workflow will only limit its potential. While everyone reserves the right to work in the place they are comfortable with, I believe that a gamma corrected DI workflow is the one that will become a regular standard for grading, monitoring and distribution. This is a stark contrast to the companies that have pioneered a working log workflow for film acquisition and print exhibition, which is why one should use both methods, depending on the project. The notion that all images should fit through the same color pipeline is same notion that a single car should be used to commute to work, race on a track and plow snow. Tattoo is a good example of letting the Epic camera perform to its optimal settings and give the DP and colorist the fastest and simplest way to be creative. In Tattoo, there is an average of 8 layers of unique qualification in any given shot. Images such as the long steadicam shot and the old man’s walk form the stove to the window are examples of shots that have more than 20 layers. In fact, when I asked Ian how many layers were in the initial shot of the saloon, there were so many that he wasn’t able to count! This demonstrates the precision of modern DI. DPs such as David Devlin understand this, and when you mix the talent that was available on Tattoo with the latest tools like Epic and Pablo, the word “compromise” is rarely uttered.

CREATIVE SOVEREIGNTY

And that’s really what it comes down to. There are so many exciting things happening today that we all essentially share the same opportunities to make projects exactly the way we see them in our dreams. So long as we are open to new tools, talent and technology, the need to make creative compromises will continue to decline. That is what excites me, and I’m confident that if we or someone else discovers a new and better way to make a film, we will explore it in a heartbeat. While I don’t think there are any definitive right answers, I definitely can say we have explored and identified wrong ones. That is also what this post is meant to do. I fully understand that people will criticize this process and this workflow. Go for it! Point out my short comings so I can try to improve them next time! Many may have a better way to do the same thing - perhaps light it differently - perhaps shoot it differently - choose a camera they prefer - a workflow they prefer - or color science they prefer - but Tattoo represents exactly what this team of filmmakers wanted to achieve, which is the point. But I will take one last risk: it is my professional opinion that given the timeline and the limitations that we faced 10 days before we had to hand-deliver a product to Las Vegas for exhibition, Tattoo is a film that was executed with near perfection. The Epic camera, even in the hands of people like Bill and David that have never seen it, delivered exactly what we all hoped for without compromises. Thanks to RED’s simple but effective tools, both in production and post, Tattoo was delivered on time, in 4K and I have yet to hear one excuse for quality from any of the top-notch names that appear in the credits.

DELIVERY

There is one last button to this story: After a long all-nighter of color correction on Saturday, April 9th into Sunday, April 10th, Katie Fellion, Ian, Kevin London and I carried with us a G-Tech hard drive of Tattoo that was just under 400 gigabytes. We were able to conform, color correct, output and deliver this film to a projector over 200 miles away in 2 days. But after being awake ourselves for nearly 3 days (even 4K credit scrolls take a while to render) we knew we were unable to safely make the drive to NAB. Showing their support, RED decided to send us a driver to take us to Vegas that Sunday morning for delivery to Hugo Cargnelutti who was eagerly awaiting our drive for loading into the Clipster for playback. At 8AM a bus showed up to drive us, only that bus turned out to be a party bus that still smelled like the night before. Complete with a stripper pole, the Light Iron team attempted to sleep on alcohol-stained seats while strobe-light floors and ceilings flashed all the way to Las Vegas. On any other day, that would have seemed strange.

Close to 4,000 people came to the booth and experienced the first project shot and exhibited in 4K on the RED Epic camera. The files were played as uncompressed 4K files out of a Clipster and handed over to RED for RED RAY encoding at 15mbs. Suggesting to viewers that “10 days ago what you are about to see didn’t exist” was an understatement. Epic does work, it is stable and makes incredible pictures. And Epic’s workflow is the most streamlined and readily available cinema pipeline available. If that were not true, no one would have seen the film. And perhaps the best litmus test is that Bill, David, Rob and David Blocker have never used this technology and have since become complete advocates. So much that their showing Tattoo off to their high-ranking friends as I write this. Tattoo is not the biggest project I’ve ever worked on, however it is absolutely one of the most rewarding. So long as most viewers get lost in the story and don’t worry about debayering, cameras, lenses and color science, I’d say we all did our jobs. After receiving that feeling, I slept better than I had in a long time.

A Widening Trend

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:20:10 -0800

In March of 2003, the 75th Annual Academy Awards were held at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, California. But this particular year marked a unique turn of events for the broadcast, as it was the first time a major awards show was broadcast in high definition. I remember the day well, as my friend Ian and I were excited about a major live HD broadcast (outside of the Superbowl). Ian and I had both previously invested in Sony WEGA HDTVs (admittedly motivated by our our growing XBOX HD games library), but it was on this day that we paid a visit to our friend Mo Bash at Good Guys to buy an HD antenna. At the time, HDTV over cable was virtually non-existant, and satellite providers only offered a few HD channels at a premium. So the easiest way to get HD in major cities in the early 2000’s was (oddly enough) for free over the airways. Atop our Hollywood apartment roof, Ian and I pointed my newly-bought HD antenna northeast towards Mt. Wilson where we had a direct line of sight.That evening, Steve Martin opened the show with his 2nd hosting of the awards. As I recall, the picture was amazing - as HD antennas delivered the better picture quality since airway HD transmission was far less compressed than that of satellite or cable HD transmissions. But what I remember most about that night was when Steve Martin seemingly spoke to Ian and I in my apartment. In the opening act, Martin made a crack (almost like an afterthought) and said “Folks, there is something else exiting tonight: tonight marks the first time the Academy Awards is being broadcast in high definition!” Ian and I looked at each other and laughed. Then Martin smirkingly looks into the camera, waves at it like you wave at a big fish tank, and says “So I hope it looks good for those two guys watching this in HD at Good Guys!”Moments like that are fairly frequent in my life - I’ve been blessed enough to recognize the numerous times in which our ideas and desires are validated by society as truly “ahead of the curve.” Ian and I didn’t invest in HD so we could watch the Academy Awards or play XBOX games in HD because it was new and cool, we did it simply because it felt right.

Over the next two years, the major networks really started a well advertised push towards routine HD broadcast. It was at this time I started to document trends that I noticed as the market began to shift. I started logging TV shows that broadcasted in HD and noticed the sitcoms (which were much easier to post since many of them were switched) went to HD first. Then I noticed how primetime dramas started to go to HD: new dramas were pushed to HD first whereas renewed dramas tended to stay in SD and were unconverted to a pillar-boxed HD signal. Eventually, networks and movie channels started broadcasting movies in HD. On November 7th, 2004, I witnessed one of the most amazing pictures I’ve ever seen at home prior to BluRay some 6 years later: The WB broadcasted The Lord of the Rings in HD. I took a picture of my Sony WEGA television that night, which was a 4:3 1080i TV that displayed 1.78:1 images in 1080i 16:9 as well (this model of dual CRT was called the Sony VChip). This was broadcasted over the air on a digital transmission on channel 5.1.

As HD broadcast was still a premium, from the years of 2002-2006, over 90% of commercials stayed in SD, as many broadcasters increased the rates for HD broadcast which delayed the time in which commercials would be broadcast in HD. By 2007, the cable market was about 2 years behind the networks when it came to routine HD broadcasts, but as some major satellite and cable companies merged, the consumer was able to find HD cable channels when the providers dropped most of the HD premium costs.

Now the original aspect ratio for The Lord of the Rings was 2:35:1. But when it aired on HDTV, was reformatted for 1.78:1, which made sense at the time since a 16:9 television was still fairly rare until 2006. What I witnessed over the next 4 years was a very interesting trend: at the same rate as the sales of widescreen aspect ratio televisions increased, so did the aspect ratios of the broadcasted content. The Lord of the Rings was just the beginning in commercially underwritten widescreen feature presentations. As all TVs started going wider to the general public, more and more programs ended up being broadcasted in 1.78:1 and by 2008, HD commercials finally started to outnumber the pillarboxed spots, which are fairly rare to witness on HD channels today. And in 2009 as this widening trend unfolded, Philps made a monumental achievement by creating the first 21:9 home theater television. That’s a 2:33:1 aspect ratio, perfect for original aspect ratio home theater presentation of all aspect ratios.

But perhaps the most exciting thing about this is the nearing of all original aspect ratios. When televisions were primarily 4:3, 16:9 content was rare. Remember when you accidentally bought the “full screen” version of DVDs when you meant to buy the “widescreen” version??? (I accidentally got stuck with a lousy copy of TROY in 4:3). But with the near total elimination of 4:3 screens, nearly all broadcasting is done 1:78:1 or (at worst) letterboxed 4:3. The best part of this is broadcasters and movie-channels started broadcasting films in their original aspect ratios. In December of 2008, I witnessed my first original aspect ratio feature presentation on basic cable. It was a broadcast of Titanic on TNT in it’s original 2:35:1 aspect ratio. This was a major step in the right direction as a scope movie was actually played on basic cable in scope! As the months and years went on, more and more shows were broadcasted letterboxed in their original 2:35:1 and 2:40:1 widescreen aspect ratios. But pushing the boundaries even more in 2010, I noticed a new trend starting to unveil in broadcast, it was a widescreen 2:35:1 presentation of commercial content.In the 3rd and 4th quarters of this past year, a surge of commercial campaigns started being shot and distributed in 2:35:1. Many of these spots were TV trailers of feature films, but alongside the feature films was the widescreen presentation of dozens of commercial products and companies.

From bank and cereal commercials, to video games and, of course, feature films, it seems as though the ability to promote the highest production value content can be heightened by increasing the horizontal pixel count. This is only possible when the exhibition of the average consumer can support it on a physical and conceptual level. In other words, the widescreen TVs need to be in place and the consumer needs to be acclimated to routine letterboxing. Below are some examples of this as I photographed them for research off my living room television from my phone. Though the quality of the pictures isn’t very high, the story they tell is that hundreds of content providers are starting to conceptualize, create, and distribute their images wider and wider than ever before.

What this means is that nearly all content is making its way through a widening trend. With commercials and broadcasted feature films displaying in their native 2:35:1 aspect ratio, it tells me that consumers are truly acclimated to widescreen format presentations. What this also tells me is that our world is in store for another widening trend yet to come. When the distribution and display devices such as widescreen televisions catch up to the capture mediums, I think it suggests that another round of widescreen presentations is right around the corner for feature filmmakers. Feature films have always been the trend setters - which is why so many other mediums emulate what they see in feature film story telling techniques. This means that cameras will need to begin offering wider apertures for image capture and storytellers will want to widen their composition to bring something fresh to audiences and advertising platforms. This is actually a fairly logical evolution since wider images better represent what we see as people from our eyes. Our eyesight lets us see nearly 5x horizontally than we do vertically, and therefore a wider image feels very natural to a viewing audience.

So what can we expect next? My guess is that we are in the last stages of digital cinema cameras shooting in a 1:78 aspect ratio (at least I hope so). Traditionally, the average digital cinema pro (and prosumer) camera shoots 16:9, but I believe this is no longer going to satisfy the content creator of tomorrow since these aspect ratios do not satisfy a wider landscape. Cameras will continue to widen, and I think the opportunity for wider presentations in theaters and advertising platforms (such as Times Square and computer displays) will also widen to 21:9 and beyond. The options are encouraging: Landscape is how we view our world and it’s how we organize things. Look around hour house - it’s arranged in longer horizontal spans than vertical. Even your computer screen is based around a wider landscape orientation. With a wider TV and computer, websites won’t have to scroll down as much, documents won’t overlap so much, and movies will immerse viewers as a larger percentage of their field of view is taken up by the screen instead of a wall.

Hi michael Im a huge fan after the social network (i managed to get pre release tickets so ill be one of the first in the uk to see it this week!) and everytime i look into the process of the red images and how well it turned out (from reduser.net) all signs pointed to you! I know its quite vague but some things you talk about in the forum kinda go over me as Im just starting out and am shooting my first red test with some local guys who own a system next week. what sort of things should I concern myself with when i come to use the system for the first time for a proper shoot (short film etc)

Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:36:06 -0700

Hi Tom-

Making preparation inquiries like this one are a great step in improving any project. Asking questions is among the most valuable things you can do in pre-production. Here are some things you may want to explore with your production and post production team:

The CABOOSE EFFECT

1. How are you going to finish the film?

Base your process on how you are ultimately going to exhibit the film. This will reveal to you ways in which you should employ and/or avoid specific steps that may or may not be useful in distribution. For example, if you plan to distribute primarily on BluRay, there is no benefit to color correcting in P3 space for film exhibition.

2. How are you going to edit the film?

Most films are edited in Final Cut Pro and AVID Media Composer. I recommend working in either, but using DNxHD115 or ProRes HQ for your offline codec. If you can do this, you can easily work at full raster and a very high fidelity. But I do not recommend working with RED RAW files in offline, as that workflow can be cumbersome as the footage count goes up.

3. How do you plan to color correct?

The nice thing about modern day DI is that everyone has access to it in some capacity. I prefer to work with data-centric systems for color mastering, but more importantly is a colorist. Do not color correct yourself. Even if you are working with the oldest coloring system around, it is probably better to take RED files to HDCAM tape and grade with an experienced colorist tape-to-tape than to use Apple Color and do it with an amateur. This really makes a HUGE difference-especially in an independent film. I cannot stress this enough. Talent in color trumps toolset any day of the week.

4. Test your gamma spaces

I recommend working with REDLog FILM for your gamma space to grade in. This may mean to process your dailies in REDLogFilm so you don’t have to do a reconform after you finish cutting. Otherwise, when you do reconform, use this gamma space since it is making RED footage look absolutely spectacular!

5. If you are doing on-set downloading, try to use 16GB CF cards

The pace of working with CF cards enables a downloader to keep up with the pace of production. This means there isn’t an hour of footage sitting on the camera at any one time waiting for downloading. Do it frequently in small chunks. This is the best rhythm for on-set processing.

6. Shoot with 2 cameras

I find that productions that shoot with 2 cameras (especially indies) end up using the additional coverage to help solve performance issues. Giving an editor more choices is worth it-especially if you are running a tight budget. Sure the camera costs more, but the price of footage is so small with RED that a 2nd camera doesn’t increase the cost at the same rate as it does with tape and film. By doing your own dailies using a RED Rocket, you are easily improving the film by getting twice the dailies shot and more coverage.

Social Network in ICG Magazine

Sat, 02 Oct 2010 12:50:43 -0700

Below is an exerpt from an insightful article that can be found in the October issue of ICG Magazine by Chris Wolski

Writing on the Wall

The RED M-X, coupled with Fincher’s notoriously precise planning, helped provide for what DP Jeff Cronenweth describes as a “trouble-free” 68-day shoot, with the show wrapping a few days early. The DI process that then followed was even more efficient, breaking new ground for digital post workflow.

When LIGHTIRON Digital colorist Ian Vertovec received the edited version of The Social Network as uncompressed 2K .dpx files, he had a product that was fully conformed and stabilized by editors Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, allowing Vertovec to move right to the demanding work of color correcting, reframing and sharpening. However, Fincher was in Europe preparing for his next project (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) for much of the digital intermediate process, which threatened to imperil Sony’s October 1 release date.

“Holding up the DI was not an option,” the colorist insists.

The workaround was unique and would not have been possible even a year or two ago, given the advances in digital technology. Vertovec matched the screens of his and Fincher’s Apple laptops, allowing them both to view the same images at the same resolution and quality no matter where they were located. This allowed the DI process to keep moving with Fincher accessing the film from the secure PIX website, where he could make annotations that Vertovec, half a world away, used to correct the images on his Pablo workstation. He then uploaded the corrected scenes on the PIX website for Fincher’s review.

Working so closely with the director gave Vertovec the insight to make what he calls “informed decisions” about changes. For example, if he received several of the same notes about the skin tones in similar scenes, he would apply those changes to others prior to Fincher seeing them. By the time Fincher returned from Europe for the final stages of the DI, the film was still on schedule. And unlike the earlier part of the process, which was conducted through the Internet on small computer monitors, the final product was graded in the most ideal of situations, a 40-foot screen at RED Studios (formerly Ren-Mar) in Hollywood. This unprecedented DI setup allowed Vertovec, Fincher and Cronenweth to view the film via a Sony 4K projector under the same conditions it would later be projected in theaters. On a recent visit, Vertovec could be seen 7 feet off the soundstage floor, changing, shaping and transforming the images on the screen as the director and DP gave notes.

As with Fincher and Cronenweth, Vertovec says his primary goals were to create a finished product that would capture Sorkin’s dense script. “There are a lot of visual effects and they’re all happening on the screen, but you don’t notice them,” he remarks, noting that there are about five to 10 tracking color correction windows in every shot.

Some of these visual effects are impressively seamless - stitched together images with an effects-produced camera move, or a pair of twins played by the same actor, for example. Others are much more subtle: those dark woods that Cronenweth carefully lit to have texture were given a bluish feel, to look even more Harvardesque.

Vertovec explains that when he made a change, his Pablo system saved a reference frame for quick access. This allowed him to manipulate any image, tearing it instantly back down to its original RAW form and just as quickly re-applying all of the changes. (The Pablo system would render in the background while Vertovec moved on to the next shot, saving significant time and money.)

When they started Facebook, Zuckerberg and his Harvard pals never imagined their online network could one day transform global connectivity. After all, Web portals like MySpace and Friendster were there first, with negligible impact and success. Similarly, the radically nimble digital workflow pioneered on The Social Network may well one day transform the film and television industry. Certainly all the creative players polled for this article think so. Vertovec estimates that within the next three to five years, virtually all productions will employ a similar digital workflow because, as he concludes, “The irony is that it isn’t really about the technology. It’s about simplifying the process to make it easier for filmmakers to tell their stories.”

Cronenweth - who cut his feature filmmaking teeth on celluloid - has a more cautiously pragmatic view about the rapid march toward digital. “I think both film and HD are great,” he concludes. “They’re both tools that are separated by what kind of story we want to tell. I do have an application preference, however, and you don’t cut paper with a hammer and don’t hammer nails with scissors.”

For the full article, visit: http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2010/10/01/friendsters/

Ferris Beuller and 4K

Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:50:18 -0700

A patron of the RED USER.net forum mentioned seeing the Social Network in NY this weekend. He inquired as to whether or not the film was projected in 2K or 4K, commenting how good it looked on the large screen. I responded to the forum, but wanted to include the response here since this issue is much bigger than The Social Network. In fact, it goes back to another post I made earlier regarding the logistical differences between 2K and 4K, which is worth revisiting because these issues keep coming up. Overall, the more these issues come up and the more they are discussed, the more evidence to suggest a 4K distribution world is right around the corner.
2K or 4KThe Social Network was onlined, vis-effected, DI’d, and mastered in 2K based on number of factors. 4K is becoming a serious discussion point for a lot of films, which is really encouraging. And most of the studio meetings I attend routinely have a “what about 4K?” discussion. -So even though 4K distribution is not here yet, I can testify that from a studio perspective, it is on everyone’s radar, and it will need to constantly be discussed.

Speaking specifically about this film, Paris makes an interesting implication: -That it was not clear whether or not the film was projected in 2K or 4K. Here’s another question for the original poster, (Paris): Do you know that it was a digital projection? Or could it have been a print?
The flattering implication is that the projection was good enough to possibly exhibit 4K qualities, even though it was not. But that statement may also support claims that 4K is unnecessary and, perhaps, invisible. But consider this: Even high-resolution images that are evaluated up-close seem to lack resolution. Think of the film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off when Cameron views George Seurat’s painting, “Sunday Afternoon.” As the camera moves in closer and closer, the (effective) resolution seems to get lower and lower. But this painting (by comparison) is veyr high resolution - I’ve seen it in person in Chicago and it’s incredible to experience up close and far away. Interestingly enough, I’m experiencing the same characteristics in viewing Seurat’s painting with RED footage for large-format projection.

I watch different iterations of our “RED Reels” with Jim and Jarred probably 3 times a week while in between watching 2K versions of The Social Network and other films. When I am up close, 4K is clear and impressive. But when I stand at the back of the theater (nearly 100 feet away), it’s unbelievably magnificent! That’s where the resolution really starts to settle in and begin to offer up another level of compelling imagery that cannot be replicated with scaling.
Below is an (iPhone) image of the Epic from the Pablo living on RED Stage 4. If you look at the first photo, some people might mistake this for being a shot of the Vegas street corner (but you can see my shadow in the bottom holding the camera). The 2nd photo represents the spot where resolution becomes more impressive. With the naked eye, the resolution of the 4K projection (from the 5K source) increases as you move further away. Unfortunately, this particular photo is too low res to demonstrate that.

The reason this is all important is how it applies to improving the motion picture expreience - not only for today’s viewers, but viewers of the future. But in order to achieve this additional “dimension” of a film, one needs to oversample because 1080p up-close vs. 1080p far away exhibit very similar characteristics. With RED starting with an unsharpened oversample, the 2K debayered result with mild sharpening delivers much more temporal resolution than a normal camera-sharpened 1080p source. The Social Network is a perfect example of this working successfully (thanks, Paris, for noticing). The images people will see on TSN are 2K results in a 2.40:1 aperture from a full debayer / RED 4K 2:1 source. 90% of viewers will see 35mm prints, which were made from the 2K DSM. As everyone knows, release prints will only carry 1.5K resolution at best. So when it comes to high fidelity in a world dominated by low-res exhibition, once again, it pays to oversample.
| m |