[Tig] Premature Death of SR
rick at fsm.com.au
Mon Mar 21 06:41:45 GMT 2011
Agree 110% with Craig
We're seeing digital shoots for commercials with a ratio of in excess of
1,000:1. Shoot discipline goes out the window.
What does an editor and post house do with 8 hours of footage for 1 x 30 sec
ad from a 2 day shoot with several cameras rolling and no thought into the
magnitude of the backend scheduling?
To quote a director with very good reputation "I love this 5D camera, you
just button on and roll". (Should we talk about the blown out whites,
limited depth of field and the rest?)
So there's a couple of terabytes of data and no schedule to even review it.
Guaranteed most footage is NG or doesn't even get a chance to be reviewed
It OK to make a case against film, but don't forget to keep it balanced.
As a business, you have to load up the back end to cover transcoding,
ingesting, backup and archiving and I bet the costs start to reach parity.
I'm very happy with the development of digital cameras, but let's hope they
raise the bar, not lower it.
MD FSM, Sydney
From: tig-bounces at colorist.org [mailto:tig-bounces at colorist.org] On Behalf
Of Craig Leffel
Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 4:40 PM
To: Jeff and Jill Jones
Cc: <tig at colorist.org>
Subject: Re: [Tig] Premature Death of SR
Sohonet http://www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG.
Digital Vision is patron of the TIG.
Marquise Technologies supports the TIG.
Colorist Directory at http://tig.colorist.org/wiki/Category:Colorist
You do no one any good deed by posting here that digital processing and or
shooting is automatically cheaper than film. Sure, I'm as tired of grain as
the next guy, and there are digital formats I absolutely love.. But you
don't have to pay for dailies? Really? Who pays for the editorial files to
get made from R3d to Pro-res or Dnxhd? No waiting? what planet do you live
on? Sure, if someone wants to edit directly with no lut, or straight off
in-camera qt's, or if they really only want to edit in FCP.... I sorta get
your point, which I think is weak at best. I don't know any commercial
editor that doesn't want files to look good, be exactly right to edit with,
and match TC to a higher res file for finish than what they are editing in.
I realize that it's not the norm, but it certainly is in commercial land....
And digital acquisition quite often means confused, time consuming, and
costs a lot more to make / convert proper elements and store them / ship
them. At least in my line of work. And you magically don't have to worry
about digital storage for 50 years? Do you know something about storage
arrays I don't??? Film is less archival and costs more to store than Digital
files?? Really? 50 years?
Senior colorist / Partner
Chicago / Santa Monica
This has been a Tablet like transmission.
On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:20 PM, "Jeff and Jill Jones" <jeff-jones at att.net>
> I'm sure film makers are rushing to add more
> expense to their post (shooting film). You get to wait for your dailies. .
> pay for lab processing. . . pay for a telecine suite to grade in. . .
> film grain moving like ants over your image on an LCD or plasma and find a
> place to correctly store your film for what? . . Fifty years. That's not
> big of an expense I guess. (sarcasm in use)
> Jeff Jones
> Color Image Post
More information about the Tig