[Tig] Premature Death of SR
paul at cinelicious.tv
Mon Mar 21 07:23:07 GMT 2011
Here Here Craig. I'm all for tapeless workflows (from digital or
film), but free digital dailies?? Maybe Jeff wouldn't mind if
Cinelicious and Optimus just sent all the Phantom CINE 2K Raw files
over to Color Image Post for grading output to DNxHD with matching
timecode for editorial. That 6:1 ratio should be free right? :)
Apparently Jeff is speaking as the owner-operator of a new post house
that has chosen not to invest in telecine or film scanning equipment.
Nothing wrong with that of course... quite common lately... but it
sort of gives some insight into why he is so down on film.
Paul "not tired of grain" Korver
On Mar 20, 2011, at 10:40 PM, Craig Leffel wrote:
> 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?
> Craig Leffel
> 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> wrote:
>> 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. . . have
>> 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 too
>> big of an expense I guess. (sarcasm in use)
>> Jeff Jones
>> Color Image Post
More information about the Tig