GEN: Superman Returns shot on Panavision Genesis at DVinfo.net

Heath McKnight · April 27th, 2005, 03:03 PM

You'll need broadband for the Superman video.

Press release of the camera, which I believe Sony only did part of, vs. the Panavision CineAltas, which just have the Panavision lenses and that's it.

heath

Richard Alvarez · April 27th, 2005, 04:13 PM

Interesting, especially since the workflow pipline is LONGER than film. This relates to the other thread re: HD and 16mm workflow. Digital is not necessarily faster than film.

Heath McKnight · April 27th, 2005, 10:46 PM

That doesn't seem right. It's digital, not on tape--they just plug drives into the computer and go. Dailies can be done instantaneously, not the next evening. There's no 4k DI done for editing and f/x, and only one real film out at the end. Seems shorter to me.

heath

Richard Alvarez · April 28th, 2005, 08:00 AM

The editor is not getting the footage as fast as film, because it is being "CORRECTED" before he gets it. In other words, it still not good enough to even EDIT with. He's getting it a full day later.

This goes back to my post about how much "Post work" is being pushed up in the production flow compared to film. It's the reality of the workflow.

Heath McKnight · April 28th, 2005, 08:16 AM

I understand they do corrections later.

heath

Richard Alvarez · April 28th, 2005, 08:18 AM

Heath,

In the video, the editor expressly complains that' he's NOT getting the footage as fast as he should because the corrections are taking too long.

Heath McKnight · April 28th, 2005, 08:27 AM

What are the corrections?

heath

Kevin Dooley · April 28th, 2005, 08:57 AM

It sounds like color corrections are what they were referring to.

Though it is interesting that Bryan clearly says at one point that he thinks it looks better than film...

Richard Alvarez · April 28th, 2005, 09:21 AM

I've watched that clip three times now, and I still say it points out the workflow bottlenecks. Part of it is personal. One guy, (I'm guessing the line producer?) Says "We could speed things up if you didn't print every take..." To which the director responds he's not going to work any differently ... that is, not going to change his workflow.

I've seen sets grind to a halt, with people huddled around a monitor, adjusting the camera settings to get the look 'right'. This is the sort of thing that is normally done in post with film. As I mentioned, HD tends to push post processess ON TO the set, which can slow down the workflow dramatically.

I don't know what the workflow is in the Superman set in the link. I know that the color corrector is getting the footage BEFORE the editor, which is slowing the editor's pace down by an entire day... which, as the director points out, is unacceptable. Holding onto a set for an extra day is cost prohibitive... (Here again, you savings over film seems to start slipping away.)

IN terms of pure resolution, HD still does not match film. Though, subjectively it can "look better than film". I don't know if what they were screening was a digital projection, or an actual FILM PRINT... it was not made clear. Perhaps someone else has a different take on that?

Yes, in THEORY, digital workflow should be faster than film, because you are eliminating the 'processing'. But if your setups are slower, and you need to color correct the digital stuff before the editor gets to work with it... you've got problems.

Eventually, it will get worked out. Digital IS the future. So is tapeless. But, as I said in another thread. It's not there yet. In terms of special effects shots, it's much better and faster than the film workflow, no question about that.

Kevin Dooley · April 28th, 2005, 09:27 AM

Well then the question begs to be asked, "Why do you have to color correct first?" I mean in film color corrections happens later in the post pipeline... so why not with digital? I know the digital video I shoot (and it by no means is anywhere near this level), that the color correction is one of the last things I do...

Richard Alvarez · April 28th, 2005, 09:57 AM

Indeed. Why DO they need to go to color correction? ... UNLESS.

They don't trust how the image will look TRANSFERRED TO FILM.

This is the only reason I can come up with. Perhaps Charles Papert will comment on this. I am just guessing here... but I am thinking that what they are looking at in the clip, is a FILM PRINT of their digital image. In other words, they haven't eliminated the processing and printing part of looking at dailies..

This dovetails with another article I read, where DP's are very unhappy with looking at digital dailies, because they are not seeing what the projected image will look like. Perhaps, what this clip reflects, is an effort to merge the two workflows? Remember... while film has been eliminated in the production process... it's still IN the delivery format. At some point, you have to see what your images are going to look like projected on a big screen. Again, my point being that the workflow of HD production, is causing what are normally POST processess to be pushed earlier into PRODUCTION processess.

Granted, I have limited experience in terms of feature productions, but this is my observation both first hand, and as relied to me by my creative partner, who shoots both film and HD.

IN a small budget production, you will forgoe many steps. But in a major production, when holding onto a set is a matter of enourmous time and money, you need to KNOW you've got what you need, before you strike and move on... hence the need to get a film-out on your digitals before striking.

Pete Wilie · April 28th, 2005, 11:02 AM

Richard,

You seem to be acceptiing the Superman workflow as the optimum workflow for digital. I'm not sure this is a good assumption.

Several points:

At the beginning the DP stated that they were all new to the digital workflow, and would undoubtedly make some mistakes
They stated that the film workflow would usually take at least 2 days, and this is with expensive rushed processing
It sounds like the director is requiring film prints of the dailies
The need/purpose for color correction before reviewing the dailes is not clear
They talk about flying the dailies somewhere - why?
I'm not sure your comment that much of the "post work" is being pushed up to production being "the reality of the workflow" is necessary how it must be.

So it seems to me that the workflow could be greatly sped up by

Print only the first one or two dailies to convince yourself that the digital will produce the ultimate look you want
Setup larger HD monitors or digital projection on location for INSTANT review of the dailies
Take one sample through the entire workflow process in the beginning to be sure you will get the final product you want
After that you should be able to rely on just reviewing the raw HD footage

I think your conclusions that digital shooting is slower than film shooting my be premature. It may be that the crews experienced with film may not have fully adapted their workflow to be optimized for digital. The director requiring a print of the dailies is one example.

Best Regards,
Pete

Kevin Dooley · April 28th, 2005, 11:07 AM

I'm going to have to agree with you Pete. It's not like there aren't plenty of view mediums for HD content... even uncompressed or whatever it is that the Genesis gives you. I think the problem is printing the dailies. If Singer and his DP would do the research to make sure that their source will end up like they want, then they could easily go to, like you said, instant dailies. It's a matter of research (preproduction) and confidence in the choices you've made. If you do that, then you are saving the cost of printing dailies and you're saving the time...

Richard Alvarez · April 28th, 2005, 11:20 AM

My assesment is not "premature" it's based on my personal experience on sets, and on the experience of my creative partner and DP.

I'm waiting on some rendering right now, as I'm editing, but if I can find the articles that state the problems I've pointed out, I will. Many DP's are unhappy with "instant dailies". I've SEEN sets slow down, while everyone gathers around the HD monitor, and keeps adjusting the camera settings. These are facts, not assumptions.

The need for color correction of the dailies before filmout is not made clear as you said... let me venture an explanaiton.

With a properly exposed negative... you have the option of getting what you want in the processesing of the print. In the digital workflow... if the information is NOT IN THE DIGITAL NUMBERS it's not going to show up in the print, follow?

But perhaps someone with more on set experience than me, or those represented in the clip, would like to chime in. The HD workflow has been around for... what, going on ten years?

Pete Wilie · April 28th, 2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez

Many DP's are unhappy with "instant dailies". I've SEEN sets slow down, while everyone gathers around the HD monitor, and keeps adjusting the camera settings. These are facts, not assumptions.

The question is WHY?

Why are the DP's unhappy?
Why is EVERYONE gathering around the HD monitor?
Is the crew still trying to operate like film crew?
Did they do their homework in pre-production to test the workflow?
Don't they trust the DP?
Don't they trust the cameraman?
Has the crew really tried to optimize their workflow for HD?

April 27th, 2005, 03:03 PM	#1
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Superman shoots with Panavision Digital Camera You'll need broadband for the Superman video. Press release of the camera, which I believe Sony only did part of, vs. the Panavision CineAltas, which just have the Panavision lenses and that's it. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

April 27th, 2005, 10:46 PM	#3
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	That doesn't seem right. It's digital, not on tape--they just plug drives into the computer and go. Dailies can be done instantaneously, not the next evening. There's no 4k DI done for editing and f/x, and only one real film out at the end. Seems shorter to me. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

April 28th, 2005, 08:16 AM	#5
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I understand they do corrections later. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

April 28th, 2005, 08:27 AM	#7
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	What are the corrections? heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

April 28th, 2005, 08:57 AM	#8
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	It sounds like color corrections are what they were referring to. Though it is interesting that Bryan clearly says at one point that he thinks it looks better than film... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

April 27th, 2005, 04:13 PM	#2
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Interesting, especially since the workflow pipline is LONGER than film. This relates to the other thread re: HD and 16mm workflow. Digital is not necessarily faster than film.

April 28th, 2005, 08:00 AM	#4
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	The editor is not getting the footage as fast as film, because it is being "CORRECTED" before he gets it. In other words, it still not good enough to even EDIT with. He's getting it a full day later. This goes back to my post about how much "Post work" is being pushed up in the production flow compared to film. It's the reality of the workflow.

April 28th, 2005, 08:18 AM	#6
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Heath, In the video, the editor expressly complains that' he's NOT getting the footage as fast as he should because the corrections are taking too long.

April 28th, 2005, 09:21 AM	#9
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	I've watched that clip three times now, and I still say it points out the workflow bottlenecks. Part of it is personal. One guy, (I'm guessing the line producer?) Says "We could speed things up if you didn't print every take..." To which the director responds he's not going to work any differently ... that is, not going to change his workflow. I've seen sets grind to a halt, with people huddled around a monitor, adjusting the camera settings to get the look 'right'. This is the sort of thing that is normally done in post with film. As I mentioned, HD tends to push post processess ON TO the set, which can slow down the workflow dramatically. I don't know what the workflow is in the Superman set in the link. I know that the color corrector is getting the footage BEFORE the editor, which is slowing the editor's pace down by an entire day... which, as the director points out, is unacceptable. Holding onto a set for an extra day is cost prohibitive... (Here again, you savings over film seems to start slipping away.) IN terms of pure resolution, HD still does not match film. Though, subjectively it can "look better than film". I don't know if what they were screening was a digital projection, or an actual FILM PRINT... it was not made clear. Perhaps someone else has a different take on that? Yes, in THEORY, digital workflow should be faster than film, because you are eliminating the 'processing'. But if your setups are slower, and you need to color correct the digital stuff before the editor gets to work with it... you've got problems. Eventually, it will get worked out. Digital IS the future. So is tapeless. But, as I said in another thread. It's not there yet. In terms of special effects shots, it's much better and faster than the film workflow, no question about that.

April 28th, 2005, 09:27 AM	#10
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	Well then the question begs to be asked, "Why do you have to color correct first?" I mean in film color corrections happens later in the post pipeline... so why not with digital? I know the digital video I shoot (and it by no means is anywhere near this level), that the color correction is one of the last things I do... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

April 28th, 2005, 09:57 AM	#11
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Indeed. Why DO they need to go to color correction? ... UNLESS. They don't trust how the image will look TRANSFERRED TO FILM. This is the only reason I can come up with. Perhaps Charles Papert will comment on this. I am just guessing here... but I am thinking that what they are looking at in the clip, is a FILM PRINT of their digital image. In other words, they haven't eliminated the processing and printing part of looking at dailies.. This dovetails with another article I read, where DP's are very unhappy with looking at digital dailies, because they are not seeing what the projected image will look like. Perhaps, what this clip reflects, is an effort to merge the two workflows? Remember... while film has been eliminated in the production process... it's still IN the delivery format. At some point, you have to see what your images are going to look like projected on a big screen. Again, my point being that the workflow of HD production, is causing what are normally POST processess to be pushed earlier into PRODUCTION processess. Granted, I have limited experience in terms of feature productions, but this is my observation both first hand, and as relied to me by my creative partner, who shoots both film and HD. IN a small budget production, you will forgoe many steps. But in a major production, when holding onto a set is a matter of enourmous time and money, you need to KNOW you've got what you need, before you strike and move on... hence the need to get a film-out on your digitals before striking.

April 28th, 2005, 11:02 AM	#12
Pete Wilie Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 331	Richard, You seem to be acceptiing the Superman workflow as the optimum workflow for digital. I'm not sure this is a good assumption. Several points: At the beginning the DP stated that they were all new to the digital workflow, and would undoubtedly make some mistakes They stated that the film workflow would usually take at least 2 days, and this is with expensive rushed processing It sounds like the director is requiring film prints of the dailies The need/purpose for color correction before reviewing the dailes is not clear They talk about flying the dailies somewhere - why? I'm not sure your comment that much of the "post work" is being pushed up to production being "the reality of the workflow" is necessary how it must be. So it seems to me that the workflow could be greatly sped up by Print only the first one or two dailies to convince yourself that the digital will produce the ultimate look you want Setup larger HD monitors or digital projection on location for INSTANT review of the dailies Take one sample through the entire workflow process in the beginning to be sure you will get the final product you want After that you should be able to rely on just reviewing the raw HD footage I think your conclusions that digital shooting is slower than film shooting my be premature. It may be that the crews experienced with film may not have fully adapted their workflow to be optimized for digital. The director requiring a print of the dailies is one example. Best Regards, Pete

April 28th, 2005, 11:07 AM	#13
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	I'm going to have to agree with you Pete. It's not like there aren't plenty of view mediums for HD content... even uncompressed or whatever it is that the Genesis gives you. I think the problem is printing the dailies. If Singer and his DP would do the research to make sure that their source will end up like they want, then they could easily go to, like you said, instant dailies. It's a matter of research (preproduction) and confidence in the choices you've made. If you do that, then you are saving the cost of printing dailies and you're saving the time... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

April 28th, 2005, 11:20 AM	#14
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	My assesment is not "premature" it's based on my personal experience on sets, and on the experience of my creative partner and DP. I'm waiting on some rendering right now, as I'm editing, but if I can find the articles that state the problems I've pointed out, I will. Many DP's are unhappy with "instant dailies". I've SEEN sets slow down, while everyone gathers around the HD monitor, and keeps adjusting the camera settings. These are facts, not assumptions. The need for color correction of the dailies before filmout is not made clear as you said... let me venture an explanaiton. With a properly exposed negative... you have the option of getting what you want in the processesing of the print. In the digital workflow... if the information is NOT IN THE DIGITAL NUMBERS it's not going to show up in the print, follow? But perhaps someone with more on set experience than me, or those represented in the clip, would like to chime in. The HD workflow has been around for... what, going on ten years?