In light of recent releases from Sony and much discussion here on DigitalBasin about solid-state workflows and formats; its well worth putting in a link to this superb (as always) article from Simon Wyndham.
On his site, Simon goes into solid detail comparing and doing the pros and cons of all the major tapeless cameras, formats, codecs and workflows. Its absolutly indespenable reading. I started writing my own such article and then gave up when I read Simon's - I was never going to do it better so why try :)
For all the power, flexibility and efficiency that computer technology
delivers us as filmmakers in the digital age, there are certain
unavoidable truths - computers sometimes stuff up. Crashes, lockups,
freezes and file corruptions are sadly the obstacles we will face at
some point. But whilst these issues are often unforeseeable and you
can?t prevent them entirely you can prevent them from being total
disasters with simple workflow and backup procedures.
So here are 4 Tips to prevent a crash/lockp/freeze/corruption from
being the end of the world that I advise my students of and which
should stand for any editor at any level. They are not rocket science
but I'm consistentl surprised at how often they are neglected.
1. Save
Save and Save often. CTRL+S (Apple+S). You should be in the reflex
habit of pressing these keys every few minutes without thinking about
it. It takes a spit second an updates your NLE project file
immediately. There?s no excuse not to perform these saves constantly
while working.
2. Project files
The project files from FCP, Vegas and Premiere (*.fcp, *.veg and
*.pproj) and any other NLE, are the road maps to how your edit is
assembled. The project files themselves do not contain your footage,
they simply connect to it. This means you can save multiple project
files connected to the same footage and the project files themselves
are tiny in file size and will not weigh down your hard drive.
This system provides a great way to manage your progress through
editing and provide yourself with a safety net of backups. Save a new
project file (named by date) each day. When you start editing for the
day open the previous project file and then immediately SAVE AS and
create a new project file with the new days date. Repeat this each day
of your edit.
The benefits of this process are two-fold; first you are easily able to
track back through your progress, to see the evolution of your edit day
by day and return to a previous days version at any time. Secondly this
process allows you to avoid file corruption. Unfortunately sometimes
project files can become corrupted (very often from reasons unknown),
if you only have one project file there is no recourse. But if you have
multiple previous project files you can simply step back to a previous
project file and rebuild fro there. This is a whole hell of a lot
better than rebuilding from scratch.
3. EDL
Where the project file for an editing system is a complex file keeping
track of every element of your edit, the EDL (edit decision list) is an
extremely simple set of text that instructs the editing system of the
basic cut-only assembly of your timeline. But whilst it is very simple
and minimal the EDL is also very robust and difficult to corrupt.
Saving a daily EDL as a backup takes just a few seconds and provides
some disaster proof security of your project
If using FCP you also have the option of creating an XML project file.
XML is a universal file format for saving all kinds of data. FCP uses
XML to create a simple but detailed project file assembly. You can use
FCP?s XML save in place of an EDL to create a non-corruptible backup
file for your project files.
4. Secondary Backup
Apart for creating backup project files you will need to ensure you
also have backups of your project files in a physically separate
location to protect against loss, damage or theft of your hard drive or
any other major physical disaster. This may be as simple as saving a
copy of your Project file and EDL to a different hard drive, memory
stick or server.
If you have shot to tape (DV, HDV) then the tapes themselves are your
source master backup. Store the tapes in a cool, dry, secure place away
from direct light and if worst comes to worst you can rebatch capture
from the tapes using the project file or EDL.
If you have shot solid state tapeless formats such SxS or P2 (XDCAM EX
or DVCProHD) then you will need to backup all your footage to a
separate hard drive so that there is a physically separate copy of your
entire media set.
If you follow these simple procedures and take a careful and
professional approach to managing your project and workflow there
should be no reason to ever be caught in a total disaster. If you?ve
read these notes and don?t implement them then you?ll only have
yourself to blame if the sky falls in :)
It was a matter of time before the Ex1 got a big brother but it seems
Sony have wasted no time in attempting to establish XDCAM EX as more
than a just a camera, but rather has an holistic production platform.
Panasonic attempted (and had much success) with P2 in the same vein -
an integrated system of format, codec, camera, hardware. But as I have
argued previously, Panasonic, in moving first into solid-state, picked
the wrong horse with P2, a quickly outdtaed technology base. They were
also misguided (in my judgement, though not everyone's) in the chocie
for trading expanded colour space (422 rather than 420) at the expense
of Resolution and file format efficiency (record times are two short
and file sizes are way too big).
This where Sony
have gained much by waiting and watching what happened in the
solid-state sphere - they've got a firmer more advanced and broadly
accepted technology base for the cards themselves (Express Card 3/4
SxS), they've got a highly efficient 35mbps full raster HD Mpeg2 based
format allowing long record times, and they've got an excellent
workflow system of software browsers and import utilities up and
running with all major NLE's and utlizing a full range of metadata.
So now with one camera, the EX1, out in the wild
Sony now add a second, some extra hardware and software workflow
updates.
The
EX3 wont be shipping for 3-6 months or so. But with interchangeable
lenses... This camera could be the Solid-State bomb! Apparently comes
with an adapter to allow any 1/2" sensor HD lens to fit using B4 mount - which means Canon and Fujinon lenses are open slather. Also means
huge possibilities for a P+S and Redrock extensions. Not to mention a
REAL viewfinder built over the already awesome LCD screen. that the Ex1
has.
Its got all the hallmarks of being
THE indie digital cinema camera of the next few years: full raster
1920x1080 progressive, variable frame rate, 1/2? sensors,
interchangeable lenses, full-size viewfinder, Genlock, solid-state
XDCAM. All in a sub 15K price tag
This
video walks you through the differences between the EX3 and the Ex1 and
some of the key features. It has a throughly verbose opening but when
it gets down to the nitty gritty is very
informative.
For those working in video and digital media production, it's very easy
to get carried away with the technology. Faster CPU's, more RAM, bigger
monitor screens, the latest software suites - these are all very nice
but so often it's not these things that really make the difference in
our day to day work. Very often it`s the little things that make for
greater efficiency in production. It's this concept that a device such
as Contour Design's ShuttlePro seeks to invoke.
I have recently been planning the introduction of my students at the International film School Sydney to Solid-State workflow with the Sony EX1.
One issue fundementally driving the contemporary cinema industry of late is its diversity - diversity of acquistion, diversity of process, diversity of delivery. And in this evolution we are at last beginning to shake off hierachical perceptions in favour of parralel ones. In simple terms, there's no Best choice, only the Best choice for the project. The idea of developing a Workflow for the project is now a crucial creative process because the diverse array of options can all impact upon creative outcomes.
So it's in this light that we have introduced solid-state workflows and have to teach to our students to make informed and considered decisions about their workflow in concert with its creative imperatives. What follows are some of the notes Ive been putting together on the basic Pros and Cons of solid-state.
---
Overview: The digital recording of moving images to memory cards rather than traditional digital tape represents the future of digital cinema for great many forms of production. This type of recording is known as 'solid-state' as it involves no moving parts and the 'footage' is written directly as digital files immediately readable by a computer.
Solid-State is not just a different way to record cinematic media but rather it represents an entirely new way of conceiving and managing the production process.
There are many advantages to Solid-State recording but there are also significant drawbacks. The resistive impact of these Pros and Cons will be determined by the needs and demands of the particular production in question.
There is no 'best' format, only the best for the needs of your particular production. So it is important to weigh up carefully what your production requires before deciding on a format. Solid-State may be the prefect format or it may bring significant obstacles
The XDCAM EX Format: XDCAM EX is a new variation of Sony's long standing XDCAM format. Where as XDCAM records to optical disc media (known as ProDiscs which are effectively BluRay discs in a hard case) XDCAM EX is designed specifically for Solid State memory.
XDCAM EX is recorded to special memory cards known as 'SxS'. These cards use the ?Xpress Card 3/4' slot which is common on most higher-end laptops such as MacBookPros.
XDCAM EX is capable of supporting a range of HD resolutions and frame rates: 1280x720 - 24p, 25p, 50p 1920x1080 - 24p, 25p, 50i
What is most significant about XDCAM EX is that it shoots 'full raster HD' 1920x1080. This means there is No anamorphic stretch on the pixels unlike HDV which shoots 1440x1080 and stretches the Pixels by a Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR) - of 1.333:1. The advantage of this is an image with greater fidelity and sharpness.
XDCAM EX uses the same Mpeg2 codec as HDV but at a much higher bitrate of up to 35mbps to HDV's 25mbps. This results in a much richer and sharper image that is more robust for post production manipulation.
PROS of Solid State on the EX1:
- Non-Linear file access Each individual shot can be accessed, reviewed and played back in camera. Likewise individual shots can be deleted without effecting any others. There is no continuous timecode as there is with tape so there is no such thing as broken timecode often cased by in-camera reviewing. Shots can also be individually tagged and managed in camera.
- Fast Transfer The SxS memory cards have very fast transfer speeds meaning footage can be copied from card to computer in 1/4 time (1 hour of footage takes approx 15mins to transfer)
- XDCAM Browser A dedicated piece of software for XDCAM formats allows for individual shots to be efficiently tagged, logged, annotated, and managed much more effectively than traditional tape logging.
- No tape Problems No tape wear, no spooling issues. No mis-aligned recording heads. No timecode breaks.
- Immediate recording Solid State recording starts immediately the moment you press the REC button. No delay as the tape spools or the recording head is engaged; recording starts immediately with almost zero delay.
CONS of Solid State on the EX1:
- There is no source master With XDCAM EX there is no tape to put on the shelf as a backup of your footage. SxS cards are too expensive and not designed as a long-term storage media. After shooting all footage must be copied to hard drive and the cards erased to be used again. This means the only copy of the footage is on hard drive which is more fragile than a tape. It is crucial that you engage careful and thorough back-up procedures of your footage to guard against data loss.
- Short Record Times Where as digital tape is cheap and plentiful, SxS memory cards are expensive and limited in number and capacity. The EX1 can take 2 memory cards at a time. At 8gb per card this will allow for approx 50mins of record time together. However having two cards means one can be removed and its footage transferred to a laptop computer on location whist continuing to shoot with the other card.
- NLE compatibility Currently not all editing software systems are compatible with XDCAM EX. Final Cut Pro is fully compliant but Premiere Pro is not; you will not be able to import or work with XDCAM EX footage in Premiere. This should only be short term and it is expected Premiere will be XDCAM EX compatible in the coming year.
One of the exploring areas of cinematic production is Colour Grading and whilst the idea of colour manipulation for cinema aestehtics is as old as cinema itself, the prolification of the digital domain has taken Colour Grading as a creative process to a whole new level of both sophistication and acessability.
But whilst everyone might have access to a 3-way Colour Corrector this is a far cry from a tangible understanding of the duality of science and art (with just a touch of Philosophy) that is Colour Grading and the role of the Colourist.
So it is that would should thank colour professional Kevin Shaw for his website FinalColor. Kevin has very genrously made public a set of concise and informative artices that explore some of the intricasies and sceience of colour grading and indeed of colour and light itself.
In particular his short articles What is Colour and When to Colour (PDF) are perfect for those who are wondering where to take the colour of their projects beyond just a contrast boost.
Here's a lovely little quote: "If you think that the HV20's 24P mode makes video look like film, run,
don't walk, to an optician. Maybe to a psychiatrist as well!"
And it seems Stefan has dug up a host of comrades in his tirade...
Peter Inova says, "The real-world need for 24p HD video is smaller than the need for another hole in your head."
And
Larry Jordan. "consider spending your money on a 1/4 warm black ProMist camera lens
filter and improving your lighting, both of which will do far more to
improve your look than shooting 24 fps."
Perhaps Im not the only one who loves the Look of Video....
As a follow up to my previous post entitled 'I love the look of video' I felt a need to repost this superb response from Australian-based cinematographer John Brawley.
Whilst you could read his post in the 'Comments', I feared too many might miss it there and that it deserved a much more prominent spot with a chance for wider readership. John's response is insightful, challenging and distinctly articulate to my deliberately controversial post and presents an informed and broad-based perspective on the make up of Moving Image. It would a misrepresentation to think of this discussion as crudely about Film vs Digital. Its not. Its really about the creative impetuous for acquiring the moving image and valuing its techno-aesthetic qualities on a range of levels.
---
I actually couldn't agree more with the last paragraph. Why on earth
would you want something to look like film when it's clearly not.
Surely the best thing is to use a given acquisition technology that
best suits the story or delivery mode required.
Your assertion that digital images have no innate look in
themselves is not true however. Even the RAW data from a digital camera
is the product of it's sensor. And different manufactures make
different sensors. And they all have subtle differences. The idea that
that a digitally encoded image is *untainted* is simplistic. They all
have differing and measurable signal to noise levels, that will affect
the way the image is encoded. Colour science also differs from each
manufacturer. So even RAW images will be take on the inherent
characteristics of the sensor with regards to noise, colour
reproduction and dynamic range. So although it is just DATA, each
camera produces a different set of DATA and a different look. Just like
film stock.
Your misleading history of colour timing is simply not true. It has
been possible to colour grade films for many many years. In fact the
whole use of the phrase *timing* comes from the optical process that
colour grading was and is still done by today. And for that matter, so
are the terms one light and best light. Day for night looks, not to
mention scene matching and sheer creative grading is very easily
achieved and created using this process. This year's AFI award winning
Romulous my father was all finished photochemically aside from a single
4K VFX shot. Obviously it can't be all that bad.
What digital processing has made possible, was much finer control
of the colour correction process. And this perhaps is what you meant
when you referred to as, "more recently". Pleasantville (1998) was
probably one of the first films to be graded in this manner, but mainly
because every single shot was a VFX shot by nature of it's storyline.
Oh Brother Where art Thou (2000) is considered to be one of the first
DI or digital intermediate films graded in this manner, where colour
effects were achieved that weren't previously possible using
photochemical grading. Both films of course, where shot on film.
And this is my next point.
How is an image scanned from a film negative any less *digital* than a digitally acquired image ?
Once the film frame is scanned it is JUST as digital as a digital
image rendered by a digital camera. It starts from exactly the same
point as a digitally acquired image. If you argue that film is anti-
creative, then all of your arguments about it's post production
workflows are neutered when you consider that a scan of a film frame
can have all the same image manipulations as a digitally acquired one.
A flat LOG scan of a film frame is just as flat and dull as a RAW image
from a still camera. The same blank canvas. So let's assume then, that
a scanned film frame can be just as digital as a digital acquired
digital frame.
What's anti-creative about film in production ? Cost. ? Setup time
? availability ? These are all valid arguments to some degree. But it's
also not as simple to look at a single cost on the film's budget and
point to it and say AH HA !
While film stock and processing is expensive compared to acquiring
digitally, if you factor in the cost for the higher end digital camera
platforms, you'll find that the post production infrastructure is
significant.
The much championed RED camera, which uses the D-SLR approach to
imaging provides some very fine useable images with it's own unique
look. And then there's the terrabytes of data it generates. Plus now
you have to back all this data up in a safe and redundant way, because
you can't go back to the negative for a re-scan if a drive fails. And
then there's the actual infrastructure of trying to even edit and view
these files. To do it well and safe costs. And again, I would say that
it's inherent look is great if that suits your project, and it's as
digital as a digital scan of a film frame so all the post grading and
VFX work well.
On set it's reduced dynamic range compared with film, like with all
digital cameras, means that you in fact often spend more time lighting
because you need to ensure that you get it right on the day. Film
allows us to be somewhat lazy in this regard. Now this is not film
look. This is being cinematic.
The idea that digital is faster to light and requires less light is
also a fallacy. Sure, you can turn the camera on and you'll get a
picture right away without any lighting. And the same goes for any film
camera really. If you want it to look *cinematic* (not filmic) then it
still requires a great deal of care and attention on set. You still
need a dolly or a steadicam. You still need to be able to light for the
camera. You need the same crew and level of experience.
Plenty of people are happy to use digital for what it's great at.
Russian ark (2002) for it continuous long take. Films like Blacktown
(2005) couldn't be made without digital shooting technology allowing
intimate access to non professional actors.
Progressive displays have been around since..well computers, and
we've been using them for at least the past 20 years. But most US Drama
has been film acquired over the years. We tend to associate video with
lo-fi and disposable, simply because that's what most news footage is
and that's how we consume it. And it's natural to associate that with
*real*.
By dissing the film look, you're actually engaging in the same
debate you're pretending you don't care about. The digital mantra that
digital is better leaves behind a lot of valuable film-making
techniques that lots of people don't seem to be in a hurry to leave
behind even though digital film origination as been with us at least a
decade.
I think it's naive to dismiss any form of image capture, and hitch
your wagon to any one acquisition platform, they all have a place. I
recently shot some sections of a film finished to 35mm on a mobile
phone.
If this revolution is happening and has been happening for the last
few years, why hasn't there been a bigger rush ? Why does all of
Soderburg's film originated films sell squillions of tickets while
people don't even know he's cranking out other digital films....
How about we just use the best paintbrush we can skilfully use and
afford to paint the best picture we can for the story we're trying to
convey.
jb - I love the look of what ever the story teller has chosen to use....
*i wait with bated breath to see what David (i'll never shoot film
again) Lynch will do after his underwhelming PD150 shot Inland Empire.
I LOVE the look of video, I love the aesthetic of the electronic image. I see chemical image of film and it just seems soft and dull and lifeless to me. I see the razor sharpness and the infinite flexibility of video, its density and dynamism and vibrancy and I think nothing but film is dead.
Now there's a statement to draw the ire of the purists and the technologically insecure. Should I go further...?
The film look is bullshit; a product of marketing representation and the digestible distillation of an association with a particular mode of viewing. The 'film look' is a cultural rather than aesthetic understanding; one drawn from our legacy of personal cinematic experiences in the movie theatre from a projected image. Thus, when it comes to making 'films' in the digital age for ourselves we innately want our films to evoke those same nostalgic memory associations we have with celluloid. This we translate as the aesthetic of film, the 'film look', but in truth it's more about cultural and personal association.
Certainly there is a 'film look', a set of visual characteristics derived from a medium made of celluloid and silver emulsion, but specifically seeking or choosing this 'look' because of a perception that it 'looks better' or is somehow visually superior is an argument very difficult to sustain on a technical or scientific level.
Film looks like Film, no doubt. The organic nature of its grain and distinct visual imperfections delivers a particular characteristic. But it would be a fundamental misnomer to then surmise that in the same vein Digital looks like Digital. Digital is not a medium in possession of innate characteristics as celluloid is. Digital is just Binary; representations, in Zeros and Ones, of visual information. Digital looks like whatever you want it to look like, so long as you know what youre doing and understand how to manipulate the Zeros and Ones.
So what really is the process of crafting the 'film look' in digital? It is an elusive thing. Strangely the 'film look' is often referred to as a specific technical element but that technical element is very difficult to qualify.
The simple truth is that any camera image source will, first and foremost, look like the quality of the camera lens. Shallow depth of field is often cited as key to the 'film look' but DOF is purely a product of lens and aperture exposure. Put a good fast lens with wide aperture on a digital camera and you can have every bit as much DOF control as a film camera. Defining the 'film look' by shallow DOF is technically bunk since DOF has nothing to do with recording medium.
The second element, much associated with the 'film look', is the cadence of its progressive movement; its visual rhythm. With digital and electronic video originally rooted in TV there was a long association with interlaced imagery. Interlaced images, by the nature of how they're assembled (as 50 or 60 fields rather than 25 or 30 frames) creates a distinctly smoother moving image lacking the slight staccato feel of film flicker.
Stu Maschwitz, one of the founders of The Orphanage, developer of Magic Bullet and author of Pro Lost (one of the most information rich blogs on the net) wrote this about the relationship between Human beings, Flicker and Storytelling.
Video's frame rate being as close to reality as we can discern jibes with our ingrained perception of how video is traditionally used: to document real-life events. The TV news, reality TV shows, and our own home movies have a documentary quality to them that subconsciously suggests to the viewer that they are seeing actual events. Even sitcoms and soap operas are less like movies than they are like simulations of being in a studio audience watching a live performance. Video clues us in that we are watching reality, and by showing us everything, it invites us to passively absorb it. : OVERVIEW Movies are anything but reality. Ironically, by showing the audience less (40% of the temporal information of NTSC video), they trigger a part of our brains that works to fill in the missing information. In this way film creates a more participatory experience and at the same time informs its audience that what they are viewing is an authored, narrative work. This is backed up by our historical associations as well we have learned to associate film's flicker with storytelling and video's unflinching detail with reality.
Since before history mankind has sat around campfires and told stories, and there are those who suggest that this association with narrative and the flickering image is so deeply ingrained in our collective unconscious that it in part explains our love for movies. Whether this is true or not, applying Magic Bullet to your video instantly transforms it from feeling like just another bit of DV camcorder footage to something more.
But following Stu's argument, this association of the flickering image is a purely cultural one rather than one drawn on the basis of 'quality' which is so often cited with film. Similarly, and by contrast, the 'undesirable' smoothness of video is not a product of digital/electronic means itself but rather of the Electrical Power and Broadcasting infrastructure that traditionally supported it. US NTSC uses 60 fields per second for no other reason than US power grids use 60hz oscillations. Most of the rest of the world on PAL uses 50 fields because the power grids are at 50hz oscillations.
Again, digital images, of themselves, have no innate 'look', they are just data manipulated and its the manipulation that defines a 'look'. As the old infrastructures, that have traditionally defined much of the aesthetic, dissipate the manipulation of digital data is left more to the filmmaker than the infrastructure of electricity and broadcasting. Hence we have the dramatic shift in recent years to Progressive Scan cameras, 24p, 25p and 30p shooting as well as the very 'filmic' technique of over and under cranking of frame rates.
From there the rest of what defines a 'film look' to the common observer is the colour and tone of the image; how the media is treated, processed and manipulated in post-production.
In the long history of celluloid production this processing of colour and tone was a photo chemical process; a manipulation of the visual information by means of chemistry. But in truth such processes where not particularly common with the tone of an image being largely pre-defined by type of film stock selected and the manipulations of exposure in-camera during shooting.
Whilst there is indeed a long history of such manipulations in cinema, the process of colour grading (or colour timing) as a common, widespread and accepted part of post production is a relatively recent development - a shift that has seen the practice move from the fringes of experimentation and special effects to simple mainstream commonality.
Arguably one of the preeminent focuses of colour grading processes in the digital age has been on getting digital to emulate the visual characteristics of celluloid. Such choices impose on digital cinema two categories of manipulations; the recognisable characteristics of film which are otherwise absent (namely grain and flicker), and particular colour tonnings for style and mood (tone, colour wash, contrast and so on). All these are focused in popular perception on the 'film look' and 'better' visual quality.
Yet there are distinct conundrums and contradictions here. The artificial insertion of celluloid artefacts of grain, organic emulsion, removal of frames to force 24p, jitter and flicker are all acts of deliberate degradation. Any way you slice it, putting such elements into an image where they don't previously exist is an act of degrading and lowering the visual quality of the image. An overtly strange act when the intention is to get the 'film look' because it looks 'better'...
The second set of process actions associated with colour and tone are those often designed to emulate the particular chromatic properties of specific film stocks. But this is really just a process of using a film stock as a reference point. The digital colour manipulations in grading processes far exceed what is possible from film stock itself. Digital image data is simply that, data. It's an almost infinitely flexible set of data waiting to be given a 'look'; a concept fundamentally divorced from film stock which has an inherent 'look' based on brand, type and chemical make up.
At the risk of public lynching from the film purists I'd argue that in the digital age, film as a medium is a distinctly anti-creative format. By its very nature shooting on film limits, restricts or cuts off the filmmaker from a host options creative options that would otherwise be open to them. Celluloid is not a blank canvas, not an open slate onto which to paint with all the available colours. Digital, by its technical make up, a blank and unformed ball of clay that can be shaped into any conceivable form.
I cannot help but be confronted by the irony that as we, creative cinema makers, are handed the most flexible form we have ever know, one unrestricted and infinitely open, our first overriding instinct is to degrade it, limit it, deform it to enforce upon it the restrictions of its predecessor.
Perhaps this is simply a techno-aesthetic derivation of Bolter and Grusin's theories of 'Remediation' where by new media begin life by replicating the tenets of old media before finally breaking free to find unique properties. Photography remediated painting until it found its unique paths; Cinema remediated Theatre until it forged new languages; it seems digital media as a production format is destined to remediate celluloid media until filmmakers embrace and/or discover the unique properties and possibilities of digital as its own platform - one that has shaken off the shackles of celluloid limitations.
Until then a Google search will continue to reveal the term 'film look' as one of the most common discussion topics amongst filmmakers.
I may well be the only one but I can't wait for the day we all 'get over it' and stop seeking to limit and curtail the evolution of the moving image and focus on exploiting its new properties. Colour, style, form, look, visual delight are what we should be aiming for, . the 'Film Look' for it's own sake is bullshit.
If you havnt heard of RED then you have truly been living under rock these past 3 years. The marketing for the era alterting digital cinema camera has been nothing short of a superb PR archievment, so much so that the achievement of actually delivering the RED camera itself is almost secondary.
With working models now in the field and in production there's nothing to deny the RED ONE a solid place in the history of cinematic media. But if you have in mind a camera you simply pull out of a box like a Sony, Canon or Panasonic then thinking again. The Red is a fundementally different beast, a Lego-Set of add-ons and extensions to form an almost infinate assembly of options.
Forunately you can watch someone else go through the sorting/sifting/searching motions of deciphering the RED.
Mike Curtis over at the new (and increasingly impressive ProVideo Colalition) is making public his RED adventure in a very step-by-step fashion. This first part is a detailed look at opening the box on the RED. (its actually far more interesting than it sounds).
Of course once Mike has unpacked the RED ONE and managed to point it in the right direction to film soemthing the fun will really begin as we get an insight into RED workflow. Its fairly certain this aint no DV/ Firewire affair.
The (less than) humble Mac is much lauded for it's simplicity and the word 'intuitive' is often bandied about when conversing in 'MacSpeak'. The examples of this 'intuitiveness' are of course obvious and rational - throwing a 'CD' into the 'TRASH BIN' is a perfectly Rational and Intuitive way to EJECT a disc from a CD drive ..
But it seems the endless quest for simplicity and the mythical grail of utmost ease of use often leads Apple to rather problematic software design cul-de-sac. On a Windows system the process of uninstalling an application is often much derided for the relatively complexity of the operating systems registry, registry keys and dedicated Uninstaller system.
As alternative (and perhaps marketing driven deliberate point-of-difference) the Mac OS has championed the perceived logical simplicity of simply tossing the application in the bin; just drag and drop the app in the trash and its gone or at least thats the plan.
The truth is that for just about anything other than simple utilities, this process of bin-tossing is a profoundly ineffective method for uninstalling. It may remove the core application but none of the associated applets, files, folders and general detritus that goes along with the software. The uninstall system (or lack there of) on Mac OSX is profoundly ineffective and a sure fire way to a polluted system of orphaned files.
One can only assume that Apple software engineers are not stupid people, that they are in fact very smart people. So the conclusion one is forced to come to when encountering this problematic uninstall pollution on the Mac is that Apple seemingly persist with the dysfunctional toss it in the bin approach out of an indignant desperate to not be Windows mindset. Style over substance perhaps? Surely not
Fortunately, the DIY ethic prevails and Digital Rebellion have come to the rescue for Final Cut Studio uninstalls by creating a dedicated uninstaller app that allows for a clean and total purging of FCS.
If Apple wish to counter the perspective that they are focused on the experience of uninstalling rather than the effectiveness of the uninstall process, they would by this little app from Digital Rebellion and bundle it in the FCStudio
When it comes to digital production formats it would be a mistake to think that Quality is everything...
A statement like that is bound to the purist cat among the pigeons but the overriding truth prevailing a holistic sense of production is the workflow and set of balances being more significant than image quality on its own.
If this wasn't the case then there would be no production other than 444 12bit Uncompressed production. A notion ludicrously un-viable in any practical sense for anything but the biggest budgets.
So instead we have 'workflow' and a host of choices to be made to form a balanced production suitable to the project. Purity of image quality is but one of those choices. 422, 420, Intra and GOP, lossy and lossless, spatial and temporal compression, constant and variable bitrates; all point towards the process of manipulating the visual data as much as the qualitative properties of the data itself.
It seams that Sony have now added to the choices available by striking a new middle ground in acquisition HD formats. Until now the debate concerning HD has centered on extremities - intra-frame, highbitrate, high bandwidth HD such as DVCProHD and AVC-Intra on one side. Long GOP, lower bitrate formats such as HDV and XDCAM on the other.
HDV and XDCAM, as 420 long GOP formats, are lauded for their enormous efficiency and derided for their lack of color space and perceived motion image issues. Conversely DVCProHD and AVC-Intra are celebrated for their 422 colour space and frame accuracy and derided or their gross inefficiency and perceived minimal benefit for their massive data rates and file sizes.
Both formats are perfectly valid in context of a production needs but it now seems Sony have sought a middle way that retains the acquisition efficiency of Long GOP Mpeg-based XDCAM at modest bitrates whilst attaining the visually lossless colour space of YUV 422.
The new flavour of XDCAM moves the format from its traditional 420 35mbps to lossless 422 50mbps. The move is highly significant and strategic for Sony as it effectively eliminates most of the criticism that has been leveled at XDCAM in the past. In particular XDCAM is moved to a more viable format for greenscreen and effects production whilst retaining its high efficiency.
Completing the equation for XDCAM is the doubling of capacity of the blu-ray-based ProDisc recording media. With all the non-linear attributes of solid state memory but circumventing the major shortcoming of solid state by also serving as shelfable cost effective source master. With 50gb capacity for US$60, recording 95min of 50mbps 1080p HD, there really isn't anything not to like about the new edition of XDCAM.
Its easy to think that filmmaking has latered radically - that the idea that you can shoot, cut and deliver a film of quality with nothing but a handycam and a laptop is radically different to the past. But amid the excitiment of wanting to use the term Revolution we cant forget that the 8mm heroes of the past and the low-fi indie approach has been extant for some time.
What has changed and which allows for the digital accesible tools of today to be Exploited is the culture of filmaking enmasse and the network of cooperative suppourt structures that facilitate the DIY ethic. The technology gives us the illusion that Filmmaking has changed but in truth its the cultural change that is far more significant.
Thats where we can look to Indymogul as one of the great champions of this cause. Their site is densely rich in resources and suppourt for all kinds of filmmakers and never forgets that filmmaking is Fun!
This episode form their indymogul.blip.tv channel on how to make a cool space helmut for $20 bucks sets the tone beautifully.
Scott Simmons over at the Edit Blog has stumbled upon a facinating tidbit of information regarding backward compatibility of FCP version increminents.
He writes:
So the other day I noticed an older version of Final Cut Pro (6.0)
opening a project created by a newer version of FCP (6.0.1). This came
about after a new install of Leopard. I was quite surprised by this as
it?s not supposed to be possible. Just to make sure I wasn?t going nuts
I created 4 different projects of varying complexity in FCP 6.0 and
they all opened in 6.0.1. But then I tried to update to 6.0.2 on the
Leopard partition and Software Update wouldn?t see it or any recent
Final Cut Studio updates. I had a feeling that I needed a new version
of Quicktime. It wanted to update my QT to 7.4 but since there have
been issues with that version I got the stand-alone Quicktime 7.3 installer and installed that. Then I was able to update all of the Studio applications.
After that the magic was gone. No more backward compatibility. I
have always believed that Apple could allow an older version of FCP to
open a project created in a newer version. Maybe not FCP 1.0 opening a
6.0.2 project most definitely within the same version number and
probably at least one version prior. This has to be possible and I
don?t think anyone can convince me otherwise. There?s just not enough
different in 6.0.2 and 6.0. Yes there are XMLs but it?s still not the
same thing. I don?t think it will ever happen as that?s a sure-fire way
to sell upgrades. But I can dream can?t I?
Scott seems to be able treat this with a less infuriated tone than I might. Apple are certainly not alone in this deliberate and technically unwarranted hobbling of their products to force users to upgrades, but they've certainly been one of the more consistent corporate entities to screw their users.
Why should simple incrimental updates NOT be backward compatible. In fact i know of no other NLE on the market where simple 'point' releases render project files unable to be opened by previous point releases. Premiere Pro, Vegas, Avid all have multiple point releases updates that have no bearing on the project file's usuability within the same numbered version.... So why Apple?
There's no denying that the venerable HVX solid state HD camera from Panasonic made a significant play at the hearts and minds of the digital indie filmmaker. Whilst much was made of its 422 recording and non-GOP DVCProHD format, it was really the excellent 24p and over/under cranking that was its real asset.
But its been some degree of years since the HVX arrived and the landscape has changed. 24p is now standard stuff and the Sony XDCAM EX1 has undeniably thrown down the gauntlet in a camera that meets and exceeds the HVX in virtually every way.
Of course, since the EX1's arrival the talk has been of What would Panasonic replace the HVX with? and When would it come?
Press Releases awash this past week brought news of the new Panasonic HMC150
On the surface this appears to be Panasonic's replacement to the HVX; at least thats what many are declaring, but I'm not so sure....
If the HMC150 is the replacement for the HVX and intended to be the new solid state competitor to the EX1 then Panasonic have truly under-delivered with a decidedly backward step from the HVX. My guess is they have another camera still to come which is the real replacement for the HVX as an EX1 competitor and this HMC150 is an in-between; something really aimed to compete in the Sony Z1 or even A1 category of camera.
1/3" sensors (compared to EX1's 1/2") and Panasonic have dumped P2 (as I and many others have long predicted they would) in favour of standard memory cards. The HMC150 shoots all the flavors of HD but there's no mention of over or under cranking ability. They have also dumped DVCProHD format (again the writing was on the wall for DVCProHD due to its high inefficiency and the fact that Panasonic themselves had ceased development and were moving to AVC_Intra) Instead the HMC150 uses AVCHD format at a bitrate of just 13mbps. This may seem absurdly low but there is argument for AVCHD as significantly more efficient than the Mpeg2 of HDV and so can achieve an image of the same quality for a lower bitrate but we are still talking MASSIVE compression on the image, far far more than the 35mbps Mpeg2 of XDCamEX.
That Panasonic went to AVCHD is not a surprise, but that they opted for such a low bitrate when most people talking about using AVCHD for 'pro' cameras are talking about 15-25mbps or so as a benchmark seems very odd. Also very interesting is that after YEARS of decrying long GOP, bagging out Mpeg, slagging off HDV and XDCam and championing the virtues of Intra-frame codecs for acquisition, Panasonic seem to have backflipped and now embraced Long GOP AVCHD....?
The image of the HMC150 resolves to a res of 1440x1080 the same as HDV with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.333:1. Again the EX1 offers no stretch at all, native 1920x1080. If this IS indeed Panasonic's answer to the Ex1 and its replacement for the HVX then they have really and truly dropped the ball... The HMC150 might compete with the Z1 as a solid state HDV alternative but its not even in the same league as the EX1.
But Panasonic are not a stupid company - belligerent and often misleading (along with everyone else) but not stupid - so I really will be stunned if this is the HVX replacement; i'll be stunned if there isnt something else in the wings. Something Solid-State, something AVCHD-Intra based, something not using P2... If there isnt such a camera on its way from the Panasonic factory then there'll be a rush on EX1's and second hand HVX's will become rare as hens teeth as everyone hangs on to them dreaming of what might have been.....
