Mike Jones Digital Basin
cinematic media rinse cycle

The art of the Producer

What exactly does a Producer do? Are they just a means to finding the money? Or is the art of the Producer something much more intrinsic to the creative development of a cinematic project? This episode of Motion Sketches explores the role of the Producer in both creative and practical terms and delves into the nuts and bolts of production in the quickly evolving landscape of digital cinema.


 

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 30, 2008 by Mike Jones in general  |  Comments[0]

Innovation and Annotation in the NLE

In the context of movie production technology, the term 'innovative' is one thrown about with far too much ill-considered regularity for my liking.

The word Innovative has become marketing-speak and lost all meaning. Every little non-event technical add-on seemingly is branded ‘Innovative’ for little apparent reason.

When Apple declared their Open-Timeline for FCP6 'Innovative' because it could mix resolutions and formats it heralded that we really had hit the peak of vacuous usage of the word ‘Innovative’. Since every other NLE on the planet had been mixing formats and resolutions for several years before FCP caught up - Avid, Vegas, Premiere, Edius, Liquid - it begged the question of what should actually qualify as ‘Innovative’ (let alone how the word is defined in the dictionary...

But, if we must use the word, then surely we need to look at the those things within our production tools that change not just the mechanical How we do things but rather the culture, attitude, and perspective of the doing itself. Not to mention the things that are genuinely New and without direct precedent.

Invariably there arent many things that truly deserve the moniker of Innovative.  Precious few. One that I believe did pop its head up in the last couple of years was Adobe’s Clip Notes system. It’s a tool that I suspect is largely under-utilised. For those who havnt yet had the pleasure ClipNotes is an export option that embeds the Video in a PDF file with dedicated space for timecode specific annotations to be made by the reviewer (a director, producer, test audience, sound designer, colourist and so on) Those notes can then be emailed back as a small text file to the editor who can import them direct into their Premiere pro editing system and have the notes appear at their timecode specific points on the timeline of the NLE.



It’s elegant, simple, highly effective and represents a true innovation in the simple sense that it is something quite new that hadnt been seen before. It has the potential to change the culture of production workflow, making it more inclusive and more efficient.

It’s in this vein that I have this week discovered a superb free plugin for the Vegas NLE made by the guys at VASST (the well known and much respected Douglas Spotted Eagle). Called simply NOTEPAD the plugin provides a floating dockable window in the Vegas interface that can be used for notes and annotations on the project at hand.



As well as text and formating options the NOTEPAD plugin provides direct buttons to add Time/Date info, bullet points and most significantly Timecode location. In this fashion a review could be made of a project with timecode specific comments mapped to points on the timeline.

NOTEPAD aint rocket science but it is enormously functional and delivers some fresh thinking to the process of editing. Poking around as I have want to do, I also found a preference that allows for the Notes to be maintained either inside the Vegas project or as an external call-up RTF text file. This got me thinking....

I opened up a Celtx project containing a screenplay and copied the text into the sidecar RTF file for my vegas project. Re-launching Vegas I found to my delight that I now had a copy of the script embedded in my Vegas project in a very handy floating window.

It may not be in the same league as Avid’s ScriptSync system (one of the other precious few truly innovative NLE developments over the past few years - and certainly the only New Thinking Avid have shown in a decade despite their new marketing bent) But the VASST Notepad is a highly functional way to utilize a script inside the the NLE environment.

The next step, that has me having strange damp dreams, is if I could get a system of editing a video direct from the screenplay text  inside Vegas and communicating directly with a Celtx project file....

In the meantime Notepad has demonstrated some excellent forward thinking and if you’re a Vegas user you’d be nuts not to jump over to VASST and grab it now.

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 28, 2008 by Mike Jones in video  |  Comments[0]

Theatrical-Release Feature-Film is Irrelevent...

A provocative statement no doubt since my readers are, by majority, filmmakers and film students aspiring to make films for a living.

I was researching and writing recently on motion graphics, compositing and the aesthetics of the layered cinematic image. Foremost in mind was music videos, advertising, TV show title sequences, promos and so on.

What struck me was that there is a perception that such aesthetics and modes of cinematic presentation and experience are perceived as somehow on the ‘fringe’. The ‘exception’ to cinematic grammar and language rather than the ‘norm’.

This position obviously stems from the narrow ‘Theatrical Release’ perspective of the cinematic landscape; that the penultimate cinematic form from which all others both descend and aspire is the feature-length Theatrical Release.

I find this a troubling thought.

This visual aesthetic of motion graphics is certainly not obscure and it would be an onerous mistake to assume that it belongs to the realms of video-art and fringe cinematic forms. Rather, layered aesthetics and composition embodied by compositing and motion graphics are a distinct part of the common mainstream and, indeed, dominant cinematic language of contemporary moving image media. Whilst examples can be seen throughout the myriad of genres and mediums of cinema it is music videos, advertising and television that have sort most readily to exploit the visual power and dynamism of compositing and motion graphics.

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 25, 2008 by Mike Jones in industry comment  |  Comments[0]

Camera's NEED Light....!

Having now moved many of the 50+ short films my students have produced over the past few months through post-production and begun screenings and reviews  a dominant issue  has arisen. Exposure in shooting. A great many of the recent films were under-exposed or shot too dark and this has created difficulties in post-production, limited colour grading options and a less than optimal final screening image.

These problems as very easily avoided using some simple ideas, techniques, tools and processes and so I set about producing a set of notes to help re-inforce good exposure practice for the next projects.

First we need to revisit a little background info.

Exposure
Exposure is simply the amount of light let through to the camera sensor to make the resulting image.

Every camera has a limited range of exposure, known as dynamic range. This range covers from black to white and any image captured will have a range of tones across this spectrum. The Exposure therefore of a shot is the amount of light let through to the camera sensor and captured as a range of brightness levels from Black to White.

As well as the lights placed onto a scene or subject, the camera possesses a set of systems to control the exposure to limit or expand the amount of light let through to the sensor; these include the Shutter, the size of the Sensor and the Resolution in pixels. Most significant however is the Iris or Aperture. How wide open the Iris is to let light in is measured in ‘f-stops’. Every ‘Stop’ you open the iris up you are letting in twice as much light as the previous 'stop'.

Clipping
The camera's dynamic range is limited and so exposure that moves beyond the range is said to have 'Clipped'. Under-expose with not enough light and the shadow areas will clip to black. In simple terms the camera will cease to be able to display shadow detail and so will just render the dark parts of the image to a harsh full black.

At the other end, over-expose the image and the highlights in the picture will fall outside the dynamic range and be clipped, or cut off. The result is no detail in the highlights and instead being cut off to an unnatural white.

Obviously the key to a good image is neither Under or Over exposing but getting the most even spread of light across the dynamic range as possible. But there is another factor to be considered..

Signal to Noise
Image noise is a fact of life. The better camera technology gets the less noise is inherent but every digital image has an amount of noise, artifacts and distortion in the picture. If the image is well exposed then the noise will be virtually invisible but expose poorly and that inherent noise becomes visibly evident.

And this where we see the distinct difference between light and dark in the digital image. The light exposure in a digital image is not evenly distributed across the dynamic range. Colour and Effects guru Stu Mashwitz uses this image below to show the uneven distribution of information between light and dark on the sensor.

Each swatch segment from black, through grays to white represents an f-stop - a doubling of the light level; from left to right each swatch is double the amount of light than the one on its left. The orange columns represent how much pixel data is used to represent that part of the dynamic range; every camera has a foxed amount of data to dedicate to the image. Notice how disproportionate this is? how far more "orange' column value is dedicated to the brights than to the darks.. To quote from Stu:

“you're using half of your sensor's dynamic range to capture the values between the rightmost bit and the one next to it! By the time you start looking at the mid-gray levels (the center two bits), you're already into the bottom 1/8th of your sensor's light-capturing power."

In other words; your camera can only capture a fixed amount of visual information and it captures the vast majority of it in the highlights and lighter areas and leaves precious little for the dark areas. Digital camera sensors are highly biased to brighter areas than darker.

What this means is that noise in the dark areas of an image is far more apparent than noise in the highlights. Raising the gain in an image will very quickly make the shadows become visibly noisy because you’re trying to turn up information that simply isn't there. Where as the same gain will be unnoticeable in the highights.

The rule of thumb that comes from this is that even if you want to have a dark and moody image you should still aim to shoot with good even exposure and then lower the image brightness in post. An image can be easily made darker; the shadows get pushed to crisp black and the highlights do not show visible noise because they have way more image data dedicated to them. But a dark image cannot be made brighter without amplifying the noise in the dark area which are starved of visual data from the beginning.

Shooting an image deliberately dark is a very risky proposition because its forcing all your visual information to be collected in the smallest allotment of the camera sensor.

Monitoring on Set
In an ideal world the image in the viewfinder, LCD, or field monitor on-set would be a perfect replication of exactly what the camera sensor is recording in terms of exposure. Alas this is almost never the case. Camera LCD screens have their own brightness controls which can be wildly different to the image being recorded, often they are deliberately turned up very bright so they can be seen in daylight on exterior shoots. You can attempt to match them by eye to the scene but this is very much guess work. The camera LCD is really there for compositional framing and does not do very well for a true judgment of exposure. For that most cameras offer two, more accurate, tools that are based on mathematics rather than eyeball judgment.

Histogram and Zebra Pattern
A Histogram is simply a graph that shows the levels of light from Black to White. Cameras such as the Sony Z1 and Sony EX1 can display a histogram graph in the corner of the LCD viewfinder which gives you a live reading of the exposure of your image.

The shape of the histogram immediately tells you whether your image is biased too dark or too bright without having to rely on the luminance accuracy of the LCD display itself. The three images below show three histograms similar to those on the camera. The Left end of the graph is Black, the Right end is White. The first image is under-exposed with too much in the dark and no highlights. The second is potentially over-exposed (or has a lots of light areas and almost no dark areas). The third is well balanced with an even distribution of light and dark across the picture.

1. 2. 3.

Where your LCD display may lie to you because of it’s own settings and innate inaccuracies; the histogram, being based on mathematical values, wont deceive you. It can help you greatly in making a more informed reading of your exposure and ensure you get as much detail in the picture as possible without losing visual information into the noisy dark.

The other tool that helps greatly is the Zebra Pattern. This feature brings up a diagonal striped pattern in the Viewfinder and LCD on any areas of the image that are approaching over-exposure. Its a common mistake to think that you do not want any Zebra showing in your image. In most cases (largely for the reasons above related to noise) you’ll want your image to show Zebra on parts that should be white. The two images below show this. The first shows Zebra on the window and the face highlights. the second shows Zebra on the White snow highlight faces of the mountain.

You can also adjust the percentage at which the Zebra will display - 70% or 80% instead of the 100% which indicates full white and the edge of the image’s dynamic range. When using such a setting having the Zebra show up on the Highlights of the image tells you that you’re getting a good level of exposure and not under-exposing. If you had you Zebra set to 70 or 80% and it wasnt showing on the image highlights, you'd know for sure that your image is probably too dark despite how it looks on the LCD.

WYSIWYG..?
One of the common traps many inexperienced DoP's  fall into  is the desire and attempt to have the image you see in the viewfinder be exactly that you want in the final image of your film. In computer terms this is known as WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get); the attempt to bake-in the image of the movie in-camera.

WYSIWYG is not only near impossible, it’s also highly undesirable in the digital age. Impossible because unless you have extremely well calibrated field monitors and perfect, dark viewing conditions on-set with limited ambient light you will never get an accurate view of exposure and colour. Undesirable because you will inevitably want to colour grade the image, to manipulate it in post production for feel, mood, tone and style; to interpret your film with colour just as you interpret it with sound.

So rather than trying to shoot WYSIWYG you should be aiming to shoot for LATITUDE.

Latitude
This terms refer to having an image in post that is well exposed and has lots of detail and so will allow you lots of options for manipulation in colour grading. If you shoot for a very specific exposure, especially dark exposure, you will severely limit what you can do in post. if you get it exactly right in camera then there’s no problem. if you dont get it exactly right in camera (which will be 99% of the time) then you’re left with no options and no control.

A well exposed image with lots of detail gives lots of latitude for creative choices in post. Room to move, room to control exactly how bright, or how dark, or how contrasty you want the image. The DoP’s job should certainly be to craft an image to communicate the story but also to ensure that they provide raw image material that allows the Director and Editor flexibility and creative options in post.

Increasingly Colour Grading is seen as an extension of Cinematography rather than editing and many DoP’s are becoming more and more involved with the grading of their images. This likewise leads to the idea of aiming for image Latitude rather than WYSIWYG.

Camera
The absolute truism that defines a good film is good planning. For the DoP that means test-shoots. Testing the particular traits of the camera, testing the location and the space, testing the lighting, testing the design, colours and costumes that will appear on screen. Far too often however a crucial element is missing from the test; the colour grade.

Its seems plainly obvious but its amazing how often test shoots are done and decisions made without testing the footage with the colour grade process that's intended for post. In order to know how to Expose your shots you absolutely need to know what you’re going to want to do to them in post-production.

These before and after images below from the excellent short RedWhitePanic, show this thinking and planning.

The original shot is deliberately exposed for maximum dynamic range. The image is rather drab, low in contrast, light is even, all the colours are balanced, it’s outdoors under diffused light of an overcast sky, possibly with reflectors to ensure lots of detail on the face. This Before image is a million miles from the After image but it has absolutely been shot to provide the best possible basis for the colour-grade to follow. It is an image with lots of latitude and, as a result, the graded image is dynamic and vibrant and beautiful.

Each camera has its own particular look, its own particular feel and there are a multitude of factors that contribute to this. Number 1 is of course the lens; any camera is only as good as the lens and the quality of the light delivered to the image is wholly dictated by the glass up front. But beyond that understanding the other elements of the camera can go a long way to helping shape the shooting process to get the best possible exposure.

The Sensor
Aside from the glass of the lens the next most important camera element is the Sensor; the element that the light is focused onto by the lens. There are two key elements to the sensor that relate directly to exposure...

The first is the number of Photsites on the sensor. The Photosites are the light sensitive diodes that capture the image and relate into pixels and resolution. The more photosites there are the more detail the image can pickup and also often the more light sensitive the camera is.

Some cameras work with a native number of photosites meaning that the number directly relates to the resolution (For example the JVC201/251 has 1280x720 native resolution and the Sony Ex1 has 1920x1080 native resolution). Other cameras use up-sampling and pixel-shifting to make up a resolution greater than the number of photsites (the Sony Z1 has a native sensor resolution of 960x1080 and up-samples this to 1440x1080, the Panasonic HVX202 has a native res of 960x540 upsampled to either 1920x1080 or 1280x720 depending on what mode you're shooting.)

The second, and in many ways more important factor, is the physical size of the sensor itself. The bigger the sensor the larger the surface area the light can focus onto; known as the imaging plane. (this phenomena is also known as the Circle of Confusion and if you’re up for it you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion)

Larger sensors allow for greater control over depth of field (ie can create better shallow-focus often cited as the ‘film look’), sharper images, better motion and much better light sensitivity. (Wikipedia has a great article on Depth of Field if you’re up for a bit of hard science here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field)

The main digital cameras we use at the International Film School Sydney  are the Panasonic DVC30, the Sony Z1, the JVC201/251 and the Sony EX1. All four of these have a different combinations of native resolution and Sensor size. The DVC30 DV camera has 1/4inch sensors. The Sony Z1 and JVC201/251 has 1/3inch sensors and the Sony Ex1 has 1/2inch sensors.

When in production or doing test-shoots these specifications can make a big difference to the Exposure you are able to obtain and the amount of light you will need. At one end the DVC30’s have the smallest sensors and the lowest resolution and so need the greatest amount of light to get even exposure and have the least depth of field control. At the other end of the spectrum the Sony EX1 has significantly larger Sensors than the other cameras along with the highest native resolution (1920x1080 which is more than double the number of pixels of JVC210/251 which shoots 1280x720)

The greater the number of pixels and the larger the Sensor the more light sensitive the camera. The better it is able to re-produce a wide dynamic range and give good exposure under a variety of conditions. The greater the control the camera will have over Depth of Field.

For these reasons currently the SonyEX1, despite being a small-form hand-held camera with a fixed lens, it stands out as technically the best camera in the schools armory. The Ex1 has the largest sensor, the most pixels, the lowest image compression, the highest data-rate and the largest lens barrel.

The disadvantage the EX1 compared to the JVC201/251 was that it couldn't use prime-lenses being a fixed lens camera. But just this past week our Technical Supervisor Christophe Healy has been able to rig the Ex1 to a RedRock Micro M2 system and use Nikon and P+S prime lenses with the Ex1.  The Ex1 now has the same P+S and Nikon lens options as the JVC201/251 but the light from those lenses is being conveyed to a much bigger sensor with twice as many pixels.

Conclusion
Light, sensor size, dynamic range, histogram, zebra pattern, resolution, clipping - all these factors are at play when you’re trying to get get good exposure. The way to master these ideas is simply to PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE.

- Get familiar with all the different cameras and their different lens systems.
- Do test shoots that include a test colour grade.
- Plan ahead for light sources
- And remember that because the digital sensor uses much more information to record the image in the brighter parts than the darker it's much better err on the side of More light rather than Less.

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 23, 2008 by Mike Jones in video  |  Comments[1]

Crucial books for indie filmmakers

The most powerful tool a filmmaker (or any creative producer of any media and medium) can possess is Not a 8-core computer or a RAID5 system, its not a HD camera or T1 internet connection. The most powerful tool a creative producer can possess is a library. A personal collection books that line the studio or office.

Knowledge is power and the ability to both confirm knowledge by reference and expand knowledge by exploration is the fuel to any film project.

Whilst such a library should be as diverse a possible i have distilled down 3 of the most used, most loved, most dynamic tomes that sit on my shelf that I think should sit on the shelf of every indie filmmaker.

1) The Filmmakers Handbook



Many  have tried, most fail dismally. Over arching guide books attempting to cover all elements of production are not easy and most slip into trite and shallow territory. The Filmmakers HAndbook is the exception. Its reliable, detailed ansd very readable. Now in its 3rd Edition it still forms my first port of call when checking a process concept or technical element of cinema.

2) The DV rebels guide



Again this book sits in a genre category that is vastly overpopulated and yet invariably cream rises the top. The DV Rebel's guide by Stu Maschwitz is fresh, 'no-bullshit' and  utterly packed with a dynamic and innovative approach to indie production. Its a book that strikes that wholly rare blend of articulate creative information on how to get the most out of every shot, paired with consummate technical knowledge and the absolutely specific technical process. Its vivid, highly readable, and by virtue of its frank gung-ho attitude, thoroughly inspiring. You wont make it to the last page because half way through you wont be able to hold back from grabbing your camera and going out to shoot something.

3) The power of film.



Books on screenwriting and story are even more prolific than books on DV production. Frankly most of them are the same derivative re-hashed clap trap thats being doing the rounds for 3 decades. The power of film is effectively a glossary of terms, an anthology of micro 1-2 page essays on cinematic ideas. It doesn?t lay out a 3act structure or a 22-step plan or any other formula. It uses creative surgery to isolate profound dramatic concepts. The power of film virtually never mentions the screenplay and it you can learn ore about writing and screen drama than all other screenwriting books and seminars combined.

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 21, 2008 by Mike Jones in video  |  Comments[2]

A tip for Better exports

There are many technical factors that make up a video signal, often one of the most neglected is Bit Depth.

Most video signals are comprised of 8bit colour channels meaning 8 bits of information per colour - red green blue. DV, HDV, XDCAM, DVCProHD are all 8bit formats.Generally speaking most editing systems will work in the same bit depth as the source footage but there are ways and advantages to having your NLE process video in a greater bit depth space than 8bit.

Allowing visual fx, graphics, titles and colour corrections to be processed in greater than 8bit space allows for greater data headroom, smoother results and more precision in the final exported image. Both FCP and Premiere Pro have options for just this expanded bit depth processing.

In FCP select your sequence in the project bin then click SEQUENCE > SETTINGS. On the VIDEO PROCESSING tab choose the tick box for 'Render all YUV material in high-precision YUV'.This will make your export renders longer and make FCP run a little slower but will give better results on projects using lots of effects and colour corrections.



Premiere is able to use up to 32bit on footage than can suppourt such high depths. Go to PROJECT > SETTINGS then select VIDEO RENDERING. There you'll find a tick box for MAXIMUM BIT DEPTH. This will let Premiere use the maximum possoble bit depth for each clip up to 32bit. As with FCP using this option will give better quality exports on projects that have a ot of effects at the expense of longer render times.

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 18, 2008 by Mike Jones in video  |  Comments[2]

Storyboards are so last century

Storyboarding is So last century.

The buzzword replacing the age old cell based storyboard plan is Pre-Visualization. Going beyond just planning the camera frames contemporary pre-vis encompasses a broad range of processes and tools with a palette of aims; framing, colour style, production design, animatics, camera motion, blocking and more. In simple terms Pre-Vis encompasses anything that endevours to articulately plan the production.

Not only is Pre-Vis an enormously creative process it's also a quickly expanding part of the creative industries with huge employment potential and growth.

Animation World magazine has an interesting article on Pre-Vis for indie films. And this article from XSIBase talks about the importance of Pre-Vis in high-end Hollywood.

Here's my pick of the best free tools for pre-vis on the net.

Google Sketchup is a 3D modeling software tool that is perfect for building pre-visualizations for film projects. It allows you to easily and quickly layout 3D environments and spaces and plan camera movements and framings. Sketchup also draws upon the huge Google 3D model library saving you the need to build models from scratch. 100% free and cross-platform. Storyboarding is so last century. sketchup.google.com

Antics3D is an extremely powerful 3D Machinima and pre-visualization application that provides every posisbl feature for building, animating and ’shooting’ in 3D space. The BasePack version is 100% free and is able to import models from the Google Sketchup library. www.antics3d.com

Kuler is a dynamic colour palette utility for coordinating and selecting colour in swatch groups. It allows you to build co-ordinated colour groups and themes and is an excellent tool for production designers to hep with pre-visualization and collaborative communication between design departments such as wardrobe, set and props. kuler.adobe.com

MoodStream is an incredibly dynamic and flexible media brainstorming and visualization tool. Built form the massive archives of Getty Images, MoodStream allows you to assemble and collect together images, video and sounds into palettes of media. A superb tool for production designers as well as motion graphics artists looking to trigger new ideas of image assembly. Similarly for Directors and Producers MoodStream can be an amazing tool for preparing a visualization package to help illustrate visual concepts and ideas to the production team. moodstream.gettyimages.com

Directors Boards is a very useful A/V storyboarding and script management tool. Perfect for those who like to storyboard with digital photos Uses a FileMaker Pro engine but doesn’t require FileMaker to be installed. (Win, Mac) http://www.directorsnotebook.com/

and of course

Celtx is the creative development tool of the digital age. 100% Open Source and Free to download and use. Apart form its comprehensive scripting, breakdown and scheduling tools Celtx also has a solid storyboard systems and suppourt for embedding still image, video and sound files. www.celtx.com

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 16, 2008 by Mike Jones in 3D graphics & gaming  |  Comments[1]

Film School Copyright

Whilst being a long-standing cornerstone of artistic industries and practice (at least since the Industrial Revolution) the notion of Copyright - that of owning an idea, of intellectual property - is now in the digital age facing a barrage of assaults from all directions.

When our daily lives are infused with digital-machines that have one, and only one purpose, to COPY, DUPLICATE and DISTRIBUTE, can any traditional notion of automatic and restrictive copyright have any real relevance?

This issue is at the heart of the debate that finds resonance in names and acronyms such as Napster, P2P, DRM, Torrents and more importantly in movements such as Free Culture, FOSS and Creative Commons.

The idea of Owning and idea is a powerful one and whilst there is a certain degree of nobility in the core concept of owning an idea there is a fundamental disconnect when it comes to enforcing that paradigm and the arbitrary forced restriction of that ownership.

Creative Commons is a copyright structure that allows creators to choose their rights, to choose for themselves how their creation can be used. A concept painfully simple and yet astoundingly challenging to a traditional legal sense of copyright. A legal framework that provides no flexibility and is profoundly in opposition to the technology designed to do nothing but copy and distribute.



This idea of ownership and the ‘Controlling of Ideas’ is interleaved into the framework of a great many of the worlds Film Schools. Alarming to many and not at all surprising to many others, is the fact that a great many of the worlds educational institutions for cinematic arts enforce a very protective, isolationist and insular copyright culture. A culture where the institution owns all creative works made by the students. This idea flowed on from long-standing academic university ideas of the institution owning the intellectual capital of its academics.

The simple argument being that since the production of a work was done under the facilities and provisions of the institution (and by proxy the idea that the work could not of would not have otherwise been possible) the institution owns the proceeds of that work.

There’s no question that there is merit in this argument but in the case of a creative institution such as a Film School  it begs the question - What does the Film School gain from controlling the copyright?

Institutions such as the Australian Film TV and Radio School (AFTRS) seem to still function on the old framework of owning student work; ownership which is not passed on to the students. The argument is much like that of Production Studios where he who puts up the money and the facilities OWNS the product rather that the creative workers who made the product. The result is a huge back catalogue of student films that AFTRS posses but which have never and will probably never see the light of day in a public way. Will AFTRS ever put them on YouTube...? Heaven forbid NO, someone might actually watch them..!

AFTRS would likely make the argument that it is protecting the artist and the artist’s rights and the artists profession; but in practice it seems they are only protecting the artist from an Audience.

What would AFTRS really loose from releasing the content of decades of diligent creativity? Revenue? Their canon of student films arent exactly making money sitting on a shelf.

What would AFTRS gain if they released the copyright back to the filmmakers; or better and more radical yet, licensed it all under Creative Commons and released it to the word...?

What would they gain? Massive exposure, massive brand awareness, a dense creative contribution, huge international profile building among the indie filmmaker communities.... This is the potential gain.

The University of Southern California (USC) School of Cinematic Arts is among the most prominent film schools in the world and they too, like AFTRS, had a long-standing, deeply conservative and overtly insular approach to copyright of student works. They, like AFTRS, owned wholly and solely the copyright to their student’s films. And yet a transformation has taken place.... The USC Free-Culture association has released a white paper profoundly shaking up the traditionally arrogant and obstructive copyright policy of the USC film school. You can read the old policy here.

They described the extant policy as a:

“non-academic, corporate approach, to content ownership, and is one that is detrimental to both SCA students and SCA itself.

Their white paper (which you can read here) makes a raft of recommendations and finishes with this statement:

“SCA’s goals should be to foster creativity and openness. Its IP policy should reflect this
by being inline with the sprit of artistic creation and the spirit of academic inquiry. Its
current policy represents neither of these, but rather a corporate, non-academic approach
to content ownership. This must be remedied if SCA wishes to remain a leader in its field
and continue to offer its students a cutting-edge education – both technologically and
ideologically.”

The opportunity that has been afforded me in taking up the position of Head of Technological Arts at the International Film School Sydney is that, as a new school only having been open for a couple of years, the slate was clean and free of baggage and the detritus of old thinking and old mentalities. The opportunity existed to think differently about how a film school could and should work and engage with the digital age. The first small step was the relinquish all copyright on student films. The films are owned by the students with the school retaining just two conditions - to have our name and logo in the credits and to be able to use excerpts from the student films in promotion of the school. Student works, trailers and showreels uploaded online for promotional and showcase purposes are licensed under Creative Commons non-commercial, no-derivative. We WANT online users to share the works, to embed them on their own sites, to pass them around. The more they do the more our filmmakers talents are exposed to the world and the more or school’s profile is built.



The perspective we hold, one seemingly shared by the Free Culture association of USC, is that there is absolutely nothing for the International Film School Sydney to gain by holding onto the archaic copyright ideas. And there is simply everything to gain by opening our students films to the world.

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 14, 2008 by Mike Jones in media education  |  Comments[1]

Friday Freebies - FCP Plugins

Everyone loves free stuff. When that free stuff is cool and useful and good then the world is a better place.

But before we get all excited about what we can score in a fit of techno-selfishness it's worth asking what frameworks in the creative media industries suppourt the prolification of free good and useful stuff...? The answer is open plug-in architectures.



Any software developer that thinks that they can internally produce an application that achieves all desired targets, that is everything to everyone is out of their mind. Ay software developer who thinks that their software is ?better? without the contributions of developers external to the company is completely out of their mind.

The grand collective consciousness of the external tech-savvy universe will always exceed the humble internal directions of the development team.

And there is a trail of highly successful software tools that are so because of their openness rather than their insularity. Adobe learned long ago this lesson the open plugin and scripting system for tools like Photoshop and After Effects became the benchmarks for all other developers. The internal engine itself of Adobe?s editing system Premiere Pro is also open to 3rd parties and so we?ve seen the mind-blowing HD ?real-time with effects? performance of Premiere when mounted with the Cineform Prospect and Aspect  plugin systems - systems that effectively replace Premiere?s own engine with one tuned specifically for the Cineform codec. The results make all other software-only editing systems weak at the knees for real-time performance.

Despite an oftentimes archaic and overly convoluted interface and working paradigm ProTools remains the most popular pro DAW on the market largely because of its plug-in architecture that has such huge and widespread suppourt form 3rd party developers.

Final Cut Pro is an NLE that has built up a head of steam to broad professional popularity and acceptance in a very short time. Final Cut is effective and very functional but it?s also got a great many flaws. Its success is arguably not through innovation or outstanding quality - FCP is tied to neither. But FCP has got two things going for it that have made it such a massive success.
1) The most dynamic, profound, all encompassing, overbearing marketing campaign of any creative software ever.
and
2) An open scripting and plugin architecture.

The former is a no-brainer. No body markets like Apple and the marketing of FCP over the past 5 years has been nothing short of superb. Lots of money, lots of glam, lots of total white washing hyperbole, lots of bullshit. Absolutely superb.

But its the later, once the bullshit has been wiped away, that gives FCP lasting value. Lots and Lots of plugins - big ones, small ones, funky ones and earnest ones. And best of all FREE ones.

So you could jump into your Google toolbar and type ?free fcp plugins? and see what shows up or you could just use this list below compiled by Oliver Peters

Most of these are FCP plugins; a very large proportion of them are free and there?s some links here that arent FCP plugins but are cool none the less.

The old adage of the sum of the parts being greater than the whole is an absolute truism when it comes to creative software - open architectures make for applications that exponentially exceed the vision of the development team.
[Read More]

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 11, 2008 by Mike Jones in video  |  Comments[0]

Peering inside the screenwriter

Oftentimes the creative work speaks better than the creator of the work - too often have I been excited to hear a filmmaker or a screenwriter or a musician speak about their work only to find them rather dull and unengaging; unable to excite me with an insight or a new perspective. This video interview however with screenwriter Michael Arndt, Little Miss Sunshine, is an exception. It gives some real insight into processes and challenges of screenwriitng and the journey of this particular writer form obscurity to profile on the backs of an engaging and dynamic script knocked out in 3 days and re-written for a year.


 

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 09, 2008 by Mike Jones in moving image theory  |  Comments[0]

Language is Power - Post Production Glossary

Knowledge is often cited as the seat of power but dig a little deeper and there’s an underlying basis from which knowledge stems. Language is the root of all knowledge - the ability to understand and be understood is the gateway to knowledge and thus the root of all power. And whilst this may seem to be the intro to a treatise on sociological paradigms it is none the less at the very heart of the Creative Professional.

Knowing the language of production, the discourse of technology, the vocabulary of cinematic process is the fulcrum by which to leverage creative control, flexibility and empowerment. We can evidence this notion with numerous examples, one of the most obvious being the so called ‘Help’ manuals and online files for creative software tools. The Help files are near to bloody useless unless you know the Name of the the tool, technique, process or function you are in need of.  I used to be astounded by the number of students and colleagues who would confess to me that they virtually never use the manual or help files.

That was until I realized this fundamental truth about the nomenclature of creative production. That unless you know that the term for “getting footage off the camera into the editing software” is called CAPTURE the Help manual is as useless to you as Balls on the Pope.

At the other end of the spectrum I am similarly confounded by movie Directors who spurn technical knowledge and technical language (with the range strange perspective that this is ‘someone else’s job’)and yet still hope to effectively communicate with Cinematographers, Editors and Sound Designers in a creatively viable way. Unless you speak the language you will never as a Director be able to fulfill the visions in your head; creative ambition hamstrung by the inability to speak - like a recently arrived migrant struggling communicate in a new world.

But all is not lost - unlike so many other elements of life that simply cannot be taught - Language is something can indeed be learned. And in the case of cinematic technology all you need is a good Glossary of terms.

One such Glossary made open to the public is that from the remarkable fellows at Digital Rebellion whose Post-Production Glossary covers a very broad selection of terms.

Its well worth downloading and pinning up in the Edit Suite.

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 07, 2008 by Mike Jones in media education  |  Comments[0]

Editors Speak - Editing is the foundation of the film art.

It's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that mastering of the NLE system equates in some direct way to editing ability.

It is certainly true that editing is a technical art and an editor who doesnt understand the technology and the technical process of managing the edit is, quite frankly, NOT an editor. I know far too many people who call themselves Editors but who actually dont understand editing technology nor editing process. The result is an editor who is unable to fully exploit the tools of editing; and editor hamstrung by their own ignorance; an editor wholly reliant on assistant editors - the equivalent of a painter who doesn't know how to mix paints or prime a canvas.

That said, what can never be forgotten for the editor is that Editing IS Filmmaking. That films are made in editing and that, as Stanley Kubirck said, "everything that precedes editing is merely a way of producing film to edit". Many other major filmmakers have voiced their state of concur to this idea:

"The essence of cinema is editing. It's the combination of what can be extraordinary images of people during emotional moments, or images in a general sense, put together in a kind of alchemy." - Francis Ford Coppola

“Editing is directing the film for a second time. To gauge the psychological  moment – to know exactly where to cut -  requires the same intuitive skill as  that needed by a director.” - Kevin Brownlow

"A film is not shot but built,  built up from separate strips of celluloid that are its raw material... Editing is the foundation of the film art.” - Vsevolo Pudovkin“The humbling truth is that a film is made in the editing room. The most  magnificent performances and the best intentions mean nothing if they don't cut" -  David Mamet

In this light the online video resources provided by the Manhattan Edit Workshop in their Artists in Residence Vault should be a shining light on the art of editing built over the technical artistry of the editing process.

The Vault features interviews with some of Americas finest editors including Oscar Award winning Alan Reim and Stephen Rotter. The candid discussions by these preeminent editors sheds real light onto the art of editing; the investigation of narrative and the engagement of the viewer in a profound dramatic experience.Im hereby making these videos compulsory viewing for everyone who's ever sat in the edit bay.

.

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 04, 2008 by Mike Jones in video  |  Comments[0]

Workflow schematics for digital production

Planning is Power. Any filmmaker woth their salt knows this truism to be well evidenced. In the digital age that power of planning is most evident in the structure and progression of the Workflow model.

This site from DataLab steps through the all-digital, tapless, workflow structure of David Fincher's feature film Zodiac. Charged with developing a clear and efficeint workflow for Fincher, DataLab came up with a system that allow for digital dallies and efficient online approvals as well as a totally uncompressed conform.



The workflow plan made use of standard everyda hardware, the much commoditized Final Cut Pro NLE system and common file formats such as DVCProHD and AVC/h.264. The same workflow today might move away from DVCProHD to much more efficient lossless Wavelet compression codecs such as Cineform and ProRes but, none the less, the workflow shows a major 'hi-end' film employing everyday technology and that should help point the way for all budget spectrums.



In much the same vein I have of late been involved in developing schematic workflow structures for my students at the International Film School Sydney to help guie them through various post production options. These workflow plans are matched to the technology used within the school and the evolving skill and knowledge base of the students as they progress through the course. Starting with simple DV and a limited range of software post-production choices and flowing onto HD and a multitude of editing, effects, sound and colour grading options.

These structures are built around the core cocnepts of the IFSS philosophy which is to develop and educate self-sufficient, holistically skilled, independant filmmakers who are flexible and adpatable; filmmakers who know how to get great results out of limited resources, filmmakers who know how to do More with Less. The schematics dont cover every possibility or nessasarilly the 'best' for your particular prodction but they do provide a good visual infomatic to visualise and plan a clear on-line digital workflow process.

Planning is power because every minute you spend on planning is 5 extra minutes you'll have to focus on creative choices rather than technical ones.




The four IFSS schematics for post workflow covering DV, HDV 720 and 1080 as well as XDCAMEX can be found at the International Film School Sydney student resource site known as IFSSPRODUCTION in the 'Production Bible' section. This student resource, which is open to everyone, contains a huge range of useful production documents, guides and checklists for student and indie filmmakers.

Posted at 12:00AM Jul 02, 2008 by Mike Jones in technology  |  Comments[0]