FRAMES AND TIMECODE
With everyone getting into a lather over DI, it is worth bearing in mind that when you have material on tape (or Quicktime) and edit it offline using timecode… then your data (DI material) needs to be matched back to that same timecode when you do the online conform.
You would think that this is obvious, but after hearing a recent horror story about an established post company failing to do that, I think it is worth spelling out a couple of techniques which will save a lot of eye-matching pain.
First, the easy way. The DPX file format has a place to save the timecode information inside it. The downside is that a lot of programs ignore this. Stop here if you are lucky enough to have one that does.
Second, the brute force method. First a bit of hoary theory, from me:
Think of timecode as just a frame counter, which uses the format of time, like a digital clock, to count. The lowest increment is a frame; then seconds; minutes; and hours.
Just like you can calculate the number of seconds in an hour (60 secs x 60 minutes); you can calculate the number of frames in an hour (e.g. 24 frames* x 60 secs x 60 minutes). Therefore, you can express a timecode as a number of frames.
For example 02:10:10:04 (24 fps) = 187444 frames.
So then, if you were to put that into a typical DPX sequence:
myfilm.00187444.dpx = myfilm (frame 02:10:10:04)
*The only important thing to remember is what frame rate you are dealing with (30 or 25 or 24 etc).
A lot of compositing and DI packages are able to translate frame numbers into timecode (RED Cine does this, Flame, Shake, After Effects, Film Master all do it too). It makes the transition between tape or Quicktime and sequences of images very easy. It also means you are not ripping your hair out when it comes to doing a conform.
Of course, this isn’t a new way of working, nor is it rocket science. If you are acquiring on film and scanning, or using one of those new-fangled digital cameras, it is all the same.
Don’t panic.
And if that seems like incomprehensible rubbish, it probably is. If you are still with me, then try this.
Read MoreWORKFLOW
Another day of Red queries. I’ve heard that some rental houses are requiring a “RED Technician” to go with their cameras. Sounds like more FUD. This is a great pity, because at the core of it, there is no more to a RED than your average video camera… now I’ll be accused of gross simplification… How about this: the camera can do a lot, but you don’t have to think about all those things all the time.
Okay, I understand productions wanting to be cautious, but really, all that is changing is that the clapper loader is unloading and loading “film” data with a laptop. If someone can’t cope with that, then God knows how they ever managed film. Previewing a clip (aside from the realtime video streaming out of the camera) is just a matter of double-clicking a quicktime. Not a big deal.
I know there will be problems with firmware and the like, but what camera hasn’t had its share of bugs?
The on-set workflow can be scaled up and down in complexity. Bottom of the ladder would be to take the data and copy to a disk via a laptop. Further up would be some sort of little on-set network between Camera department and the playback person. Mix to taste, and don’t forget to backup.
I think I should make some sort of diagram.
Read MoreWell, that’s it. Having seen the RED camera footage start streaming through the door, I’ll say this to the detractors and the fan boys: it’s a bloody digital camera, get over it. Yes, it is better than Genesis (which is just one of these with a little Panavision sex). I’ll justify the Genesis statement another day. No, the RED is not “better” than film.
At ~$17k USD for a body (the Sony equivalent is $116k USD list), it is going to gouge out a big niche in the market. Think of the impact of cheaper digital stills cameras. And, you know what? It is exciting.
If you are able to expose correctly (don’t get me started), then it will turn out great results. It—and other cameras like it—will rule. In Sydney, the few that are available for rent are working their little sensors off. Good luck getting one. The new Scarlet camera—considering the little anyone knows is only that it will be cheaper and smaller—will rule as well. Say hello to a new breed of DP’s, just like the new photographers that have been born of the digital stills industry.
The image quality of the RED One is so close to a RAW digital still, that there is not question that it will be successful. Panavision, Sony, ARRI, et al should be shitting their pants, or at least coming up with Plan B.
Anyway, enough of the pontificating.
Under the current RED compression and storage scheme, which is writing to 8GB Compact Flash cards, I thought that the image quality would be pretty awful, especially when pulled apart. It isn’t. At least it is no worse than the artefacts you would see on other video formats.
As you can see in the above image, the noisiest channel is blue. Red and green survive pretty well. I know there are new implementations of the compression coming out seemingly daily, but it is interesting to see where they are at now. The HLS image is probably the most telling of how the compression is working and what you have to colour grade with, where the RGB will make a big difference if you are doing visual effects (hint: shoot greenscreen). The RAW image sits in that strange not-quite-log space of RAW digital stills. There is plenty toe and shoulder (for a digital image) to play with.
In short, it is impressive. Considering that it will only get better, I think this should be an intriguing year.
Read More