Why Desktop DI Matters [Warning: RANTY]
Woohoo! I'm famous. Mike Curtis of hdforindies.com has blogged the posting of the conservation between him and I regarding the future-of-shake. I expect a few new vistors to the main part of this site, so I figured I should give em something worthwhile to read.
Briefly, I think they should check out the link I posted concerning Apple's buy out of Shake back in 2002. Its a good reminder of how quickly these things change and how often commentators (self included) get it wrong.
Speaking of comments, I posted some stuff on Final Touch HD. While I was perhaps overly enthusiastic, it comes from my perception of the problems facing the Australian Film Industry (aka government-funded-hobby).
Which brings me to what I want to talk about now: Why Desktop DI Matters. This is going to be more stream of consciousness than any kind of proper essay. I apologise for that, but I've been writing essays for the last decade, and I kinda can't be bothered any more. It may also end up pretty short. We'll see.
Its easy to dismiss the notion of 'desktop DI' as technolust or, worse, the dream of control freak directors. This may be partly true. I'm certainly guilty of wanting faster, cheaper, better. But without 'faster, cheaper, better' we'd still be cutting on Steinbeck's. That said, we shouldn't see the shift from the actual cutting of film to NLEs as one without creative consequence. Tools are the fundamental part of any creative medium - if the word 'medium' didn't tip you off to that fact already. You paint with brushes, draw with pencils, and photograph with cameras. Replace a stills film camera with a motion film camera and you have a new medium. The shift gradual shift from black and white to technicolour; from film to HD; from steinbeck's to NLEs... these are changing the form. Its no different from the shift from say, Harpsicords to Pianofortes. It changes the form, however gradually, however subtely. The pianoforte empowered composers with a greater range of expression for their music but it wasn't a carbon-copy replacement for the harpsicord. Likewise, the NLE has empowered editors and directors. They are more free to experiment with shot combinations. When finishing to tape, they don't have to heed the limitations of optical effects or negcutting. But some feel there has been some loss too. The over-reliance on production monitors for preview has -changed- pacing of movies. There is greater reliance on 'TV' style coverage - closeups and more frequent cutting. Scenes don't breathe as well on the big screen as they do on TV. Effects work also suffers when previewing on the small screen.
What about sound design? Cutting mag-tape is a friggin' pain in the ass. What made th work of Walter Murch and Ben Burtt so astonishing in the 70s was that they pushed the boundaries of sound technically and creatively. Listen to THX-1138 and compare it to other films of the early to mid 70s... its simply astonishing. But what Ben and Walter accomplished in the 1970s is now available to every sound designer with ProTools. The ONLY limitation to the power of sound in film is the aristry of the director and sound designers. Of course, sound designers want more out of ProTools (more tracks, more real time, etc)... but the paradigm shift pioneered by Lucasfilm has stayed. Generally, modern films have better sound design (imnsho) than they did 30 years ago. By better, I mean capable of reflecting and enhacing the storytelling.
D.I. is causing a similar revolution in the higher-end of film production. But what is curious about DI is that it offers to film DOPs techniques which have been available to those finishing-to-tape for some years.... It IS changing the face of cinematography on an artistic level, because it empowers DOPs in very new and exciting ways. A film like Hero which uses colour as a fundamental component of its story, on a metaphysical and narrative level, would simply not have been possible without DI.
For me, however, what I find exciting about DI is that I *understand* it. Sure, there are crazy issues to consider, like asset management and workflow... but they're logistical and can be solved. Creatively, DI is effectively what I have been doing since I first started playing around with Photoshop. Its a core part of my workflow. When I conceive of a 'look' for a project, I conceive it holistically from shooting to grading. When shooting a scene, I can consider what can (and can't) be corrected digitally. I don't think of it as as cheating. Its a tool which allows me to communicate what I want to communicate better; its not a dickmeasuring contest. If it where, then light meters of all kinds would be cheating!
Yet, while I may theoretically understanding the film post process (film acquisition, film cutting, film finishing), its only theoretically. That kinda scares me. Sure, if someone asked me to direct a feature tomorrow that was to be a 100% film post process (its quite cheap!) I wouldn't hesitate to say yes. But thats not going to happen. I have accepted that when I get around to making a feature, it'll likely be a low budget affair on my own terms. That means I *need* (from a psychological and creative level) to understand the process if I'm going to exploit it to its capacity. I don't feel I can do that with a 100% film process. Yet, I'm not sure if I can afford to do it with a proper DI with colour correction on a Da Vinci in a suite for two frigging weeks. Thats why I like Desktop DI. It allows me to use the same tools I understand, but on a feature scale. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be a writer/director/producer/editor/sound designer/colourist, nor do I intend to be. There are plenty of talented people to do most of those things... plenty more talented than me. But some of them won't be in facilities with 'big iron', nor would I be able to afford them if they could. However, if I could put a Final Touch HD or Shake Setup in the budget of the feature... then we'd be sweet. I could get someone in to operate it, at least bring it to 99% finished, then take it to Big Iron Post for the final clean up.
From an artistic perspective, Desktop DI allows the new school of filmmakers (the so-called 'digikids') to do stuff their way, the way I've they've always conceived of using their tools... It allows us to practice, to become better, and one day (some of us hope) migrating to the big systems, with the big skill behind. How can that result in anything BUT better movies? [Issues of script quality aside]. Some fear that this going to cause problems with the post-industries, who can no longer convince clients to pay them what their staff is worth. It will certainly cause a degree of market diversification, but portfolio theory dictates that this a good thing. I agree. I only need a job done a a '5' quality, so why pay a '10' price?
Whats great about the desktop DI thing, is that its a step inbetween shitty dv-blown-to-film-aesthetics and full blown 35mm production. It allows filmmakers to have a choice. Shoot S16, finish to 35mm, with a DI for colour correction - and do it all for under X!
More specifically, this brings us to Australia. For some time I've been ranting about how we need to fully embrace the 'digital revolution'. Specifically, I think it can be used to LOWER the cost of production here. Either our films need to make more money, or cost less. So why not try and do both? If we acquire on film or HD, but adopt a word-class digital post workflow... with possible digital projection... We can make our films much cheaper. Cheaper films means less risk money-wish which means riskier scripts can be made. If there's an environment where risky scripts are getting made, that means more writers will be more creative, because they won't be as concerned about getting the mighty dollar.
... and better scripts WILL make better movies (ish). There are still directors to screw em up, but its harder with a good script.
Desktop DI also means our cheaper movies won't look bad, hell they may even look good! Slick even!... and what Australia DOES need is a few slick films, well made, well written, well acted, and well directed... Then maybe, maybe, we might start feeling a little national pride vis a vis our movies.
Someone try and prove me right... please?
Briefly, I think they should check out the link I posted concerning Apple's buy out of Shake back in 2002. Its a good reminder of how quickly these things change and how often commentators (self included) get it wrong.
Speaking of comments, I posted some stuff on Final Touch HD. While I was perhaps overly enthusiastic, it comes from my perception of the problems facing the Australian Film Industry (aka government-funded-hobby).
Which brings me to what I want to talk about now: Why Desktop DI Matters. This is going to be more stream of consciousness than any kind of proper essay. I apologise for that, but I've been writing essays for the last decade, and I kinda can't be bothered any more. It may also end up pretty short. We'll see.
Its easy to dismiss the notion of 'desktop DI' as technolust or, worse, the dream of control freak directors. This may be partly true. I'm certainly guilty of wanting faster, cheaper, better. But without 'faster, cheaper, better' we'd still be cutting on Steinbeck's. That said, we shouldn't see the shift from the actual cutting of film to NLEs as one without creative consequence. Tools are the fundamental part of any creative medium - if the word 'medium' didn't tip you off to that fact already. You paint with brushes, draw with pencils, and photograph with cameras. Replace a stills film camera with a motion film camera and you have a new medium. The shift gradual shift from black and white to technicolour; from film to HD; from steinbeck's to NLEs... these are changing the form. Its no different from the shift from say, Harpsicords to Pianofortes. It changes the form, however gradually, however subtely. The pianoforte empowered composers with a greater range of expression for their music but it wasn't a carbon-copy replacement for the harpsicord. Likewise, the NLE has empowered editors and directors. They are more free to experiment with shot combinations. When finishing to tape, they don't have to heed the limitations of optical effects or negcutting. But some feel there has been some loss too. The over-reliance on production monitors for preview has -changed- pacing of movies. There is greater reliance on 'TV' style coverage - closeups and more frequent cutting. Scenes don't breathe as well on the big screen as they do on TV. Effects work also suffers when previewing on the small screen.
What about sound design? Cutting mag-tape is a friggin' pain in the ass. What made th work of Walter Murch and Ben Burtt so astonishing in the 70s was that they pushed the boundaries of sound technically and creatively. Listen to THX-1138 and compare it to other films of the early to mid 70s... its simply astonishing. But what Ben and Walter accomplished in the 1970s is now available to every sound designer with ProTools. The ONLY limitation to the power of sound in film is the aristry of the director and sound designers. Of course, sound designers want more out of ProTools (more tracks, more real time, etc)... but the paradigm shift pioneered by Lucasfilm has stayed. Generally, modern films have better sound design (imnsho) than they did 30 years ago. By better, I mean capable of reflecting and enhacing the storytelling.
D.I. is causing a similar revolution in the higher-end of film production. But what is curious about DI is that it offers to film DOPs techniques which have been available to those finishing-to-tape for some years.... It IS changing the face of cinematography on an artistic level, because it empowers DOPs in very new and exciting ways. A film like Hero which uses colour as a fundamental component of its story, on a metaphysical and narrative level, would simply not have been possible without DI.
For me, however, what I find exciting about DI is that I *understand* it. Sure, there are crazy issues to consider, like asset management and workflow... but they're logistical and can be solved. Creatively, DI is effectively what I have been doing since I first started playing around with Photoshop. Its a core part of my workflow. When I conceive of a 'look' for a project, I conceive it holistically from shooting to grading. When shooting a scene, I can consider what can (and can't) be corrected digitally. I don't think of it as as cheating. Its a tool which allows me to communicate what I want to communicate better; its not a dickmeasuring contest. If it where, then light meters of all kinds would be cheating!
Yet, while I may theoretically understanding the film post process (film acquisition, film cutting, film finishing), its only theoretically. That kinda scares me. Sure, if someone asked me to direct a feature tomorrow that was to be a 100% film post process (its quite cheap!) I wouldn't hesitate to say yes. But thats not going to happen. I have accepted that when I get around to making a feature, it'll likely be a low budget affair on my own terms. That means I *need* (from a psychological and creative level) to understand the process if I'm going to exploit it to its capacity. I don't feel I can do that with a 100% film process. Yet, I'm not sure if I can afford to do it with a proper DI with colour correction on a Da Vinci in a suite for two frigging weeks. Thats why I like Desktop DI. It allows me to use the same tools I understand, but on a feature scale. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be a writer/director/producer/editor/sound designer/colourist, nor do I intend to be. There are plenty of talented people to do most of those things... plenty more talented than me. But some of them won't be in facilities with 'big iron', nor would I be able to afford them if they could. However, if I could put a Final Touch HD or Shake Setup in the budget of the feature... then we'd be sweet. I could get someone in to operate it, at least bring it to 99% finished, then take it to Big Iron Post for the final clean up.
From an artistic perspective, Desktop DI allows the new school of filmmakers (the so-called 'digikids') to do stuff their way, the way I've they've always conceived of using their tools... It allows us to practice, to become better, and one day (some of us hope) migrating to the big systems, with the big skill behind. How can that result in anything BUT better movies? [Issues of script quality aside]. Some fear that this going to cause problems with the post-industries, who can no longer convince clients to pay them what their staff is worth. It will certainly cause a degree of market diversification, but portfolio theory dictates that this a good thing. I agree. I only need a job done a a '5' quality, so why pay a '10' price?
Whats great about the desktop DI thing, is that its a step inbetween shitty dv-blown-to-film-aesthetics and full blown 35mm production. It allows filmmakers to have a choice. Shoot S16, finish to 35mm, with a DI for colour correction - and do it all for under X!
More specifically, this brings us to Australia. For some time I've been ranting about how we need to fully embrace the 'digital revolution'. Specifically, I think it can be used to LOWER the cost of production here. Either our films need to make more money, or cost less. So why not try and do both? If we acquire on film or HD, but adopt a word-class digital post workflow... with possible digital projection... We can make our films much cheaper. Cheaper films means less risk money-wish which means riskier scripts can be made. If there's an environment where risky scripts are getting made, that means more writers will be more creative, because they won't be as concerned about getting the mighty dollar.
... and better scripts WILL make better movies (ish). There are still directors to screw em up, but its harder with a good script.
Desktop DI also means our cheaper movies won't look bad, hell they may even look good! Slick even!... and what Australia DOES need is a few slick films, well made, well written, well acted, and well directed... Then maybe, maybe, we might start feeling a little national pride vis a vis our movies.
Someone try and prove me right... please?
posted by stu willis at
7:05 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home