Total Cinema System: Picture, Sound, Script, Backup, Dailies

[r39525]

The two main things you need to record during principal photography is the pictures and the sound. Jim and Red are in a unique position to carry their revolution on by creating a automated multi-camera, multi-mic system that is completely coordinated.

Many directors regularly shoot dialog scenes with multiple cameras because the performances are one of the most precious parts of the the shoot. I am suggesting that Red consider building such a system.

Here's how it might work.

The script supervisor would work on a laptop running software that shows the shooting script. She would enter the slate info for each take and, when the director says "roll", she triggers all the cameras and sound recording from her computer.

All slate date is sent to all recording devices, cameras and sound, to name the files and add the meta-data to each file. (This could be done the other way around ... if all time codes are in sync things could be automatically matched up in post.) All devices report back that they are running correctly and she says, "speed", or some such. (No need to even hold up a slate in front of the camera.)

On "cut" she triggers all recording to stop. She enters notes including what lines of dialog were covered by this take and other data is recorded with the script file. For continuity still pictures are transferred to her laptop so she can check details on the next take or reshoots and pickups.

Periodically the data wrangler will gather the recording media and transfer it into the mirrored backup system along with the current version of the script details. This system will automatically synchronize the separate sound with the video from the various cameras and dailies will be ready almost as soon as the they wrap for the day. When the editor starts editing he/she has everything synced up together and the script supervisor's notes. Perhaps the whole project can be imported automatically into the NLE.

Zaxcom already makes wireless body-pack transmitters that also record twelve hours of sound build in. With this kind of technology there's no need to worry about audio dropouts. The radio part is good for crew monitoring and the digital recordings downloaded from the transmitter will be perfect.

Jim, I hope you read this. Having a complete integrated system from a single company makes everything simpler to integrate. Maybe Red can buy Zaxcom and get a head start on the RedAudio brand.

Peace,

Rob:-]

[M Most]

The script supervisor would work on a laptop running software that shows the shooting script. She would enter the slate info for each take and, when the director says "roll", she triggers all the cameras and sound recording from her computer....
On "cut" she triggers all recording to stop. She enters notes including what lines of dialog were covered by this take and other data is recorded with the script file. For continuity still pictures are transferred to her laptop so she can check details on the next take or reshoots and pickups.

I'm going to make a wild guess here and say that it seems to me that you've never worked on a professional production, at least not one with a full crew. And it definitely sounds like you've never worked with a "real" script supervisor.

It's nice to think that technology can be used in all situations. The problem is that it's often far, far more trouble than it's worth. And this is one of those situations.

[r39525]

You're right about me. I've shot and edited a multi-camera show for a year but it was all amateurs. I was the location sound recorder on a three week feature shoot but, again, not with experienced professionals. I've done some corporate video shoots but the only two professional sets I've worked on was as an extra on "Stop Loss" and "Friday Night Lights". (I did those specifically to watch pros work.)

So your point is well taken.

On the other hand, my day job is hardware/software engineering for the past thirty years. So I am an experienced professional at planning and executing complex electronic systems. In that time I have learned that engineers do not always create the most human usable systems. I've done my share of crappy systems but I've done some good ones too.

That's the principal reason I'm posting my ideas here ... to get some feedback from experienced movie folks who are interested in changing, and perhaps improving, the feature film principal photography process with a more integrated systems approach.

I'd be interested in any specific ideas you have about how this system won't work or how it could work if some part of it was changed.

Warmest regards,

Rob:-]

[Shawn Booth]

I perked up at the idea of this, but I feel that in the proposed method, you stand to lose too many necessary craftspersons in exchange for software/hardware. But I think there is something to your idea that turns the gears...

Maybe with WiFi the cameras can transmit the same data to the scripty/wrangler/other nec people/etc.? Perhaps cameras can be triggered from laptops... (or something)

Not sure - but I like the idea.

[M Most]

I'd be interested in any specific ideas you have about how this system won't work or how it could work if some part of it was changed.
]

Well, for one, here's a really simple one. What happens when the script supervisor's laptop computer stops working? Or even when the battery goes dead? And what happens if you're rolling at the time? Reliability on a set is job 1, and the lack of same is one of the main reasons why new technology is often rejected. In post production, you have 2 people (and editor and an assistant), so if a bit of time is lost, it's not that big a deal. In production, you have about 50-80 people, on an average day. Every hour is costing you many thousands of dollars. You can't afford to have equipment that's costing you time, no matter how much post might like it.

There are a lot of reasons why the level of automation you're proposing is impractical and, for the most part, unnecessary. But I'm not the one you should be talking to. You should be talking to professional script supervisors. You should be learning about what they do, how they do it, the "standards" they adhere to (for instance, how a script is marked up, how new pages are handled, how line changes are handled, and in what form the script notes are done), and how and why they communicate with others on the set, such as they camera and sound departments. Once you do that, my comments will become a little clearer.

[number6]

r39525, this country needs jobs right now, and what you are proposing would put LOTS of movie people out of work. Let's hear no more of it.

[Harry Clark]

If the cameras are jam-synced, the script super can have timecode displayed at his or her station. Some script supervisors already use a computer program that allows them to have start and stop TC for each shot, as well as a thumbnail of the shot, entered with the notes.
Controlling the cameras from a central point does not seem to me to bring anything to the party.
You'll already have an AC at each camera. Who cares if they each press a button a frame of two (or 50) later or sooner than each other?
But then again, I'm Old-Skool.
Cheers,
Harry

[Joe G.]

Unmentioned: the slate clap is used for synching sound. You shouldn't just do away with it.

Automation is fine, except when it crashes. Your whole production is shut down. Not good to put all your thousand dollar eggs in one basket.

The camera is already too automated ! (some would argue) You can lose vital irreplaceable shots on the whim of a software bug, or a bad resistor, transistor, capacitor, whatever.

Strategies for minimizing risk -- not increasing it -- should be top priority.

My opinion anyway.

[Harry Clark]

Agreed.
Narrative film and the best commercials and docs are very much hand-made entities.
Cold, cheap-feeling CGI is automated.
Harry

[number6]

I think the solution to equipment failure in movie making should be the same as in most any other time-critical industry.... redundancy.