Thread: Workflow Breakdown of Every 2018 Best Picture and Best Editing Oscar Nominee

Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1 Workflow Breakdown of Every 2018 Best Picture and Best Editing Oscar Nominee 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,352
    Here's a terrific article on Frame.io's website detailing the workflow choices (dailies formats, operating systems, editing software, and so on) made by the dozen or so films that led the Oscar race this past year.

    https://blog.frame.io/2018/03/05/oscar-2018-workflows/

    One interesting quote that stood out for me:

    Although it’s becoming easier and easier to edit in 4K (and these productions certainly had the budgets for high-end computers), all 11 teams chose to edit in standard 1920 x 1080 resolution. For readers who are used to working on smaller productions where the entire postproduction process happens at the same facility, this might be surprising. These films were all captured or scanned at 4K or higher, and the budgets were plenty large enough to pay for top-of-the-line hardware, so why not edit 4K? If people are editing feature films in raw 6K, surely it can be done in 4K without too much trouble.

    If you consider the workflows of these types of films, though, a 4K edit still doesn’t make much sense. Before we ask why these films wouldn’t edit in 4K, we first we have to ask ourselves, “what are the benefits of editing in 4K?”

    The primary benefit for most people who edit in 4K is simply the fact that they can skip the offline editing process and do all of their work directly on the camera-original files. Although it’s very easy to design a smooth offline workflow, and all of the major editing packages support it, there is some nice simplicity in avoiding the need to transcode for an offline workflow. If you are doing your color correction and finishing inside of your editor (which is increasingly possible), you have the added significant advantage of being able to move fluidly between phases of your postproduction process. You can spend more time on temporary color-correction as you are editing, knowing that you can continue that work later rather than having to start over again. You can also make edits to the film during the finishing phase, without the headaches of a reverse conform process.

    But these feature films, even the low budget ones, all used a traditional offline workflow that involved a handoff from the editors to a separate finishing team at another facility. So there was no possibility of the kind of all-in-one workflows that are now becoming feasible.

    As amazing as the iMac Pros and Z840s are for renderless 4K editing, there are still plenty of hiccups and slow-downs involved with editing a significant film in 4K. Temp VFX and color-correction can quickly choke playback on a system that’s not perfectly tuned, and render times stretch out.

    The other significant disadvantage to a 4K edit for these films is the size of the storage required, even if you edit off of proxy files instead of the original camera files. At different points in the process, the teams behind Baby Driver, Three Billboards, and The Shape of Water had a complete copy of the film running off of a single hard drive connected to a portable laptop, which would not have been possible had they edited in 4K.


    A lot of food for thought here.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    413
    Not trying to stir up controversy, but according to this article everything was either Arri 3.4K or film.
    Nolan stated that after the digital edit they spliced the actual film - so the edit size would not be very relevant. For Arri 3.4k - they would scale up just to edit? I doubt that would be efficient.
    Some non-linear editors create auto proxy so the displayed resolution during edit does not impact storage and performance (other than if you only sent HD res to editors).

    http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/came...minated-films/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,546
    Neat article.

    From the folks I've met and worked with over the years in regards to "just editing" the goal is to keep the file size down and the systems moving quick.

    I see some editors on features taking the whole film now around on a laptop and external drive driving around 1080p material. That doesn't necessarily mean the film will finish out in post that way of course.

    The goal there is editing is so very much more about timing, speed to work, and efficiency when dealing with lots of revisions. Some editors work like Mozart lost in a high powered composition, so navigating around files and takes within bins as fast as humanly possible makes much more sense. Take into account some of the preferred hardware workflows and a lot of that general answer to this article becomes obvious. Some editors have become part of the QC squad now and I've seen 4K dailies and proxies deployed for people who can handle that. On one of my larger projects last year we had mixed dailies of 4K and 2K for different clients and how they used them for instance while the general edit was formed in native REDCODE RAW. The shoot itself finished in 8K and 4K. 4K dailies were critical to "truly knowing" according to most. But there's a million ways to taxidermy a cat (skinning just doesn't feel like that much fun).

    Nice to see the DNxHD/HR love. We do need better "outside of app" playback support on both Mac and Windows OS IMO. Inside NLE, life is good.

    One thing I truly like about modern workflows is they can vary greatly project to project to adapt to any sort of special needs, such as some of the Dunkirk related work here.


    *edit, just as a general figure, this alludes to much. Typical shooting ratios for a 120 minute land "around" 200 hours of actual captured material. Some much higher, some much lower. But that's a good number for a decently budgeted film to look at.

    If we are talking DNxHD 1080 in SQ we're looking at likely around 13.09TB material. Enough to carry around in modest portable and compact drives with a data rate around 19.06MB/s. So even rather slow things are usable.

    For a DNxHR UHD 4K SQ workflow likely around 52.35TB of material with a data rate of 76.24MB/s. Larger in volume for sure, but data rate-wise not an unachievable concept over USB 3.0 at all. Just at the moment a RAID setup you don't want to likely lug around much :)
    Last edited by Phil Holland; 03-05-2018 at 07:42 PM.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    I assume most of those films where not even shot in in 4k, upress to edit seams a bit far fetched, no?
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se/axis
    VFX / Flame / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member PatrickFaith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,558
    I only see people editing with prores proxies, which I think is kind of the same thing they are saying with avid, but the conform can output at at all sorts of resolutions (so the conform is going back to the pre-proxy resolution which is normally prores 444 or 422 so the colorist can do their thing which is often atleast at dcp 2k).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Nice article.

    I do find the levels of excess with Dunkirk a little bit over the top. I doubt that any of that really made any real difference to the audience watching. It's for the sake of it. There were plenty of cuts and jumps in colour and look in Dunkirk as a result of this which took me out a few times.

    Half of call be by your name has a mark on the single lens he used. Drove me nuts, maybe they had no video assist (really?) but it was so obvious and you can see when the mark is an isn't there from scene to scene and when they went back to shoot more.

    I've just literally got the S16mm scans back from a past feature we did, and looking through those is so different to the past few years of Red footage. I *much* prefer the look of the Red in every way shape and form. Can't stand the look of *real* film to be honest (heresy i'm sure).

    And i'm always gobsmacked at how Avid is still in the game. Having started an indie feature on Avid (with an avid editor) and just finding it a physically painful process we moved to PPro and an online/offline approach and everything just worked from then on. Is it that Avid editors are just so blinkered about their tools?

    cheers
    Paul
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,396
    Quote Originally Posted by paulcurtis View Post

    And i'm always gobsmacked at how Avid is still in the game. Having started an indie feature on Avid (with an avid editor) and just finding it a physically painful process we moved to PPro and an online/offline approach and everything just worked from then on. Is it that Avid editors are just so blinkered about their tools?

    cheers
    Paul

    Paul,

    I left Avid about a year or so ago. I loved the media management , Symphony and the editing tools allowed me to edit as fast I could think. But for all the hoops you had to jump through just to deal with raw files that every other NLE dealt with natively, I just said F.T.S.
    Last edited by rand thompson; 03-06-2018 at 10:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Patrick Tresch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Switzerland, Lausanne
    Posts
    5,164
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    Paul,

    I left Avid about a year or so ago. I loved the media management , Symphony and the editing tools allowed me to edit as fast I could think. But for all the hoops you had to jump through just to deal with raw files that every other NLE dealt with natively, I just said F.T.S.
    +1 They should have drop that Mediacomposer/Symphony shit and jumped on the DS wagon. Editing DS was a breeze and could handle every shit you throw at it, resolution, codecs, pictures...
    The senior editors would have easely jumped on that wagon if AVID would have pushed it a tiny bit. Damn... Now we are sticked with FCPX and PP...

    Pat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Tresch View Post
    +1 They should have drop that Mediacomposer/Symphony shit and jumped on the DS wagon. Editing DS was a breeze and could handle every shit you throw at it, resolution, codecs, pictures...
    The senior editors would have easely jumped on that wagon if AVID would have pushed it a tiny bit. Damn... Now we are sticked with FCPX and PP...

    Pat
    +10000
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    I assume most of those films where not even shot in in 4k, upress to edit seams a bit far fetched, no?
    The ones shot on film are theoretically higher than 4K.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulcurtis View Post
    And i'm always gobsmacked at how Avid is still in the game. Having started an indie feature on Avid (with an avid editor) and just finding it a physically painful process we moved to PPro and an online/offline approach and everything just worked from then on. Is it that Avid editors are just so blinkered about their tools?
    I think when you've been accustomed to one tool set for many years, you tend to stick with it for the simple reason that you can use it almost without thinking. There's also an enormous talent pool available, worldwide, that knows the Avid workflow very, very well. And that goes for dailies people, assistant editors, editors, post supervisors, and post houses. There are no surprises with Avid in that respect: "it just works."

    I've always found Avid to be very cryptic and parts of it very weird and user-unfriendly, but I can limp around in it a little bit. And I've also watched ace editors blow through scenes very, very, very quickly. If it's efficient for them, tells the story, and gets the job done, then there is no problem.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts