|
I've watched that clip three times now, and I still say it points out the workflow bottlenecks. Part of it is personal. One guy, (I'm guessing the line producer?) Says "We could speed things up if you didn't print every take..." To which the director responds he's not going to work any differently ... that is, not going to change his workflow.
I've seen sets grind to a halt, with people huddled around a monitor, adjusting the camera settings to get the look 'right'. This is the sort of thing that is normally done in post with film. As I mentioned, HD tends to push post processess ON TO the set, which can slow down the workflow dramatically.
I don't know what the workflow is in the Superman set in the link. I know that the color corrector is getting the footage BEFORE the editor, which is slowing the editor's pace down by an entire day... which, as the director points out, is unacceptable. Holding onto a set for an extra day is cost prohibitive... (Here again, you savings over film seems to start slipping away.)
IN terms of pure resolution, HD still does not match film. Though, subjectively it can "look better than film". I don't know if what they were screening was a digital projection, or an actual FILM PRINT... it was not made clear. Perhaps someone else has a different take on that?
Yes, in THEORY, digital workflow should be faster than film, because you are eliminating the 'processing'. But if your setups are slower, and you need to color correct the digital stuff before the editor gets to work with it... you've got problems.
Eventually, it will get worked out. Digital IS the future. So is tapeless. But, as I said in another thread. It's not there yet. In terms of special effects shots, it's much better and faster than the film workflow, no question about that.
|