Müller HM 73

[carllooper]

So, really, this isn't about "stories that can be given customers", this is about not trying to second guess what they want.

Ok. Fair enough. The problem is that any decision you make regarding how the film will be migrated to digital (in the absence of specific customer requests) is second guessing what the customer wants.

Ideally a migration would be one which did allow any direction in the digital domain. The problem, as I've come to realise from others, is that any proposed baseline transfer, that could satisfy everyone, would require an HDR transfer (to satisfy restoration/visualisation requirements). However a customer wanting, say, a quick cheap preview isn't going to want a HDR transfer, because of the cost.

So we need to separate migration out a bit.

Restoration isn't something you to do to some nominal existing migration method. It's something you do instead of an existing transfer method. It's something that determines what transfer method is adopted. The methods it determines are methods that all films, should have in their transfer, but not all customers want, need or would pay for those methods. For example, the proposed baseline digital method of scan/stitch can be cheap (so that can be factored in for all customers) but an HDR transfer (typically) isn't.

Apart from HDR sensors other ways of doing HDR are n pass transfers done at different exposure levels - whether doing the passes on each frame (for frame by frame systems) or on each roll (for continuous systems). Multi-pass methods are obviously costlier than single pass methods due to the additional time involved. But the digital methods used to reconstruct the HDR signal (from the passes) is cheap.

I look forward to the day when restoration level requirements are the norm for digital transfers. But until that day the real question isn't "where do you stop" but "where do you start".

[MovieStuff]

So, really, this isn't about "stories that can be given customers", this is about not trying to second guess what they want.

Ok. Fair enough. The problem is that any decision you make regarding how the film will be migrated to digital (in the absence of specific customer requests) is second guessing what the customer wants.

Which is why you don't do it without customer input. You don't make any assumption about what the customer wants. If he wants migration, then you price accordingly. If he wants migration and restoration, then you price accordingly. Sometimes restoration is easier than migration because the customer signs off in advance on any improvements that you make. But there should never be an absence of customer input when they drop off the film.

Roger

[carllooper]

Which is why you don't do it without customer input. You don't make any assumption about what the customer wants. If he wants migration, then you price accordingly. If he wants migration and restoration, then you price accordingly.

Yes indeed.

I guess the point being made is not whether you get customer input (obviously you do) but how you frame that dialogue. For example, a customer may want "migration" only, but unbeknownst to you they are going to do restoration on that migration.

When they return saying they couldn't get details out of the blacks, do you argue that all they asked for was migration?

Or another customer asks for migration only, but the price you quote (which includes HDR) has them walking out the door.

The point being made is that "migration" isn't a set of assumptions on which you can necessarily rely. It needs to be broken down into an assortment of things: does the customer want sprockets visible in the transfer, HDR, claw registered motion, etc. All of these questions fall under the heading of migration.

Perhaps we need a category called "restoration ready transfer" rather than "migration" which includes: HDR scan, sprockets visible and scan overlap for stitching purposes. From such a baseline any direction can then be taken.

And we leave the "migration" category as the conventional set of requirements and associated dialogue, ie. for those who want something they can throw in their DVD player and/or associated extras (auto grading, graded transfer, etc).

For someone like me it's a "restoration ready transfer" I'd want. From such a transfer can be done anything and everything in the digital domain. That's what is so appealing. From such a transfer you can satisfy any client need completely digitally. For example, if the client changes their mind and says they actually wanted a 16fps rather than 18 fps transfer, you don't have to do the transfer again. You just flick a switch and spin out a 16fps version from the digital transfer. The same goes for changes to grading decisions. This is because the "restoration ready transfer" makes no assumptions at all about the client's needs. It isn't second guessing anything or requiring any client input at the transfer stage.

[MovieStuff]

Which is why you don't do it without customer input. You don't make any assumption about what the customer wants. If he wants migration, then you price accordingly. If he wants migration and restoration, then you price accordingly.

Yes indeed.

I guess the point being made is not whether you get customer input (obviously you do) but how you frame that dialogue.....

Respectfully, you are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. If someone wants their film migrated, there will be a discussion about what that means and they will purchase accordingly. If they want their film restored, there will be discussion about what level of restoration they are requiring and how much it will cost or if we can even do it. Film properly migrated will work fine for the level of restoration that most consumers are prepared to do on their own and will contain enough information in the shadow and highlights for them to proceed with little difficulty.

On a forum, one can discuss every possible scenario cheaply and easily. But in a real business setting, you have to draw a line in the sand and tell customers, "This is what we sell." and not "This is what you really wanted, despite telling us differently." If someone orders chocolate covered donuts, you do not presume they really wanted vanilla nor do you give them vanilla with some chocolate icing on the side so they can make up their mind later on about something they already told you they specifically wanted. Giving them a bag of ingredients so they can make their own donuts would be the most versatile solution but then you are no longer selling donuts and now are faced with whether or not they can cook, which requires an even more difficult degree of hand holding.

In the end, will the customer always choose wisely? No. But they can always buy more donuts.

Roger

[carllooper]

Respectfully, you are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

This is not true.

The discussed "restoration ready transfer" is actually far simpler than existing systems, not more complicated at all.

If there are complications (and there are) they occur in the digital stage - not in the transfer stage. However the complications have solutions which, once solved, become automated, updateable, redistribuitable, ie. cheap.

The problem is that existing transfer facilities complicate the problem by implementing systems that the digital stage could do far better and utlimately more cheaply. Many transfer systems hardwire in client decisions such as framespeed, grading etc. as if these things needed to be decided at the transfer stage.

This ends up making complications in the digital stage (at best) and requiring a re-transfer (costly) at worst.

What I'm arguing for is that "restoration ready transfers" should be the norm, not the exception. The only complicating factor being cost (due to HDR). But that's not me making it more complicated. That's just a statement about reality.

On a forum, one can discuss every possible scenario cheaply and easily. But in a real business setting, you have to draw a line in the sand and tell customers, "This is what we sell." and not "This is what you really wanted, despite telling us differently."

This misrepresents the situation. The proposed "restoration ready transfer" is not giving the customer what they didn't want. Indeed it's not giving the customer anything at all. What the customer gets is what occurs during decisions made in the digital stage, some of which are simple, and some more complicated. It's analogous to film. A roll of film is not what the customer wants - it is simply a component of a system. What the customer gets is what they eventually see when the film is projected. The film is part of a system (a cog). The customer can "complicate" this by making prints, grading, doing colourist work, adding in special effects, but the camera original doesn't change. It's just raw data. You shouldn't have to go back and do a reshoot in order do any of the additional things you can do with a roll of film.

The system is what is being talked about here. Making it a simpler system but a correspondingly better system in the process.

By way of analogy. Suppose you offer a service whereby you provide customers (arriving at your shop) with the square root of a number they have specified. Now on face value it might seem impossible that you could deliver such a service without first knowing the number to be square rooted. But this is not true. The relationship between the customer's problem (the square root of x) and the answer (what the customer wants) is defined by a square root algorithm. You don't need to know the number specified by any customer in order to write that square root algorithm. You can implement that algorithm independantly of the customer (through the magic of algebra). All you have to do is just put a selection of buttons on the algorithm and give that to the customer: a calculator, and the problem is solved without ever knowing the customer's specific problem.

Another example is this website. Unlike medieval monks, the programmers of this website do not need to know what you have written for this website in order to publish what you have written. The relationship between your problem (wanting to say something) and the solution (a published post) can be defined by an algorithm that is independant of any specific post. The programmer puts a set of options on that algorithm (B i u Quote Code List etc) and gives that to the customer. Certainly this sort of thing (programming) is more complicated than a medieval monk manually transcribing a text, but once done it's then a very much simpler workflow than the methods of medieval monks.

The transfer of film into the digital domain should follow the same idea. You define a transfer system independantly of the customer (effectively an algorithm) and put a set of options on it. It is then the interaction between the customer and the transfer (via the options) that solves the customer's particular needs.

The only complicating factor is cost. But that's not me making it more complicated. That's just a statement about reality.

On a philosophical note, the transfer of a film into the digital domain is always a restoration. One is restoring the motion picture inherent in a roll of film. A film projector does the same thing. It restores the motion picture which the roll of film, on it's own, could not do.

All that being said, the staus quo is not as bad as I'm making out. Many transfer facilities now do transfer sprocket holes as a matter of course. And there is often more than sufficient overlap in existing transfer systems to perform stitches (you don't need much overlap at all). And many places do have something approaching adequate DR if not HDR. So I guess my main beef is with those systems that ignore any or all of these very simple and fundamental attributes - or otherwise spin stories that treat these things (for whatever reason) as complicated, or unnecessary, or of no interest to your average consumer, or unfaithful to the spirit of film, etc.