If that's not enough, the digitizing process essential to computerized editing guarantees that even the most closely supervised video dailies will show a strange, Prozac-like veneer in the photography: all of the highs and lows are obliterated, and there's no real engagement with the emotion of the movie. It's almost like recording a breathtaking symphony only to play it back on a transistor radio. Video dailies also exhibit a more insidious ability to cover up any number of real or potential technical glitches, whether they're related to focus, registration or other factors. Tales of disastrous mishaps are legion and affect not only the cinematographer but everyone involved in the creative chain, from the producer and director on down.
Early in my career I shot a feature during which I didn't see a frame of film onscreen until the answer-print stage. Despite my regular communication with the telecine operator, Super VHS, a beautifully balanced Sony 1910 monitor, innumerable gray cards and the strict attention we paid to exposure and color balance, I still wound up looking at a literal but totally uninspiring video image after wrap every evening. Little did I know that my problems had just begun. Eight months later, while making a check print at the same L.A. facility which processed and transferred the dailies, I found that my negative had been improperly treated at some point in its development. The damage was substantial, irreparable and very noticeable on the prints. Of course, at no time during the five-week shoot did the video dailies show any indication of irregularity. Instead of spotting and immediately correcting the problem by screening print film on the second morning of production, I was forced to spend six weeks and all the money saved by the producer's decision to use only video dailies forging an acceptable interpositive. What ultimately went out to festival and theater screens was an inferior product that cheapened the contributions of everyone involved. Plainly, the absence of print dailies ruined the movie, but in a twisted sense the ordeal was a blessing. The dissatisfaction and stress it caused were all I needed to decide that I'd never work that way again.
One solution that will prevent similar debacles for productions that insist on video dailies is to negotiate for the Print Roll method. It's simple, fast and economical enough for all but the very lowest of low-budget shows, and while not the ideal way to do things, this method at least gives you a fighting chance to protect yourself.
Assume you have four 1000' magazines assigned to your job, labeled A through D. Right off the bat each morning, Mag A is designated to be carrying the Print Roll. As such, it will be held back from recording any of the principal photography and used exclusively to shoot an MOS rehearsal with the actors or a run-through with the stand-ins, once the lighting is set. After this silent, non-official take is completed, Mag A is replaced on the camera by the appropriate Mag B, C or D, which is then used to film the actual scene. With Mag A the Print Roll established as the only roll to be printed, Mags B, C and D are now essentially the video roll mags since they're destined for video transfer only. The process is not at all cumbersome, and since you shoot your Print Roll without sound, it can be handled very quickly, provided the time is taken for rehearsal. Besides severely restricting the amount of footage actually printed, projected footage can be seen on an as-needed basis, whether it be a wide master alone, a single close-up or a short burst of every shot of the day.
A related practice dictates the transfer of everything to tape and then the selection of specific takes for printing after the fact. On the surface, this may seem an ideal compromise, but in practice it's a recipe for disaster. Due to the lab's requirements for breaking down exposed film before printing, this method subjects the negative to excessive handling that increases the risk of damage. It's also the cause of numerous logistical problems that can result in lost or misplaced footage. I tried it once for a few days and wouldn't recommend it under any circumstance. The Print Roll method avoids these pitfalls because, in essence, it creates an inert roll. Since there's no accompanying sound and the print roll is never transferred to tape, the lab treats it as it would any other piece of negative meant for printing only. After screening the Print Roll takes to satisfaction, the Print Roll itself is kept in storage for later reference during answer-printing.
All of these arguments in support of film dailies for feature films stress the importance of maintaining the technical and aesthetic integrity of the image, which is not much to ask when one is hired to work in a visual medium. Despite a director of photography's most reasoned defense, resistance to print dailies sometimes stems from a desire to place their cost in the postproduction budget rather than with the up-front numbers. That's unfortunate, because the notion of film dailies as being prohibitively expensive is completely false. "It's not just about money," states Allen Daviau, ASC. "Video dailies without print dailies is an attempt to take control away from the cinematographer."
[ continued on page 3 ]