I had a nice chat a while ago on the show floor with editor/post supervisor Jacob Rosenberg about his ongoing crusade to promote combined offline/online workflows into what he calls a desktop DI process for independent filmmaker, built around Adobe Premiere Pro, After Effects, and the Cineform codec. Fresh off the buzz his team earned last year for editing/finishing the movie Dust to Glory using this workflow (read our coverage of that project here), Rosenberg is promoting the methodology at the Adobe booth at NAB.

When that’s finished, he’ll return to finishing up his latest project—editing and supervising post on the upcoming theatrical film LBS (Pounds), which has adopted elements of this workflow. Look for a podcast on this site shortly containing our full interview, but meantime, here’s an excerpt, as Rosenberg discussed his new project and his belief that indie filmmakers can benefit from his workflow experiences:

Michael Goldman: Tell us about your new project.

Jacob Rosenberg: I‘m the post supervisor, online editor, DI supervisor for a film called LBS (Pounds). It was shot Super 16, scanned to files, then converted to Cineform 2K files. So we actually have 2K AVI files as the source for the online and the digital intermediate.

Goldman: Did the workflow come direct from Dust to Glory?

Rosenberg: I would say the difference is with Dust to Glory, we had so many different formats. So I think the foundation of the workflow, having the confidence in the codec, that it would hold up in the filmout, came from Dust to Glory. Clearly, because from Dust to Glory, we were confident in the fact that whatever we have in the [Adobe] Premiere timeline would show up on celluloid and look great. The difference is Dust to Glory was 35mm footage, Super 16 footage, HDCAM footage, Hi-8, and DV, whereas, this is JUST Super 16. So the process in Dust to Glory was everything was scanned Super 16mm straight to HD. Whereas, here, we have Super 16mm frames scanned as individual frames, and then converted into Cineform AVI files.

So, the foundation of the workflow is the same because we are using the same file format, but the content went through a different path. However, the finishing of it, we‘ll be using color correction in the software, as opposed to doing color correction in other facilities or an online type of environment. We‘ll use color correction in Premiere Pro and After Effects.

Primarily, we’re using curves. The film has already been timed and the way that the corrections came straight across. … In certain instances, we can go take things further and do secondaries and power windows using different mask techniques in After Effects. But in general, most of the film is not highly stylized in the look of the film. It has an authentic, real quality to it. So the color correction will be a matter of creating certain curves based on the different scenes, and then applying those curves to the scenes and then doing individual adjustments on a shot by shot basis.

Goldman: When does this workflow make sense, and when doesn’t it?

I believe that if you are an independent filmmaker, the workflow is bona fide. If you are a studio doing the work, there are parts of the process that have great advantage. But still, studios would bond to a film because it is being cut with Avid. Avid is still the cornerstone for major productions. But if you think of an independent film like Memento: not a lot of visual effects, cutting, storytelling. … A film like that could have easily handled a DI workflow like we are doing.

I have become a really big advocate of saying shoot on 35mm, shoot on super 16mm, transfer to HDCAM. You can transfer to HDCAM-SR if your budget can afford that. But once you are in that HD environment, you do filmout, and the difference is negligible to the original negative from HDCAM-SR to your 35mm. But being in that HD plane, anytime you need a preview screen, you are looking at it on an external monitor as beautiful as anything you can see.

So, it is a threshold of pain, but it is a threshold of difference mainly, of looking at the model differently. So I believe you have the same functions and same opportunity you would have with another software. But this is just different. I mean, most people find that cut on other systems and come to Premiere, once they know what it is capable of, they get really excited. They just go, it‘s really a matter of understanding the difference between that software and this software.

Hard to say what film would be perfect for it, but I think independent filmmakers. … Just imagine your offline edit is your online. That‘s what I believe. That is where we are now with this workflow.

Check out the upcoming podcast of this interview and lots more from Jacob Rosenberg