NLE Changes and Creating Art
08/April/10 12:26 PM
Changes coming fast and
furious in the editing software world. Adobe back and
better! FCP on its last legs? Smoke 2010 on the Mac!
AVID streamlining, relevant again, and promising an
uber-surprise at NAB!
I’ve resisted writing about editing tech so far in this blog, even though it excites me beyond reason and is half the focus of FORWARD EDIT. Why? I believe that the artistic side of editing, and post in general get short shrift in the online world. Even when editors/assistants get together, talk inevitably turns to software/hardware problems or the newest toys or keeping up/one upping everyone else. What version of FCP are you on? Me: 6.06 vs. the current 7.02. Why are we so obsessed with software that is all fairly similar in what it does and even how it does it? And did editors and assistants in the pre-digital age talk shop in this way? Latest Steenbeck or Moviola? I suspect “hardware” issues came up along with the best ways to solve them. Sync methods, how fast can you go, sorting trims, etc...but I don’t think such things occupied vast tracts of conversation time (if the Internet had existed then, would blogs have covered picture post much at all?)
And definitely, the ability to operate software does not an editor, or even assistant (me) make. What does is an innate ability to tell a story. For assistants, it’s an ability to organize, juggle tasks, lay down sound FX, and a million other “arts.” Oh yes, navigating uncooperative software helps.
Anyways, the changes, challenges, surprises: the future. (Why do all 4 NLE companies begin with “A”?)
The non surprise at the moment. Shipping vs. is 7.02 ($999) and the most recent large update was last year and was a minor upgrade disguised as an event. As far as I’m concerned, there have been no significant changes in years. Yes, years. So what’s going on? Rumors would have you believe that Apple doesn’t care about FCP at all anymore and is trying to sell it. Even read a rumor today that AVID’s NAB shocker will be that it has bought FCP! Don’t believe that... And yet, what gives? iPad, iPhone, App Store just taking up too many of Apple’s resources? Probably. Apple got a lot of people to buy Macs that wouldn’t have otherwise and now doesn’t care anymore? Maybe. I argue that Apple caused the true democratization of editing by creating a relatively affordable NLE. And somewhat easier to use than AVID. So why give up now? Some estimates are that FCP has captured close to 50% of the major player NLE market. All of this year’s Oscar nom’d docs were cut on FCP.
AVID has been working hard to clean up their product line. Previously there were too many editions of what was basically one core product, Media Composer. Currently vs. 4.05, $2295 software only. Different AVID finishing products still exist and are solid performers. I think it’s especially important that AVID released a software only version for the Mac last year. For hi-powered Mac Pros, this is a fine solution. I learned NLE on an AVID and think it has some advantages over FCP. Not tremendous, but some. Like media management. And pretty colors.
VIACOM last month ordered that all shows that are cut for any of its divisions (Paramount, MTV, Comedy Central), must be cut on AVID. WOW.
AVID is promising a mega surprise announcement at NAB; I haven’t heard any worthwhile rumors. A few more days wait.
Part 2: CS5 and Smoke.
I’ve resisted writing about editing tech so far in this blog, even though it excites me beyond reason and is half the focus of FORWARD EDIT. Why? I believe that the artistic side of editing, and post in general get short shrift in the online world. Even when editors/assistants get together, talk inevitably turns to software/hardware problems or the newest toys or keeping up/one upping everyone else. What version of FCP are you on? Me: 6.06 vs. the current 7.02. Why are we so obsessed with software that is all fairly similar in what it does and even how it does it? And did editors and assistants in the pre-digital age talk shop in this way? Latest Steenbeck or Moviola? I suspect “hardware” issues came up along with the best ways to solve them. Sync methods, how fast can you go, sorting trims, etc...but I don’t think such things occupied vast tracts of conversation time (if the Internet had existed then, would blogs have covered picture post much at all?)
And definitely, the ability to operate software does not an editor, or even assistant (me) make. What does is an innate ability to tell a story. For assistants, it’s an ability to organize, juggle tasks, lay down sound FX, and a million other “arts.” Oh yes, navigating uncooperative software helps.
Anyways, the changes, challenges, surprises: the future. (Why do all 4 NLE companies begin with “A”?)
APPLE-Final Cut Pro
The non surprise at the moment. Shipping vs. is 7.02 ($999) and the most recent large update was last year and was a minor upgrade disguised as an event. As far as I’m concerned, there have been no significant changes in years. Yes, years. So what’s going on? Rumors would have you believe that Apple doesn’t care about FCP at all anymore and is trying to sell it. Even read a rumor today that AVID’s NAB shocker will be that it has bought FCP! Don’t believe that... And yet, what gives? iPad, iPhone, App Store just taking up too many of Apple’s resources? Probably. Apple got a lot of people to buy Macs that wouldn’t have otherwise and now doesn’t care anymore? Maybe. I argue that Apple caused the true democratization of editing by creating a relatively affordable NLE. And somewhat easier to use than AVID. So why give up now? Some estimates are that FCP has captured close to 50% of the major player NLE market. All of this year’s Oscar nom’d docs were cut on FCP.
AVID-Media Composer
AVID has been working hard to clean up their product line. Previously there were too many editions of what was basically one core product, Media Composer. Currently vs. 4.05, $2295 software only. Different AVID finishing products still exist and are solid performers. I think it’s especially important that AVID released a software only version for the Mac last year. For hi-powered Mac Pros, this is a fine solution. I learned NLE on an AVID and think it has some advantages over FCP. Not tremendous, but some. Like media management. And pretty colors.
VIACOM last month ordered that all shows that are cut for any of its divisions (Paramount, MTV, Comedy Central), must be cut on AVID. WOW.
AVID is promising a mega surprise announcement at NAB; I haven’t heard any worthwhile rumors. A few more days wait.
Part 2: CS5 and Smoke.
Comments
The Quality of Editing
06/April/10 05:10 PM
It is
such
an exciting time to be
working in post. Even though it's getting harder and
harder to say "post" in isolation. So many of my
fellow artist-geeks are combining their loves into
one big super-colossal package of art::tech
symbiosis! They are becoming shootists by
exploiting the DSLR revolution, and then naturally
editing their own footage. Youtube, Vimeo, FOD,
and other websites are encouraging many to become
writer/directors (not that most didn’t
want to be in the
first place!) During “real” post, the assistant
and editor position merges into one, and VFX and
audio skills are usually a given, at least at a
basic level. Add PR capabilities my mixing and
schmoozing at Sundance, SXSW, Comic-Con...and
suddenly an editor is a film making superbeing!
And yet, to be really good at a particular skill or even inherent talent, most human beings must concentrate on one or two at a time. Many studies have indicated as much; even piano prodigies must practice constantly. And direct observation has confirmed this to a large degree. Multitasking ability does not lead directly to perfection or close to it within any task. For instance, take a look at most of the short comedy videos on FOD. Many are at least mildly funny, in a one | two note kind of way. Some are hilarious! Done.
However, digging down, the editing for the most part is rudimentary. Many of the vids are much, much too long. Cuts are rough and stick out like jagged glass. Sound often takes you out. Production design and lighting are minimal. Of course much of the poor editing can be attributed to the fact that these vids are shot fast, without much thought to the story as a whole, and without much direction. Camera setups and types of shots are not planned out. The shorts that are directed and thought out and lit in some basic way are noticeably better than the rest. For these sort of websites the question is: does it matter? You have a few minutes and want a quick laugh...do you care that what you’re watching looks like crap or that the editing jars you every other cut? Probably you laugh and move on.
So, at what point do you begin to care about production and post production values? Youtube level vids? FOD? Hulu? A few dollars for iTunes content? Straight to vid Netflix DVDs? Gas money to the local vid store? Cheapo afternoon theater showings? 3D Friday night premium price movies? Recently, CLASH OF THE TITANS helped raise the fake 3D debate to another level. Not worth it was the vote of many moviegoers. And yet more cash was made by adding a 3D option at theaters. So even at a top moviemaking level, compromises are made with regard to quality. Taking shortcuts at both ends of the budget spectrum: when do you care?
Please comment.
And yet, to be really good at a particular skill or even inherent talent, most human beings must concentrate on one or two at a time. Many studies have indicated as much; even piano prodigies must practice constantly. And direct observation has confirmed this to a large degree. Multitasking ability does not lead directly to perfection or close to it within any task. For instance, take a look at most of the short comedy videos on FOD. Many are at least mildly funny, in a one | two note kind of way. Some are hilarious! Done.
However, digging down, the editing for the most part is rudimentary. Many of the vids are much, much too long. Cuts are rough and stick out like jagged glass. Sound often takes you out. Production design and lighting are minimal. Of course much of the poor editing can be attributed to the fact that these vids are shot fast, without much thought to the story as a whole, and without much direction. Camera setups and types of shots are not planned out. The shorts that are directed and thought out and lit in some basic way are noticeably better than the rest. For these sort of websites the question is: does it matter? You have a few minutes and want a quick laugh...do you care that what you’re watching looks like crap or that the editing jars you every other cut? Probably you laugh and move on.
So, at what point do you begin to care about production and post production values? Youtube level vids? FOD? Hulu? A few dollars for iTunes content? Straight to vid Netflix DVDs? Gas money to the local vid store? Cheapo afternoon theater showings? 3D Friday night premium price movies? Recently, CLASH OF THE TITANS helped raise the fake 3D debate to another level. Not worth it was the vote of many moviegoers. And yet more cash was made by adding a 3D option at theaters. So even at a top moviemaking level, compromises are made with regard to quality. Taking shortcuts at both ends of the budget spectrum: when do you care?
Please comment.
DSLRs Part 2
25/March/10 12:08 PM
Workflow.
What worried everyone the most seems to have been handled fairly easily. I find that in general, for any acquisition/delivery scenario, there are multiple avenues available to go down. The most significant factor is to be very aware of all the different codec/codec option/frame rate choices and the transcoding possibilities/difficulties involved. Pick the best; quality is king. A professional is very helpful at this point in the workflow!
So specifically for this shoot we used FCP. The “raw” files were 1920x1080 @ 23.98 and we used Compressor to transcode them to ProRes 422 (HQ is my preference though this will add more time). This stabilizes and enhances the beauty of the H264 files. Be prepared to wait a bit for the transcoding--it is not quick! Import into FCP.
For AVID (Mac or PC based) I’d suggest using Compressor to transcode to the Animation codec. This method will take lots of time but will preserve your color palette. There are other choices and I will provide links below.
As far as audio goes, we used a plugin called PluralEyes ($ but free for 30 days) to sync the externally recorded audio to the scratch track contained within the H264/ProRes files. I understand it’s fairly effective and the most drift you may end up with is 1-2 frames. Not bad. Being a perfectionist, I’d probably favor doing an old school manual sync, using the slate clap.
Some alternate/easier/more robust methods:
This Canon E1 plugin will, I believe, automate the above picture import/transcode.
You can also accomplish the above using Media Manager within FCP, but I’ve found that using Compressor is much more stable (FCP does crash/freeze on occasion when using MM to transcode.)
To go straight from the raw files to an AVID file within a Mac AVID flow, use MPEG Streamclip to transcode.
First, install Mac AVID codecs:
http://avid.custkb.com/avid/app/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=263545
OR, try AVID’s MetaFuze, for a purely PC workflow.
Part 3: Results and Other DSLR Choices.
What worried everyone the most seems to have been handled fairly easily. I find that in general, for any acquisition/delivery scenario, there are multiple avenues available to go down. The most significant factor is to be very aware of all the different codec/codec option/frame rate choices and the transcoding possibilities/difficulties involved. Pick the best; quality is king. A professional is very helpful at this point in the workflow!
So specifically for this shoot we used FCP. The “raw” files were 1920x1080 @ 23.98 and we used Compressor to transcode them to ProRes 422 (HQ is my preference though this will add more time). This stabilizes and enhances the beauty of the H264 files. Be prepared to wait a bit for the transcoding--it is not quick! Import into FCP.
For AVID (Mac or PC based) I’d suggest using Compressor to transcode to the Animation codec. This method will take lots of time but will preserve your color palette. There are other choices and I will provide links below.
As far as audio goes, we used a plugin called PluralEyes ($ but free for 30 days) to sync the externally recorded audio to the scratch track contained within the H264/ProRes files. I understand it’s fairly effective and the most drift you may end up with is 1-2 frames. Not bad. Being a perfectionist, I’d probably favor doing an old school manual sync, using the slate clap.
Some alternate/easier/more robust methods:
This Canon E1 plugin will, I believe, automate the above picture import/transcode.
You can also accomplish the above using Media Manager within FCP, but I’ve found that using Compressor is much more stable (FCP does crash/freeze on occasion when using MM to transcode.)
To go straight from the raw files to an AVID file within a Mac AVID flow, use MPEG Streamclip to transcode.
First, install Mac AVID codecs:
http://avid.custkb.com/avid/app/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=263545
OR, try AVID’s MetaFuze, for a purely PC workflow.
Part 3: Results and Other DSLR Choices.
3D Debate Continued
23/March/10 03:06 PM
Since I last commented
about 3D and its permanence, artistry, and the like,
an amazing number of filmmakers, producers, studios
have all convinced themselves that 3D is indeed, THE
FUTURE. (Of course, AVATAR’s cash hoard helped.) But
what about 3D that’s been converted from 2D? Last
year, I toured a facility in Burbank that helped
pioneer this process, and was mildly impressed. The
sports footage they showed me was fairly well
integrated, but I can also imagine what happens
during a rush process. Apparently many of the
quickies end up with very distinctly visible layers
as the result. Certainly, if I plunk down my largish
wad of cold hard cash at a theater, I want really
good 3D. Preferably, for me,
I want 3D that doesn’t call attention to itself; I
just want it to enhance
the terrific movie I’m
watching, as an epic soundtrack would.
Here’s an interesting “conversation” between some huge directors and producers:
http://www.movieline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-avatar-producer-ensnared-in-great-3d-conversion-battle-of-2010.php
Here’s an interesting “conversation” between some huge directors and producers:
http://www.movieline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-avatar-producer-ensnared-in-great-3d-conversion-battle-of-2010.php
DSLR | Toy or Tool?
16/March/10 02:31 PM
Recently I helped line
produce a shoot that wanted to use the Canon 7D DSLR
camera. There was a considerable amount of debate
between the DP, AC, and editor (closely followed by
the director) as to whether the post workflow for
this camera was stable enough to quickly finish the
scenes that were being shot. Of particular concern
was the issue of audio sync, as several interested
parties had heard that the 7D was problematic in this
regard. Of course I was interested; workflows + new
toys + post paradigm shifts = must know!
To be frank, even though I follow the post flow thru each step of prep/production/actual post, and have devoted considerable time to digital acquisition, I hadn’t yet studied these new hybrid photo and (HD) video system cameras. And I had some doubts. Most of these SLR cameras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera) use an H264 codec to write their HD media files. H264 is fine for viewing from your DVR or for online videos, but as an acquisition format? Also, whereas an SLR’s physical setup is great for capturing stills with, would it work for capturing video (I could picture a DP with his eyes stuck close to an LCD screen or viewfinder while the small camera is tracking and an AC tries to pull focus)? And, of course, workflow. Already, it was clear that to shoot professional video, one would have to record separate sound, and sync each take manually. The audio inputs/mics are fairly useless on the DSLRs, other than to record scratch track against which to check sync (roughly). How about after the shoot; how difficult would it be to get stable footage into AVID or FCP? And no recorded timecode.....grrr.
So, the shoot. DP went with the 7D and ended up pretty happy with it. The AC brought some accessories and we rented a few more from Moviola. Redrock rails, shoulder mount, matte box and filters, couple of external monitors, extra batteries, and plenty of flash storage. Of course some Canon primes and other lenses--these are probably 65% of the reason to use a DSLR vs. another film/vid camera. It looked vaguely like this.
The camera kind of hides. Seems to work fine, though it did feel that at times the camera team was scrunched around the rig/DSLR.
We should have backed up the media as we captured it, but we didn’t. We were lucky.
Raw output? H264 vid on a Macbook Pro looked fantastic.
Part 2: Workflow.
To be frank, even though I follow the post flow thru each step of prep/production/actual post, and have devoted considerable time to digital acquisition, I hadn’t yet studied these new hybrid photo and (HD) video system cameras. And I had some doubts. Most of these SLR cameras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera) use an H264 codec to write their HD media files. H264 is fine for viewing from your DVR or for online videos, but as an acquisition format? Also, whereas an SLR’s physical setup is great for capturing stills with, would it work for capturing video (I could picture a DP with his eyes stuck close to an LCD screen or viewfinder while the small camera is tracking and an AC tries to pull focus)? And, of course, workflow. Already, it was clear that to shoot professional video, one would have to record separate sound, and sync each take manually. The audio inputs/mics are fairly useless on the DSLRs, other than to record scratch track against which to check sync (roughly). How about after the shoot; how difficult would it be to get stable footage into AVID or FCP? And no recorded timecode.....grrr.
So, the shoot. DP went with the 7D and ended up pretty happy with it. The AC brought some accessories and we rented a few more from Moviola. Redrock rails, shoulder mount, matte box and filters, couple of external monitors, extra batteries, and plenty of flash storage. Of course some Canon primes and other lenses--these are probably 65% of the reason to use a DSLR vs. another film/vid camera. It looked vaguely like this.
The camera kind of hides. Seems to work fine, though it did feel that at times the camera team was scrunched around the rig/DSLR.
We should have backed up the media as we captured it, but we didn’t. We were lucky.
Raw output? H264 vid on a Macbook Pro looked fantastic.
Part 2: Workflow.