MacVideo has conducted a two-part interview with Walter Murch which explores a broad range of topics overviewing both the past and the future of cinema editing.
As always, Murch is eloquent and thoughtful. Parts 1 and 2 are well worth the watching. Part 1 is HERE
In light of recent releases from Sony and much discussion here on DigitalBasin about solid-state workflows and formats; its well worth putting in a link to this superb (as always) article from Simon Wyndham.
On his site, Simon goes into solid detail comparing and doing the pros and cons of all the major tapeless cameras, formats, codecs and workflows. Its absolutly indespenable reading. I started writing my own such article and then gave up when I read Simon's - I was never going to do it better so why try :)
Another solution for dealing with MAC/PC hard drive issues
Of late I've written about workign corss-platform and dealign with hard drive format issues of Read/Write permissions between NTFS and HFS+. The freeware HFS Xplorer is one solution which allows for Windows computers to access and copy files from Mac HFS+ format hard drives. It works very well but if you?re willing to cough up a few bucks there is a better solution available.
NTFS for Mac by Paragon software will set you back about $45 and when installed allows for a Mac to natively read AND write to NTFS formatted hard drives. So you can format your external hard drive as NTFS for PC and then be able to work with it natively on your Mac as well Windows machines. If you need to work cross-platform and particularly if you?re using Bootcamp this is a great solution at a bargain price.
For all the power, flexibility and efficiency that computer technology
delivers us as filmmakers in the digital age, there are certain
unavoidable truths - computers sometimes stuff up. Crashes, lockups,
freezes and file corruptions are sadly the obstacles we will face at
some point. But whilst these issues are often unforeseeable and you
can?t prevent them entirely you can prevent them from being total
disasters with simple workflow and backup procedures.
So here are 4 Tips to prevent a crash/lockp/freeze/corruption from
being the end of the world that I advise my students of and which
should stand for any editor at any level. They are not rocket science
but I'm consistentl surprised at how often they are neglected.
1. Save
Save and Save often. CTRL+S (Apple+S). You should be in the reflex
habit of pressing these keys every few minutes without thinking about
it. It takes a spit second an updates your NLE project file
immediately. There?s no excuse not to perform these saves constantly
while working.
2. Project files
The project files from FCP, Vegas and Premiere (*.fcp, *.veg and
*.pproj) and any other NLE, are the road maps to how your edit is
assembled. The project files themselves do not contain your footage,
they simply connect to it. This means you can save multiple project
files connected to the same footage and the project files themselves
are tiny in file size and will not weigh down your hard drive.
This system provides a great way to manage your progress through
editing and provide yourself with a safety net of backups. Save a new
project file (named by date) each day. When you start editing for the
day open the previous project file and then immediately SAVE AS and
create a new project file with the new days date. Repeat this each day
of your edit.
The benefits of this process are two-fold; first you are easily able to
track back through your progress, to see the evolution of your edit day
by day and return to a previous days version at any time. Secondly this
process allows you to avoid file corruption. Unfortunately sometimes
project files can become corrupted (very often from reasons unknown),
if you only have one project file there is no recourse. But if you have
multiple previous project files you can simply step back to a previous
project file and rebuild fro there. This is a whole hell of a lot
better than rebuilding from scratch.
3. EDL
Where the project file for an editing system is a complex file keeping
track of every element of your edit, the EDL (edit decision list) is an
extremely simple set of text that instructs the editing system of the
basic cut-only assembly of your timeline. But whilst it is very simple
and minimal the EDL is also very robust and difficult to corrupt.
Saving a daily EDL as a backup takes just a few seconds and provides
some disaster proof security of your project
If using FCP you also have the option of creating an XML project file.
XML is a universal file format for saving all kinds of data. FCP uses
XML to create a simple but detailed project file assembly. You can use
FCP?s XML save in place of an EDL to create a non-corruptible backup
file for your project files.
4. Secondary Backup
Apart for creating backup project files you will need to ensure you
also have backups of your project files in a physically separate
location to protect against loss, damage or theft of your hard drive or
any other major physical disaster. This may be as simple as saving a
copy of your Project file and EDL to a different hard drive, memory
stick or server.
If you have shot to tape (DV, HDV) then the tapes themselves are your
source master backup. Store the tapes in a cool, dry, secure place away
from direct light and if worst comes to worst you can rebatch capture
from the tapes using the project file or EDL.
If you have shot solid state tapeless formats such SxS or P2 (XDCAM EX
or DVCProHD) then you will need to backup all your footage to a
separate hard drive so that there is a physically separate copy of your
entire media set.
If you follow these simple procedures and take a careful and
professional approach to managing your project and workflow there
should be no reason to ever be caught in a total disaster. If you?ve
read these notes and don?t implement them then you?ll only have
yourself to blame if the sky falls in :)
It was a matter of time before the Ex1 got a big brother but it seems
Sony have wasted no time in attempting to establish XDCAM EX as more
than a just a camera, but rather has an holistic production platform.
Panasonic attempted (and had much success) with P2 in the same vein -
an integrated system of format, codec, camera, hardware. But as I have
argued previously, Panasonic, in moving first into solid-state, picked
the wrong horse with P2, a quickly outdtaed technology base. They were
also misguided (in my judgement, though not everyone's) in the chocie
for trading expanded colour space (422 rather than 420) at the expense
of Resolution and file format efficiency (record times are two short
and file sizes are way too big).
This where Sony
have gained much by waiting and watching what happened in the
solid-state sphere - they've got a firmer more advanced and broadly
accepted technology base for the cards themselves (Express Card 3/4
SxS), they've got a highly efficient 35mbps full raster HD Mpeg2 based
format allowing long record times, and they've got an excellent
workflow system of software browsers and import utilities up and
running with all major NLE's and utlizing a full range of metadata.
So now with one camera, the EX1, out in the wild
Sony now add a second, some extra hardware and software workflow
updates.
The
EX3 wont be shipping for 3-6 months or so. But with interchangeable
lenses... This camera could be the Solid-State bomb! Apparently comes
with an adapter to allow any 1/2" sensor HD lens to fit using B4 mount - which means Canon and Fujinon lenses are open slather. Also means
huge possibilities for a P+S and Redrock extensions. Not to mention a
REAL viewfinder built over the already awesome LCD screen. that the Ex1
has.
Its got all the hallmarks of being
THE indie digital cinema camera of the next few years: full raster
1920x1080 progressive, variable frame rate, 1/2? sensors,
interchangeable lenses, full-size viewfinder, Genlock, solid-state
XDCAM. All in a sub 15K price tag
This
video walks you through the differences between the EX3 and the Ex1 and
some of the key features. It has a throughly verbose opening but when
it gets down to the nitty gritty is very
informative.
At the heart of every movie is
performance; the interpretation of the words on the page into living
breathing characters. But how do you write for performance? How do
actors think? How do you construct a movie that actors can sink their
teeth into? Miranda Otto (Lord of the Rings, The Thin Red Line,
Cashmere Mafia) and Jeremy Sims (Fireflies) lend their views to this
episode, which explores the relationship between the script and
performer.
There was time when it was unthinkable but the unthinkable, it seems, has become a reality - Windows on a Mac. But aside from the novelty value, the revelation of a dual operating system opens up new possibilities for video and digital media producers and rises above the traditionally application restricted and insular Mac platform.
For far too long the great computer platform debate has centered on the operating system but the truth is that the OS is the least significant part of the video maker's toolkit. It's not the operating system that is the focus of the editor's work, its the applications, the software tool interface that will be center of attention. It's the NLE where the editor will spend most of their time, not the elements of the OS. Choosing your computer system based on the operating system and then forcing yourself to be restricted to the software native to that OS is plainly silly. Logic would dictate that choosing the software tools that best fit your workflow, and which best match your creative style, first and then getting the OS to match that software is a far more functional perspective.
Of course the computer platforms themselves get in the way, enforcing software restrictions and preventing video makers from choosing the right combination of tools to suit them. That is of course until BootCamp.
A new category of software tool that derives from new genres of the moving image is a rare thing but this is exactly what we have seen in recent years with Machinima and real-time 3D. Whereas NLEs and DAWs are, despite their sophistication, really just digital replications of analog processes and digital animation tools are built off the same frame-by-frame concepts of traditional animation, the real-time 3D environment of Machinima and Pre-Vis is something quite unique.
Born from the DIY ethic of gamers using the engines of computer games to 'film' in virtual real-time, Machinima is quickly evolving dedicated toolsets that cover a diverse range of applications - Machinima itself, animation and pre-visualization for traditional cinema.
The past few years have seen a host of such dedicated software systems for Machinima-based production and while many of these are in very early or beta stages of development, Antics has forged ahead and appearing to present a significantly broad and well developed toolset that includes Machinima but is more broadly about 3D pre-vis and animation in all its forms. Sensing the ever widening appeal of real-time 3D systems to a wide spectrum of creators well beyond the instigating Gamer community, Antics steers its perspective into broad territory, not afraid to defy traditional classifications of whom its toolset is for.
For those working in video and digital media production, it's very easy
to get carried away with the technology. Faster CPU's, more RAM, bigger
monitor screens, the latest software suites - these are all very nice
but so often it's not these things that really make the difference in
our day to day work. Very often it`s the little things that make for
greater efficiency in production. It's this concept that a device such
as Contour Design's ShuttlePro seeks to invoke.
I have recently been planning the introduction of my students at the International film School Sydney to Solid-State workflow with the Sony EX1.
One issue fundementally driving the contemporary cinema industry of late is its diversity - diversity of acquistion, diversity of process, diversity of delivery. And in this evolution we are at last beginning to shake off hierachical perceptions in favour of parralel ones. In simple terms, there's no Best choice, only the Best choice for the project. The idea of developing a Workflow for the project is now a crucial creative process because the diverse array of options can all impact upon creative outcomes.
So it's in this light that we have introduced solid-state workflows and have to teach to our students to make informed and considered decisions about their workflow in concert with its creative imperatives. What follows are some of the notes Ive been putting together on the basic Pros and Cons of solid-state.
---
Overview: The digital recording of moving images to memory cards rather than traditional digital tape represents the future of digital cinema for great many forms of production. This type of recording is known as 'solid-state' as it involves no moving parts and the 'footage' is written directly as digital files immediately readable by a computer.
Solid-State is not just a different way to record cinematic media but rather it represents an entirely new way of conceiving and managing the production process.
There are many advantages to Solid-State recording but there are also significant drawbacks. The resistive impact of these Pros and Cons will be determined by the needs and demands of the particular production in question.
There is no 'best' format, only the best for the needs of your particular production. So it is important to weigh up carefully what your production requires before deciding on a format. Solid-State may be the prefect format or it may bring significant obstacles
The XDCAM EX Format: XDCAM EX is a new variation of Sony's long standing XDCAM format. Where as XDCAM records to optical disc media (known as ProDiscs which are effectively BluRay discs in a hard case) XDCAM EX is designed specifically for Solid State memory.
XDCAM EX is recorded to special memory cards known as 'SxS'. These cards use the ?Xpress Card 3/4' slot which is common on most higher-end laptops such as MacBookPros.
XDCAM EX is capable of supporting a range of HD resolutions and frame rates: 1280x720 - 24p, 25p, 50p 1920x1080 - 24p, 25p, 50i
What is most significant about XDCAM EX is that it shoots 'full raster HD' 1920x1080. This means there is No anamorphic stretch on the pixels unlike HDV which shoots 1440x1080 and stretches the Pixels by a Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR) - of 1.333:1. The advantage of this is an image with greater fidelity and sharpness.
XDCAM EX uses the same Mpeg2 codec as HDV but at a much higher bitrate of up to 35mbps to HDV's 25mbps. This results in a much richer and sharper image that is more robust for post production manipulation.
PROS of Solid State on the EX1:
- Non-Linear file access Each individual shot can be accessed, reviewed and played back in camera. Likewise individual shots can be deleted without effecting any others. There is no continuous timecode as there is with tape so there is no such thing as broken timecode often cased by in-camera reviewing. Shots can also be individually tagged and managed in camera.
- Fast Transfer The SxS memory cards have very fast transfer speeds meaning footage can be copied from card to computer in 1/4 time (1 hour of footage takes approx 15mins to transfer)
- XDCAM Browser A dedicated piece of software for XDCAM formats allows for individual shots to be efficiently tagged, logged, annotated, and managed much more effectively than traditional tape logging.
- No tape Problems No tape wear, no spooling issues. No mis-aligned recording heads. No timecode breaks.
- Immediate recording Solid State recording starts immediately the moment you press the REC button. No delay as the tape spools or the recording head is engaged; recording starts immediately with almost zero delay.
CONS of Solid State on the EX1:
- There is no source master With XDCAM EX there is no tape to put on the shelf as a backup of your footage. SxS cards are too expensive and not designed as a long-term storage media. After shooting all footage must be copied to hard drive and the cards erased to be used again. This means the only copy of the footage is on hard drive which is more fragile than a tape. It is crucial that you engage careful and thorough back-up procedures of your footage to guard against data loss.
- Short Record Times Where as digital tape is cheap and plentiful, SxS memory cards are expensive and limited in number and capacity. The EX1 can take 2 memory cards at a time. At 8gb per card this will allow for approx 50mins of record time together. However having two cards means one can be removed and its footage transferred to a laptop computer on location whist continuing to shoot with the other card.
- NLE compatibility Currently not all editing software systems are compatible with XDCAM EX. Final Cut Pro is fully compliant but Premiere Pro is not; you will not be able to import or work with XDCAM EX footage in Premiere. This should only be short term and it is expected Premiere will be XDCAM EX compatible in the coming year.
We live in a very different world; different from that just a few decades ago. There are lots of things that make it different and many of them are focused on technology. But technology is just the surface manifestation of culture and if you want to udnerstand the real change we have to look at the cultural shift.
The computer was made. And then it was made small. Then it was made cheap and cheap made it accessible. So now we all have computers (and by 'we' I mean the over-privilidged western world as there is a very lareg proportion of the world's population that is yet to make or recieve a phone call) Those computers are in effect fast moving calculators designed to 1 and only 1 thing - make copies.
DIGITAL is Zeros and Ones, binary code; this is what it is but this doesnt really tell us about the digital culture. What computers do is use Digital Binary to copy thing, to make infinate perfect copies, copies that can be moved, manipulated and modfied. This is what Computers are and this is what they do.
And its at this point that we hit a very big problem, the sort of problem that draws analogies with elephants sitting in corners. We live in a post industrial revolution society built on the idea of ownership. Everything about our legal and social structures is built on the premise of ownership. Descreet and indivudal ownership and control over 'things'.
Thats all well and good and worked quite well until the computer become small, cheap and ubiquitous with its untold ability to copy. The prevailing culture of 'ownership' sort to do what it had always done, sell the ownership of 'things'. So this culture sold Computers and because there was a great desire to sell lots of computers the great engines of marketing and salesmanship went into overdrive and we were all duely convinved that we MUST GET OURSELVES A DIGITAL LIFESTYLE AND GET IT NOW.... So we did.
The problem is that those selling the 'digital lifestyles' and employing the methodologies of ownership to sell this 'thing' negelcted to realise the cultural implications of what it was they were selling..... The idea of selling a 'thing' relies on owning the thing and owning the thing' is really about controlling the 'thing'. But the whole system falls in a hole when the 'thing' you are selling has a sole purpose of infinately and perfectly copying and distributing other things that you may other wish to own/control/sell.
They told us we had to have the computer and the digital lifestyle but now they seem terribly upset when the thing they sold us is put to use doing exactly what it is designed for - copy, alter and distribute - three things that directly undermine the very deffintion of ownership and control...
What a strange world we live in....
But the world doesnt stop, it simply changes culture and it's in this light that this article from WIRED entitled 'FREE! Why $0.00 is the Future of Business" presents an insight into the new cultural directions of how we think about economics, ownership, capaitalism in light of this much changed world.
One of the exploring areas of cinematic production is Colour Grading and whilst the idea of colour manipulation for cinema aestehtics is as old as cinema itself, the prolification of the digital domain has taken Colour Grading as a creative process to a whole new level of both sophistication and acessability.
But whilst everyone might have access to a 3-way Colour Corrector this is a far cry from a tangible understanding of the duality of science and art (with just a touch of Philosophy) that is Colour Grading and the role of the Colourist.
So it is that would should thank colour professional Kevin Shaw for his website FinalColor. Kevin has very genrously made public a set of concise and informative artices that explore some of the intricasies and sceience of colour grading and indeed of colour and light itself.
In particular his short articles What is Colour and When to Colour (PDF) are perfect for those who are wondering where to take the colour of their projects beyond just a contrast boost.
The Culture of Editors - is FCP to blame for medicority?
Accusations have been leveled at contemporary industry editing culture by Studio Daily writer Scott Simmons. In this detailed micro-essay the charge is leveled that there is a prevailing culture of editing software 'button pushers' rather than informed and knowledgeable post production technical artists. And at heart of this issue, according to the article, is Final Cut Pro and the commoditization that FCP brought to the industry.
The article focuses on the culture of editing that goes along with FCP and the authors assertion that FCP editors are all to often severely lacking in real technical post production knowledge. That they know where the buttons are but have little underlying knowledge of workflow.
Scott builds much of his argument around the process of online/offline editing and that FCP Editors often do not have any understanding or comprehension of this process. Scott finds this problematic, I find it an obvious and necessary evolution in editing; one that is inevitable, right and proper. Online/Offline is an archaic legacy process from a time when computers were not powerful to edit online; no more no less. In the 20th century (short of 2k and 4k digital cinema for the time being at least) there simply is no valid reason to offline. When a fast laptop can online HDV and a well built, sub $15k system can online full raster HD and uncompressed why the hell would you bother with an online ?
Now before the old-school start ranting and raving with their off-line ire, let me be clear that the real source I think of many editors concern over the loss of an Online/Offline. Its really not about any apparent lac of low-res to high res conversion but more conceptually about missing that step from Assembly to Polish; from Construction to Finishing, that comes from a 2-step process.
But in truth Id argue the solution is not hang on with clawing fingernails to an archaic and outmoded online/offline process but rather to simply invoke a more concerted approach to editing workflow, one that values the art of finishing, management, project clarity. And its at this point that I find myself all too readily nodding in agreement with Scott albeit with perhaps with a different perspective on the root cause.
I don't believe that the popular take up of a creative process (by proxy of the accessibility of the tools) leads to a mass of low creativity and mediocrity. Quite the opposite; more artists means more chance for the cream to rise from the milk, more chance for the Mozarts to emerge. History confirms this argument. From the dark ages there were few artists an little access to art resulting in a cultural void. To the Renaissance where every man and their dog was an artist and subsequently an art explosion with the glorious pinnacles of Michelangelo and Leonardo DiVinci rising from the artistic mass. So I don't believe the commoditization of editing that FCP heralds is of itself the source of these issues of 'Button Pusher' culture. Rather I would contend that the issue might actually be Apple's approach to software design and FCP's own internal logic.
At the very heart of Apple's approach to software is an 'ease of use' mantra. On the surface this would seem no bad thing, until however the search for maximum ease of use becomes an 'at all costs' pursuit. My biggest criticism of Apple's approach to software is that it seems to continually and persistently seek to hide underlying processes from the user. The thinking being that by hiding away core technical process the experience for the user is made easier. A tool like I-Movie is designed for the Everyman but the problematic irony (from a pedagogical perspective at least) is that its possible to edit with I-Movie for years and Never actually understand what is happening to your video, never actually engage with the underlying process. This may be fine for Mums and Dads users but is highly problematic for those with greater expectations. Final Cut Pro might seem a big step from i-Movie but there is in fact a whole lot of the I-Movie mentality carried over into FCP.
FCP is an editing system that hides a great many of the core elements of production, presents a timeline focused interface that tucks away in hidden and mal-named corners those key items needed to under stand the post production process; sequence settings, codec, format, scratch disks and so on. An install of FCP will see it default to a position of not asking what sequence settings the user needs but simply assuming or guessing.
As someone who teaches editing and post production on a daily basis I'm often appalled when I see young editors who know how to push clips around but have no idea what 'sequence settings' are or what a codec is or what YUV colour space represents. All these are things that FCP largely hides. It quite possible to install FCP and start moving clips around immediately but this is done at the expense of a real understanding of what the NLE is and how it works because FCP deliberately avoids prompting the user to answer or respond to these technical elements required for the process. FCP defaults to guessing what you want or choosing for you the specifications you need and this effort at ease of use hamstrings the user for gaining real knowledge and understanding.
FCP does, to some significant degree, take the position that you're a more creative focused editor for not having to be directly responsible for technical elements. I would argue that such an editor is simply an incompetent one. Cinema IS technology, cinema IS a technical construct. Cinema IS a special effect. All the creativity in the world is for nothing if you can't export your film correctly or manage its workflow in an efficient and technically correct way. I'm actually not the slightest bit surprised when I meet FCP editors who don't under Pixel Aspect Ratio or Compression, Lossy and Lossless formats, EDLs or Timecode. Its not there fault, FCP is designed this way.
My intention with this line of thought is not to pick on FCP, other tools share similar guilt of placing the mask of 'ease of use' over real competency (aka style over substance). Rather my point is to pull out what I see as the true great failing of the industry over the past 10 years, the issue that leads to all the problems Scott points to but in a broader context. We have all to often been happy to accept 'software brand proficiency' as a substitute for real creative-technical knowledge.
This is a line of argument I have kicked around many times before in the Manifesto on Filmmaking Education and here on DigitalBasin. One of the great tragedies of media making education over the past decade has been the supplanting of real knowledge, skills and core competencies with software specific, brand allied pseudo-skills. An editor, skilled and knowledgeable in the craft, technology and artistry of editing as a process, should be more than capable of sitting down in front of any editing system, any editing tool, and be able to produce functional quality work. A carpenter is not rendered useless by changing to a different type of circular saw..!
Sadly however we are in an era where instead of demanding this universality as a bench mark from creative artisans we accept the corporate-driven brand allegiance of software specific skills. Software and technology Users rather than real Technical Creators. Any institution that teaches software specific functions above, or worse, in place of core processes is fundamentally dis-empowering their students and directly damaging the broader creative industry, making it slavishly adherent to corporate marketing directions rather than the needs and skill demands of production.
Furthermore, any cinematic education that provides only one type, one brand, one form of tool or system of production in exclusivity rather than providing options and diversity of tools to students - so that they might find the right tool that suits them and their internal methodology of working - is detrimentally hobbling those students. These students are rendered under-skilled servants of a software company rather than comprehensively skilled artists and craftspersons with abilities and understandings beyond the tools. Each and every software tool for creative cinematic production carries with it an internally logical philosophy, a conceptual mode of perceiving the creative production process instilled on inception into the tool by those who made it and the direct imperatives of the corporation for which it was made. Thus a creative media maker in choosing a particular tool for production is by default 'buying into' a tacit, if not proactive, acceptance of that tool's philosophical approach. Their work with that tool is subsequently governed, influenced and shaped by that philosophy.
If a young editor is restrictively indoctrinated into a particular tool (and its respective philosophy), without wider consideration of a personal creative, conceptual, technical and philosophical approach, then their work will be dictatorially shaped by the tool itself rather than by their own creative imperatives. The tool will dictate what can and cant be done and how it will be done rather than the creator seeking out these pathways to suit themselves and the needs of the project.
Whilst standard technical formats provide functional benchmarks and uniformity, the idea that there are Industry Standard creative tools is fundamentally abhorrent. There is NO SUCH THING AS AN 'INDUSTRY STANDARD' creative tool. The very concept is anti-creative. It is a prescribing that there is only one way to work and that other techno-creative approaches are of lesser value or unacceptable. It implies that a work is only acceptable if made with a particular type of technology and this is absurdly destructive and the very concept must be done away. We must ensure cinematic producers are not conforming creative vision to needs of the tool but seeking the tool to extol the creative needs of the production.
The only true measure of intelligence and knowledge is the ability to learn, acquire and apply new skills and knowledge. Thus an 'editor' whose comprehension of editing process, technique and technology has been built solely through the confined prism of one particular tool's presented philosophical paradigm is fundamentally weak; dis-empowered and at the mercy the ever changing whims of software developers rather than a servant of the creative process where by the tools are means to an ends.
So its here that we can return to where we began. The issues Scott raises I believe are highly valid. The number of Editors has risen but the knowledge-base is now spread very thin. The fault is cultural certainly but I believe, as does Scott, that culture has been driven by the software tools themselves and the philosophical leanings they inherently hold.
The problem is much bigger than just one particular software editing tool and its much broader than the simple supplanting of traditional Online/Offline process; the problem stems from a devaluing of knowledge and a near slavish adherent faith in corporate marketing rather than independent skill and knowledge.
The sooner our educational institutions and services start focusing on Editing Process and Technology rather than Software Specific Button Pushing the sooner we can circumvent the culture of mediocrity.
