Keeping the 'Old School' happy - Innovation, Market-share and Vegas Pro 8c
All creative technologies are inherently cultural. Designed to serve the conjoined bastard twins of 'creative process' and 'industry', technology systems (in particular software) invariably have their development conformed to cultural demands as much, if not more so, than technical ones.
In practical terms we see this in NLE software interfaces with working conceptual paradigms that are driven by how editors 'think' things 'should' be done; and how they have been done before, rather than how they might or could be done better; freed, if you will, from legacy baggage.
In most professional NLE's we see an overwhelming development process of mimicry and replication. As early digital editing systems (the Quantel Harry, Avid, Lightworks, Video Toaster and so on) sought to drag professional editors (often kicking and screaming) to the digital age, they invariably did so by replicating in the non-linear digital environment the concepts, paradigms and language of the linear analog world. 'Source' and 'Output' windows, 'Bins', A/B rolls, Gang monitors, Logging and so on.
By replicating the Old in the New the transition for working editors and filmmakers was made much easier. By conforming the software's development to the 'culture' of editing rather than to the free run of the technology's natural impulses we are delivered a set of tools that, despite their housing inside the metaphysical computer space, still largely function in an analog head-space.
Subsequently the hypothesis that strikes me is that if we could erase all memory of how editing has traditionally been done, and the tools editing was done on, and then sat down with the brief to design a 'software tool for assembling moving images,' it would likely bare little resemblance to the NLE environment we know. If the technology was freed from the culture of editing, unshackled from legacy and tradition, and allowed to work purely on the level of innovative design problem solving, then I'd warrant there'd be a great many off the 'accepted' editing system elements that would be entirely dispensed with and replaced with new, as yet not yet thought of, modes.
In many ways this is the experience I feel using Sony's Vegas; that it is one of the few video production tools on the market that has developed, to some degree, free from accepted norms. Vegas had a number of natural advantages in this regard - some by design, some by circumstance.
The original Vegas 1.0 was not, in fact, an editing system at all. Rather it was a multitracking DAW. So when Vegas 2.0 became Vegas Video it became an NLE built from the foundation of an audio-like sensibility. In that step alone Vegas circumvented the entrenched 'separation of powers' between video and audio production.
The other factor that seems to have shaped Vegas with a paradigm un-attached to legacy editing culture is its market position. By being the new guy with the small market share and low profile Vegas didn't have an existing user-base to protect, nor was it compelled to compete for the mainstream market (as Apple and Adobe have). Instead Vegas was freed from competing head-on for the existing editing pie and could, from the fringe, afford to be far more bold and adventurous in its thinking than other NLE's.
Without doubt some of the most satisfying, engaging and downright exciting cinematic media experiences I've had over the past few years have been on the small screen not the large. The one-hour episodic TV drama has had some great high points of late. US cable and network TV has delivered in spades with the The West Wing, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Carnivale and the utterly sublime Deadwood. But the UK has also thrown in some great additions with Spooks, Rome and Wire in the Blood. And still Canada's Newsroom rates as one of the cleverest and most sardonic (and at times wonderfully poetic) media satire's ever written.
What I have found very interesting in looking more closely at the structure of the writing and editing of these drama series' is the various implementations of the 1-hour episode format and how it seems to be subtly evolving. Whilst all episodes in all the series mentioned above run more or less the same length, they are all rendered somehow unique in their structure.1-Hour episodes for traditional network TV in the states obviously conform rather precisely to the specifics of ad-breaks.
As a result the structure of the writing (and by proxy the editing) is built to specific 'act' break dramatic points going into each ad-break. Nowhere is this more evident than in the precise and perfect structure of The West Wing.But cable TV in the US, and BBC TV in the Uk, is ad-free during the program and so there isnt the same reliance in ad-breaks to provide clearly distinct narrative sign posts. The drama is much more continuous and gives shows made for cable, as opposed to those made for network, a distinctly different 'feel' which is largely extraneous to the show's genre.
This article from the US Editor's Guild Magazine explores this topic amongst other in the context of editors working on TV drama series such as the throughly engaging drama series DEXTER.
"a cable episode can run 55 minutes with no interruptions.... It?s not that the peak moments cease to matter on cable, but you can propel the story forward with more inertia. It?s much more like cutting a feature. There?s more time for things to develop and play out, and you don?t have to worry about all those climactic act outs.?
When we were choosing new cameras for the International Film School Sydney we had a range of considerations to take into account. We primarily needed cameras that were going to be flexible; cameras that could adapt to a variety of different shoots, environments and visual styles. We also wanted to ensure that our teaching of camera operation and workflow was future-focused and preparing students for the production world to come rather than just the here and now. And of course price is always a major factor. Not just because we need to spend our equipment budget wisely but also because we want to ensure that IFSS students are creative pragmatists; efficient indie filmmakers who know who to make a great movie out of limited resources.
In this regard, one of the most exciting cameras for indie filmmakers to hit the market over the last few years is the Sony, solid-state, EX1 and it met just about all our criteria. It's relatively small and compact meaning it can be used just about anywhere - fine on a tripod, jib or dolly, but just as happy on a small steadicam and perfect for handheld. It's pretty robust and can take the sort of beating that more than 100 student productions a year can exert. It may not have interchangeable lenses but the lens it does have is excellent and pulling light to 1/2 inch sensors with full raster 1920x1080 HD it certainly delivers a big, bold image.
Being Solid-state and recording to memory cards also ensured we could teach students to engage with a file-based workflow that will undoubtedly be the staple of future production.
As with any new technology, there is always a bit of a gamble involved. Purchasing cameras such as JVC 251, which also form a staple part of our in-house facilities, was an easy choice; a solid camera that has been well proven in the field. But the EX1 was brand new and largely un-tested; especially in a film school environment. But it seems there are a host of indie filmmakers discovering the power, flexibility and sheer cost-effective efficiency of the Ex1 and the XDCAM EX format.
This article - Going Underground - looks at an indie feature being made in the UK set in a cold-ware nuclear bunker that has been shot entirely with an Ex1. Similarly this article - Shooting an Independent Feature with the Sony EX1 - examines the workflow and technique of an independent comedy feature. Both articles give some good insight into the strengths and possibilities of the Ex1 and how to maximize it's potential.
I remember testing and reviewing Adobe Creative Suite 1. It felt bit, full, comprehensive, rich. It wasnt perfect; it groaned and grunted under certain strains, it stumbled and was clumsy in a range of areas. But it felt like the future. It pointed towards an holistic and integrated production future.
Then there was CS2 and I tested it and reviewed it and wrote about for various magazines and websites. And it was big, and dense and packed with features and options and add-ons and extras.
And not long after I had started the deep dive into the CS2 tarpit attempting to wrangle such a huge production entity, they asked what I'd like to see in CS3...? Bugger me, I cant quite get my head around the contents and options of CS2 let alone think about what else you might add for CS3. Bug fixes, changes in process, these are the surface level stuff (important certainly) but considering 'What Else..?" is a much bigger picture.
So along came CS3 and the pieces at last started to fall into place - the integartion become central rather than periphery. The holistic aporoach to delivery become a core function not an ancillary add-on. CS1 and CS2 felt like a good value bundle of separate applications. CS3 at last really started to feel like a singular entity - a singular system with various arms.
There were elements missing, certainly. Ultra and OnLocation felt like outsiders. Adobe Audition was dropped from the bundle which was major loss. Soundbooth has some good tools, Premiere has very good audio tools of its own but even the two together arent a match for the excellent DAW power of Audition.
Then there was the incomplete Mac and PC parity. Premiere on the Mac is a great thing but the number of features in the Help files marked with (Windows only) - AAF support being most notable - left CS3 feeling like a job incomplete.
None the less CS3 did feel like maximum density, the software saturation point. To this stage Adobe had avoided bloatedness and continued to delivery density intrinsically connected with functionality. But how much more can you pack in?
Well here comes CS4. Delivered today to the world. I have been playing with various demos of CS4 applications over the past couple of months and just when I thought there would be little to excite and simple a CS4 delivering refinement rather than advancement, I find I am surprised to be surprised.
I wont get into it here and now. Reviews, articles and tutorials will follow here on DMN and the DigitalBasin but I thought Id compile my short list of 3 key new things in CS4 that have caught my attention (and they are not necessarily the most obvious)
1. Soundbooth is now Multi-Track Whilst its a far cry from being a replacement from Audition and arguably lacks the musicality of Apples Soundtrack Pro or Sonys AcidPro, it is none the less a very functional multitrack tool with great potential for audio preparation and syncing in dual-system sound projects. the audio to text feature is also something that sets the mind buzzing with potential possibilities.
2. The new Adobe ASND file format. Acting like like a hybrid between a project file and a dedicated multi-channel bundle format, ASND has really grabbed my attention. A file for building multi track assemblies that possesses a built-in mix down, can be used as a singular waveform file but is in fact a reference file back to the multi-track with live-update between applications. It also a snapshot feature to remember past history. The possibilities for this format are HUGE and I hope that Adobe continue to develop and exploit the little gem they have created. And dare I even hope that other developers might adopt the format...?
3. Metadata, Metadata, Metadata This is the most important word in 21st century media production and the entire Adobe suite has embraced it like a dog chasing a care tyre. media management, coordination, tracking, revision, workflow, processing, distribution and delivery - all running the engine of effective metadata.
But I do have one question..... Where is Ultra? One of the best keying systems Ive ever used. Adobe acquired it when they bought serious magic. But despite its (windows only) presence in CS3 there seems no mention of it in CS4....
Digital Pre-Vis options for the Digital Indie Filmmaker
As cinema technologies advance, we not only get better/faster/cheaper ways of engaging cinema production process, we invariably unlock or re-invent new cinematic processes themselves.
One area that has profoundly presented itself as a highly dynamic and creative process, now open to anyone with a computer and not reliant on big budget, is digital pre-visualization.
It would be a mistake to narrowly think of digital Pre-Vis as simply a method of making glorified story-boards. Instead it's much more effective to consider digital Pre-Vis as a broad umbrella term covering much more than glorified storyboarding. Digital Pre-Vis envelopes a wide range of computer-based tools, technologies and processes aimed at developing, planning and testing visual sequences and cinematic elements.
The types and forms of tool used for Pre-Vis and visual planning are also incredibly diverse and draw upon some unexpected sources. George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) has even used the Unreal computer game engine to construct Pre-Vis for films like Steven Spielberg's AI. The observation has been made by ILM's Scott Rosenthal in regard to the use of a game engine to Pre-Vis AI that "The whole goal of the exercise was to expose aesthetic choices or opportunities to Steven Spielberg. So it was a director's tool, not a postproduction tool."
This comment underpins much of the new thinking about the role digital Pre-Vis serves. The mechanics Pre-Vis uses -- 3D environments, animations, motion graphics, frame animatics, color swatches, digital imaging and so on - are tools traditionally associated with post-production. But the opportunities and benefits of Pre-Vis force us to reconsider some of those assumptions; to see Pre-Visas embedded to the art of directing and creative inception.
Whilst we might most readily think of 3D graphics systems as the core of digital Pre-Vis, there are in fact a myriad of other tools and technologies that serve to help flesh out visual ideas and build articulate and dynamic visualizations. More-over these tools need not be expensive; indeed there are a host of free tools and applications available, along with some very low cost solutions, ensuring digital Pre-Vis is well within reach of all production budgets. What unites these various systems is the empowerment they deliver to the director to enact clear and informed directorial choices about the film they are making. But to really exploit Pre-Vis we need to articulate more clearly what the role of the director really is.
Perhaps the most adequate description of the role of the director on a movie is 'Caretaker of the Vision'. The director is a guide through the production jungle ensuring that the collaboration of different departments remain focused on a clear singular vision. Films are made by directorial choices, the auteur decisions about composition, performance, design and assembly. So in this vein the role of Pre-Vis is arguably the most important phase for the director to engage. It's here that they will flesh out what the directorial vision for the project is and deliver it with clarity to the cast and crew -- get everyone singing from the same song-sheet with a clear voice.
What is key to effective Pre-Vis is to remember what Pre-Vis processes are designed for. They are not for the creation of polished works or refined and stylish graphics. Pre-Vis is foremost about communication, experimentation, testing, planning. Pre-Vis projects are a production sketchpad not a finished product.
Below I have laid out some of the best and most available digital tools for indie filmmakers; ones that strike a productive balance between creative flexibility and ease of use efficiency. This in turn ensures the focus remains on directorial decision making and not technical proficiency. A Pre-Vis tool that is overly-complicated and time consuming to use largely defeats the purpose of pre-vis. The tools here also stretch beyond just 3D virtual blocking and include a broader selection of tools for developing visual style, color and form for digital indie film projects.
Adopting the skills of your family - Colour correction and Premiere Pro
Integration is the key buzzword of contemporary digital media and few have doen it so wel as Adobe. But there is another element to the idea of a stable or suite of applications that goes beyond allowing applications to talk to each other; that is to more intrinsically get under each other's skin
On of the great strengths of Adobe software is that each application in the production suite is able to leverage the expertise of its stablemates. This is most evident in Premiere Pro which incorporates some of the key strengths of Photoshop and After Effects in its own arsenal.
For titling Premiere leverages the power and sophistication of the Photoshop text engine and since both After Effects and Photoshop possess comprehensive colour processing tools - that have been built up over the very long life span of these applications - Premiere's built-in colour correction tools are superb and cover a diverse range of parameters.
This tutorial from Layers Magazine provides a clear step by step process through a colour correction workflow using Premiere Pro and privides a good reference for colour correction work we'll do in classes and on projects.
Leading or Following - Reconsidering Film School (part5)
Cinema IS Technology.
[part 5 of a 5-part musing on the idea of Film School and its
relationship to industry learning and art. Its not intended as a set
of fully formed or precisely structured arguments but rather a set of
musings on what the ideals and implications of Film School should could
and might be...?]
Cinema does not and cannot exist for either the creator or the viewer without the technical apparatus of its construction and delivery. As such any filmmaker who thinks of themselves as a non-technical filmmaker is simply deluded.
The difference however in the approach of the Industry Leading Film School as opposed to the Industry Serving Film School is that the former rejects ideas of industry standard tools - invariably a specific brand deemed acceptable in exclusivity - and instead embraces diversity and flexibility in understanding the technical underpinnings of all tools. This is something Ive written about many times before; most particularly the essay HOLISTIC THINKING - INTEGRATED MAKING. A manifesto of sorts, the key items of which reflected upon how to ensure students were not software users but real and empowered artisans. Fundamental therefore is the idea of Software Agnosticism and the Philosophy of the Tools.
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. A Film School seeking to serve industry by adhering to the myth of industry standard tools is intrinsically limiting creative endeavor by insisting there is right or correct tool to be creative with.
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 without hierarchy - 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 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 tools philosophical approach. Their work with that tool is subsequently governed, influenced and shaped by that philosophy.
If however the student through their cinematic education is restrictively indoctrinated into a particular tool (and its respective philosophy), without wider consideration of a personal creative 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 the needs of the tool but seeking out 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 tools presented philosophical paradigm (on the idea that its an industry standard) is fundamentally weak; dis-empowered. They are 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.
A conceptual method for implementing this approach is the idea of Technology Transparency that we have endeavored to implement into the curriculum at the International Film School Sydney - embodied in the Technological Philosophy statement on the schools website.
The aim is to educate filmmakers whose creative vision is never limited by a lack of technical knowledge. Filmmakers for whom the tools of cinema are an invisible and transparent conduit to creativity.
In other words the goal of any Film School should Not be that students are expertly proficient in the particular creative tools the school has deemed industry acceptable but rather that they possess a solid degree of technology transparency; the ability to quickly and easily adapt to any given tool they are presented with. This stems directly from the idea of Teaching students How to Learn first and foremost before any particular skill.
The more self-confident part of me would like to think that my students, at the end of their course, could sit down in front of Any given editing system on the market and given a small amount of time to orient themselves, be able to effectively produce quality work. They would be able to do this NOT because they have learned ALL the systems on the market but because they have learned the fundamentals that underpin all the NLEs on the market. That they have consummate ability to acquire, process and apply new information. With that skill they will be perpetually in-work and capably able to adapt to any future develops in cinematic process.
This kind of learning flexibility and adaptability is virtually impossible within a Film School focused on serving the industry and meeting obtuse industry standards. This kind of learning is only really possible when the Film School as institution works outside and looks beyond industry. When it frees itself from the dogma of how things have traditionally been done and instead embraces how they might be done...
Film School is an institution to be treasured and respected but it only has the opportunity to live up its potential when its unshackled from industry. When its free to challenge and explore and investigate.
Leading or Following - Reconsidering Film School (part4)
Language and Learning
[part 4 of a 5-part musing on the idea of Film School and its
relationship to industry learning and art. Its not intended as a set
of fully formed or precisely structured arguments but rather a set of
musings on what the ideals and implications of Film School should could
and might be...?]
When we boil down to the very essence of Education and Art there are, in truth, only two things that a Film School can teach - everything else is just the trappings and trimmings. Moreover both are things that are extremely difficult to garner outside of formal learning and a dedicated institution. (Ironically however I would venture that these two things are very often either neglected or curtailed by many film school curricula).
The first and foremost is Cinema Literacy. Watching a lot of films and reading a few books is all well and good but a litany of shot framings and what they are supposed to mean is not Cinema Literacy. Such distillations of cinema language are the equivalent of my 2 year old daughter reciting the alphabet. The basis of literacy certainly, but until she can read (and more importantly Write) a novel its not a true sophisticated literacy. Its simply regurgitation.
Cinema Language is more intricate, more sophisticated, more complex and varied than any written form known to human kind. Its a vibrant and endlessly dynamic mediascape of runic audio-visual hieroglyphs where subtle serifs are the nuanced inflections that fundamentally alter meaning. Moreover it is a language that grows and evolves with every new cinematic work, with every new technology, with every new viewing medium.
So to suggest that you can begin to attain a comprehensive literacy of contemporary cinema from watching a lots of movies and reading books is either grossly naïve or profoundly arrogant...
Of course there will always those aiming for lowest-common-denominator filmmaking. In which case ignorance is bliss. But for the purposes of my soap-boxing Im going to pretentiously assume a more broadly held desire by aspiring filmmakers to be fucking exception rather than putridly banal.
The central and fundamental element Film School can (and should) teach is Cinema Literacy. All the technical skills in the world are merely the means to enact Cinema Literacy. Film School provides the most viable crucible to teach how to speak and write with all the sophistication of the cinema language. Film School is uniquely placed - if its outside and looking beyond industry, if its embedded in a concerted environment for engagement with cinema process - to build a more rich and dense vocabulary of cinema language than could ever by obtained outside of formal learning. Learning the words that make up the language of cinema is one thing, stringing them together into articulate and engaging audio-visual sentences of profound viewer engagement is quite another. Thats cinema literacy.
But still there is another step that true cinema literacy delivers...
Good cinema happens when the filmmaker can exploit the detailed audio visual language of the cinema - But GREAT cinema happens when the filmmaker invents their own language for the cinematic experience itself.
All the truly great works of cinema, over the century of cinema history, have in some way invented new cinema language. From Meliese and the cinema of the fantastical effect, to Cecil B DeMille and inscription of a true Epic cinema vocabulary, on to Kubrick who with every film he made invented entirely new cinema words subsequently used and exploited by all filmmakers to follow.
Its this possibility for true cinema literacy that is the potential beating heart Film School offers. Film School should, and can, be the most effective cauldron for smelting language into new cinematic words, new phrases, new inflections and dialects.
Film School cant teach talent and raw skills are just not enough. But what Film School can teach (or, more correctly, provide a dynamic environment for the exploration of) that cant be effectively learned on your own, is Cinema Literacy; The vast combination of knowledge, skill, experience, instinct, understanding and energy that when forged together by a distinct and focused environment produces a linguistic platform far exceeding the sum of its parts.
But there is one other unique offering Film School has, one it shares as the true pedagogical promise of all education institutions. Whilst a Film School on the surface may portend teaching camera, sound, editing and writing, these are all micro-level implementations of the one true thing Film School should and can teach... How to Learn, the art of learning itself.
The the overarching single thing any education can, should and must deliver for a student is a tangible and consummate ability to Learn. Students must be taught the process and art of learning itself, how to acquire, absorb, process and, most importantly, apply new skills, knowledge and ideas. Its here that I find flaw in the way many Film Schools position their learning.
Far too often the focus can fall to software-use rather than creative process, camera operating rather than the art of cinematography, emphasis on the here and now rather than the broader concepts of creative process that expand beyond the here and now. And its the misguided idea of what the industry wants is what drives this lowest-common denominator approach to skills.
A Film School focused on serving the needs of the industry rather than leading it largely sets itself up to become an institution that will fail to teach students How to Learn. It may well build skills to guarantee an immediate job, but it stands a good chance of failing to equip students for life-long learning, self-improvement, dynamic flexibility in creative application.
When a school aims to serve the industry it invariably bogs itself down in brand-loyalty, proprietary technologies, specific applications and inflexible models of production. We see film schools training Final Cut Pro/Avid Users (who know every software menu and function) Rather than real Editors (who can manipulate narrative, meaning and ideas regardless of which system they sit in front of - both now and 20 years form now.)
The Film School intent upon serving the industry effectively embodies a ideology of teaching the right way to make a film. To serve the industry is to declare that there is a right and accepted way to make cinema. And if it doesn't meet with current practice it must be wrong, incorrect, not-viable.
This idea of an acceptable way and an unacceptable way to make cinema is plainly farcical in a contemporary cinema landscape where we are making cinema (moving image media) in ways, means and modes never seen before, in diversity not seen before, in scale and flexibility weve not seen before, delivering via mediums weve not known before. Machinima and real-time environments, compositing and motion graphics, 3D environments, interactive forms, online streaming media, mobile devices, gaming, download and on and on and on.
When a Film School focuses on Leading the industry rather than Serving it, it aligns its priorities in a fundamentally different polar pattern. It frees itself from slavishly adhering to malformed ideas of industry standards. Software brands and camera types take second place to Assembly, Form and Process. It dispenses with the idea of a right way to create cinema and instead intrinsically aligns itself with an exploration of the many ways to create cinema and moreover shifts focus to the analytical process to work out the Best way to make cinema commensurate with the needs of the creator and the creation.
The Film School focused on Leading the industry is one focused first and foremost on teaching students How to Learn. As a result it positions itself to be able to build skills and knowledge of cinematic processes that transcend the here and now, that can grow beyond the here and now and inform cinema production regardless of how modes, means and methods change over time.
To do this a Film School education must primarily provide an Environment not a Curriculum. The Curriculum dictates What to learn but the Environment dictates and shapes the learning process itself. Its the environment that makes Film School unique; an environment of experiential learning, collaborative learning, an environment where mistakes are not just allowed but encouraged. A Film School focused on making highly polished festival successful, industry-approved, films is one that is failing its students. A student learns infinitely more form making films that are ambitious and fall short than those that are conservative and succeed. Polished films are low hanging fruit. Films that dare to fail, that reach far beyond ability have the potential to teach infinitely more and have a far more profound impact on the pedagogical journey of the student.
All this is not to suggest that an education from a Film School aiming to lead and challenge the industry, rather than serve it, is divorced from technical craft and grounded production process mechanisms. It is a great myth to suggest that the two are mutually exclusive.
Leading or Following - Reconsidering Film School (part3)
[part 3 of a 5-part musing on the idea of Film School and its
relationship to industry learning and art. Its not intended as a set
of fully formed or precisely structured arguments but rather a set of
musings on what the ideals and implications of Film School should could
and might be...?]
So if Films Schools should aim to lead the 'industry' (or industr-ies) how exactly do they do that? What are the benefits? What are the downsides? And are there comparative precedents to understand the perspective of Indusrty Leading rather than Industry supporting institutions?
The 'industry', by nature of its commercial framework and economic imperatives, will always hold conservative, traditional, well established and tested ideas and processes at its heart. It is not now, nor has it ever been, in the best interests of the bulk mainstream cinematic media to experiment or explore or challenge established workflows, concepts or even stories.
As with any artform, change always comes from the fringes, from the periphery, never from the centre. Mainstream feature film and TV is always the last to implement new technologies, ideas and processes. Picking up on the 'new' once the fringe has tested and proven viability of the new.
Film Schools, as institutions, are in this context uniquely placed. They are in a privileged position to exploit the 'new', to chalenege and lead with a level of impunity. It is often said that Film School for students is a great opportunity to fail; a rare and fleeting chance to experiment with permission, an opportunity that is rarity afforded in the 'real-world'. And yet whilst this idea is often expressed to students it's very rarely exhibited by the institution itself towards the 'industry'.
Film Schools, with their oftentimes emphasis on serving rather than leading, squander their chance to push the industry, to be the test-bed for industry change. So concerned are they with guessing what the establishment wants and preparing students for the fleeting here and now that they avoid any chance to focus on the future and prepare students for what might be...?
There is in fact nothing new about this idea of an education institution serving as the primary progressive test-bed for new ideas and new processes. It is in fact the premise that Universities are built on. In science, engineering, architecture, medicine and hundreds of other fields it is the University that serves as the driver of industry. The 'new' begins in the University; is tested, challenged, considered, researched and implemented within the privileged environment outside the 'industry'. Then the discoveries, ideas and processes developed, explored and engaged by students are then filtered through to industry to become the common practices of tomorrow.
If this is the standard modus operandi for other formal education institutions - that of leading and driving the industries they represent - why is it that Film Schools are more often than not focused on the subservient inverse?
If this system of Education Institutions being future-focused and educating students in an environment of experimentation, exploration, testing and leadership of industry process and practice, can work for a host of otther technology-based industries then why not cinema?
The argument is often made that Film School students need to be educated to serve current industry practice and needs or else be irrelevant. But the same argument can also equally be made that students educated to serve current industry needs will possess knowledge and a skill set quickly outdated, made irrelevant before theyve had a chance to put it into practice.
The perspective that may tip the balance is to recognize that a Film School focused on leading the industry, focused on what cinema might be rather than what it has been, has a far greater ability to prepare students for longevity and flexibility rather than more dogmatic current pracice that is specific to the now which may be soon obsolete.
It's here that we need to consider what Film Schools Should teach? And indeed what they Can teach
One of the common weapons leveled at the concept of Film School (as with any art education) is the idea that Talent cannot be taught. This statement is often hurled as a Molotov cocktail to immolate the validity of Film School. If talent can't be taught what need is there of Film school?
Whilst this kind of questioning may seem somewhat facile it does serve to prompt more a significant and deeper question about what exactly Film School Can teach if not Talent?
The common and immediate answer would be Skills; the practical and often technology-based, skills by which cinema (as a techno-art) is assembled.
What strikes me is that both these permutations above are flawed. Sure, there is a strong argument to the idea that Talent cannot be taught but it can be fostered, shaped, developed and expanded. To dismiss Film School on the basis that Talent can't be taught demonstrates a gross lack of respect for the art of cinema. The Godfather wasn't made by talent, Talent simply isn't enough to make a film That good. Godfather was made only after many years of developing, fostering and shaping that talent into a refined directorial instinct and consummate artistry.
Similarly, and conversely, to reduce filmmaking to a set of raw skills in operating the mechanical aperati of cinema is absurdly narrow and dysfunctional.
A monkey can be trained to use a camera. A child can be taught to operate an editing system. Yet all the skills in pushing buttons won't make the monkey a Cinematographer or the child an Editor. All the skills in the world won't forge directorial instinct; won't build the ability to make informed and deliberate artistic decisions.
Again we arrive at the ingrained dilemma; if Film School can't teach talent and skills alone simply aren't enough what Can Film School teach that cannot be readily garnered by non formal learning? What is left to teach other than talent and skills...?
Leading or Following - Reconsidering Film School (part2)
What exactly should Film Schools teach...?
[part 2 of a 5-part musing on the idea of Film School and its
relationship to industry learning and art. Its not intended as a set
of fully formed or precisely structured arguments but rather a set of
musings on what the ideals and implications of Film School should could
and might be...?]
Its a bold question, a big question, but also a flawed question because it doesn't allow for a true access to a deeper understanding of what film schools, as institutions, represent. We need to know what they Are before we can know what they should Teach? To properly answer that question we actually need to question how film schools relate to the filmmaking industry....?
Should Film Schools service the 'industry'? Cater to its demands and provide it with what the school perceives the industry needs...? Or Should Film Schools lead the industry? Challenge it, change it, reshape and guide it...? In other words, Should Film Schools be the forward scouts leading the industry or the rear-guard supporting the industry.
The truth is that overwhelmingly institutions across the world who define themselves as Film Schools (education institutions focused on specific education in the production of cinematic arts) fall into the former of these two paradigms. I would suggest that the prevailing view amongst those who run film schools and design film school curricula is that their primary role is to feed the industry with the skills and knowledge they perceive the industry needs; to act as an institution of service, support and maintenance to the demands of the industry.
Note here that I am placing the word industry in inverted commas not arbitrarily but to use a commonly accepted term with skepticism. I would defy anyone to viably define what the industry is in the 21st century..! To suggest that its feature-film is absurd since features make up the smallest possible proportion of movie viewing. Neither does TV suffice since it is beset on all sides by a host of competing and every growing alternative moving image forms. The only viable and functional definition of cinema itself is the art of the moving image and so by that definition the discerning of the cinema industry into discreet and neat categories is incredibly difficult; not to mention pointless because such distinctions are not useful.
A simple example of this mindset of a Film School focused on servicing, and reacting to, industry needs might be seen in the question posed to many flim schools "how much longer will they continue to teach celluloid film". The answer very often is "as long as the 'indusrty' needs it". This is a key example of Film Schools as reactionary; reacting to changes in 'industry' needs after they happen. This is a structure that positions the Film School to follow 'industry', changing what it is they teach only after the bulk of mainstream productions change they way they make.
There is merit in this approach that might be seen as a correlation to economic rationalism. Here the prevailing ideology is to free the market with the belief that markets invariably right themselves and create the most dynamic melting pot for progression through unrestrained competition.
So in our context the industry might be seen as the free market forces that will make changes in the way and what film schools teach if and when the market needs and demands. The idea is that the Film School shouldn't lead the industry but respond to its demands because otherwise its the cart before the horse; the Film School focused on elements the industry doesn't yet want or need. The argument would be that having a film school work beyond the industry, attempting to lead and shape it rather than follow, inevitably results in a lack of specific relevance in the education the Film School provides.
There is an obvious logic here, one that has brought the majority of the worlds film schools to the endeavor of delivering an industry relevant education.
But, the concept is not totally sound and indeed may be seen as fundamentally flawed. It would stand to reason that if the 'industry' is so broad, so diverse (and increasingly so) that it defies functional definition, then a film school attepting to service that broad expanse will inevitably fail. Attempting to be all things to everyone rarely works.
A broad ill-definable industry cannot produce cohesive or tangible service demands - in other words if the industry doesn't know what it wants how can a Film School service it? What effectively serves one segment fundamentally fails another.
A Film School might alternatively choose to carve a specific and defined niche focus, to bias a specific segment of the cinematic media 'industries' - feature film, TV or online. But here the inevitable trade off is relevance for students whose education may prove too narrow and inflexible to be of real value in a 21st century media-scape. One where there is increasingly very little to viably separate these forms and where cross-over and multi-platform are the hallmarks of the cinema to come. The Film School subsequently renders its education irrelevant by its inflexibility to accommodate diversity and the future of what may come.
These scenarios are highly problematic; the root flaw arguably the conceptual ideology of the Film School in service of the industry. Its a perspective that holds weight for a clear and singular industry but falls apart when that industry becomes hybridized and infinitely diverse.
The conclusion this might lead one (namely myself) to come to is that an overt position of a film school attempting to serve and service the needs of the industry is a dysfunctional illusion. An effort at best clutching at intangible straws. At worse, a viewpoint holding on to outdated and outmoded perspectives on what cinema is.
If this were a more formal essay then I would hereby curtail my soapbox for a more clinical argument. But its not. its a blog, My blog and so I hereby pull out the soapbox to stir discussion amongst the cinema loving pigeons.
I believe Film Schools should lead the industry, not follow it. Film schools should be ahead of industry demands, not servicing them. I believe Film Schools should challenge what industry wants, not cater to them. Industry should change and adapt to the forward markers the Film Schools set.
Leading or Following - Reconsidering Film School (part1)
[what follows is the first of a 5-part musing on the idea of Film School and its relationship to industry learning and art. Its not intended as a set of fully formed or precisely structured arguments but rather a set of musings on what the ideals and implications of Film School should could and might be...?]
There are many debates that surround the idea of Film School. The internet abounds with them. Largely these centre around why go? what are the benefits? and is it better than just teaching yourself by picking up a camera and going for it...?
The very premise of many these debates over the value of Film School as an education bother me. They bother me across a number of levels.
On the macro-level I feel a deep seeded need to deplore anyone or anything that devalues Education as a concept and a process. To build any argument on the premise of an education not being necessary is a tragic indictment of contemporary culture. Instead of celebrating and treasuring eduction we seek to circumvent or dispense with it. We seem so often to deliberately seek out reasons to disparage and diminish it, make excuses to do without it. This is a mindset I find utterly depressing, a track that leads social and cultural disaster.
On on a more specific level those who would declare film school unnecessary or irrelevant, attest that theres nothing in the concept of a film school that cant be garnered by simply doing it yourself, quite evidently don't like cinema; quite evidently have no respect for cinema.
Would anyone consider that you can become a competent and effective Doctor just by picking up a stethoscope and going for it..? Would it be considered viable to become a effective Lawyer by simply showing up at court and making a case? Could you function as a capable Mechanic by grabbing just popping the car hood and poking around...?
Of course not. Its absurd, an argument no one could defend. And yet, do those who declare Film School a waste of time, a useless expense, think so little of cinema, consider cinema so simplistic, directorial skills so lowest-common-denominator, that it and they cannot be compared to a Mechanic, Doctor or Lawyer..?
If so then these are exactly the sort of people that Shouldnt be making films. Filmmakers who think so little of cinema are exactly the sort of filmmakers the world doesn't need! Theres enough 2-bit hacks in Hollywood already. If you don't believe cinema is the most powerful, engaging, dynamic, exciting, inspiring and complex artistic medium the world has ever seen then why the hell would you want to be a filmmaker? Because I can think of a hundred other careers that are easier, less stress and pay better...!
Ok, so now that ive got that off my chest there are, of course, some caveats to this point of view. The first is that obviously and inevitably not all film schools are good. In fact Id have to tragically confess that a great many of them are not good; run by ill-informed, uninspired people who actually have no real interest in teaching. Its one of the great tragic ironies that 90 out of 100 teachers at film school around the world would rather Not be teaching. But this does not, and should not, undermine the concept of a comprehensive filmmaking and artistic education. Just as a collection of bad high schools doesn't lead society to believe that high-schools are a waste.
The second is that there needs to be (and always should be) a broad cross section of means to a filmmaking, creative arts education. For some its university, for others its a dedicated film school college, for others still its a short course or an apprenticeship or internship. All are varied and valid, many roads lead to Rome, but all are a focused dedicated education, the conceptual value of which should never be undermined. We should question constantly how to make education better but we should never question the penultimate and intrinsic value of education itself. That road leads to the dark-ages. All the great societies and cultures of the world have held education as the single most important human endeavor above all else - the ancient Greeks, Romans, Israelites and Arabs - the 4 most influential cultures in human history - all held Knowledge and Education as the fundamental heart of their societies.
No doubt there will be those that, gnashing their teeth whilst reading, scream names like Tarantino at the screen as a defiant counter to the power and importance of Film School and formal Filmmaking Education. Tarantino is a successful Director who had neither film school nor a formal film education. Yes, indeed there are exceptions. There are exceptions to every paradigm. But these filmmakers are decidedly few and far between by comparison. For every filmmaker without a formal education in cinema there are fifty others who do. Exceptions do not undermine the core value; that education has intrinsic value and any good (or even half decent) education in cinema will invariably make you a better filmmaker than you might have otherwise been. Not to mention that any formalized tertiary education will also make you a more informed, engaged and articulate member of society regardless of whether you work directly as a filmmaker. As statistics and sociological analysis has proved many times, a society of a high level of tertiary education is, across the board, a more peaceful, productive, content and engaged one - regardless of whether individuals are proactively engaged in professions related to their education.
But there is another larger debate that seems to go unheard, and infrequently spoken, in most circles; What exactly should Film Schools teach...?
Of late I have been working with some of my students on using 3D
graphics systems for Pre-Visualization of live-action films. With the
emphasis of Pre-Vis on efficiency and planning rather than a polished
product of its own, we've been looking at the myriad of easy, effective
and, in many cases, free tools available.
SketchUp and Antics3D
sit at the top of such a list but I have recently gone back to take
MovieStorm for another spin. I was
involved in beta testing Moviestorm some time ago when it was in
very early development and it presented as unique Machinima tool with a
very capable vision for virtual environment real-time
production.
Moviestorm
has grown enormously since I last took it for a spin and it now strikes
a good balance between being powerful and
efficient.
Some of my readers may recall a
mini-essay I wrote called Machinima,
Software GUI and the aspirational user about the
idea and culture of professionally 'aspirational users', comparing the
GUI's of MovieStorm and Antics and the divergent conceptual paradigms
they embody. The article was intended as a devil's advocate
investigation exploring macro techno-cultural ideas and using MS and
Antics as a case study. Some took it as a rebuke of MS in favor of
Antics but this was never my intention. Nor was it a snobbish idea that
Pro 3D apps are somehow good and everyone else needs to be like them.
The truth is that the article was not really looking at software but
more user-culture sociology more than technology. A kick-around idea
on how users perhaps perceive of themselves and shape their software
choices by their aspirations rather than their
abilities.
Antics and MS are two very forward
thinking and exciting tools to cross compare in this regard for they
both do virtually the same tasks with similar outcomes and have similar
business models (free base app and purchasable model packs). Yet the
two apps represent very different concepts of how to engage with
production processes. They employ very different metaphors and
distinctly divergent GUI constructs.
Having now
returned to take MovieStorm for a spin in the particular guise of its
use for Pre-Vis rather than more holistic Machinima production, I have
found the latest iteration truly exciting.
Moviestorm is designed primarily for Machinima
production and as such is comprehensive in its approach. Moviestorm can
handle not just the assembly of virtual sets, avatars and animations
but also voice recording and sequence editing. Its quite feasible to
move from start to finish through to delivery of a project entirely
within MS
And its actually this internally
integrated approach that holds great appeal for MS as a Pre-Vis tool
for live-action projects. I have in the past been critical of the MS
GUI as a non-standard interface - it's very game like and dispenses
with many of the expected production software paradigms which can be
frustrating for users already digital-savvy with software tools like
NLE's and DAW's. But MS has succeeded with in its most recent
incarnation by dispensing with some of the more 'cartoony' motifs and
more unusual operations and construct a very consistent internal
logic
All these actually lends a great deal to the
viability of Antics as a Pre-Vis system with good sense of efficiency
and flexibility. Whilst the complete MS package is overkill for
producing storyboard frames or testing camera moves MovieStorm does do
a good job of presenting a working framework that allows MS to function
as simple or complex as your needs. In simple terms you only need
utilize the tools you need.
Of course the fact that
MovieStorm as a base application is both Free and Cross-Platform just
completes the picture. MS has come a long way and I'm very excited by
the opportunities promised by these kinds of tools growing in strength
and flexibility.
Ill soon be filing an article with
DMN taking a broad look at Pre-Vis concepts and options for indie
filmmakers. Stay tuned .
ProRes cross-platform? Almost... But there may still be better choices.
Some thought it a matter of time. Others suspected it may never happen. Apple opening up their ProRes422 lossless intermediate codec for cross-platform and non-FCP use.
But like all wishful thinking that seems to come true the result is not wholly satisfying.
ProRes422 is an excellent lossless compression format that delivers pristine quality at far reduced datarates. It?s also engineered with a particular compression structure that allows for very efficient playback and real-time performance. Along with a visually lossless 422 colour sub-sampling pattern ProRes has a lot going for it.
Except that it belongs to FCP. The ProRes codec is installed with Final Cut Pro, you?ll only have access to encoding ProRes if you have FCP installed and similarly you cant read or playback ProRes files unless you have FCP. This exclusive proprietary nature of ProRes has put some major dampeners on the codec having a wider take up as lossless production and archive format.
That is until now... Apple have now released a free ProRes decoder. Available in both Mac and Windows this decoder allows for ProRes files to be played back on OSX and Windows systems without the need to have FCP.
This is certainly a major step forward in making ProRes much more functional as a format to use for exchange, preview, testing, reviews and more universal production workflows outside of the FCStudio.
But it doesn't go the whole hog. There is no ability to encode ProRes on a system that doesn't have FCP installed. And this is still going to make ProRes a flawed option for many workflows. Apple obviously have market and product protection reasons to keep ProRes tied to FCP but this deliberate restriction does keep the door open to various ProRes alternatives to have an edge.
ProRes itself is a copy of formats such as Avid?s DNxHD and Cineform; both of which had been in popular use long before Apple decided to join the Lossless intermediate party. In fact, there was a time, before ProRes, when Apple marketed heavily on the idea of Not using intermediates, flaunting Native workflow and even surreptitiously suggesting (falsely) that intermediates resulted in ?generational loss?.
As David Newman of Cineform commented on his blog ?Several years ago, CineForm attempted to sell Apple on the idea of a digital intermediate codec for professional post. Unfortunately, back then they still had their heads stuck firmly in the DV sand, and believed DVCPRO-HD would be sufficient, which everyone today knows it isn't.?
Apple of course sang this song only as long as it took for them to deliver ProRes; and all FCP users are thankful they came around.
Cineform delivers a lossless wavelet-based codec system that goes considerably further than ProRes. 422 and 444 variants, support for 2k and 4k as well as RAW format and active metadata. Once you delve into the huge possibilities of Cineform ProRes starts to pale somewhat. Cineform is also cross-platform. The downside is of course that Cineform is a 3rd party product that doesn't come free in the FCStudio box.
The alternative that does come free is Avid?s DNxHD which, it can be said, is the codec that ProRes was directly appropriated from in order to keep pac with the main competition. Both DNxHD and ProRes are 422 colour sampling and deliver indistinguishable quality. They also deliver files of near identical file size and bitrate. The advantage DNxHD has is that, as well as being completely cross-platform, it can be encoded from any Quicktime compatible system on your computer. You don't need to own Avid software. You can simply export to QuickTime and choose DNxHD as your codec. DNxHD also has the ability to work in RGB colour space which ProRes does not, making it a better choice for After Effects, Photoshop and other native RGB applications.
So I, like most, are very happy to see the Mac and Windows ProRes decoders but the truth is that right now Avid?s free DNxHD has greater flexibility if you need to move and encode a universal format across multiple platforms. Similarly if you want a more comprehensive lossless intermediate format Cineform is the weapon of choice that makes both DNxHD and ProRes seem rather simplistic and limited by comparison.
ProRes is good. Cross-platform is goo. But I think Apple can do better and I look forward to ProRes v2 for it to realy step up to the plate.....
Conforming Audio to Edit Changes in SoundTrack pro
One the great dilemmas of the sound editor is dealing with editor who change their mind.
Kevin P. McAuliffe over at PVC as assembled a fantastically succinct video that shows how to use the Conform Project feature of SoundtrackPro to match up a sound edit/mix to a revised edit from FCP.
I confess that i was until very recently ignorant of this feature in STP. SoundtrackPro has long struck me as the great DAW that almost was, but isnt quite. At times tedious, frustrating, dare I say slightly unstable. But at the same time presenting a great deal of promise and some great moments of workflow inspiration. I more readily find myself a happier sound editor in the more powerful Adobe Audition or fluidly fast Sony Acid. But with my eyes now opened to the beautiful effectiveness of CONFORM in STP. I may just find myself using STP more often.
