Putting Apple’s iMac Pro Through the Paces

At the end of December, Apple made good on the release of the new iMac Pro and started selling and shipping the new workstations. While this could be characterized as a stop-gap effort until the next generation of Mac Pro is produced, that doesn’t detract from the usefulness and power of this design in its own right. After all, the iMac line is the direct descendant in spirit and design of the original Macintosh. Underneath the sexy, all-in-one, space grey enclosure, the iMac Pro offers serious workstation performance.

I work mostly these days with a production company that produces and posts commercials, corporate videos, and entertainment programming. Our editing set-up consists of seven workstations, plus an auxiliary machine connected to a common QNAP shared storage network. These edit stations consisted of a mix of old and new Mac Pros and iMacs (connected via 10GigE), with a Mac Mini for the auxiliary (1GigE). It was time to upgrade the oldest machines, which led us to consider the iMac Pros. The company picked up three of them – replacing two Mac Pro towers and an older iMac. The new configuration is a mix of three, one-year-old Retina 5K iMacs (late 2015 model), a 2013 “trash can” Mac Pro, and three 2017 iMac Pros.

There are plenty of videos and articles on the web about how these machines perform; but, the testers often use artificial benchmarks or only Final Cut Pro X. This shop has a mix of NLEs (Adobe, Apple, Avid, Blackmagic Design), but our primary tool is Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2018. This gave me a chance to compare how these machines stacked up against each other in the kind of work we actually do. This comparison isn’t truly apples-to-apples, since the specs of the three different products are somewhat different from each other. Nevertheless, I feel that it’s a valid real-world assessment of the iMac Pros in a typical, modern post environment.

Why buy iMac Pros at all?

The question to address is why should someone purchase these machines? Let me say right off the bat, that if your main focus is 3D animation or heavy compositing using After Effects or other applications – and speed and performance are the most important factor – then don’t buy an Apple computer. Period. There are plenty of examples of Dell and HP workstations, along with high-end gaming PCs, that outperform any of the Macs. This is largely due to the availability of advanced NVidia GPUs for the PC, which simply aren’t an option for current Macs.

On the other hand, if you need a machine that’s solid and robust across a wide range of postproduction tasks – and you prefer the Mac operating ecosystem – then the iMac Pros are a good choice. Yes, the machine is pricy and you can buy cheaper gaming PCs and DIY workstations, but if you stick to the name brands, like Dell and HP, then the iMac Pros are competitively priced. In our case, a shift to PC would have also meant changing out all of the machines and not just three – therefore, even more expensive.

Naturally, the next thing is to compare price against the current 5K iMacs and 2013 Mac Pros. Apple’s base configuration of the iMac Pro uses an 8-core 3.2GHz Xeon W CPU, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, and the Radeon Pro Vega 56 GPU (8GB memory) for $4,999. A comparably configured 2013 Mac Pro is $5,207 (with mouse and keyboard), but no display. Of course, it also has the dual D-700 GPUs. The 5K iMac in a similar configuration is $3,729. Note that we require 10GigE connectivity, which is built into the iMac Pros. Therefore, in a direct comparison, you would need to bump up the iMac and Mac Pro prices by about $500 for a Thunderbolt2-to-10GigE converter.

Comparing these numbers for similar machines, you’d spend more for the Mac Pro and less for the iMac. Yet, the iMac Pro uses newer processors and faster RAM, so it could be argued that it’s already better out of the gate in the base configuration than Apple’s former top-of-the-line product. It has more horsepower than the tricked-out iMac, so then it becomes a question of whether the cost difference is important to you for what you are getting.

Build quality

Needless to say, Apple has a focus on the quality and fit-and-finish of its products. The iMac Pro is no exception. Except for the space grey color, it looks like the regular 27” iMacs and just as nicely built. However, let me quibble a bit with a few things. First, the edges of the case and foot tend to be a bit sharp. It’s not a huge issue, but compared with an iPhone, iPad, or 2013 Mac Pro, the edges just not as smooth and rounded. Secondly, you get a wireless mouse and extended keyboard. Both have to be plugged in to charge. In the case of the mouse, the cable plugs in at the bottom, rendering it useless during charging. Truly a bad design. The wireless keyboard is the newer, flatter style, so you lose two USB ports that were on the previous plug-in extended keyboard. Personally, I prefer the features and feel of the previous keyboard, not to mention any scroll wheel mouse over the Magic Mouse. Of course, those are strictly items of personal taste.

With the iMac Pro, Apple is transitioning its workstations to Thunderbolt 3, using USB-C connectors. Previous Thunderbolt 2 ports have been problematic, because the cables easily disconnect. In fact, on our existing iMacs, it’s very easy to disconnect the Thunderbolt 2 cable that connects us to the shared storage network, simply by moving the iMac around to get to the ports on the back. The USB-C connectors feel more snug, so hopefully we will find that to be an improvement. If you need to get to the back of the iMac or iMac Pro frequently, in order to plug in drives, dongles, etc., then I would highly recommend one of the docks from CalDigit or OWC as a valuable accessory.

5K screen

Apple spends a lot of marketing hype on promoting their 5K Retina screens. The 27” screens have a raw pixel resolution of 5120×2880 pixels, but that’s not what you see in terms of image and user interface dimensions. To start with, the 5K iMacs and iMac Pros use the same screen resolution and the default display setting (middle scaled option) is 2560×1440 pixels. The top choice is 3200×1800. Of course, if you use that setting, everything becomes extremely small on screen.  Conversely, our 2013 Mac Pro is connected to a 27” Apple LED Cinema Display (non Retina). It’s top scaled resolution is also 2560×1440 pixels. Therefore, at the most useable settings, all of our workstations are set to the same resolution. Even if you scale the resolution up (images and UI get smaller), you are going to end up adjusting the size of the application interface and viewer window. While you might see different viewer size percentage numbers between the machines, the effective size on screen will be the same.

Retina is Apple’s marketing name for high pixel density. This is the equivalent of DPI (dots per inch) in print resolutions. According to a Macworld article, iPhones from 4 to 5s had a pixel density of 326ppi (pixels per inch), while iMacs have 218ppi. Apple converts a device’s display to Retina by doubling the horizontal and vertical pixel count. More pixels are applied to any given area on the screen, resulting in smoother text, smoother diagonal lines, and so on. That’s assuming an application’s interface is optimized for it. At the distance that the editors sit from a 27” display, there is simply little or no difference between the look of the 27” LED display and the 27” iMac Retina screens.


Future-proofing and upgrades are the biggest negatives thrown at all-in-ones, particularly the iMac Pros. While the user can upgrade RAM in the standard iMacs, that’s not the case with iMac Pros. You can upgrade RAM in the future, but that must be done at a service facility, such as the Apple Store’s Genius service. This means that in three years, when you want the latest, greatest CPU, GPU, storage, etc., you won’t be able to swap out components. But is this really an issue? I’m sure Apple has user research numbers to justify their decisions. Plus, the thermal design of the iMac would make user upgrades difficult, unlike older mac Pro towers.

In my own experience on personal machines, as well as clients’ machines that I’ve helped maintain, I have upgraded storage, GPU cards, and RAM, but never the CPU. Although I do know others who have upgraded Xeon models on their Mac Pro towers. Part of the dichotomy is buying what you can afford now and upgrading later, versus stretching a bit up front and then not needing to upgrade later. My gut feeling is that Apple is pushing the latter approach.

If I tally up the cost of the upgrades that I’ve made after about three years, I would already be part of the way towards a newer, better machine anyway. Plus, if you are cutting HD and even 4K today, then just about any advanced machine will do the trick, making it less likely that you’ll need to do that upgrade within the foreseeable life of the machine. An argument can be made for either approach, but I really think that the vast majority of users – even professional users – never actually upgrade any of the internal hardware from that of the configuration as originally purchased.

Performance testing

We ultimately purchased machines that were the 10-core bump-up from the base configuration, feeling that this is the sweet spot (and is currently available) within the iMac Pro product line.

The new machine specs within the facility now look like this:

2013 Mac Pro – 3GHz 8-core Xeon/64GB RAM/dual D-500 GPUs/1TB SSD (Sierra)

2015 iMac – 4GHz 4-core Core i7/32GB RAM/AMD R9/3TB Fusion drive (Sierra)

2017 iMac Pro – 3GHz 10-core Xeon W/64GB RAM/Radeon Vega 64/1TB SSD (High Sierra)

As you can see, the tech specs of the new iMac Pros more closely match the 2013 Mac Pro than the year-old 5K iMacs. Of course, it’s not a perfect match for optimal benchmark testing, but close enough for a good read on how well the iMac Pro delivers in a real working environment.

Test 1 – BruceX

The BruceX test uses a 5K Final Cut Pro X timeline made up only of built-in titles and generators. The timeline is then rendered out to a ProRes file. This tests the pure application without any media and codec variables. It’s a bit of an artificial test and only applicable to FCPX performance, but still useful. The faster the export time, the better. (I have bolded the best results.)

2013 Mac Pro – 26.8 sec.

2015 iMac – 28.3 sec.

2017 iMac Pro – 14.4 sec.

Test 2 – media encoding

In my next test, I took a 4½-minute-long 1080p ProRes file and rendered it to a 4K/UHD (3840×2160) H.264 (1-pass CBR 20Mbps) file. Not only was it being encoded, but also scaled up to 4K in this process. I rendered from and to the desktop, to eliminate any variables from the QNAP system. Finally, I conducted the test using both Adobe Media Encoder (using OpenCL processing) and Apple Compressor.

Two noteworthy issues. The Compressor test was surprisingly slow on the Mac Pro. (I actually ran the Compressor test twice, just to be certain about the slowness of the Mac Pro.) The AME version kicked in the fans on the iMac.

Adobe Media Encoder

2013 Mac Pro – 6:13 min.

2015 iMac – 7:14 min.

2017 iMac Pro – 4:48 min.


2013 Mac Pro – 11:02 min.

2015 iMac – 2:20 min.

2017 iMac Pro – 2:19 min.

 Test 3 – editing timeline playback – multi-layered sequence

This was a difficult test designed to break during unrendered playback. The 40-second 1080p/23.98 sequence include six layers of resized 4K source media.

Layer 1 – DJI clips with dissolves between the clips

Layers 2-5 – 2D PIP ARRI Alexa clips (no LUTs); layer 5 had a Gaussian blur effect added

Layer 6 – native REDCODE RAW with minor color correction

The sequence was created in both Final Cut Pro X and Premiere Pro. Playback was tested with the media located on the QNAP volumes, as well as from the desktop (this should provide the best possible playback).

Playing back this sequence in Final Cut Pro X from the QNAP resulted is the video output largely choking on all of the machines. Playing it back in Premiere Pro from the QNAP was slightly better than in FCPX, with the 2017 iMac Pro performing best of all. It played, but was still choppy.

When I tested playback from the desktop, all three machines performed reasonably well using both Final Cut Pro X (“best performance”) and Premiere Pro (“1/2 resolution”). There were some frames dropped, although the iMac Pro played back more smoothly than the other two. In fact, in Premiere Pro, I was able to set the sequence to “full resolution” and get visually smooth playback, although the indicator light still noted dropped frames. Typically, as each staggered layer kicked in, performance tended to hiccup.

Test 4 – editing timeline playback – single-layer sequence

 This was a simpler test using a standard workflow. The 30-second 1080p/23.98 sequence included three Alexa clips (no LUTs) with dissolves between the clips. Each source file was 4K/UHD and had a “punch-in” and reposition within the HD frame. Each also included a slight, basic color correction. Playback was tested in Final Cut Pro X and Premiere Pro, as well as from the QNAP system and the desktop. Quality settings were increased to “best quality” in FCPX and “full resolution” in Premiere Pro.

My complex timeline in Test 3 appeared to perform better in Premiere Pro. In Test 4, the edge was with Final Cut Pro X. No frames were dropped with any of the three machines playing back either from the QNAP or the desktop, when testing in FCPX. In Premiere Pro, the 2017 iMac Pro was solid in both situations. The 2015 iMac was mostly smooth at “full” and completely smooth at “1/2”. Unfortunately, the 2013 Mac Pro seemed to be the worst of the three, dropping frames even at “1/2 resolution” at each dissolve within the timeline.

Test 5 – timeline renders (multi-layered sequence)

In this test, I took the complex sequence from Test 3 and exported it to a ProRes master file. I used the QNAP-connected versions of the Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro X timelines and rendered the exports to the desktop. In FCPX, I used its default Share function. In Premiere Pro, I queued the export to Adobe Media Encoder set to process in OpenCL. This was one of the few tests in which the 2013 Mac Pro put in a faster time, although the iMac Pro was very close.

Rendering to ProRes – Premiere Pro (via Adobe Media Encoder)

2013 Mac Pro – 1:29 min.

2015 iMac – 2:29 min.

2017 iMac Pro – 1:45 min.

Rendering to ProRes – Final Cut Pro X

2013 Mac Pro – 1:21 min.

2015 iMac – 2:29 min.

2017 iMac Pro – 1:22 min.

Test 6 – Adobe After Effects – rendering composition

My final test was to see how well the iMac Pro performed in rendering out compositions from After Effects. This was a 1080p/23.98 15-second composition. The bottom layer was a JPEG still with a Color Finesse correction. On top of that were five 1080p ProResLT video clips that had been slomo’ed to fill the composition length. Each was scaled, cropped, and repositioned. Each was beveled with a layer style and had a stylized effect added to it. The topmost layer was a camera layer with all other layers set to 3D, so the clips could be repositioned in z-space. Using the camera, I added a slight rotation/perspective change over the life of the composition.

Rendering to ProRes – After Effects

2013 Mac Pro – 2:37 min.

2015 iMac – 2:15 min.

2017 iMac Pro – 2:03 min.


After all of this testing, one is left with the answer “it depends”. The 2013 Mac Pro has two GPUs, but not every application takes advantage of that. Some apps tax all the available cores, so more, but slower, cores are better. Others go for the maximum speed on fewer cores. All things considered, the iMac Pro performed at the top of these three machines. It was either the best or close/equal to the best. But, this is an incremental difference in the 10% to 30% range. But, of course some of these numbers will be meaningful and others won’t, depending on the apps used and a user’s storage situation.

I will say that installing these three machines was the easiest I’ve ever done, including connecting them to the 10GigE storage network. The majority of our apps come from Adobe Create Cloud, the Mac App Store, or FxFactory (for plug-ins). Except for a few other installers, there was largely no need to track down installers, activation information, etc. for a zillion small apps and plug-ins. This made it a breeze and is certainly part of the attraction of the Mac ecosystem. The iMac Pro’s all-in-one design limits the required peripherals, which also contributes to a faster installation. Naturally, I can’t tell anyone if this is the right machine for them, but so far, the investment does look like the correct choice for this shop’s needs.

Here are two additional impressions by working editors: Thomas Grove Carter and Ben Balser. Also a very comprehensive review from AppleInsider.

©2018 Oliver Peters


Audio Splits and Stems in Premiere Pro Revisited

Creating multichannel, “split-track” master exports of your final sequences is something that should be a standard step in all of your productions. It’s often a deliverable requirement and having such a file makes later revisions or derivative projects much easier to produce. If you are a Final Cut Pro X user, the “audio lanes” feature makes it easy to organize and export sequences with isolated channels for dialogue, music, and effects. FCPX pros like to tweak the noses of other NLE users about how much easier it is in FCPX. While that’s more or less true – and, in fact, can be a lot deeper than simply a few aggregate channels – that doesn’t mean it’s particularly hard or less versatile in Premiere Pro.

Last year I wrote about how to set this up using Premiere submix tracks, which is a standard audio post workflow, common to most DAW and mix applications. Go back and read the article for more detail. But, what about sequences that are already edited, which didn’t start with a track configuration already set up with submix tracks and proper output routing? In fact, that’s quite easy, too, which brings me to today’s post.

Step 1 – Edit

Start out by editing as you always have, using your standard sequence presets. I’ve created a few custom presets that I normally use, based on the several standard formats I work in, like 1080p/23.976 and 1080p/29.97. These typically require stereo mixes, so my presets start with a minimum configuration of one picture track, two standard audio tracks, and stereo output. This is the starting point, but more video and audio tracks get added, as needed, during the course of editing.

Get into a habit of organizing your audio tracks. Typically this means dialogue and VO tracks towards the top (A1-A4), then sound effects (A5-A8), and finally music (A9-A12). Keep like audio types on their intended tracks. What you don’t want to do is mix different audio types onto the same track. For instance, don’t put sound effects onto tracks that you’ve designated for dialogue clips. Of course, the number of actual tracks needed for these audio types will vary with your projects. A simple VO+music sequence will only have two to four tracks, while dramatic entertainment pieces will have a lot more. Delete all empty audio tracks when you are ready to mix.

Mix for stereo output as you normally would. This means balancing components using keyframes and clip mixing. Then perform overall adjustments and “riding faders” in the track mixer. This is also where I add global effects, like compression for dialogue and limiting for the master mix.

Output your final mixed master file for delivery.

Step 2 – Multichannel DME sequences

The next step is to create or open a new multichannel DME (dialogue/music/effects) sequence. I’ve already created a custom preset, which you may download and install. It’s set up as 1080p/23.976, with two standard audio channels and three, pre-labelled stereo submix channels, but you can customize yours as needed. The master output is multichannel (8-channels), which is sufficient to cover stereo pairs for the final mix, plus isolated pairs for each of the three submixes – dialogue, music, and effects.

Next, copy-and-paste all clips from your final stereo sequence to the new multichannel sequence. If you have more than one track of picture and two tracks of audio, the new blank sequence will simply auto-populate more tracks once you paste the clips into it. The result should look the same, except with the additional three submix tracks at the bottom of your timeline. At this stage, the output of all tracks is still routed to the stereo master output and the submix tracks are bypassed.

Now open the track mixer panel and, from the pulldown output selector, switch each channel from master to its appropriate submix channel. Dialogue tracks to DIA, music tracks to MUS, and effects tracks to SFX. The sequence preset is already set up with proper output routing. All submixes go to output 1 and 2 (composite stereo mix), along with their isolated output – dialogue to 3 and 4, effects to 5 and 6, music to 7 and 8. As with your stereo mix, level adjustments and plug-in processing (compression, EQ, limiting, etc.) can be added to each of the submix channels.

Note: while not essential, multichannel, split-track master files are most useful when they are also textless. So, before outputting, I would recommend disabling all titles and lower third graphics in this sequence. The result is clean video – great for quick fixes later in the event of spelling errors or a title change.

Step 3 – Multichannel export

Now that the sequence is properly organized, you’ve got to export the multichannel sequence. I have created a mastering export preset, which you may also download. It works in the various Adobe CC apps, but is designed for Adobe Media Encoder workflows. This preset will match its output to the video size and frame rate of your sequence and master to a file with the ProRes4444 codec. The audio is set for eight output channels, configured as four stereo pairs – composite mix, plus three DME channels.

To test your exported file, simply reimport the multichannel file back into Premiere Pro and drop it onto a timeline. There you should see four independent stereo channels with audio organized according to the description above.


I have created a sequence and an export preset, which you may download here. I have only tested these on Mac systems, where they are installed into the Adobe folder contained within the user’s Documents folder. The sequence preset is placed into the Premiere Pro folder and the export preset into the Adobe Media Encoder folder. If you’ve updated the Adobe apps along the way, you will have a number of version subfolders. As of December 2017, the 12.0 subfolder is the correct location. Happy mixing!

©2017 Oliver Peters

6 Below

From IMAX to stereo3D, theaters have invested in various technologies to entice viewers and increase ticket sales. With a tip of the hat to the past, Barco has developed a new ultrawide, 3-screen digital projection system, which is a similar concept to Cinerama film theaters from the 1950s. But modern 6K-capable digital cinema cameras make the new approach possible with stunning clarity. There are currently 40 Barco Escape theaters worldwide, with the company looking for opportunities to run films designed for this format.

Enter Scott Waugh, director (Act of Valor, Need for Speed) and co-founder of LA production company, Bandito Brothers. Waugh, who is always on the lookout for new technologies, was interested in developing the first full-length, feature film to take advantage of this 3-screen, 7:1 aspect ratio for the entire length of the film. But Waugh didn’t want to change how he intended to shoot the film strictly for these theaters, since the film would also be distributed to conventional theaters. This effectively meant that two films needed to come out of the post-production process – one formatted for the Barco Escape format and one for standard 4K theaters.

6 Below (written by Madison Turner) became the right vehicle. This is a true life survival story of Eric LaMarque (played by Josh Harnett), an ex-pro hockey player turned snowboarder with an addiction problem, who finds himself lost in the ice and snow of the California Sierra mountains for a week. To best tell this story, Waugh and company trekked an hour or more into the mountains above Sundance, Utah for the production.

To handle the post workflow and co-edit the film with Waugh, editor Vashi Nedomansky (That Which I Love Destroys Me, Sharknado 2, An American Carol) joined the team. Nedomansky, another veteran of Bandito Brothers who uses Adobe Premiere Pro as his axe of choice, has also helped set up Adobe-based editorial workflows for Deadpool and Gone Girl. Ironically, in earlier years Nedomansky had been a pro hockey player himself, before shifting to a career in film and video. In fact, he played against the real Eric LeMarque on the circuit.

Pushing the boundaries

The Barco Escape format projects three 2K DCPs to cover the total 6K width. To accommodate this, RED 6K cameras were used and post was done with native media at 6K in Adobe Premiere Pro CC. My first question to Nedomansky was this. Why stay native? Nedomansky says, “We had always been pushing the boundaries at Bandito Brothers. What can we get away with? It’s always a question of time, storage, money, and working with a small team. We had a small 4-person post team for 6 Below, located near Sundance. So there was interest in not losing time to transcoding.

After some testing, we settled on decked out Dell workstations, because these could tackle the 6K RED raw files natively.” Two Dell Precision 7910 towers (20-core, 128GB RAM) with Nvidia Quadro M6000 GPUs were set up for editing, along with a third, less beefy HP quad-core computer for the assistant editor and visual effects. All three were connected to shared storage using a 10GigE network. Mike McCarthy, post production supervisor for 6 Below, set up the system. To keep things stable, they were running Windows 7 and stayed on the same Adobe Creative Cloud version throughout the life of the production. Nedomansky continues, “We kept waiting for the 6K to not play, but it never stopped in the six weeks of time that we were up there. My first assembly was almost three hours long – all in a single timeline – and I was able to play it straight through without any skips or stuttering.”

There were other challenges along the way. Nedomansky explains, “Almost all of the film was done as single-camera and Josh has to carry it with his performance as the sole person on screen for much of the film. He has to go through a range of emotions and you can’t just turn that on and off between takes. So there were lots of long 10-minute takes to convey his deterioration within the hostile environmental conditions. The story is about a man lost in the wild, without much dialogue. The challenge is how to cut down these long takes without taking away from his performance. One solution was to go against the grain – using jump cuts to shorten long takes. But I wanted to look for the emotional changes or a physical act to motivate a jump cut in a way that would make it more organic. In one case, I took a 10-minute take down to 45 seconds.”

When you have a film where weather is a character, you hope that the weather will cooperate. Nedomansky adds, “One of our biggest concerns going in, was the weather. Production started in March – a time when there isn’t a lot of snow in Utah. Fortunately for us, a day before we were supposed to start shooting, they had the biggest ‘blizzard’ of the winter for four days. This saved us a lot of VFX time, because we didn’t have to create atmospherics, like snow in front of the lens. It was there naturally.”

Using the Creative Cloud tools to their fullest

6 Below features an extensive percentage of visual effects shots. Nedomansky says, “The film has 1500 shots with 205 of them as VFX shots. John Carr was the assistant editor and visual effects artist on the film and he did all of the work in After Effects and at 6K resolution, which is unusual for films. Some of the shots included ‘day for night’ where John had to add star plates for the sky. This meant rotoscoping behind Josh and the trees to add the plates. He also had to paint out crew footprints in the snow, along with the occasional dolly track or crew member in a shot. There were also some split screens done at 6K right in Premiere Pro.”

The post schedule involved six weeks on-set and then fourteen more weeks back in LA, for a 20-week total. After that, sound post and grading (done at Technicolor). The process to correctly format the film for both Barco and regular theaters almost constituted posting two films. The RED camera image is 6144 x 2592 pixels, Barco Escape 6144 x 864, and a 4K extraction 4096 x 2160. Nedomansky explains, “The Barco frame is thin and wide. It could use the full width, but not height, of the full 6K RED image. So, I had to do a lot of ‘animation’ to reposition the frame within the Barco format. For the 4K version, the framing would be adjusted accordingly. The film has about 1500 shots, but we didn’t use different takes for the two versions. I was able to do this all through reframing.”

In wrapping up our conversation, Nedomansky adds, “I played hockey against Eric and this added an extra layer of responsibility. He’s very much still alive today. Like any film of this type, it’s ‘based on’ the true story, but liberties are taken. I wanted to make sure that Eric would respect the result. Scott and I’ve done films that were heavy on action, but this film shows another directorial style – more personal and emotional with beautiful visuals. That’s also a departure for me and it’s very important for editors to have that option.”

6 Below was released on October 13 in cinemas.

Read Vashi’s own write-up of his post production workflow.

Images are courtesy of Vashi Visuals.

Originally written for Digital Video magazine / Creative Planet Network

©2017 Oliver Peters

Adobe’s Late-2017 Creative Cloud Updates

According to Cisco, 82% of internet traffic will be video by 2021. Adobe believes over 50% of that will be produced video and not just simple user content. This means producers will be expected to produce more – working faster and smarter. In the newest Creative Cloud update, Adobe has focused on just such workflow improvements. These were previewed at IBC and will be released later this year.

Adobe Premiere Pro CC

With this release, Adobe has finally enabled the ability to have more than one project file open at the same time. You can move clips and sequences between open projects. In addition, projects can be locked by the user, making Premiere Pro the first NLE to enable multiple open projects and locking within a single application. In addition, Adobe has expanded project types to include both Team Projects (your project is in the cloud) and shared projects (your project is local). The latter is ideal for SAN/NAS environments and adds Avid-style collaboration.

Editors will enjoy specific timeline enhancements, like “close all gaps” and up to 16 label colors. The Essential Graphics panel gets some love with font filtering and a visual font preview window. Graphics templates will now include a minimum duration, so that these clips can be extended on the timeline, while leaving the fade-in and fade-out constant.

Adobe is doubling down on VR using its acquired Skybox technology. New are 19 immersive effects and transitions specific to VR projects. These are needed to properly seam wraparound edges when effects are added to VR clips. They are all GPU-only effects; however, as some VR clips can be 5K wide and larger, performance can be challenging. Nevertheless, Adobe reports decent performance with 6K VR clips at half-resolution on laptops like the HP z820 or the 2017 15” MacBook Pro. There is also an immersive playback viewer designed for HMDs (head mount displays). It will display the image along with the Premiere Pro timeline window.

Premiere Pro’s non-VR editing updates, including shared projects, are explained well by the reTooled blog (video here).

Adobe Audition

Audition is the place to finalize your Premiere Pro mix, so a new auto-ducking mix tool has been added. This is based on Sensei, Adobe’s umbrella name for its artificial intelligence technologies. To use auto-ducking, the editor simply has to adjust sensitivity, amount of reduction, and fades, and then let Audition do the rest. Under AI, it will detect pauses in the dialogue and adjust music volume accordingly.

Other Audition enhancements include a timeline timecode overlay for the video viewer, the ability to simultaneously adjust dual-sided fades on clips, and new record and punch-in preferences for ADR work (“looping”).

After Effects

Here’s another example of this focus on time-savings. After Effects gains a new start-up window to set-up the first composition. It also gains a keyboard command editor, and in this release, will add the same font previewing tools as Premiere Pro. The biggest new feature is an expansion of the expression controls. These will be tied to data files for the quick updating of template graphics. If you create a graphic – such as a map of the US with certain information displayed by colors for each state – and it’s based on a template tied to data, then changing the supporting data information will automatically update the graphic. Other enhancements include GPU acceleration for third-party plug-ins that use the Mercury Playback Engine.

Character Animator

This live-capture, cartoon animation tool finally comes out of beta. A new feature will be the adjustment of the responsiveness of the animation tracking. This will permit live animation to look more hand-drawn. Actions can now be triggered by MIDI control panels. Triggers are editable in the timeline with a waveform for better matching of lip-sync.

There’s plenty of good user news, too, including the the release of 6 Below, an ultra-wide film designed for the Barco three-screen format. It was edited by Vashi Nedomansky using Premiere Pro. Other Premiere Pro news includes the dramatic feature film, Only The Brave, edited by Bill Fox, and Coup 53, a documentary in post being cut by Walter Murch. Both of these noted editors have been using Premiere Pro.

For more in-depth info, check out these links for a solid overview of Adobe’s soon-to-come Creative Cloud application updates:

ProVideo Coalition – Scott Simmons

Premiere Bro blog

Adobe’s own Digital Video & Audio blog

Originally written for Digital Video magazine / Creative Planet Network

©2017 Oliver Peters

Customize Premiere Pro with Workspaces

Most days I find myself in front of Adobe Premiere Pro CC, both by choice and by the jobs I’m booked on. Yes, I know, for some it’s got bugs and flaws, but for me it’s generally well-behaved. Given the choices out there, Premiere Pro feels the most natural to me for an efficient editing workflow.

Part of what makes Premiere Pro work for me is the ability to customize and fine-tune the user interface layout for the way I like to work or the tasks at hand. This is made possible by Adobe’s use of panels for the various tools and windows within the interface. These panels can float or be docked, stacked, or tabbed in a wonderfully large range of configuration possibilities. The Adobe CC applications come with a set of preset workspaces, but these can be customized and augmented as needed. I won’t belabor this post with an in-depth explanation of workspaces, because there are three very good explanations over at PremiereBro. (Click these links for Post 1, Post 2, and Post 3). My discussion with Simon Ubsdell made me think the topic would make a good blog post here, too.

It all starts with displays

I started my NLE journey with Avid and in the early days, two screens (preferably of a matching size) were essential. Bins on the left with viewers and timeline on the right. However, in the intervening years, screen resolution has greatly increased and developers have made their UIs work on dual and single-screen configurations. Often today, two screens can actually be too much. For example, if you have two side-by-side 27” (or larger) displays, the distance from the far left to the far right is pretty large. This makes your view of the record window quite a bit off-center. To counter-balance this issue, in a number of set-ups, I’ve taken to working with two different sized displays: a centered 27”, plus a smaller 20” display to the left. Sometimes I’ll have a broadcast display to the right. The left and right displays are at an angle, which means that my main working palette – the viewers and timeline – are dead-center on the display in front of me.

I also work with a laptop from time to time, as well as do some jobs in Final Cut Pro X. Generally a laptop is going to be the only available display and FCPX is well-optimized for single-screen operation. As a result, I’ve started to play around with working entirely on a single display – only occasionally using the landscape of the secondary display on my left when really needed. The more I work this way, the more I find that I can work almost entirely on one screen, if that screen offers a decent resolution.

So in order to optimize my workflow, I’ve created a number of custom Premiere Pro workspaces to serve my needs. (Click any of these images to see the enlarged view.)

Edit layout 1

This is the classic two-screen layout. Bins on the left and dual-viewer/timeline on the right. I use this when I have a lot of footage and need to tab a number of bins or expand a bin to see plenty of list details or thumbnails.

Edit layout 2

This layout collapses the classic layout onto a single screen, with the project panel, viewers and timeline.

Edit layout 3

This layout is the one I use most often, because most of what I need is neatly grouped as a tab or a stack on the left and right sides of a single viewer window. Note that there are actually source and record viewers, but they are stacked behind each other. So if I load a clip or match frame from the timeline, the source viewer becomes foremost for me to work with. Do an edit or go back to the timeline and the viewer switches back to the record side.

By tabbing panels on the left side, I can select the panel needed at the time. There is a logical order to what is on the left or right side. For instance, scopes are left and Lumetri Color controls on the right – thus, both can be open. Or I can drag an effect from the right pane’s Effects palette onto the Effects Control panel on the left.

Edit layout 4

This is the most minimalist of my workspaces. Just the viewers and timeline. Anything else can be opened as a floating window for temporary access. The point of this workspace is 100% focus on the timeline, with everything else hidden.

Edit layout 5

This workspace is designed for the “pancake timeline” style of editing. For example, build a “selects” timeline and then pull from that down to your main editing timeline.

Edit layout 6

This is another dual-display layout optimized for color correction. Lumetri Color and Effects Control panel flanking the viewer, with the Lumetri Scopes fullscreen on the lefthand monitor.

There are certainly plenty of other ways you can configure a workspace to suit your style. Some Premiere Pro editors like to use the secondary screen to display the timeline panel fullscreen. Or maybe use it to spread out their audio track mixer. Hence the beauty of Adobe’s design – you can make it as minimal or complex as you like. There is no right or wrong approach – simply whatever works to improve your editing efficiency.

Note: Footage shown within these UI screen grabs is courtesy of Imagine Dragons and Adobe from the Make the Cut Contest.

©2017 Oliver Peters

Premiere Pro Workflow Tips

When you are editing on projects that only you touch, your working practices can be as messy as you want them to be. However, if you work on projects that need to be interchanged with others down the line, or you’re in a collaborative editing environment, good operating practices are essential. This starts at the moment you first receive the media and carries through until the project has been completed, delivered, and archived.

Any editor who’s worked with Avid Media Composer in a shared storage situation knows that it’s pretty rock solid and takes measures to assure proper media relinking and management. Adobe Premiere Pro is very powerful, but much more freeform. Therefore, the responsibility of proper media management and editor discipline falls to the user. I’ve covered some of these points in other posts, but it’s good to revisit workflow habits.

Folder templates. I like to have things neat and one way to assure that is with project folder templates. You can use a tool like Post Haste to automatically generate a new set of folders for each new production – or you can simply design your own set of folders as a template layout and copy those for each new job. Since I’m working mainly in Premiere Pro these days, my folder template includes a Premiere Pro template project, too. This gives me an easy starting point that has been tailored for the kinds of narrative/interview projects that I’m working on. Simply rename the root folder and the project for the new production (or let Post Haste do that for you). My layout includes folders for projects, graphics, audio, documents, exports, and raw media. I spend most of my time working at a multi-suite facility connected to a NAS shared storage system. There, the folders end up on the NAS volume and are accessible to all editors.

Media preparation. When the crew comes back from the shoot, the first priority is to back-up their files to an archive drive and then copy the files again to the storage used for editing – in my case a NAS volume. If we follow the folder layout described above, then those files get copied to the production dailies or raw media (whatever you called it) folder. Because Premiere Pro is very fluid and forgiving with all types of codecs, formats, and naming conventions, it’s easy to get sloppy and skip the next steps. DON’T. The most important thing for proper media linking is to have consistent locations and unique file names. If you don’t, then future relinking, moving the project into an application like Resolve for color correction/finishing, or other process may lead to not linking to the correct file.

Premiere Pro works better when ALL of the media is in a single common format, like DNxHD/HR or ProRes. However, for most productions, the transcoding time involved would be unacceptable. A large production will often shoot with multiple camera formats (Alexa, RED, DSLRs, GoPros, drones, etc.) and generate several cards worth of media each day. My recommendation is to leave the professional format files alone (like RED or Alexa), but transcode the oddball clips, like DJI cameras. Many of these prosumer formats place the media into various folder structures or hide them inside a package container format. I will generally move these outside of this structure so they are easily accessible at the Finder level. Media from the cameras should be arranged in a folder hierarchy of Date, Camera, and Card. Coordinate with the DIT and you’ll often get the media already organized in this manner. Transcode files as needed and delete the originals if you like (as long as they’ve been backed up first).

Unfortunately these prosumer cameras often use repeated, rather than unique, file names. Every card starts over with clip number 0001. That’s why we need to rename these files. You can usually skip renaming professional format files. It’s optional. Renaming Alexa files is fine, but avoid renaming RED or P2 files. However, definitely rename DSLR, GoPro, and DJI clips. When renaming clips I use an app called Better Rename on the Mac, but any batch renaming utility will do. Follow a consistent naming convention. Mine is a descriptive abbreviation, month/day, camera, and card. So a shoot in Palermo on July 22, using the B camera, recorded on card 4, becomes PAL0722B04_. This is appended in front of the camera-generated clip name, so then clip number 0057 becomes PAL0722B04_0057. You don’t need the year, because the folder location, general project info, or the embedded file info will tell you that.

A quick word on renaming. Stick with universal alphanumeric conventions in both the files and the folder names. Avoid symbols, emojis, etc. Otherwise, some systems will not be able to read the files. Don’t get overly lengthy in your names. Stick with upper and lower case letters, numbers, dashes, underscores, and spaces. Then you’ll be fine.

Project location. Premiere Pro has several basic file types that it generates with each project. These include the project file itself, Auto-saved project files, renders, media cache files and audio peak (.pek) files. Some of these are created in the background as new media is imported into the project. You can choose to store these anywhere you like on the system, although there are optimal locations.

Working on a NAS, there is no problem in letting the project file, Auto-saves, and renders stay on the NAS in the same section of the NAS as all of your other media. I do this because it’s easy to back-up the whole job at the end of the line and have everything in one place. However, you don’t want all the small, application-generated cache files to be there. While it’s an option in preferences, it is highly recommended to have these media cache files go to the internal hard drive of the workstation or a separate, external local drive. The reason is that there are a lot of these small files and that traffic on the NAS will tend to bog down the overall performance. So set them to be local (the default).

The downside of doing this is that when another editor opens the Premiere Pro project on a different computer, these files have to be regenerated on that new system. The project will react sluggishly until this background process is complete. While this is a bit of a drag, it’s what Adobe recommends to keep the system operating well.

One other cache setting to be mindful of is the automatic delete option. A recent Premiere Pro problem cropped up when users noticed that original media was disappearing from their drives. Although this was a definite bug, the situation mainly affected users who had set Media cache to be with their original media files and had enabled automatic deletion. You are better off to keep the default location, but change the deletion setting to manual. You’ll have to occasional clean your caches manually, but this is preferable to losing your original content.

Premiere Pro project locking. A recent addition to Premiere Pro is project locking. This came about because of Team Projects, which are cloud-only shared project files. However, in many environments, facilities do not want their projects in the cloud. Yet, they can still take advantage of this feature. When project locking is enabled in Premiere Pro (every user on the system must do this), the application opens a temporary .prlock next to the project file. This is intended to prevent other users from opening the same project and overwriting the original editor’s work and/or revisions.

Unfortunately, this only works correctly when you open a project from the launch window. Do not open the project by double-clicking the project file itself in order to launch Premiere Pro and that project. If you open through the launch window, then Premiere Pro will prevents you from opening a locked project file. However, if you open through the Finder, then the locking system is circumvented, causing crashes and potentially lost work.

Project layout templates.  Like folder layouts, I’m fond of using a template for my Premiere Pro projects, too. This way all projects have a consistent starting point, which is good when working with several editors collaboratively. You can certainly create multiple templates depending on the nature and specs of the job, e.g. commercials, narrative, 23.98, 29.97, etc. As with the folder layout, I’ll often use a leading underscore with a name to sort an item to the top of a list, or start the name with a “z” to sort it to the bottom. A lot of my work is interview-driven with supportive B-roll footage. Most of the time I’m cutting in 23.98fps. So, that’s the example shown here.

My normal routine is to import the camera files (using Premiere Pro’s internal Media Browser) according to the date/camera/card organization described earlier. Then I’ll review the footage and rearrange the clips. Interview files go into an interview sources bin. I will add sub-bins in the B-roll section for general categories. As I review footage, I’ll move clips into their appropriate area, until the date/camera/card bins are empty and can be deleted from the project. Interviews will be grouped as multi-cam clips and edited to a single sequence for each person. This sequence gets moved into the Interview Edits sub-bin and becomes the source for any clips from this interview. I do a few other things before starting to edit, but that’s for another time and another post.

Working as a team. There are lots of ways to work collaboratively, so the concept doesn’t mean the same thing in every type of job. Sometimes it requires different people working on the same job. Other times it means several editors may access a common pool of media, but working in their own discrete projects. In any case, Premiere does not allow the same sort of flexibility that Media Composer or Final Cut Pro editors enjoy. You cannot have two or more editors working inside the same project file. You cannot open more than one project at a time. This mean Premiere Pro editors need to think through their workflows in order to effectively share projects.

There are different strategies to employ. The easiest is to use the standard “save as” function to create alternate versions of a project. This is also useful to keep project bloat low. As you edit a long time on a project, you build up a lot of old “in progress” sequences. After a while, it’s best to save a copy and delete the older sequences. But the best way is to organize a structure to follow.

As an example, let’s say a travel-style show covers several locations in an episode. Several editors and an assistant are working on it. The assistant would create a master project with all the footage imported and organized, interviews grouped/synced, and so on. At this point each editor takes a different location to cut that segment. There are two options. The first is to duplicate the project file for each location. Open each one up and delete the content that’s not for that location. The second option is to create a new project for each location and them import media from the master project using Media Browser. This is Adobe’s built-in module that enables the editor to access files, bins, and sequences from inside other Premiere Pro projects. When these are imported, there is no dynamic linking between the two projects. The two sets of files/sequences are independent of each other.

Next, each editors cuts their own piece, resulting in a final sequence for each segment. Back in the master project, each edited sequence can be imported – again, using Media Browser –  for the purposes of the final show build and tweaks. Since all of the media is common, no additional media files will be imported. Another option is to create a new final project and then import each sequence into it (using Media Browser). This will import the sequences and any associated media films. Then use the segment sequences to build the final show sequence and tweak as needed.

There are plenty of ways to use Premiere Pro and maintain editing versatility within a shared storage situation. You just have to follow a few rules for “best practices” so that everyone will “play nice” and have a successful experience.

Click here to download a folder template and enclosed Premiere Pro template project.

©2017 Oliver Peters

Bricklayers and Sculptors

One of the livelier hangouts on the internet for editors to kick around their thoughts is the Creative COW’s Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates forum. Part forum, part bar room brawl, it started as a place to discuss the relative merits (or not) of Apple’s FCP X. As such, the COW’s bosses allow a bit more latitude than in other forums. However, often threads derail into really thoughtful discussions about editing concepts.

Recently one of its frequent contributors, Simon Ubsdell, posted a thread called Bricklayers and Sculptors. In his words, “There are two different types of editors: Those who lay one shot after another like a bricklayer builds a wall. And those who discover the shape of their film by sculpting the raw material like a sculptor works with clay. These processes are not the same. There is no continuum that links these two approaches. They are diametrically opposed.”

Simon Ubsdell is the creative director, partner, and editor/mixer for London-based trailer shop Tokyo Productions. Ubsdell is also an experienced plug-in developer, having developed and/or co-developed the TKY, Tokyo, and Hawaiki effects plug-ins. But beyond that, Simon is one of the folks with whom I often have e-mail discussions regarding the state of editing today. We were both early adopters of FCP X who have since shifted almost completely to Adobe Premiere Pro. In keeping with the theme of his forum post, I asked him to share his ideas about how to organize an edit.

With Simon’s permission, the following are his thoughts on how best to organize editing projects in a way that keeps you immersed in the material and results in editing with greater assurance that you’ve make the best possible edit decisions.


Simon Ubsdell – Bricklayers and Sculptors in practical terms

To avoid getting too general about this, let me describe a job I did this week. The producer came to us with a documentary that’s still shooting and only roughly “edited” into a very loose assembly – it’s the stories of five different women that will eventually be interweaved, but that hasn’t happened yet. As I say, extremely rough and unformed.

I grabbed all the source material and put it on a timeline. That showed me at a glance that there was about four hours of it in total. I put in markers to show where each woman’s material started and ended, which allowed me to see how much material I had for each of them. If I ever needed to go back to “everything”, it would make searching easier. (Not an essential step by any means.)

I duplicated that sequence five times to make sequences of all the material for each woman. Then I made duplicates of those duplicates and began removing everything I didn’t want. (At this point I am only looking for dialogue and “key sound”, not pictures which I will pick up in a separate set of passes.)

Working subtractively

From this point on I am working almost exclusively subtractively. A lot of people approach string-outs by adding clips from the browser – but here all my clips are already on the timeline and I am taking away anything I don’t want. This is for me the key part of the process because each edit is not a rough approximation, but a very precise “topping and tailing” of what I want to use. If you’re “editing in the Browser” (or in Bins), you’re simply not going to be making the kind of frame accurate edits that I am making every single time with this method.

The point to grasp here is that instead of “making bricks” for use later on, I am already editing in the strictest sense – making cuts that will stand up later on. I don’t have to select and then trim – I am doing both operations at the same time. I have my editing hat on, not an organizing hat. I am focused on a timeline that is going to form the basis of the final edit. I am already thinking editorially (in the sense of creative timeline-based editing) and not wasting any time merely thinking organizationally.

I should mention here that this is an iterative process – not just one pass through the material, but several. At certain points I will keep duplicates as I start to work on shorter versions. I won’t generally keep that many duplicates – usually just an intermediate “long version”, which has lost all the material I definitely don’t want. And by “definitely don’t want” I’m not talking about heads and tails that everybody throws away where the camera is being turned on or off or the crew are in shot – I am already making deep, fine-grained editorial and editing decisions that will be of immense value later on. I’m going straight to the edit point that I know I’ll want for my finished show. It’s not a provisional edit point – it’s a genuine editorial choice. From this point of view, the process of rejecting slates and tails is entirely irrelevant and pointless – a whole process that I sidestep entirely. I am cutting from one bit that I want to keep directly to the next bit I want to keep and I am doing so with fine-tuned precision. And because I am working subtractively I am actually incorporating several edit decisions in one – in other words, with one delete step I am both removing the tail from the outgoing clip and setting the start of the next clip.

Feeling the pacing and flow

Another key element here is that I can see how one clip flows into another – even if I am not going to be using those two clips side-by-side. I can already get a feel for the pacing. I can also start to see what might go where, so as part of this phase, I am moving things around as options start suggesting themselves. Because I am working in the timeline with actual edited material, those options present themselves very naturally – I’m getting offered creative choices for free. I can’t stress too strongly how relevant this part is. If I were simply sorting through material in a Browser/Bin, this process would not be happening or at least not happening in anything like the same way. The ability to reorder clips as the thought occurs to me and for this to be an actual editorial decision on a timeline is an incredibly useful thing and again a great timesaver. I don’t have to think about editorial decisions twice.

And another major benefit that is simply not available to Browser/Bin-based methods, is that I am constructing editorial chunks as I go. I’m taking this section from Clip A and putting it side-by-side with this other section from Clip A, which may come from earlier in the actual source, and perhaps adding a section from Clip B to the end and something from Clip C to the front. I am forming editorial units as I work through the material. And these are units that I can later use wholesale.

Another interesting spin-off is that I can very quickly spot “duplicate material”, by which I mean instances where the same information or sentiment is conveyed in more or less the same terms at different places in the source material. Because I am reviewing all of this on the timeline and because I am doing so iteratively, I can very quickly form an opinion as to which of the “duplicates” I want to use in my final edit.

Working towards the delivery target

Let’s step back and look at a further benefit of this method. Whatever your final film is, it will have the length that it needs to be – unless you’re Andy Warhol. You’re delivering a documentary for broadcast or theatrical distribution, or a short form promo or a trailer or TV spot. In each case you have a rough idea of what final length you need to arrive at. In my case, I knew that the piece needed to be around three minutes long. And that, of course, throws up a very obvious piece of arithmetic that it helps me to know. I had five stories to fit into those three minutes, which meant that the absolute maximum of dialogue that I would need would be just over 30 seconds from each story!  The best way of getting to those 30 seconds is obviously subtractively.

I know I need to get my timeline of each story down to something approaching this length. Because I’m not simply topping and tailing clips in the Browser, but actually sculpting them on the timeline (and forming them into editorial units, as described above), I can keep a very close eye on how this is coming along for each story strand. I have a continuous read-out of how well I am getting on with reducing the material down to the target length. By contrast, if I approach my final edit with 30 minutes of loosely selected source material to juggle, I’m going to spend a lot more time on editorial decisions that I could have successfully made earlier.

So the final stage of the process in this case was simply to combine and rearrange the pre-edited timelines into a final timeline – a process that is now incredibly fast and a lot of fun. I’ve narrowed the range of choices right down to the necessary minimum. A great deal of the editing has literally already been done, because I’ve been editing from the very first moment that I laid all the material on the original timeline containing all the source material for the project.

As you can see, the process has been essentially entirely subtractive throughout – a gradual whittling down of the four hours to something closer to three minutes. This is not to say there won’t be additive parts to the overall edit. Of course, I added music, SFX, and graphics, but from the perspective of the process as a whole, this is addition at the most trivial level.

Learning to tell the story in pictures

There is another layer of addition that I have left out and that’s what happens with the pictures. So far I’ve only mentioned what is happening with what is sometimes called the “radio edit”. In my case, I will perform the exact same (sometimes iterative) process of subtracting the shots I want to keep from the entirety of the source material – again, this is obviously happening on a timeline or timelines. The real delight of this method is to review all the “pictures” without reference to the sound, because in doing so you can get a real insight into how the story can be told pictorially. I will often review the pictures having very, very roughly laid up some of the music tracks that I have planned on using. It’s amazing how this lets you gauge both whether your music suits the material and conversely whether the pictures are the right ones for the way you are planning to tell the story.

This brings to me a key point I would make about how I personally work with this method and that’s that I plunge in and experiment even at the early stages of the project. For me, the key thing is to start to get a feel for how it’s all going to come together. This loose experimentation is a great way of approaching that. At some point in the experimentation something clicks and you can see the whole shape or at the very least get a feeling for what it’s all going to look like. The sooner that click happens, the better you can work, because now you are not simply randomly sorting material, you are working towards a picture you have in your head. For me, that’s the biggest benefit of working in the timeline from the very beginning. You’re getting immersed in the shape of the material rather than just its content and the immersion is what sparks the ideas. I’m not invoking some magical thinking here – I’m just talking about a method that’s proven itself time and time again to be the best and fastest way to unlock the doors of the edit.

Another benefit is that although one would expect this method to make it harder to collaborate, in fact the reverse is the case if each editor is conversant with the technique. You’re handing over vastly more useful creative edit information with this process than you could by any other means. What you’re effectively doing is “showing your workings” and not just handing over some versions. It means that the editor taking over from you can easily backtrack through your work and find new stuff and see the ideas that you didn’t end up including in the version(s) that you handed over. It’s an incredibly fast way for the new editor to get up to speed with the project without having to start from scratch by acquainting him or herself with where the useful material can be found.

Even on a more conventional level, I personally would far rather receive string-outs of selects than all the most carefully organized Browser/Bin info you care to throw at me. Obviously if I’m cutting a feature, I want to be able to find 323T14 instantly, but beyond that most basic level, I have no interest in digging through bins or keyword collections or whatever else you might be using, as that’s just going to slow me down.

Freeing yourself of the Browser/Bins

Another observation about this method is how it relates to the NLE interface. When I’m working with my string-outs, which is essentially 90% of the time, I am not ever looking at the Browser/Bins. Accordingly, in Premiere Pro or Final Cut Pro X, I can fully close down the Project/Browser windows/panes and avail myself of the extra screen real estate that gives me, which is not inconsiderable. The consequence of that is to make the timeline experience even more immersive and that’s exactly what I want. I want to be immersed in the details of what I’m doing in the timeline and I have no interest in any other distractions. Conversely, having to keep going back to Bins/Browser means shifting the focus of attention away from my work and breaking the all-important “flow” factor. I just don’t want any distractions from the fundamentally crucial process of moving from one clip to another in a timeline context. As soon as I am dragged away from that, there’s is a discontinuity in what I am doing.

The edit comes to shape organically

I find that there comes a point, if you work this way, when the subsequence you are working on organically starts to take on the shape of the finished edit and it’s something that happens without you having to consciously make it happen. It’s the method doing the work for you. This means that I never find myself starting a fresh sequence and adding to it from the subsequences and I think that has huge advantages. It reinforces my point that you are editing from the very first moment when you lay all your source material onto one timeline. That process leads without pause or interruption to the final edit through the gradual iterative subtraction.

I talked about how the iterative sifting process lets you see “duplicates”, that’s to say instances where the same idea is repeated in an alternative form – and that it helps you make the choice between the different options. Another aspect of this is that it helps you to identify what is strong and what is not so strong. If I were cutting corporates or skate videos this might be different, but for what I do, I need to be able to isolate the key “moments” in my material and find ways to promote those and make them work as powerfully as possible.

In a completely literal sense, when you’re cutting promos and trailers, you want to create an emotional, visceral connection to the material in the audience. You want to make them laugh or cry, you want to make them hold their breath in anticipation, or gasp in astonishment. You need to know how to craft the moments that will elicit the response you are looking for. I find that this method really helps me identify where those moments are going to come from and how to structure everything around them so as to build them as strongly as possible. The iterative sifting method means you can be very sure of what to go for and in what context it’s going to work the best. In other words, I keep coming back to the realization that this method is doing a lot of the creative work for you in a way that simply won’t happen with the alternatives. Even setting aside the manifest efficiency, it would be worth it for this alone.

There’s a huge amount more that I could say about this process, but I’ll leave it there for now. I’m not saying this method works equally well for all types of projects. It’s perhaps less suited to scripted drama, for instance, but even there it can work effectively with certain modifications. Like every method, every editor wants to tweak it to their own taste and inclinations. The one thing I have found to its advantage above all others is that it almost entirely circumvents the problem of “what shot do I lay down next?” Time and again I’ve seen Browser/Bin-focused editors get stuck in exactly this way and it can be a very real block.

– Simon Ubsdell

For an expanded version of this concept, check out Simon’s in-depth article at Creative COW. Click here to link.

For more creative editing tips, click on this link for Film Editor Techniques.

©2017 Oliver Peters