Video Technology 2020 – Apple and the PC Landscape

Apple enjoys a small fraction of the total computer market, yet has an oversized influence on video production and post. Look anywhere in our business and you’ll see a high percentage of Apple Mac computers and laptops in use by producers, DITs, editors, mixers, and colorists. This has influenced the development and deployment of certain technologies, such as optimization for Metal, Thunderbolt i/o, ProRes codecs, and more. This may irritate Windows users, but it’s something companies like Avid, Adobe, and others cannot ignore. Apple deprecates OpenGL, OpenCL, and CUDA in favor of Metal, and so, developers of software for Apple computers will follow suit so that their Mac-based customers enjoy a good experience.

Going into 2020, Apple is offering a better line-up of professional Mac products than it has in years. MacBook Pro laptops, iMacs and iMac Pros, and the new Mac Pro are clearly targeted at the professional customer. Add to this the Pro Display XDR and authorized third-party products available through Apple, like LumaForge Jellyfish storageBlackmagic and Sonnet eGPUs. Clearly Apple intends to offer an end-to-end hardware and software ecosystem designed to appeal to the pro video customer.

Apple’s prices can be a turn-off for some. Similar investments in a PC – especially custom configurations – may yield better performance in certain applications. Nevertheless, most former and present owners of Mac Pro “cheese grater” towers feel like they got their money’s worth and will at least have interest in the new Mac Pro. Same for MacBook Pro owners. So while these new machines may not move the needle for the larger consumer computer market, it will definitely keep current Mac users in the fold and prevent migration to Windows or Linux PCs. It also reinforces Apple’s interest in the professional market – not just video, but also animation, design, audio, science, and engineering.

The unknown will be the impact of Apple’s new Afterburner card for the Mac Pro. While accelerator cards have been offered by various manufacturers in the past, recent computing developments have focused on processor core counts and GPU technology. The Apple Afterburner is the first introduction for Apple of a new FPGA-based (programmable ASIC) hardware accelerator card. Designed for transcoding, it promises to increase stream counts with 4K and 8K raw and standard codecs in the Mac Pro. Once it’s out in the wild, we will have a better idea of who supports it (beyond Apple’s own software) and its real-world performance.

As Apple goes, so goes the rest of the industry. How will the PC world counter this? Will we see similar cards from HP or Dell? Or will NVIDIA respond with similar results using their GPUs? That’s unknown right now, but my guess is that it will take at least this next year for the rest of the world to respond with competing solutions.

Originally written for Creative Planet Network.

©2020 Oliver Peters

Video Technology 2020 – Editing Software

Four editing applications dominate the professional market: Adobe Premiere Pro, Apple Final Cut Pro X, Avid Media Composer, and Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve. Established facilities are still heavy Avid users, with Adobe being the up-and-coming choice. This doesn’t mean that Final Cut Pro X lost out. Going into 2020, Apple can tout FCPX as the best-selling version of its professional editing tool. It most likely has three million users after nearly nine years on the market. While pro editors in the US are often reluctant to adopt FCPX, this innovative application has earned wider acceptance in the broader international market.

The three “A”s have been battling for editing market share, but the wild card is Blackmagic Design’s DaVinci Resolve. It started as a high-end color correction application, but through Blackmagic’s acquisitions and fast development pace, Resolve is becoming an all-in-one application rivaling Autodesk Smoke or Avid DS. Recent versions bring enhanced creative editing tools, making it possible to edit, mix, composite, grade, and deliver entirely from Resolve. No need to roundtrip with other applications. Blackmagic is so dedicated to Resolve as an editor that they introduced a special editor keyboard.

Is Resolve attractive enough to sway editors to shift away from other tools? The answer for most in 2020 will still be “no.” Experienced editors have made their choice and all of the current options are quite good. However, Resolve does make the most sense for new users with no prior allegiances. The caveat is advanced finishing. Users may edit in an editing application, but then roundtrip to Resolve and back for grading. Unfortunately these roundtrips can be problematic. So I do think that many will opt to cut creatively in their NLE of choice, but then send to Resolve for the final grade, mix, and VFX work. Expect to see Resolve’s finishing footprint expand in 2020.

Two challenges confront these companies in 2020: multi-user collaboration and high dynamic range (HDR) delivery. Collaboration is an Avid strength, but not so for the other three. Blackmagic and Adobe have an approach to project sharing, but still not what Avid users have come to expect. Apple offers nothing directly, but there are some third-party workarounds. Expect 2020 to yield collaboration improvements for Final Cut Pro X and Premiere Pro.

HDR is a more complex situation requiring specialized hardware for proper monitoring. There simply is no way to accurately view HDR on any computer display. All of these companies are developing software pipelines to deal with HDR, but in 2020, HDR delivery will still require specific hardware that will remain the domain of dedicated color correction facilities.

Finally, as with cameras, AI will become an increasing aspect of post hardware. You already see that in Apple’s shape recognition within FCPX (automatic sorting of wides and close-ups) or Adobe Sensei for content replacement and automatic music editing. Expect to see more of these features introduced in coming software versions.

Originally written for Creative Planet Network.

©2020 Oliver Peters

Video Technology 2020 – Cameras

Video acquisition drives the rest of the production and post industry. These are the developments to watch in camera technologies during 2020: resolution, raw codecs, and mobile filmmaking.

Resolution

Striving for larger resolutions has been the default camera manufacturer mode since the shift to single-sensor technology. HD (1920×1080) was abandoned long ago with a bigger resolution just around the corner each year. Currently 16K is the Holy Grail, although broadcast or streaming distribution platforms don’t come close. While 16K may be aspirational, sensor manufacturers have settled on 6K and/or 8K as the preferred target resolutions beyond 4K/UHD. Bayer pattern sensors used in many cameras benefit from oversampling, meaning the 6K or 8K images yield better results when downsampled to 4K than a native 4K sensor. Look for most high-end cameras to use an approach based on this premise.

Camera raw codecs

Camera raw recording was used before RED Digital Cinema, but RED brought raw codecs for movie files into mainstream production. Camera raw codecs are generally proprietary to specific companies, even though they may be widely and openly distributed. 2020 should bring the shakeout between the new raw codecs introduced by Apple and Blackmagic Design. Apple ProRes Raw is not tied to any specific brand of camera, but so far has only been enabled on Atomos recorders and some DJI cameras. Expect that to change in 2020, with additional manufacturers signing up to natively record ProRes Raw in-camera. Naturally this requires support from more than just Final Cut Pro X. Currently Blackmagic Raw enjoys wider post support, however, I don’t see it becoming dominant unless Blackmagic cameras gain a wider market share. Their price is right with plenty of happy customers, but Blackmagic cameras still don’t have the brand appeal of Sony, Panasonic, RED, Canon, or ARRI.

Mobile filmmaking

The Apple iPhone and small format factor cameras, like the DJI Osmo Pocket, have revolutionized video acquisition. The quality achieved in these cameras rivals many high-end production cameras, but with a considerably lighter footprint. The form factor and ease of production – coupled with built-in stabilization, gimbals, and camera apps like FiLMiC Pro and Mavis – enable new production styles and story concepts that would otherwise not be possible or would be cost-prohibitive using traditional methods. One only has to look at how drones have become the dominant form of aerial photography over manned helicopters and just think how similar technology will impact other modes of production. 

Newer technologies, like smart phone cameras, are software-based devices. They will be first to deploy machine learning and AI as a way to enhance the image before those same technologies come to traditional production cameras. Some computational features, like deep or shallow focus, bokeh effects, etc. already exist for the still camera within these phones. But imagine the possibilities of applying AI-based image profiles to your movie images, such as day-for-night or hyper-real photographic-style HDR looks. So while the purist will opt for a Sony or ARRI, others will take advantage of these new features that are available in the palm of their hand.

Originally written for Creative Planet Network.

©2020 Oliver Peters

Every NLE is a Database

Apple’s Final Cut Pro X has spawned many tribal arguments since its launch eight years ago. There have been plenty of debates about the pros and cons of its innovative design and editing model. One that I’ve heard a number of times is that FCPX is a relational database, while traditional editing applications are more like an Excel spreadsheet. I can see how the presentation of a bin in the list view format might convey that impression, but that doesn’t make it accurate. Spreadsheets are a grid of cells that are based on a combination of mathematical formulae, regardless of whether the info is text or numbers. All nonlinear editing applications (NLE) use a relational database to track media, although the type and format of this database will differ among brands. In all cases, these function altogether differently than how a spreadsheet functions.

It started with film

When all editing was done on film, the editors cut work print, which was a reversal copy printed from the camera negative. Edits made on the work print were eventually duplicated on the pristine negative by a negative cutter, based on a cut list. Determining where to cut and join the film segments together was based on a list of edit points corresponding to the source rolls of the film, plus a foot+frame count for specific edit points. The work print, which the editors could physically cut and splice as needed, was effectively an abstraction of – and stand-in for – the negative.

In order to enable the process, assistant editors (or in some cases, the editor) created a handwritten log, known as a codebook. This started with the dailies and included all the pertinent information, such as source roll, shoot days/dates, scenes/takes, director’s notes, editor’s notes, and so on. The codebook was a physical database that allowed an editor to know what the options were and where to find them.

During the videotape-editing era prior to NLEs, any sort of database for tracking source information was still manual. Only the cut list portion, known as the edit decision list, could be generated by the edit computer, based on the timecode values recorded on the tape. Timecode became the electronic equivalent of the foot+frame count of physical film.

Fast forward to the modern era with file-based camera acquisition and ubiquitous, inexpensive editing software. The file recorded by the camera is a container of sorts that holds essence (audio and video) and metadata (information about the essence). Some cameras generate a lot of metadata and others don’t. One example of this type of metadata that we all encounter is the information embedded into digital still photos, which can include location, lens data, and a ton more.

When clips are ingested/imported into your NLE – whether into a project, bin, folder, or an event – the NLE links to the essence of the media clips on the hard drive or camera card and brings in whatever clip metadata is understood by that application. In addition, the user can add and merge a lot more metadata derived from other sources, like the sound recorder, script supervisor notes, electronic script, and manually-added data.

The clip that you see in the bin/event/folder is an abstraction for the actual audio and video media, just like work print was for film editors. The bin/folder/event data entries are like the film editor’s codebook and are tracked in the internal database used by that application to cross-reference the clip with the actual stored media. Since a clip in the app’s browser is simply an abstraction, it can appear in multiple places at the same time – in various bins and sequences. The internal database makes sure that each of these instances of the clip all reference the same piece of media accurate down to the video frame or audio sample.

It doesn’t matter how the bin looks

The spreadsheet comparison is based on how bins have appeared in most NLEs, including Final Cut Pro “legacy,” Avid Media Composer, and others. Unfortunately that opinion is usually based on a narrow exposure to other NLEs. As I said, at the core, every NLE is a relational database. And so, there are other things that can be tracked and/or ways it can be displayed.

For instance, older Quantel edit systems displayed source information based on what we would consider a smart search view today. The entirety of the source material was not displayed in front of the editor, since it was a single-screen layout. Entering data into a search field would sift through and present clips matching the requested data.

Avid Media Composer systems also track media based on Script Integration (sometimes incorrectly referred to as ScriptSync, which is a separate Avid option). This is a graphical bin layout with the script text displayed on screen and clips linked to coverage of that scene. Media Composer and now Premiere Pro both permit a freeform clip view for a bin, in which the editor can freely rearrange the position of the clip thumbnails within the bin window. This visual juxtaposition by the user of clips conveys important information to the editor.

All NLEs have multiple ways to present the data and aren’t limited to a grid-style list view that resembles a spreadsheet or a grid of clip thumbnails. Enabling these alternate views takes a lot more than simply cross-referencing your bin and timelines against a set of edit points. That’s where databases come in and why every NLE is built around one.

How can you be in two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all?

My apologies to Firesign Theatre. A huge aspect of the Final Cut Pro X edit workflow is the use of keyword collections. You aren’t limited to being in just a single bin thanks to them. While this is a selling point for FCPX, it is also well within the capabilities of most NLEs.

Organizing your event (bin) media in FCPX can start by assigning keywords to each clip. Each new keyword used creates a keyword collection – sort of a “smart sub-bin.” As you assign one or more keywords to a clip, FCPX automatically sorts the clip into those corresponding keyword collections.  For example, let’s say you have a series of wide and close-up shots featuring both male and female actors. Clip 1 might be sorted into WIDE and MAN; Clip 2 into WIDE and WOMAN; Clip 3 into WOMAN and CLOSE-UP. So then the keyword collection for WIDE displays Clip 1 and Clip 2; MAN displays Clip 1; WOMAN displays Clip 2 and Clip 3; CLOSE-UP displays Clip 3.

Once this initial step is completed it enables the editor to view source clips in a more focused manner. Instead of wading through 100 clips in the event (bin) each time, the editor may only have to deal with 10 clips in the CLOSE-UP keyword collection. Or in any other collection. The beauty of FCPX’s interface design is the speed and fluidity with which this can be accomplished. This feature is one of the hallmarks of the application and no other NLE does it nearly as elegantly. In fact, FCPX tackles the challenge of narrowing down the browser options through three methods – ratings, keyword collections, and smart collection (described in this linked tutorial by Simon Ubsdell).

As elegantly as Final Cut tackles this task, that doesn’t mean that other NLEs can’t function in a similar manner. Within Premiere Pro, those exact same keywords can be assigned to the clips. Then simply create a set of search bins using those same keywords as search criteria. The result is the exact same type of distribution of clips into collections where multiple clips can appear in multiple bins at the same time. Likewise, the editor doesn’t need to go through the full set of clips in a bin, but can concentrate on the small handful in any given search bin. Media Composer also offers search functions, as well as, custom sift routines, which enable you to only display clips matching specific column details, like a custom keyword.

Most NLEs can only store one set of in/out edit marks on a clip within a bin at any given time. On the other hand, Final Cut Pro X offers range-based selection. Clips can retain multiple in/out selections at once. Nevertheless other NLE aren’t behind here either. The obvious solution that most editors use when this is needed is to create a subclip, which can be a duplicate of the entire clip or a portion from within a single clip. Need to pull multiple sections of the clip? Simply create multiple subclips. In effect, these are the same as range-based selections in Final Cut Pro X. Admittedly the FCPX method is more fluid and straightforward. Nevertheless, range-based selections are virtual subclips that are dynamically created by the editor; but unlike subclips, these can’t be moved separately to other events (bins). Two ways to tackle a very similar need.

The bottom line is that under the hood, all NLEs are still very much the same. Let me emphasize that I’m not arguing the superiority, speed, or elegance of one approach or tool over another. Every company has their own set of unique features that appeal to different types of editors. They are simply different methods to place information at your fingertips, get roadblocks out of the way, and thus to make editing more creative and enjoyable.

©2019 Oliver Peters

Ford v Ferrari

Outraged by a failed attempt to acquire European carmaker Ferrari, Henry Ford II sets out to trounce Enzo Ferrari on his own playing field – automobile endurance racing. Unfortunately, the effort falls short, leading Ford to turn to independent car designer, Carroll Shelby. But Shelby’s outspoken lead test driver, Ken Miles, complicates the situation by making an enemy out of Ford Senior VP Leo Beebe. Nevertheless, Shelby and his team are able to build one of the greatest race cars ever – the GT40 MkII – setting the showdown between the two auto legends at the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans. Matt Damon and Christian Bale star as Shelby and Miles.

The challenge of bringing this clash of personalities to the screen was taken on by director James Mangold (Logan, Wolverine, 3:10 to Yuma) and his team of long time collaborators. I recently spoke with film editors Michael McCusker, ACE (Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma, Logan) and Andrew Buckland (The Girl on the Train) about what it took to bring Ford v Ferrari together.

_____________________________________________

[OP] The post team for this film has worked with James Mangold on quite a few films. Tell me a bit about the relationship.

[MM] I cut my very first movie, Walk The Line, for Jim 15 years ago and have since cut his last six movies. I was the first assistant editor on Kate & Leopold, which was shot in New York in 2001. That’s where I met Andrew, who was hired as one of the local New York film assistants. We became fast friends. Andrew moved out to LA in 2009 and I hired him to assist me on Knight & Day. We’ve been working together for 10 years now.

I always want to keep myself available for Jim, because he chooses good material, attracts great talent, and is a filmmaker with a strong vision who works across multiple genres. Since I’ve worked with him, I’ve cut a musical movie, a western, a rom-com, an action movie, a straight-up superhero movie, a dystopian superhero movie, and now a car racing film.

[OP] As a film editor, it must be great not to get type-cast for any particular cutting style.

[MM] Exactly. I worked for David Brenner for years as his first. He was able to cross genres and that’s what I wanted to do. I knew even then that the most important decisions I would make would be choosing projects. I couldn’t have foreseen that Jim was going to work across all these genres – I simply knew that we worked well together and that the end product was good.  

[OP] In preparing for Ford v Ferrari, did you study any other recent racing films, like Ron Howard’s Rush?

[MM] I saw that movie and liked it. Jim was aware of it, too, but I think he wanted to do something a little more organic. We watched a lot of older racing films, like Steve McQueen’s Le Mans and Frankenheimer’s Grand Prix. Jim’s original intention was to play the racing in long takes and bring the audience along for the ride. As he was developing the script and we were in preproduction, it became clear that there was so much more drama that was available for him to portray during the racing sequences than he anticipated. And so, the races took on more of an energized pace.

[OP] Energized in what way? Do you mean in how you cut it or in a change of production technique, like more stunt cameras and angles?

[MM] I was fortunate to get involved about two-and-a-half months prior to the start of production. We were developing the Le Mans race in pre-vis, which required a lot of editing and discussions about shot design and figuring out what the intercutting was going to be during that sequence, which is like the fourth act of the movie. You’re dealing with Mollie and Peter [Ken Miles’ wife and son] at home watching the race, the pit drama, what’s going on with Shelby and his crew, with Ford and Leo Beebe, and also, of course, what’s going on in the car with Ken. It’s a three act movie unto itself, so Jim was trying to figure out how it was all going to work, before he had to shoot it. That’s where I came in. The frenetic pace of Le Mans was more a part of the writing process – and part of the writing process was the pre-vis. The trick was how to make sure we weren’t just following cars around a track. That’s where redundancy can tend to beleaguer an audience in racing movies. 

[OP] What was the timeline for production and post?

[MM] I started at the end of May 2018. Production began at the the beginning of August and went all the way through to the end of November. We started post in earnest at the beginning of November of last year, took some time off for the holidays, and then showed the film to the studios around February or March.

The challenge was that there was going to be a lot of racing footage, which meant there was going to be a LOT of footage. I knew I was going to need a strong co-editor, so Andrew was the natural choice. He had been cutting on his own and cutting with me over the years. We share a common approach to editing and have a similar aesthetic. There was a point when things got really intense and we needed another pair of hands, so I brought in Dirk Westervelt to help out for a couple of months. That kept our noses above water, but the process was really enjoyable. We were never in a crisis mode. We got a great response from preview audiences and, of course, that calms everybody down. At that point it was just about quality control and making sure we weren’t resting on our laurels. 

[OP] How long was your initial cut and what was your process for trimming the film down to the present run time?

[MM] We’re at 2:30:00 right now and I think the first cut was 3:10:00 or 3:12:00. The Le Mans section was longer. The front end of the movie had more scenes in it. We ended up lifting some scenes and rearranging others.  Plus, the basic trimming of scenes brought the length down. But nothing was the result of a panic, like, “Oh my God, we’ve got to get to 2:30:00!” There were no demands by the studio or any pressures we placed upon ourselves to hit a particular running time. I like to say that there’s real time and there’s cinematic time. You can watch Once Upon a Time in America, which is 3:45:00, and feel likes it’s an hour. Or you can watch an 89-minute movie and feel like it’s drudgery. We just wanted to make sure we weren’t overstaying our welcome. 

[OP] How extensively did you re-arrange scenes during the edit? Or did the structure of the film stay pretty much as scripted?

[MM] To a great degree it stayed as scripted. We had some scenes in the beginning that we felt were a little bit tangential and weren’t serving the narrative directly and those were cut. The real endeavor of this movie starts the moment that these two guys [Shelby and Miles] decide to tackle the challenge of developing this car. There’s a scene where Miles sees the car for the first time at LAX. We understood that we had to get to that point in a very efficient way, but also set up all the other characters – their motives and their desires.

It’s an interesting movie, because it starts off with a lot of characters. But then it develops into a movie about two guys and their friendship. So it goes from an ensemble piece to being about Ken and Carroll, while at the same time the scope of the movie is opening up and becoming larger as the racing is going on. For us, the trickiest part was the front end – to make sure we spent enough time with each character so that we understood them, but not so much time that audience would go, “Enough already! Get on with it!”

[OP] Were you both racing fans before you signed onto this film?

[AB] I was not.

[MM] When I was a kid, I watched a lot of racing. I liked CART racing – open wheel racing – not so much stock car racing. As I grew older, I lost interest, particularly when CART disbanded and NASCAR took over. So, I had an appreciation for it. I went to races, like the old Ontario 500 here in California.

[OP] Did that help inform your cutting style for this film?

[MM] I don’t think so. Where it helped was knowing the sound of the broadcasters and race announcers. I liked Chris Economaki and Jim McKay – guys who were broadcasting the races when I was a kid. I was intrigued about how they gave us the narrative of the race. It came in handy while we were making this movie, because we were able to get our hands on some of Jim McKay’s actual coverage of Le Mans and used it in the movie. That brings so much authenticity.

[OP] Let’s dive deeper into the sound for this film. I would imagine that sound design was integral to your rough cuts. How did you tackle that?

 [AB] We were fortunate to have the sound team on very early during preproduction. We were cutting in a 5.1 environment, so we wanted to create sound design early in the process. The sounds may have not been the exact engine sounds that would end up in the final, but they were adequate to allow you to experience the scenes as intended and to give the right feel.  Because we needed to get Jim’s response early, some of the races were cut with the production sound – from the live mics during filming. This allowed us and Jim to quickly see how the scenes would flow. Other scenes were cut strictly MOS, because the sound design would have been way too complicated for the initial cut of the scene. Once the scene was cut visually, we’d hand over the scene to Don [Sylvester, sound supervisor] who was able to provide us with a set of 5.1 stems. That was great, because we could recut and repurpose those stems for other races.

[MM] We had developed a strategy with Don to split the sound design into four or five stems to give us enough discrete channels to recut these sequences. The stems were a palette of interior perspectives, exterior perspectives, crowds, car-bys, and so on. By employing this strategy, we didn’t need to continually turn over the cut to sound for patch-up work. Then, as Don went out and recorded the real cars and was developing the actual sounds for what was going to be used in the mix, he’d generate new stems and we would put them into the Avid. This was extremely informative to Jim, because he could experience our Avid temp mix in 5.1 and give notes, which ultimately informed the final sound design and the mix. 

[OP] What about temp music? Did you also weave that into your rough cuts?

[MM] Ted Caplan, our music editor, has also worked with Jim for 15 years. He’s a bit of a renaissance man – a screenwriter, a novelist, a one-time musician, and a sound designer in his own right. When he sits down to work with music, he’s coming at it from a story point-of-view. He has a very instinctual knowledge of where music should start and it happens to dovetail into the aesthetic that Jim, Andrew, and I are working towards. None of us like music to lead scenes in a way that anticipates what the scene is going to be about before you experience it.

Specifically, for this movie, it was challenging to develop what the musical tone of the movie would be. Ted was developing the temp track along with us from a very early stage. We found over time that not one particular musical style was going to work. Which is to say that this is a very complex score. It includes a kind of surf rock sound with Carroll Shelby in LA; an almost jaunty, lounge jazz sound for Detroit and the Ford executives; and then the hard-driving rhythmic sound for the racing.

(The final score was composed by Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders.)

[OP] I presume you were housed in multiple cutting rooms at a central facility. Right?

[MM] We cut at 20th Century Fox, where Jim has a large office space. We cut Logan and Wolverine there before this movie. It has several cutting spaces, I was situated between Andrew and Don. Ted was next to Don and John Berri, our additional editor, and assistants were right around the corner. It makes for a very efficient working environment. 

[OP] Since the team was cutting with Avid Media Composer, did any of its features stand out to you for this film?

[Both] FluidMorph! (laughs)

[MM] FluidMorph, speed-ramping – we often had to manipulate the shot speeds to communicate the speed of the cars. A lot of these cars were kit cars that could drive safely at a certain speed for photography, but not at race speed. So we had to manipulate the speed a lot to get the sense of action that these cars have.

[OP] What about Avid’s Script Integration feature, often referred to as ScriptSync? I know a lot of narrative editors love it.

[MM] I used ScriptSync once a few years ago and I never cut a scene faster. I was so excited. Then I watched it and it was terrible. To me there’s so much more to editing than hitting the next line of dialogue. I’m more interested in the lines between the lines – subtext. I found that with ScriptSync I could put the scene together quickly, but it was flat as a pancake. I do understand the value of it in certain applications. For instance, I think it’s great on straight comedy. It’s helpful to get around and find things when you are shooting tons of coverage for a particular joke. But for me, it’s not something I lean on. I mark up my own dailies and find stuff that way.

[OP] Tell me a bit more about your organizational process. Do you start with a KEM roll or stringouts of selected takes?

[MM] I don’t watch dailies, which sounds weird. By that I mean, I don’t watch them in a traditional sense. I don’t start in the morning, watch the dailies, and then start cutting. And I don’t ask my assistants to organize any of my dailies in bins. I come in and grab the scene that I have in front on me. I’ll look at the last take of every set-up really quickly and then I spend an enormous amount of time – particularly on complex scenes – creating a bin structure that I can work with. Sometimes it’s the beats in a scene, sometimes I organize by shot size, sometimes by character – it depends on what’s driving the scene. That’s the way I learn my footage – by organizing it. I remember shot sizes. I remember what was shot from set-up to set-up. I have a strong visual memory of where things are in a bin. So, if I ask an assistant to do that, then I’m not going to remember it. If I do it myself, then I’ll remember it. If there are a lot of resets or restarts in a take, I’ll have the assistant mark those up. But, I’ll go through and mark up beats or pivotal points in a scene, or particularly beautiful moments. And then I’ll start cutting.

[AB] I’ve adopted a lot of Mike’s methodology, mainly because I assisted Mike on a few films. But it actually works for me, as well. I have a similar aesthetic to Mike. I’ve used ScriptSync before and I tend to agree that it discourages you from seeing – as Mike described – the moments between lines. Those moments are valuable to remember.  

[OP] I presume this film was shot digitally. Right?

[MM] It was primarily shot with [ARRI] Alexa 65 LF cameras, plus some other small format cameras. A lot of it was shot with old anamorphic lenses on the Alexa that allowed them to give it a bit of a vintage feeling. It’s interesting that as you watch it, you see the effect of the old lenses. There’s a fall-off on the edges, which is kind of cool. There were a couple of places where the subject matter was framed into the curve of the lens, which affects the focus. But we stuck with it, because it feels ‘of the time.’

[OP] Since the film takes place in the 1960s and with racing action sequences, I presume there were quite a few visual effects to properly place the film in time. Right?

[MM] There’s a ton of that. The whole movie is a period film. We could temp certain things in the Avid for the rough cuts. John Berri was wrangling visual effects. He’s a master in the Avid, but also Adobe After Effects. He has some clever ways of filling in backgrounds or green screens with temp elements to give the director an idea of what’s going to go there. We try to do as much temp work in the Avid as we are capable of doing, but there’s so much 3D visual effects work in this movie that we weren’t able to do that all of the time.

The caveat, though, is that the racing is real. The cars are real. The visual effects work was for a lot of the backgrounds. The movie was shot almost entirely in Los Angeles with some second unit footage shot in Georgia. The current, modern day Le Mans track isn’t at all representative of what Le Mans was in 1966, so there was no way to shoot Le Mans. Everything had to be doubled and then augmented with visual effects. In addition to Georgia, where they shot most of the actual racing for Le Mans, they went for a week to France to get some shots of the actual town of Le Mans. Of those, I think only about four of those shots are left. (laughs)

[OP] Any final thoughts about how this film turned out? 

[MM] I’m psyched that people seem to like the film. Our concern was that we had a lot of story to tell. Would we wear audiences out? We continually have people tell us, “That was two and a half hours? We had no idea.” That’s humbling for us and it’s a great feeling. It’s a movie about these really great characters with great scope and great racing. That goes back to the very advent of movies. You can put all the big visual effects in a film that you want to, but it’s really about people.

[AB] I would absolutely agree. It’s more of a character movie with racing.  Also, because I am not a ‘racing fan’ per se, the character drama really pulled me into the film while working on it.

[MM] It’s classic Hollywood cinema. I feel proud to be part of a movie that does what Hollywood does best.

The article is also available at postPerspective.

For more, check out this interview with Steve Hullfish.

©2019 Oliver Peters

Terminator: Dark Fate

“I’ll be back,” has turned out to be more than simply an iconic movie line. Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) and the T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) are indeed back to save humanity from a dystopian future in this latest installment of the Terminator franchise. James Cameron is back on board, as well, with writing and producing credits. Terminator: Dark Fate is in essence Cameron’s sequel to Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

Tim Miller (Deadpool) is at the helm to direct the tale. It’s roughly two decades after the time of T2 and a new Rev-9 machine has been sent from an alternate future to kill Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes), an unsuspecting auto plant worker in Mexico. But the new future’s resistance has sent back Grace (Mackenzie Davis), an enhanced super-soldier, to combat the Rev-9 and save her. They cross paths with Connor and the story sets off for a mad dash to the finale at Hoover Dam.

Miller brought back much of his Deadpool team, including his VFX shop Blur, DP Ken Seng, and editor Julian Clarke. This is also the second pairing of Miller and Clarke with Adobe. Both Deadpool and Terminator: Dark Fate were edited using Premiere Pro. In fact, Adobe was also happy to tie in with the film’s promotion through their own CreateYourFate trailer remix challenge. Participants could re-edit their own trailer using supplied content from the film.

I recently spoke with Julian Clarke about the challenges and fun of cutting this latest iteration of such an iconic film franchise.

___________________________________________________________

[OP] The Terminator: Dark Fate picks up two decades after Terminator 2, leaving out the timelines of the subsequent sequels. Was that always the plan or did it evolve out of the process of making the film?

[JC] That had to do with the screenplay. You were written into a corner by the various sequels. We really wanted to bring Linda Hamilton’s character back. With Jim involved, we wanted to get back to first principles and have it based on Cameron’s mythology alone. To get back to the Linda/Arnold character arcs and then add some new stuff to that.

[OP] Many fans were attracted to the franchise by Cameron’s two original Terminator films. Was there a conscious effort at integrating that nostalgia?

[JC] I come from a place of deep fandom for Terminator 2. As a teenager I had VHS copies of Aliens and Terminator 2 and watched them on repeat after school! Those films are deeply embedded in my psyche and both of them have aged well – they still hold up. I watched the sequels and they just didn’t feel like a Terminator film to me. So the goal was definitely to make it of the DNA of those first two movies. There’s going to be a chase. It’s going to be more grounded. It’s going to get back into the Sarah Connor character and have more heart.

[OP] This film tends to have elements of humor unlike most other action films. That must have posed a challenge to set the right tone without getting campy.

[JC] The humor thing is interesting. Terminator 2 has a lot of humor throughout. We have a little bit of humor in the first half and then more once Arnold shows up, but that’s really the way it had to be. The Dani Ramos character – who’s your entry point into the movie – is devastated when her whole family is killed. The idea that you can have a lot of jokes happening would be terrible. It’s not the same in Terminator 2, because John Connor’s step-parents get very little screen time and they don’t seem that nice. You feel bad for them, but it’s OK that you get into this funny stuff right off the bat. On this one we had to ease into the humor so you could live into the gravity of the situation at the start of the movie.

[OP] Did you have to do much to alter that balance during the edit?

[JC] There were one or two jokes that we nipped out, but it wasn’t like that whole first act was chock full of jokes. The tone of the first act is more like Terminator, which is more of a thriller or horror movie. Then it becomes more like T2 as the action gets bigger and the jokes come in. So the first half is like a bigger Terminator and the second half more like T2.

[OP] Deadpool, which Tim Miller also directed, used a very nonlinear story structure, balancing action, comedic moments, and drama. Terminator was always designed with a linear, straight-forward storyline. Right?

[JC] A movie hands you certain editing tools. Deadpool was designed to be nonlinear with characters in different places, so there are a whole bunch of options for you. Terminator: Dark Fate is more like a road movie. The detonation of certain paths along the road are predetermined. You can’t be in Texas before Mexico. So the structural options you had were where to check in with the Rev-9, as well as, the inter-scene structure. Once you are in the detention center, where are you cutting to Sarah or where to cut to Dani? However, where that is placed in the movie is pretty much set. All you can do is pace it up, pace it down, adjust how to get there. There aren’t a lot of mobile pieces that can be swapped around.

[OP] When we had talked after Deadpool, you discussed how you liked the assistants to build string-outs – what some call a KEM roll. Similar action is assembled back-to-back in order from every take into a sequence. Did you use that same organizational method on Terminator: Dark Fate?

[JC] Sometimes we were so swamped with material that there wasn’t time to create string-outs. I still like to have those. It’s a nice way to quickly see all the pieces that cover a moment. If you are trying to find the one take or action that’s five percent better than another, then it’s good to see them all in a row, rather than trying to keep it all in your head for a five minute take. There was a lot of footage that we shot in the action scenes, but we didn’t do 11 or 12 takes for a dialogue scene. I didn’t feel like I needed some tool to quickly navigate through the dialogue takes. We would string-out the ones that were more complicated.

[OP] Depending on the directing style, a series of takes may have increasingly calibrated performances with successive takes. With other directors, each take might be a lot different than the one before and after it. What is your approach to evaluating which is the best take to use?

[JC] It’s interesting when you use the earlier takes versus the later takes and what you get from them. The later takes are usually the ones that are most directed. The actors are warmed up and most closely nail what the director has in mind. So they are strong in that regard. But sometimes they can become more self-conscious. And so sometimes the first take is more thrown away and may have less power, but feels more real – more off the cuff. Sometimes a delivered dialogue line feels less written and you’ll buy it more. Other times you’ll want that more dramatic quality of the later takes. My instinct is to first use the later takes, but as you start to revise a scene, you often go back to pieces of the earlier takes to ground it a little more.

[OP] Hold long did the production and post take?

[JC] It took a little over 100 days of shooting with a lot of units. I work on a lot of mid-budget films, so this seemed like a really long shoot. It was a little relentless for everyone – even squeezing it into those 100 days. Shooting action with a lot of VFX is slow, due to the reset time needed between takes. The ending of the movie is 30 minutes of action in a row. That’s a big job shooting all of that stuff. When they have a couple of units cranking through the dialogue scenes plus shooting action sequences – that’s when I have to really work hard to keep up. Once you hit the roadblocks of shooting just those little action pieces, you get a little time to catch up.

We had the usual director’s cut period and finished by the end of this September. The original plan was to finish by the beginning of September, but we needed the time for VFX. So everything piled up with the DI and the mix in order to still hit the release date. September got a little crazy.  It seems like a long time – a total of 13 or 14 months – but it still was an absolute sprint to get the movie in shape and get the VFX into the film in time. This is maybe normal for some of these film, but compared to the other VFX movies I’ve done, it was definitely turning things up a notch!

[OP] I imagine that there was a fair amount of pre-viz required to layout the action for the large VFX and CG scenes. Did you have that to work with as placeholder shots? How did you handle adjusting the cut as the interim and final shots were delivered?

[JC] Tim is big into pre-viz with his background in VFX and animation and owning his own VFX company. We had very detailed animatics going into production. Depending on a lot of factors, you still abandon a lot of things. For example, the freeway chases are quite a bit different, because when you go there and do it with real cars, they do different things. Or only part of the cars look like they are going fast enough. Those scenes became quite different than the pre-viz.

Others are almost 100% CG, so you can drop in the pre-viz as placeholders. Although, even in those cases, sometimes the finished shot doesn’t feel real enough. In the “cartoon” world of pre-viz you can do wild camera moves and say, “Wow, that seems cool!” But when you start doing it at photoreal quality, then you go, “This seems really fake.” And so we tried to get ahead of that stuff and find what to do with the camera to ground it. Kind of mess it up so it’s not too dynamic and perfect.

[OP] How involved were you with shaping the music? Did you use previous Terminator films scores as a temp track to cut with?

[JC] I was very involved with the music production. I definitely used a lot of temp music. Some of it ripped from old Terminator movies, but there’s only so much Terminator 2 music you can put in. Those scores used a lot of synthesizers that date the sound. I did use “Desert Suite” from Terminator 2 when Sarah is in the hotel room. I loved having a very direct homage to a Sarah Connor moment while she’s talking about John. Then I begged our composer, Tom Holkenborg [Junkie XL], to consider doing a version of it for our movie. So it is essentially the same chord progression.

That was an interesting musical and general question about how much do you lean into the homage thing. It’s powerful when you do it, but if you do it too much, it starts to feel artificial or pandering. And so, I tried to hit the sweet spot so you knew you were watching a Terminator movie, but not so much that it felt like Terminator karaoke. How many times can you go da-dum-dum-da-da-dum? You have to pick your moments for those Terminator motifs. It’s diminishing returns if you do it too much.

Another inspirational moment for me was another part in Terminator 2. There’s a disturbing industrial sound for the T-1000. It sounds more like a foghorn or something in a factory rather than music and it created this unnerving quality to the T-1000 scenes when he’s just scoping things out. So we came up with a modern day electronic equivalent for the Rev-9 character and that was very potent.

[OP] Was James Cameron involved much in the post-production?

[JC] He’s quite busy with his Avatar movies. Some of the time he was in New Zealand, some of the time he was in Los Angeles. Depending on where he was and where we were in the process, we would hit milestones, like screenings or the first cut. We would send him versions and download a bunch of his thoughts.

Editing is very much a part of his wheelhouse. Unlike many other directors, he really thinks about this shot, then that shot, then the next shot. His mind really works that way. Sometimes he would give us pretty specific, dialed-in notes on things. Sometimes it would just be bigger suggestions, like, “Maybe the action cutting pattern could be more like this…” So we’d get his thoughts – and, of course, he’s Jim Cameron and he knows the business and the Terminator franchise – so I listened pretty carefully to that input.

[OP] This is the second film that you’ve cut with Premiere Pro. Deadpool was first and there were challenges using it on such a complex project. What was the experience like this time around?

[JC] Whenever you set out to use a new workflow – – Not to say Premiere is new. It’s been around a long time and has millions of users, but it’s unusual to use it on large VFX movies for specific reasons. On Deadpool, that led to certain challenges and that’s just what happens when you try to do something new. The fact that we had to split the movie into separate projects for each reel, instead of one large project. Even so, the size of our project files made it tough. They were so full of media that they would take five minutes to open. Nevertheless, we made it work and there are lots of benefits to using Adobe over other applications.

In comparison, the interface to Avid [Media Composer] looks like it was designed 20 years ago; but they have multi-user collaboration nailed and I love the trim tool. Yet, some things are old and creaky. Adobe’s not that at all. It’s nice and elegant in terms of the actual editing process. We got through it and sat down with Adobe to point out things that needed work and they worked on them. When we started up Terminator, they had a whole new build for us. Project files now opened in 15 seconds. They are about halfway there in terms of multi-user editing. Now everyone can go into a big shared project and you can move bins back and forth. Although only one user at a time has write access to the master project.

This is not simple software they are writing. Adobe is putting a lot of work into making it a more fitting tool for this type of movie. Even though this film was exponentially larger than Deadpool, from the Adobe side it was a smoother process. Props to them for doing that! The cool part about pioneering this stuff is the amount of work that Adobe is on board to do. They’ll have people work on stuff that is helpful to us, so we get to participate a little in how Adobe’s software gets made.

[OP] With two large Premiere Pro projects under your belt, what sort of new features would you like to see Adobe add to the application to make it even better for feature film editors?

[JC] They’ve built out the software from being a single-user application to being a multi-user software, but the inherent software at the base level is still single-user. Sometimes your render files get unlinked when you go back and forth between multiple users. There’s probably stuff where they have to dig deep into the code to make those minor annoyances go away. Other items I’d like to see – let’s not use third party software to send change lists to the mix stage.

I know Premiere Pro integrates beautifully with After Effects, but for me, After Effects is this precise tool for executing shots. I don’t want a fine tool for compositing – I want to work in broad strokes and then have someone come back and clean it up. I would love to have a tracking tool to composite two shots together for a seamless, split screen of two combined takes – features like that.

The After Effects integration and the color correction are awesome features for a single user to execute the film, but I don’t have the time to be the guy to execute the film at that high level. I just have to keep going. I want to be able to do a fast and dirty version so I know it’s not a terrible idea and then turn to someone else, “OK, make that good.” After Effects is cool, but it’s more for the VFX editor or the single-user who is trying to make a film on their own.

[OP] After all of these action films, are you ready to do a different type of film, like a period drama?

[JC] Funny you should say that. After Deadpool I worked on The Handmaid’s Tale pilot and it was exactly that. I was working on this beautifully acted, elegant project with tons of women characters and almost everything was done in camera. It was a lot of parlor room drama and power dynamics. And that was wonderful to work on after all of this VFX/action stuff. Periodically it’s nice to flex a different creative muscle.

It’s not that I only work on science fiction/VFX projects – which I love – but, in part, people start associating you with a certain genre and then that becomes an easy thing to pursue and get work for. Much like acting, if you want to be known for doing a lot of different things you have to actively pursue it. It’s easy to go with where momentum will take you. If you want to be the editor who can cut any genre, you have to make it a mission to pursue those projects that will keep your resume looking diverse. For a brief moment after Deadpool, I might have been able to pivot to a comedy career (laughs). That was a real hybrid, so it was challenging to thread the needle of the different tones of the film and making it feel like one piece.

[OP] Any final thoughts on the challenges of editing Terminator: Dark Fate?

[JC] The biggest challenge of the film was that in a way the film was an ensemble with the Dani character, the Grace character,  the Sarah character, and Arnold’s character – the T-800. All of these characters are protagonists that all have their individual arcs. Feeling that you were adequately servicing those arcs without grinding the movie to a halt or not touching bases with a character often enough – finding out how to dial that in was the major challenge of the movie, plus the scale of the VFX and finessing all the action scenes. I learned a lot.

The article also available at postPerspective.

And more from Julian Clarke in this interview with Steve Hullfish.

©2019 Oliver Peters

A Conversation with Steve Bayes

As an early adopter of Avid systems at a highly visible facility, I first got to know Steve Bayes through his on-site visits. He was the one taking notes about how a customer used the product and what workflow improvements they’d like to see. Over the years, as an editor and tech writer, we’ve kept in touch through his travels from Avid to Media 100 and on to Apple. It was always good to get together and decompress at the end of a long NAB week.

With a career of using as well as helping to design and shepherd a wide range of post-production products, Steve probably knows more about a diverse field of editing systems than most other company managers at editing systems manufacturers. Naturally many readers will know him as Apple’s Senior Product Manager for Final Cut Pro X, a position he held until last year. But most users have little understanding of what a product manager actually does or how the products they love and use every day get from the drawing board into their hands. So I decided to sit down with Steve over Skype and pull back the curtain just a little on this very complex process.

______________________________________________________

[OP]  Let’s start this off with a deep dive into how a software product gets to the user. What part does a product manager play in developing new features and where does engineering fit into that process?

[SB]  I’m a little unconventional. I like to work closely with the engineers during their design and development, because I have a strong technical and industry background. More traditional product managers are product marketing managers who take a more hands-off, marketing-oriented approach. That’s important, but I never worked liked that.

My rule of thumb is that I will tell the engineers what the problem is, but I won’t tell them how to solve it. In many cases the engineers will come back and say, “You’ve told us that customers need to do this ‘thing.’ What do they really want to achieve? Are you telling us that they need to achieve it exactly like this?” And so you talk that out a bit. Maybe this is exactly what the customers really want to do, because that’s what they’ve always done or the way everyone else does it. Maybe the best way to do it is based on three other things in emerging technology that I don’t know about.

In some cases the engineers come back and say, “Because of these other three things you don’t know about, we have some new ideas about how to do that. What do you think?” If their solution doesn’t work, then you have to be very clear about why and be consistent throughout the discussion, while still staying open to new ways of doing things. If there is a legitimate opportunity to innovate, then that is always worth exploring.

Traveling around the world talking to post-production people for almost 30 years allowed me to act as the central hub for that information and an advocate for the user. I look at it as working closely in partnership with engineering to represent the customer and to represent the company in the bigger picture. For instance, what is interesting for Apple? Maybe those awesome cameras that happen to be attached to a phone. Apple has this great hardware and wonderful tactile devices. How would you solve these issues and incorporate all that? Apple has an advantage with all these products that are already out in the world and they can think about cool ways to combine those with professional editing.

In all the companies I’ve worked for, we work through a list of prioritized customer requests, bug fixes, and things that we saw on the horizon within the timeframe of the release date or shortly thereafter. You never want to be surprised by something coming down the road, so we were always looking farther out than most people. All of this is put together in a product requirements document (PRD), which lays out everything you’d like to achieve for the next release. It lists features and how they all fit together well, plus a little bit about how you would market that. The PRD creates the starting point for development and will be updated based on engineering feedback.

You can’t do anything without getting sign-off by quality assurance (QA). For example, you might want to support all 10,000 of the formats coming out, but QA says, “Excuse me? I don’t think so!” [laughs] So it has to be achievable in that sense – the art of the possible. Some of that has to do with their resources and schedule. Once the engineers “put their pencils down,” then QA starts seriously. Can you hit your dates? You also have to think about the QA of third parties, Apple hardware, or potentially a new operating system (OS). You never, ever want to release a new version of Final Cut and two weeks later a new OS comes out and breaks everything. I find it useful to think about the three points of the development triangle as: the number of features, the time that you have, and the level of stability. You can’t say, “I’m going to make a really unstable release, but it’s going to have more features than you’ve ever seen!” [laughs] That’s probably a bad decision.

Then I start working with the software in alpha. How does it really work? Are there any required changes? For the demo, I go off and shoot something cool that is designed specifically to show the features. In many ways you are shooting things with typical problems that are then solved by whatever is in the new software. And there’s got to be a little something in there for the power users, as well as the new users.

As you get closer to the release, you have to make decisions about whether things are stable enough. If some feature is not going to be ready, then you could delay it to a future release — never ideal, but better than a terrible user experience. Then you have to re-evaluate the messaging. I think FCP X has been remarkably stable for all the releases of the last eight years.

You also have to bring in the third parties, like developers, trainers, or authors, who provide feedback so we can make sure we haven’t broken anything for them. If there was a particularly important feature that required third parties to help out, I would reach out to them individually and give them a little more attention, making sure that their product worked as it should. Then I would potentially use it in my own presentation. I worked closely with SpeedScriber transcription software when Apple introduced subtitling and I talked every day with Atomos while they were shooting the demo in Australia on ProRes RAW. 

[OP]  What’s the typical time frame for a new feature or release – from the germ of an idea until it gets to the user?

[SB]  Industry-wide, companies tend to have a big release and then a series of smaller releases afterwards that come relatively quickly. Smaller releases might be to fix minor, but annoying bugs that weren’t bad enough to stop the larger release. You never ship with “priority one” (P1) bugs, so if there are some P2s or P3s, then you want to get to them in a follow-up. Or maybe there was a new device, codec, camera, or piece of hardware that you couldn’t test in time, because it wasn’t ready. Of course, the OS is changing while you are developing your application, as well. One of my metaphors is that “you are building the plane while you are flying it.” [laughs]

I can’t talk about the future or Apple specifically, but historically, you can see a big release might take most of a year. By the time it’s agreed upon, designed, developed, “pencils down – let’s test it” – the actual development time is not as long as you might think. Remember, you have to back-time for quality assurance. But, there are deeper functions that you can’t develop in that relatively short period of time. Features that go beyond a single release are being worked on in the background and might be out in two or three releases. You don’t want to restrict very important features just to hit a release date, but instead, work on them a bit longer.

Final Cut is an excellent application to demonstrate the capabilities of Apple hardware, ease of use, and third party ecosystem. So you want to tie all these things together as much as you can. And every now and then you get to time things so they hit a big trade show! [laughs]

[OP]  Obviously this is the work of a larger team. Are the romanticized tales of a couple of engineers coming out of the back room with a fully-cooked product more myth than reality?

[SB]  Software development is definitely a team effort. There are certain individuals that stand out, because they are good at what they do and have areas of specialty. They’ll come back and always give you more than you asked for and surprise you with amazing results. But, it’s much more of a coordinated effort – the customer feedback, the design, a team of managers who sign off on all that, and then initial development.

If it doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to, you may call in extra engineers to deal with the issues or to help solve those problems. Maybe you had a feature that turned out more complicated than first thought. It’s load balancing – taking your resources and moving them to where they do the most good for the product. Plus, you are still getting excellent feedback from the QA team. “Hey, this didn’t work the way we expected it to work. Why does it work like that?” It’s very much an effort with those three parts: design, engineering, and QA. There are project managers, as well, who coordinate those teams and manage the physical release of the software. Are people hitting their dates for turning things in? They are the people banging on your door saying, “Where’s the ‘thing with the stuff?'” [laughs]

There are shining stars in each of these areas or groups. They have a world of experience, but can also channel the customer – especially during the testing phase. And once you go to beta, you get feedback from customers. At that point, though, you are late in the process, so it’s meant to fix bugs, not add features. It’s good to get that feature feedback, but it won’t be in the release at that point.

[OP]  Throughout your time at various companies, color correction seems to be dear to you. Avid Symphony, Apple Color when it was in the package, not to mention the color tools in Final Cut Pro X. Now nearly every NLE can do color grading and the advanced tools like DaVinci Resolve are affordable to any user. Yet, there’s still that very high-end market for systems like Filmlight’s Baselight. Where do you see the process of color correction and grading headed?

[SB]  Color has always meant the difference for me between an OK project and a stellar project. Good color grading can turn your straw into gold. I think it’s an incredibly valuable talent to have. It’s an aesthetic sense first, but it’s also the ability to look at an image and say, “I know what will fix that image and it will look great.” It’s a specialized skill that shouldn’t be underrated. But, you just don’t need complex gear anymore to make your project better through color grading.

Will you make it look as good as a feature film or a high-end Netflix series? Now you’re talking about personnel decisions as much as technology. Colorists have the aesthetic and the ability to problem-solve, but are also very fast and consistent. They work well with customers in that realm. There’s always going to be a need for people like that, but the question is what chunk of the market requires that level of skill once the tools get easier to use?

I just think there’s a part of the market that’s growing quickly – potentially much more quickly – that could use the skills of a colorist, but won’t go through a separate grading step. Now you have look-up tables, presets, and plug-ins. And the color grading tools in Final Cut Pro X are pretty powerful for getting awesome results even if you’re not a colorist. The business model is that the more you can do in the app, the easier it is to “sell the cut.” The client has to see it in as close to the finished form as possible. Sometimes a bad color mismatch can make a cut feel rough and color correction can help smooth that out and get the cut signed off. As you get better using the color grading tools in FCP X, you can improve your aesthetic and learn how to be consistent across hundreds of shots. You can even add a Tangent Wave controller if you want to go faster. We find ourselves doing more in less time and the full range of color grading tools in FCP X and the FX Plug plug-ins can play a very strong roll in improving any production. 

[OP]  During your time at Apple, the ProRes codec was also developed. Since Apple was supplying post-production hardware and software and no professional production cameras, what was the point in developing your own codec?

[SB]  At the time there were all of these camera codecs coming out, which were going to be a very bad user experience for editing – even on the fastest Mac Pros at the time. The camera manufacturers were using compression algorithms that were high quality, but highly compressed, because camera cards weren’t that fast or that big. That compression was difficult to decode and play back. It took more processing power than you could get from any PC at that time to get the same number of video streams compared with digitizing from tape. In some cases you couldn’t even play the camera original video files at all, so you needed to transcode before you could start editing. All of the available transcoding codecs weren’t that high in quality or they had similar playback problems.

Apple wanted to make a better user experience, so ProRes was originally designed as an intermediate codec. It worked so well that the camera manufacturers wanted to put it into their cameras, which was fine with Apple, as long as you met the quality standards. Everyone has to submit samples and work with the Apple engineers to get it to the standard that Apple expects. ProRes doesn’t encode into as small file sizes as some of the other camera codecs; but given the choice between file size, quality, and performance, then quality and performance were more important. As camera cards and hard drives get bigger, faster, and cheaper, it’s less of an issue and so it was the right decision.

[OP]  The launch of Final Cut Pro X turned out to be controversial. Was the ProApps team prepared for the industry backlash that happened?

[SB] We knew that it would be disruptive, of course. It was a whole new interface and approach. It integrated a bunch of cutting edge technology that people weren’t familiar with. A complete rewrite of  the codebase was a huge step forward as you can see in the speed and fluidity that is so crucial during the creative process. Metadata driven workflows, background processing, magnetic timeline — in many ways people are still trying to catch up eight years later. And now FCP X is the best selling version of Final Cut Pro ever.

[OP]  When Walter Murch used Final Cut Pro to edit the film, Cold Mountain, it gained a lot of attention. Is there going to be another “Cold Mountain moment” for anyone or is that even important anymore?

[SB]  Post Cold Mountain? [chuckle] You have to be careful — the production you are trying to emulate might have nothing to do with your needs on an everyday basis. It may be aspirational, but by adopting Hollywood techniques, you aren’t doing yourself any favors. Those are designed with budgets, timeframes, and a huge crew that you don’t have. Adopt a workflow that is designed for the kind of work you actually do.

When we came up in the industry, you couldn’t make a good-looking video without going to a post house. Then NLEs came along and you could do a bunch of work in your attic, or on a boat, or in a hotel room. That creative, rough-cut market fractured, but you still had to go to an online edit house. That was a limited world that took capital to build and it was an expense by the hour. Imagine how many videos didn’t get made, because a good post house cost hundreds of dollars an hour.

Now the video market has fractured into all these different outlets – streaming platforms, social media, corporate messaging, fast-turnaround events, and mobile apps. And these guys have a ton of powerful equipment, like drones, gimbals, and Atomos ProRes RAW recorders – and it looks great! But, they’re not going to a post house. They’re going to pick up whatever works for them and at the end of the day impress their clients or customers. Each one is figuring out new ways to take advantage of this new technology.

One of the things Sam Mestman teaches in his mobile filmmaking class is that you can make really high-quality stuff for a fraction of the cost and time, as long as you are going to be flexible enough to work in a non-traditional way. That is the driving force that’s going to create more videos for all of these different outlets. When I started out, the only way you could distribute directly to the consumer was by mailing someone a VHS tape. That’s just long gone, so why are we using the same editing techniques and workflows?

I can’t remember the last time I watched something on broadcast TV. The traditional ways of doing things are a sort of assembly line — every step is very compartmentalized. This doesn’t stand to benefit from new efficiencies and technological advances, because it requires merging traditional roles, eliminating steps, and challenging the way things are charged for. The rules are a little less strict when you are working for these new distribution platforms. You still have to meet the deliverable requirements, of course. But if you do it the way you’ve always done it, then you won’t be able to bring it in on time or on budget in this emerging world. If you want to stay competitive, then you are forced to make these changes — your competition maybe already has. How can you tell when your phone doesn’t ring? And that’s why I would say there are Cold Mountain moments all the time when something gets made in a way that didn’t exist a few years ago. But, it happens across this new, much wider range of markets and doesn’t get so much attention.

[OP]  Final Cut Pro X seems to have gained more professional users internationally than in the US. In your writings, you’ve mentioned that efficiency is the way local producers can compete for viewers and maintain quality within budget. Would you expand upon that?

[SB]  There are a range of reasons why FCP X and new metadata-driven workflows are expanding in Europe faster than the US. One reason is that European crews tend to be smaller and there are fewer steps between the creatives and decision-making execs. The editor has more say in picking their editing system. I see over and over that editors are forced to use systems they don’t like in larger projects and they love to use FCP X on their own projects. When the facilities listen to and trust the editors, then they see the benefits pretty quickly. If you have government funded TV (like in many countries in Europe), then they are always under public pressure to justify the costs. Although they are inherently conservative, they are incentivized to always be looking for new ways to improve and that involves risks. With smaller crews, Europeans can be more flexible as to what being “an editor” really means and don’t have such strict rules that keep them from creating motion graphics – or the photographer from doing the rough cut. This means there is less pressure to operate like an assembly line and the entire production can benefit from efficiencies.

I think there’s a huge amount of money sloshing around in Europe and they have to figure out how to do these local-language productions for the high quality that will compete with the existing broadcasters, major features, and the American and British big-budget shows. So how are you going to do that? If you follow the rules, you lose. You have to look at different methods of production. 

Subscription is a different business model of continuing revenue. How many productions will the subscription model pay for? Netflix is taking out $2 billion in bonds on top of the $1 billion they already did to fund production and develop for the local languages. I’ve been watching the series Criminal on Netflix. It’s a crime drama based on police interrogations, with separate versions done in four different countries. English, French, German, and Spanish. Each one has its own cultural biases in getting to a confession (and that’s why I watched them all!). I’ve never seen anything like it before.

The guys at Metronome in Denmark used this moment as an opportunity to take some big chances with creating new workflows with FCP X and shared storage. They are using 1.5 petabytes of storage, six Synology servers, and 30 shows being edited right now in FCP X. They use the LumaForge Jellyfish for on-location post-production. If someone says it can’t be done, you need to talk to these guys and I’m happy to make the introduction.

I’m working with another company in France that shot a series on the firefighters of Marseilles. They shot most of it with iPhones, but they also used other cameras with longer lenses to get farther away from the fires. They’re looking at a series of these types of productions with a unique mobile look. If you put a bunch of iPhones on gimbals, you’ve got a high-quality, multi-cam shoot, with angles and performances that you could never get any other way. Or a bunch of DSLRs with Atomos devices and the Atomos sync modules for perfect timecode sync. And then how quickly can you turn out a full series? Producers need to generate a huge amount of material in a wide range of languages for a wide range of markets and they need to keep the quality up. They have to use new post-production talent and methods and, to me, that’s exciting.

[OP]  Looking forward, where do you see production and post technology headed?

[SB]  The tools that we’ve developed over the last 30 years have made such a huge difference in our industry that there’s a part of me that wants to go back and be a film student again. [laughs] The ability for people to turn out compelling material that expresses a point of view, that helps raise money for a worthy cause, that helps to explain a difficult subject, that raises consciousness, that creates an emotional engagement – those things are so much easier these days. It’s encouraging to me to see it being used like this.

The quality of the iPhone 11 is stunning. With awesome applications, like Mavis and FiLMiC Pro, these are great filmmaking tools. I’ve been playing around with the DJI Osmo Pocket, too, which I like a lot, because it’s a 4K sensor on a gimbal. So it’s not like putting an iPhone on a gimbal – it’s all-in-one. Although you can connect an iPhone to it for the bigger screen. 

Camera technology is going in the direction of more pixels and bigger sensors, more RAW and HDR, but I’d really like to see the next big change come in audio. It’s the one place where small productions still have problems. They don’t hire the full-time sound guy or they think they can shoot just with the mic attached to the hot shoe of the camera. That may be OK when using only a DSLR, but the minute you want to take that into a higher-end production, you’re going to need to think about it more.

Again, it’s a personnel issue. I can point a camera at a subject and get a pretty good recording, but to get a good sound recording – that’s much harder for me at this point. In that area, Apogee has done a great job with MetaRecorder for iOS. It’s not just generating iXML to automatically name the audio channels when you import into FCP X — you can actually label the FCP X roles in the app. It uses Timecode Systems (now Atomos) for multiple iOS recording devices to sync with rock-solid timecode and you can control those multiple recorders from a single iOS device. I would like to see more people adopt multiple microphones synced together wirelessly and controlled by an iPad.

One of the things I love about being “semi-retired” is if something’s interesting to me, I just dig into it. It’s exciting that you can edit from an iPad Pro, you can back up to a Gnarbox, you can shoot high-quality video with your iPhone or a DJI Osmo Pocket, and that opens the world up to new voices. If you were to graph it – the cost of videos is going down and to the right, the number of videos being created in going up and to the right, and at some point they cross over. That promises a huge increase in the potential work for those who can benefit from these new tools. We are close to that point.

It used to be that if your client went to another post house, you lost that client. It was a zero sum game — I win — you lose. Now there are so many potential needs for video we would never have imagined. Those clients are coming out of the woodwork and saying, “Now I can do a video. I’ll do some of it myself, but at some point I’ll hand it off to you, because you are the expert.” Or they feel they can afford your talent, because the rest of the production is so much more efficient. That’s a growing demand that you might not see until your market hits that crossover point.

This article also appears at FCPco.

©2019 Oliver Peters