Why editors prefer Adobe Premiere Pro CC

Over my career I’ve cut client jobs with well over a dozen different linear and nonlinear editing systems and/or brands. I’ve been involved with Adobe Premiere/Premiere Pro as a user on and off since Premiere 5.5 (yes kids – before, Pro, CS, and CC). But I seriously jumped into regular use at the start of the Creative Cloud era, thanks to many of my clients’ shift away from Final Cut Pro. Some seriously gave FCPX a go, yet could never warm up to it. Others bailed right away. In any case, the market I work in and the nature of my clients dictate a fluency in Premiere Pro. While I routinely bounce between Final Cut Pro X, Media Composer, DaVinci Resolve, and Premiere Pro, the latter is my main axe at the day job.

Before I proceed, let me stop and acknowledge those readers who are now screaming, “But Premiere always crashes!” I certainly don’t want to belittle anyone’s bad experiences with an app; however in my experience, Premiere Pro has been just as stable as the others. All software crashes on occasion and usually at the most inopportune time. Nevertheless, I currently manage about a dozen Mac workstations between home and work, which are exposed to our regular pool of freelance editors. Over the course of the past three to four years, Premiere Pro (as well as the other Creative Cloud applications) has performed solidly for us across a wide range of commercial, corporate, and entertainment projects. Realistically, if our experiences were as bad as many others proclaim, we would certainly have shifted to some other editing software!

Stability questions aside, why do so many professional editors prefer Adobe Premiere Pro given the choices available? The Final Cut Pro X fans will point to Premiere’s similarities with Final Cut Pro 7, thus providing a comfort zone. The less benevolent FCPX fanboys like to think these editors are set in their ways and resistant to change. Yet many Premiere Pro users have gone through several software or system changes in their careers and are no strangers to a learning curve. Some have even worked with Final Cut Pro X, but find Premiere Pro to be a better fit. Whatever the reason, the following is a short list (in no order of importance) of why Premiere Pro becomes such a good option for many editors, given the available alternatives.

Responsive interface – I find the Premiere Pro user interface to be the most responsive application of any of the NLEs. I’m not talking about media handling, but rather the time between clicking on something or commanding a function and having that action occur. For example, in my Final Cut Pro X experience – which is an otherwise fast application – it feels slower for this type of response time. When I click to select a clip in the timeline, it takes a fraction of a second to respond. The same action is nearly instant in Premiere Pro. The reason seems to be that FCPX is constantly writing each action to the Library in a “constant save” mode. I have seen such differences across multiple Macs and hard drive types over the eight years since its introduction with very little improvement. Not a deal-breaker, but meanwhile, Premiere Pro has continued to become more responsive in the same period.

Customizable user interface – Users first exposed to Premiere Pro’s interface may feel it’s very complex. The truth is that you can completely customize the look, style, and complexity of the interface by re-arranging the stacked, tabbed, or floating panels. Make it as minimalistic or complex as you need and save these as workspaces. It’s not just the ability to show/hide panels, but unlike other NLEs, it’s the complete control over their size and location.

Media Browser – Premiere Pro includes a built in Media Browser panel that enables the immediate review and import of clips external to your project. It’s not just a view of folders in a clip name or thumbnail format to be imported. Media Browser offers the same scrubbing capabilities as for clips in a bin. Furthermore, the editor can directly edit clips to the timeline from the Media Browser, which then automatically also imports that clip into the project in a one-step process. You could start with a completely blank project (no imported media clips) and work directly between the Media Browser and the timeline if you wanted to.

Bins – Editors rely on bins for the organization of raw media. It’s the first level of project organization. FCPX went deep down this hole with Events and Keywords. Premiere Pro uses a more traditional approach and features three primary modes – list, thumbnail, and freeform. List and thumbnail are obvious, but what needs to be reiterated is that the thumbnail view enables Adobe’s hover scrubbing. While not as fluid as FCPX’s skimming, it’s a quick way to see what a clip contains. But more importantly, the thumbnails are completely resizable. If you want to see a few very large thumbnails in the bin, simply crank up the slider. The newest is a freeform view – something Avid editors know well. This removes the grid arrangement of the bin view and allows the editor to rearrange the position of clips within the panel for that bin. This is how many editors like to work, because it gives them visual cues about how material is organized, much like a storyboard.

Versatile media and project locations – Since Premiere Pro treats all of your external storage as available media locations (without the need for a structured MediaFiles folder or Library file), this gives the editor a better handle on controlling where media should be located. Of course, this puts the responsibility for proper media management on the user, without the application playing nanny. The big plus is that projects can be organized within a siloed folder structure on your hard drive. One main folder for each job, with subfolders for associated video clips, graphics, audio, and Premiere Pro project files. Once you are done, simply archive the job folder and everything is there. Or… If a completely different organizational structure better fits your needs – no sweat. Premiere Pro makes it just as easy.

Multiple open sequences/timelines – One big feature that brings editors to Premiere Pro instead of Media Composer or Final Cut Pro X is the ability work with multiple, open sequences in the timeline panel and easily edit between them. Thanks to the UI structure of Premiere Pro, editors can also have multiple stacked timeline panels open in their workspace – the so-called “pancake timeline” mode. Open a “KEM roll” (selects sequence) in one panel and your working sequence in another. Then edit between the two timeline panels without ever needing to go back-and-forth between bins and the timeline.

Multiple open projects/collaboration – Premiere Pro’s collaboration capabilities (working with multiple editors on one job) are not as robust as with Avid Media Composer. That being said, Premiere’s structure does enable a level of versatility not possible in the Avid environment – so it’s a trade-off. With Premiere project locking, the first editor to open a project has read/write control, while additional editors to open one of those open projects can access the files in a read-only mode. Clips and sequences can be pulled (copied/imported) from a read-only project into your own active project. The two will then be independent of each other. This is further enhanced by the fact that Premiere offers standard “save as” computer functions. If Editor #1 wants to offload part of the work to Editor #2, simply saving the project as a new file permits Editor #2 to work in their own active version of the project with complete read/write control.

Mixed frame rates and sizes – Premiere Pro projects can freely mix media and timelines with different sizes, aspect ratios and frame rates. It’s not the only NLE to do that, but some applications still start by having the project file based on a specific sequence format. Everything in the project must conform or be modified to those settings. Both solutions are viable, but Premiere’s open approach is more versatile for editors working in the hodgepodge that is today’s media landscape.

Audio mixing – While all NLEs offer decent audio mixing capabilities, Premiere Pro offers more refined mixing functions, including track automation, submaster tracks, proper loudness measurement, and AU, VST, and VST3 plug-in support. FCPX attempts to offer a trackless mixing model using audio roles, but the mixing routine breaks done pretty quickly when you get to a complex scenario, often requiring multiple levels of compound clips (nested sequences). None of that is needed in Premiere Pro. In addition, Creative Cloud subscribers also have access to Adobe Audition, a full-fledged DAW application. Premiere Pro sequences can be sent directly to Audition for more advanced mixing, plus additional Audition-specific tools, like Loudness Match and Music Remix. Adobe markets these as powered by Adobe Sensei (Adobe’s banded artificial intelligence). Loudness Match analyzes an audio clip and intelligently rises the gain of the quieter sections. Traditional loudness controls raise or lower the entire clip by a fixed amount. Music Remix doesn’t actually remix a track. Instead, it automatically edits a track based on a target length. Set a desired duration and Audition will determine the correct music edit points to get close to that target. You can use the default or set it to favor shorter sections, which will result in more edit points.

Interoperability – Most professional editors do not work within a single software ecosystem. You often have to work with After Effects and Photoshop files. Needless to say, Premiere Pro features excellent interoperability with the other Adobe applications, whether or not you use the Dynamic Link function. In addition, there’s the outside world. You may send out to a Pro Tools mixer for a final mix. Or a Resolve colorist for grading. Built-in list/file export formats make this easy without the requirement for third-party applications to facilitate such roundtrips.

Built-in tools that enhance editing – This could be a rather long list, but I’ll limit myself to a few functions. The first one I use a lot is the Replace command. This appears to be the best and easiest to use of all the apps. I can easily replace clips on the timeline from the source clips loaded into the viewer or directly from any clip in a bin. No drag-and-drop required. The second very useful operation is built-in masking and tracking for nearly every video filter and color correction layer. This is right at your fingertips in the Effects Control panel without requiring any extra steps or added plug-ins. Need more? Bounce out to After Effects with its more advanced tools, including the bundled Mocha tracker.

Proxy workflow – Premiere Pro includes a built-in Proxy workflow, which permits low-res edit proxies to be created externally and attached, or created within the application itself. In addition, working with proxies in not an all-or-nothing feature. You can toggle between proxies and high-res master clips, but you can also work with a mixture of proxies and high-res files. In other words, not all of your clips have to be transcoded into proxies to gain the benefit of a proxy workflow. Premiere takes care of tracking the various clip sizes and making sure that the correct size is displayed. It also calculates the size shift between proxy frame sizes and larger high-res frame sizes to keep the toggle between these two seamless.

Relinking – Lastly,  Premiere Pro can work with media on any of the available attached drives; therefore, it’s got to be able to quickly relink these files if you move locations. I tend to work in a siloed folder structure, where everything I need for a project is contained within a job folder and its subfolders. These folders are often moved to other drives (for instance, if I need to travel with a project) or archived to an external drive and later restored. It’s critical that a project easily find and relink to the correct media files. Generally, as long as files stay in the same relative folder paths – in relation to the location of the project files on the drive – then Premiere can easily find all the necessary offline media files once a project is moved from its original location. This is true whether you move to a different drive with a different volume name or whether you move the entire job folder up or down a level within the drive’s folder hierarchy. Media relinking is either automatic or worst case, requires one dialogue box for the editor to point Premiere to the new path for the first file. From there, Premiere Pro will locate all of the other files. I find this process to be the fastest and least onerous relink operation of all the NLEs.

©2019 Oliver Peters

Advertisements

Black Mirror: Bandersnatch

Bandersnatch was initially conceived as an interactive episode within the popular Black Mirror anthology series on Netflix. Instead, Netflix decided to release it as a standalone, spin-off film in December 2018. It’s the story of programmer Stefan Butler (Fionn Whitehead) as he adapts a choose-your-own-adventure novel into a video game. Set in 1984, the viewers get to make decisions for Butler’s actions, which then determine the next branch of the story shown to the viewer. They can go back though Bandersnatch and opt for different decisions, in order to experience other versions of the story.

Bandersnatch was written by show creator Charlie Brooker (Black Mirror, Cunk on Britain, Cunk on Shakespeare), directed by David Slade (American Gods, Hannibal, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse), and edited by Tony Kearns (The Lodgers, Cardboard Gangsters, Moon Dogs). I recently had a chance to interview Kearns about the experience of working on such a unique production.

__________________________________________________

[OP] Please tell me a little about your editing background leading up to cutting Bandersnatch.

[TK] I started out almost 30 years ago editing music videos in London. I did that full-time for about 15 years working for record companies and directors. At the tail end of that a lot of the directors I was working with moved into doing commercials, so I started editing commercials more and more in Dublin and London. In Dublin I started working on long form, feature film projects and cut about 10 projects that were UK or European co-productions with the Irish Film Board.

In 2017 I got a call from Black Mirror to edit the Metalhead episode, which was directed by David Slade. He was someone I had worked with on music videos and commercials 15 years previously, before he had moved to the United States. That was a nice circularity. We were together working again, but on a completely different type of project – drama, on a really cool series, like Black Mirror. It went very well, so David and I were asked to get involved with Bandersnatch, which we jumped at, because it was such an amazing, different kind of project. It was unlike anything either of us – or anyone else, for that matter – has ever done to that level of complexity.

[OP] Other attempts at interactive storytelling – with the exception of the video game genre – have been a hit-or-miss. What were your initial thoughts when you read the script for the first time?

[TK] I really enjoyed the script. It was written like a conventional script, but with software called Twine, so you could click on it and go down different paths. Initially I was overwhelmed at the complexity of the story and the structure. It wasn’t that I was like a deer in the headlights, but it gave me a sense of scale of the project and [writer/show runner] Charlie Brooker’s ambition to take the interactive story to so many layers.

On my own time I broke down the script and created spreadsheets for each of the eight sections in the script and wrote descriptions of every possible permutation, just to give me a sense of what was involved and to get it in my head what was going on. There are so many different narrative paths – it was helpful to have that in my brain. When we started editing, that would also help me to keep a clear eye at any point.

[OP] How long of a schedule did you have to post Bandersnatch?

[TK] 17 weeks was the official edit time, which isn’t much longer than on a low-budget feature. When I mentioned that to people, they felt that was a really short amount of time; but, we did a couple of weekends, we were really efficient, and we knew what we were doing.

[OP] Were you under any running length constraints, in the same way that a TV show or a feature film editor often wrestles with on a conventional linear program?

[TK] Not at all. This is the difference – linear doesn’t exist. The length depends on the choices that are made. The only direction was for it not to be a sprawling 15-hour epic – that there would be some sort of ball park time. We weren’t constrained, just that each segment had to feel right – tight, but not rushed.

[OP] With that in mind, what sort of process did you do through to get it to feel right?

[TK] Part of each edit review was to make it as tight or as lean as it needed to be. Netflix developed their own software, called Branch Manager, which allowed people to review the cut interactively by selecting the choice points. My amazing assistant editor, John Weeks, is also a coder, so he acquired an extra job, which was to take the exports and do the coding in order to have everything work in Branch Manager. He’s a very robust person, but I think we almost broke him (laughs), because there were up to 100 Branch Manager versions by the end. The coding was hanging on by a thread. He was a bit like Scotty in Star Trek, “The engines can’t hold it anymore, Captain!”

By using Branch Manager, people could choose a path and view it and give notes. So I would take the notes, make the changes, and it would be re-exported. Some segments might have five cuts while others would be up to 13 or 14. Some scenes were very straightforward, but others were more difficult to repurpose.

Originally there were more segments in the script, but after the first viewings it was felt that there were too many in there. It was on the borderline of being off-putting for viewers. So we combined a few, but I made sure to keep track of that so it was in the system. There was a lot of reviewing, making notes, updating spreadsheets, and then making sure John had the right version for the next Branch Manager creation. It was quite an involved process.

[OP] How were you able to keep all of this straight? Did you use the common technique of scenes cards on the wall or something different?

[TK] If you looked at flowcharts your head would explode, because it would be like looking at the wiring diagram of an old-fashioned telephone exchange. There wouldn’t have been enough room on the wall. For us, it would just be on paper – notebooks and spreadsheets. It was more in our heads – our own sense of what was happening – that made it less confusing. If you had the whole thing as a picture, you just wouldn’t know where to look.

[OP] In a conventional production an editor always has to be mindful that when something is removed, it may have ramifications to the story later on. In this case, I would imagine that those revisions affected the story in either direction. How were you able to deal with that?

[TK] I have been asked about how did we know that each path would have a sense of a narrative arc. We couldn’t think of it as one, total narrative arc. That’s impossible. You’d have to be a genius to know that it’s all going to work. We felt the performances were great, the story was strong, but it doesn’t have a conventional flow. There are choice points, which act as a propellant into the next part of the film thus creating an unconventional experience to the straight story arc of conventional films or episodes. Although there wasn’t a traditional arc, it still had to feel like a well-told story. And that you would have empathy and a sense of engagement – that it wasn’t a gimmick.

[OP] How did the crew and actors mange to keep the story straight in their minds as scenes were filmed?

[TK] As with any production, the first few days are finding out what you’ve let yourself in for. This was a steep learning curve in that respect. Only three weeks of the seven-week shoot was in the same studio complex where I was working, so I wasn’t present. But there was a sense that they needed to make it easier for the actors and the crew. The script supervisor, Marilyn Kirby, was amazing. She was the oracle for the whole shoot. She kept the whole show on the road, even when it was quite complicated. The actors got into the swing of it quickly, because I had no issues with the rushes. They were fantastic.

[OP] What camera formats were used and what is your preparation process for this footage prior to editing?

[TK] It’s the most variety of camera formats I’ve ever worked on. ARRI Alexa 65 and RED, but also 1980s Ikegami TV cameras, Super 8mm, 35mm, 16mm, and VHS. Plus, all of the print stills were shot on black-and-white film. The data lab handled the huge job to keep this all organized and provide us with the rushes. So, when I got them, they were ready to go. The look was obviously different between the sources, but otherwise it was the same as a regular film. Each morning there was a set of ProRes Proxy rushes ready for us. John synced and organized them and handed them over. And then I started cutting. Considering all the prep the DIT and the data lab had to go through, I think I was in a privileged position!

[OP] What is your method when first starting to edit a scene?

[TK] I watch all of the rushes and can quickly see which take might be the bedrock framing for a scene – which is best for a given line. At that point I don’t just slap things together on a timeline. I try to get a first assembly to be as good as possible, because it just helps anyone who sees it. If you show a director or a show runner a sloppy cut, they’ll get anxious and I don’t want that to happen. I don’t want to give the wrong impression.

When I start a scene, I usually put the wide down end-to-end, so I know I have the whole scene. Then I’ll play it and see what I have in the different framings for each line – and then the next line and the next and so on. Finally, I go back and take out angles where I think I may be repeating a shot too much, extend others, and so on. It’s a built-it-up process in an effort to get to a semi-fine cut as quickly as possible.

[OP] Were you able to work with circle takes and director’s notes on Bandersnatch?

[TK] I did get circle takes, but no director’s notes. David and I have an intuitive understanding, which I hope to fulfill each time – that when I watch the footage he shoots, that I’ll get what he’s looking for in the scene. With circles takes, I have to find out very quickly whether the script supervisor is any good or not. Marilyn is brilliant so whenever she’s doing that, I know that take is the one. David is a very efficient director, so there weren’t a massive number of takes – usually two or three takes for each set-up. Everything was shot with two cameras, so I had plenty of coverage. I understand what David is looking for and he trusts me to get close to that.

[OP] With all of the various formats, what sort of shooting ratio did you encounter? Plus, you had mentioned two-camera scenes. What is your approach to that in your edit application?

[TK] I believe the various story paths totaled about four-and-a-half hours of finished material. There was a 3:1 shooting ratio, times two cameras – so maybe 6:1 or even 9:1. I never really got a final total of what was shot, but it wasn’t as big as you’d expect. 

When I have two-camera coverage I deal with it as two individual cameras. I can just type in the same timecode for the other matching angle. I just get more confused with what’s there when I use multi-cam. I prefer to think of it as that’s the clip from the clip. I hope I’m not displaying an anti-technology thing, but I’m used to it this way from doing music videos. I used to use group clips in Avid and found that I could think about each camera angle more clearly by dealing with them separately.

[OP] I understand that you edited Bandersnatch on Adobe Premiere Pro. Is that your preferred editing software?

[TK] I’ve used Premiere Pro on two feature films, which I cut in Dublin, and a number of shorts and TV commercials. If I am working where I can set up my own cutting room, then I’m working with Premiere. I use both Avid and Adobe, but I find I’m faster on Premiere Pro than on Media Composer. The tools are tuned to help me work faster.

The big thing on this job was that you can have multiple sequences open at the same time in Premiere. That was going to be the crunch thing for me. I didn’t know about Branch Manager when I specified Premiere Pro, so I figured that would be the way we work need to review the segments – simply click on a sequence tab and play it as a rudimentary way to review a story path. The company that supplied the gear wasn’t as familiar with Premiere [as they were with Avid], so there were some issues, but it was definitely the right choice.

[OP] Media Composer’s strength is in multi-editor workflows. How did you handle edit collaboration in Premiere Pro?

[TK] We used Adobe’s shared projects feature, which worked, but wasn’t as efficient as working with Avid in that version of Premiere. It also wasn’t ideal that we were working from Avid Nexis as the shared storage platform. In the last couple of months I’ve been in contact with the people at Adobe and I believe they are sorting out some of the issues we were having in order to make it more efficient. I’m keen for that to happen.

In the UK and London in particular, the big player is Avid and that’s what people know, so anything different, like Premiere Pro, is seen with a degree of suspicion. When someone like me comes in and requests something different, I guess I’m viewed as a bit of a pain in the ass. But, there shouldn’t just be one behemoth. If you had worked on the old Final Cut Pro, then Premiere Pro is a natural fit – only more advanced and supported by a company that didn’t want to make smart phones and tablets.

[OP] Since Adobe Creative Cloud offers a suite of compatible software tools, did you tap into After Effects or other tools for your edit?

[TK] That was another real advantage – the interaction with the graphics user interface and with After Effects. When we mocked up the first choice points, it was so easy to create, import, and adjust. That was a huge advantage. Our VFX editor was able to build temp VFX in After Effects and we could integrate that really easily. He wasn’t just using an edit system’s effects tool, but actual VFX software, which seamlessly integrated with Premiere. Although these weren’t final effects at full 4K resolution, he was able to do some very complex things, so that everyone could go, “Yes, that’s it.”

[OP] In closing, what take-away would you offer an editor interested in tackling an interactive story as compared to a conventional linear film?

[TK] I learned to love spreadsheets (laugh). I realized I had to be really, really organized. When I saw the script I knew I had to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and get a sense of it. I also realized you had to unlearn some things you knew about conventional episodic TV. You can’t think of some things in the same way. A practical thing for the team is that you have to have someone who knows coding, if you are using a similar tool to Branch Manager. It’s the only way you will be able to see it properly.

It’s a different kind of storytelling pressure that you have to deal with, mostly because you have to trust your instincts even more that it will work as a coherent story across all the narrative paths. You also have to be prepared to unlearn some of the normal methods you might use. One example is that you have to cut the opening of different segments differently to work with the last shot of the previous choice point, so you can’t just go for one option, you have to think more carefully what the options are. The thing is not to walk in thinking it’s going to be the same as any other production, because it ain’t.

For more on Bandersnatch, check out these links: postPerspective, an Art of the Guillotine interview with Tony Kearns, and a scene analysis at This Guy Edits.

Images courtesy of Netflix and Tony Kearns.

©2019 Oliver Peters

NAB Show 2019

This year the NAB Show seemed to emphasize its roots – the “B” in National Association of Broadcasters. Gone or barely visible were the fads of past years, such as stereoscopic 3D, 360-degree video, virtual/augmented reality, drones, etc. Not that these are gone – merely that they have refocused on the smaller segment of marketshare that reflects reality. There’s not much point in promoting stereo 3D at NAB if most of the industry goes ‘meh’.

Big exhibitors of the past, like Quantel, RED, Apple, and Autodesk, are gone from the floor. Quantel products remain as part of Grass Valley (now owned by Belden), which is the consolidation of Grass Valley Group, Quantel, Snell & Wilcox, and Philips. RED decided last year that small, camera-centric shows were better venues. Apple – well, they haven’t been on the main floor for years, but even this year, there was no off-site, Final Cut Pro X stealth presence in a hotel suite somewhere. Autodesk, which shifted to a subscription model a couple of years ago, had a demo suite in the nearby Renaissance Hotel, focusing on its hero product, Flame 2020. Smoke for Mac users – tough luck. It’s been over for years.

This was a nuts-and-bolts year, with many exhibits showing new infrastructure products. These appeal to larger customers, such as broadcasters and network facilities. Specifically the world is shifting to an IP-based infrastructure for signal routing, control, and transmission. This replaces copper and fiber wiring of the past, along with the devices (routers, video switchers, etc) at either end of the wire. Companies that might have appeared less relevant, like Grass Valley, are back in a strong sales position. Other companies, like Blackmagic Design, are being encouraged by their larger clients to fulfill those needs. And as ever, consolidation continues – this year VizRT acquired NewTek, who has been an early player in video-over-IP with their proprietary NDI protocol.

Adobe

The NAB season unofficially started with Adobe’s pre-NAB release of the CC2019 update. For editors and designers, the hallmarks of this update include a new, freeform bin window view and adjustable guides in Premiere Pro and content-aware, video fill in After Effects. These are solid additions in response to customer requests, which is something Adobe has focused on. A smaller, but no less important feature is Adobe’s ongoing effort to improve media performance on the Mac platform.

As in past years, their NAB booth was an opportunity to present these new features in-depth, as well as showcase speakers who use Adobe products for editing, sound, and design. Part of the editing team from the series Atlanta was on hand to discuss the team’s use of Premiere Pro and After Effects in their ‘editing crash pad’.

Avid

For many attendees, NAB actually kicked off on the weekend with Avid Connect, a gathering of Avid users (through the Avid Customer Association), featuring meet-and-greets, workshops, presentations, and ACA leadership committee meetings. While past product announcements at Connect have been subdued from the vantage of Media Composer editors, this year was a major surprise. Avid revealed its Media Composer 2019.5 update (scheduled for release the end of May). This came as part of a host of many updates. Most of these apply to companies that have invested in the full Avid ecosystem, including Nexis storage and Media Central asset management. While those are superb, they only apply to a small percentage of the market. Let’s not forget Avid’s huge presence in the audio world, thanks to the dominance of Pro Tools – now with Dolby ATMOS support. With the acquisition of Euphonix years back, Avid has become a significant player in the live and studio sound arena. Various examples of its S-series consoles in action were presented.

Since I focus on editing, let me discuss Media Composer a bit more. The 2019.5 refresh is the first major Media Composer overhaul in years. It started in secret last year. 2019.5 is the first iteration of the new UI, with more to be updated in coming releases. In short, the interface has been modernized and streamlined in ways to attract newer, younger users, without alienating established editors. Its panel design is similar to Adobe’s approach – i.e. interface panels can be docked, floated, stacked, or tabbed. Panels that you don’t want to see may be closed or simply slid to the side and hidden. Need to see a hidden panel again? Simply side it back open from the edge of the screen.

This isn’t just a new skin. Avid has overhauled the internal video pipeline, with 32-bit floating color and an uncompressed DNx codec. Project formats now support up to 16K. Avid is also compliant with the specs of the Netflix Post Alliance and the ACES logo program.

I found the new version very easy to use and a welcomed changed; however, it will require some adaptation if you’ve been using Media Composer for a long time. In a nod to the Media Composer heritage, the weightlifter (aka ‘liftman’) and scissors icons (for lift and extract edits) are back. Even though Media Composer 2019.5 is just in early beta testing, Avid felt good enough about it to use this version in its workshops, presentations, and stage demos.

One of the reasons to go to NAB is for the in-person presentations by top editors about their real-world experiences. No one can top Avid at this game, who can easily tap a host of Oscar, Emmy, BFTA, and Eddie award winners. The hallmark for many this year was the presentation at Avid Connect and/or at the show by the Oscar-winning picture and sound editing/mixing team for Bohemian Rhapsody. It’s hard not to gather a standing-room-only crowd when you close your talk with the Live Aid finale sequence played in kick-ass surround!

Blackmagic Design

Attendees and worldwide observers have come to expect a surprise NAB product announcement out of Grant Petty each year and he certainly didn’t disappoint this time. Before I get into that, there were quite a few products released, including for IP infrastructures, 8K production and post, and more. Blackmagic is a full spectrum video and audio manufacturer that long ago moved into the ‘big leagues’. This means that just like Avid or Grass Valley, they have to respond to pressure from large users to develop products designed around their specific workflow needs. In the BMD booth, many of those development fruits were on display, like the new Hyperdeck Extreme 8K HDR recorder and the ATEM Constellation 8K switcher.

The big reveal for editors was DaVinci Resolve 16. Blackmagic has steadily been moving into the editorial space with this all-in-one, edit/color/mix/effects/finishing application. If you have no business requirement for – or emotional attachment to – one of the other NLE brands, then Resolve (free) or Resolve Studio (paid) is an absolute no-brainer. Nothing can touch the combined power of Resolve’s feature set.

New for Resolve 16 is an additional editorial module called the Cut Page. At first blush, the design, layout, and operation are amazingly similar to Apple’s Final Cut Pro X. Blackmagic’s intent is to make a fast editor where you can start and end your project for a time-sensitive turnaround without the complexities of the Edit Page. However, it’s just another tool, so you could work entirely in the Cut Page, or start in the Cut Page and refine your timeline in the Edit Page, or skip the Cut Page all together. Resolve offers a buffet of post tools that are at your disposal.

While Resolve 16’s Cut Page does elicit a chuckle from experienced FCPX users, it offers some new twists. For example, there’s a two-level timeline view – the top section is the full-length timeline and the bottom section is the zoomed-in detail view. The intent is quick navigation without the need to constantly zoom in and out of long timelines. There’s also an automatic sync detection function. Let’s say you are cutting a two-camera show. Drop the A-camera clips onto the timeline and then go through your B-camera footage. Find a cut-away shot, mark in/out on the source, and edit. It will ‘automagically’ edit to the in-sync location on the timeline. I presume this is matched by either common sound or timecode. I’ll have to see how this works in practice, but it demos nicely. Changes to other aspects of Resolve were minor and evolutionary, except for one other notable feature. The Color Page added its own version of content-aware, video fill.

Another editorial product addition – tied to the theme of faster, more-efficient editing – was a new edit keyboard. Anyone who’s ever cut in the linear days – especially those who ran Sony BVE9000/9100 controllers – will feel very nostalgic. It’s a robust keyboard with a high-quality, integrated jog/shuttle knob. The feel is very much like controlling a tape deck in a linear system, with fast shuttle response and precise jogging. The precision is far better than any of the USB controllers, like a Contour Shuttle. Whether or not enough people will have interest in shelling out $1,025 for it awaits to be seen. It’s a great tool, but are you really faster with one, than with FCPX’s skimming and a standard keyboard and mouse?

Ironically, if you look around the Blackmagic Design booth there does seem to be a nostalgic homage to Sony hardware of the past. As I said, the edit keyboard is very close to a BVE9100 keyboard. Even the style of the control panel on the Hyperdecks – and the look of the name badges on those panels – is very much Sony’s style. As humans, this appeals to our desire for something other than the glass interfaces we’ve been dealing with for the past few years. Michael Cioni (Panavision, Light Iron) coined this as ‘tactile attraction’ in his excellent Faster Together Stage talk. It manifests itself not only in these type of control surfaces, but also in skeuomorphic designs applied to audio filter interfaces. Or in the emotion created in the viewer when a colorist adds film grain to digital footage.

Maybe Grant is right and these methods are really faster in a pressure-filled production environment. Or maybe this is simply an effort to appeal to emotion and nostalgia by Blackmagic’s designers. (Check out Grant Petty’s two-hour 2019 Product Overview for more in-depth information on Blackmagic Design’s new products.)

8K

I won’t spill a lot of words on 8K. Seems kind of silly when most delivery is HD and even SD in some places. A lot of today’s production is in 4K, but really only for future-proofing. But the industry has to sell newer and flashier items, so they’ve moved on to 8K pixel resolution (7680 x 4320). Much of this is driven by Japanese broadcast and manufacturer efforts, who are pushing into 8K. You can laugh or roll your eyes, but NAB had many examples of 8K production tools (cameras and recorders) and display systems. Of course, it’s NAB, making it hard to tell how many of these are only prototypes and not yet ready for actual production and delivery.

For now, it’s still a 4K game, with plenty of mainstream product. Not only cameras and NLEs, but items like AJA’s KiPro family. The KiPro Ultra Plus records up to four channels of HD or one channel of 4K in ProRes or DNx. The newest member of the family is the KiPro GO, which records up to four channels of HD (25Mbps H.264) onto removable USB media.

Of course, the industry never stops, so while we are working with HD and 4K, and looking at 8K, the developers are planning ahead for 16K. As I mentioned, Avid already has project presets built-in for 16K projects. Yikes!

HDR

HDR – or high dynamic range – is about where it was last year. There are basically four formats vying to become the final standard used in all production, post, and display systems. While there are several frontrunners and edicts from distributors to deliver HDR-compatible masters, there still is no clear path. In you shoot in log or camera raw with nearly any professional camera produced within the past decade, you have originated footage that is HDR-compatible. But none of the low-cost post solutions make this easy. Without the right monitoring environment, you are wasting your time. If anything, those waters are muddier this year. There were a number of HDR displays throughout the show, but there were also a few labelled as using HDR simulation. I saw a couple of those at TV Logic. Yes, they looked gorgeous and yes, they were receiving an HDR signal. I found out that the ‘simulation’ part of the description meant that the display was bright (up to 350 nits), but not bright enough to qualify as ‘true’ HDR (1,000 nits or higher).

As in past transitions, we are certainly going to have to rely on a some ‘glue’ products. For me, that’s AJA again. Through their relationship with Colorfront, AJA offers two FS-HDR products: the HDR Image Analyzer and the FS-HDR convertor. The latter was introduced last year as a real-time frame synchronizer and color convertor to go between SDR and HDR display standards.  The new Analyzer is designed to evaluate color space and gamut compliance. Just remember, no computer display can properly show you HDR, so if you need to post and delivery HDR, proper monitoring and analysis tools are essential.

Cameras

I’m not a cinematographer, but I do keep up with cameras. Nearly all of this year’s camera developments were evolutionary: new LF (large format sensor) cameras (ARRI), 4K camcorders (Sharp, JVC), a full-frame mirrorless DSLR from Nikon (with ProRes RAW recording coming in a future firmware update). Most of the developments were targeted towards live broadcast production, like sports and megachurches.  Ikegami had an 8K camera to show, but their real focus was on 4K and IP camera control.

RED, a big player in the cinema space, was only there in a smaller demo room, so you couldn’t easily compare their 8K imagery against others on the floor, but let’s not forget Sony and Panasonic. While ARRI has been a favorite, due to the ‘look’ of the Alexa, Sony (Venice) and Panasonic (Varicam and now EVA-1) are also well-respected digital cinema tools that create outstanding images. For example, Sony’s booth featured an amazing, theater-sized, LED 8K micro-pixel display system. Some of the sample material shown was of the Rio Carnival, shot with anamorphic lenses on a 6K full-frame Sony Venice camera. Simply stunning.

Finally, let’s not forget Canon’s line-up of cinema cameras, from the C100 to the C700FF. To complement these, Canon introduced their new line of Sumire Prime lenses at the show. The C300 has been a staple of documentary films, including the Oscar-winning film, Free Solo, which I had the pleasure of watching on the flight to Las Vegas. Sweaty palms the whole way. It must have looked awesome in IMAX!

(For more on RED, cameras, and lenses at NAB, check out this thread from DP Phil Holland.)

It’s a wrap

In short, NAB 2019 had plenty for everyone. This also included smaller markets, like products for education seminars. One of these that I ran across was Cinamaker. They were demonstrating a complete multi-camera set-up using four iPhones and an iPad. The iPhones are the cameras (additional iPhones can be used as isolated sound recorders) and the iPad is the ‘switcher/control room’. The set-up can be wired or wireless, but camera control, video switching, and recording is done at the iPad. This can generate the final product, or be transferred to a Mac (with the line cut and camera iso media, plus edit list) for re-editing/refinement in Final Cut Pro X. Not too shabby, given the market that Cinamaker is striving to address.

For those of us who like to use the NAB Show exhibit floor as a miniature yardstick for the industry, one of the trends to watch is what type of gear is used in the booths and press areas. Specifically, one NLE over another, or one hardware platform versus the other. On that front, I saw plenty of Premiere Pro, along with some Final Cut Pro X. Hardware-wise, it looked like Apple versus HP. Granted, PC vendors, like HP, often supply gear to use in the booths as a form of sponsorship, so take this with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I would guess that I saw more iMac Pros than any other single computer. For PCs, it was a mix of HP Z4, Z6, and Z8 workstations. HP and AMD were partner-sponsors of Avid Connect and they demoed very compelling set-ups with these Z-series units configured with AMD Radeon cards. These are very powerful workstations for editing, grading, mixing, and graphics.

©2019 Oliver Peters

Are you ready for a custom PC?

Why would an editor, colorist, or animator purchase a workstation from a custom PC builder, instead of one of the brand name manufacturers? Puget Systems, a PC supplier in Washington state, loaned me a workstation to delve into this question. They pride themselves on assembling systems tailor-made for creative users. Not all component choices are equal, so Puget tests the same creative applications we use every day in order to optimize their systems. For instance, Premiere Pro benefits from more CPU cores, whereas with After Effects, faster core speeds are more important than the core count.

Puget Systems also offers a unique warranty. It’s one year on parts, but lifetime free labor. This means free tech and repair support for as long as you own the unit. Even better, it also includes free labor to install hardware upgrades at their facility at any point in the future – you only pay for parts and shipping.

Built for editing

The experience starts with a consultation, followed by progress reports, test results, and photos of your system during and after assembly. These include thermal scans showing your system under load. Puget’s phone advisers can recommend a system designed specifically for your needs, whether that’s CAD, gaming, After Effects, or editing. My target was Premiere Pro and Resolve with a bit of After Effects. I needed it to be capable of dealing with 4K media using native codecs (no transcodes or proxies). 

Puget’s configuration included an eight-core Intel i9 3.6GHz CPU, 64GB RAM, and an MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Venus GPU (11GB). We put in two Samsung SSDs (a Samsung 860 Pro for OS/applications, plus a faster Samsung 970 Pro M.2 NVMe for cache) and a Western Digital Ultrastar 6TB SATA3 spinning drive for media. This PC has tons of connectivity with ports for video displays, Thunderbolt 3, USB-C, and USB 3. The rest was typical for any PC: sound card, ethernet, wifi, DVD-RW, etc. This unit without a display costs slightly over $5K USD, including shipping and a Windows 10 license. That price is in line with (or cheaper than) any other robust, high-performance workstation.

The three drives in this system deliver different speeds and are intended for different purposes. The fastest of these is the “D” drive, which is a blazingly fast NVMe drive that is mounted directly onto the motherboard. This one is intended for use with material requiring frequent and fast read/write cycles. So it’s ideal for Adobe’s cache files and previews. While you wouldn’t store the media for a large Premiere Pro project on it, it would be well-suited for complex After Effects jobs, which typically only deal with a smaller amount of media. While the 6TB HGST “E” drive dealt well with the 4K media for my test projects, in actual practice you would likely add more drives and build up an internal RAID, or connect to a fast external array or NAS.

If we follow Steve Jobs’ analogy that PCs are like trucks, then this is the Ford F-350 of workstations. The unit is a tad bigger and heavier than an older Mac Pro tower. It’s built into an all-metal Fractal Design case with sound dampening and efficient cooling, resulting in the quietest workstation I’ve ever used – even the few times when the fans revved up. There’s plenty of internal space for future expansion, such as additional hard drives, GPUs, i/o card, etc.

For anyone fretting about a shift from macOS to Windows, setting up this system couldn’t have been simpler. Puget installs a professional build of Windows 10 without all of the junk software most PC makers put there. After connecting my devices, I was up and running in less than an hour, including software installation for Adobe CC, Resolve, Chrome, MacDrive, etc. That’s a very ‘Apple-like’ experience and something you can’t touch if you built your own PC.

The proof is in the pudding

Professional users want hardware and software to fade away so they can fluidly concentrate on the creative process. I was working with 4K media and mixed codecs in Premiere Pro, After Effects, and Resolve. The Puget PC more than lived up to its reputation. It was quiet, media handling was smooth, and Premiere and Resolve timelines could play without hiccups. In short, you can stay in the zone without the system creating distractions.

I don’t work as often with RED camera raw files; however, I did load up original footage from an indie film onto the fastest SSD. This was 4K REDCODE media in a 4K timeline in Premiere Pro. Adobe gives you access to the raw settings, in addition to Premiere’s Lumetri color correction controls. The playback was smooth as silk at full timeline resolution. Even adding Lumetri creative LUTs, dissolves, and slow motion with optical flow processing did not impede real-time playback at full resolution. No dropped frames! Nvidia and RED Digital Camera have been working closely together lately, so if your future includes work with 6K/8K RED media, then a system like this requires serious consideration.

The second concern is rendering and exporting. The RTX 2080 Ti is an Nvidia card that offers CUDA processing, a proprietary Nvidia technology.  So, how fast is the system? There are many variables, of course, such as scaling, filters, color correction, and codecs. When I tested the export of a single 4K Alexa clip from a 1080p Premiere Pro timeline, the export times were nearly the same between this PC and an eight-core 2013 Mac Pro. But you can’t tell much from such a simple test.

To push Premiere Pro, I used a nine minute 1080p travelogue episode containing mostly 4K camera files. I compared export times for ProRes (new on Windows with Adobe CC apps) and Avid DNx between this PC and the Mac Pro (through Adobe Media Encoder). ProRes exports were faster than DNxHD and the PC exports were faster than on the Mac, although comparative times tended to be within a minute of each other. The picture was different when comparing H.264 exports using the Vimeo Full HD preset. In that test, the PC export was approximately 75% faster.

The biggest performance improvements were demonstrated in After Effects and Resolve. I used Puget Systems’ After Effects Benchmark, which includes a series of compositions that test effects, tracking, keys, caustics, 3D text, and more (based on Video Copilot’s tutorials). The Puget PC trounced the Mac Pro in this test. The PC scored a total of 969.5 points versus the Mac’s 535 out of a possible maximum score of 1,000. Resolve was even more dramatic with the graded nine-minute-long sequence sent from Premiere Pro. Export times bested the Mac Pro by more than 2.5x for DNxHD and 6x for H.264.

Aside from these benchmark tests, I also created a “witches brew” After Effects composition of my own. This one contains ten layers of 4K media in a one-minute-long 6K composition. The background layer was blown up and defocused, while all other layers were scaled down and enhanced with a lot of color and Cycore stylized effects. A 3D camera was added to create a group move for the layers. In addition, I was working from the slower drives and not the fast SSDs on either machine. Needless to say this one totally bogs any system down. The Mac Pro rendered a 1080 ProRes file in about 54 minutes, whereas the PC took 42 minutes. Not the same 2-to-1 advantage as in the benchmarks; however, that’s likely due to the fact that I heavily weighted the composition with the Cycore effects. These are not particularly efficient and probably introduce some bottlenecks in After Effects’ processing. Nevertheless, the Puget Systems PC still maintained a decided advantage.

Conclusion

Mac vs. PC comparisons are inevitable when discussing creative workstations. Ultimately it gets down to preference – the OS, the ecosystem, and hardware options. But if you want the ultimate selection of performance hardware and to preserve future expandability, then a custom-built PC is currently the best solution. For straight-forward editing, both platforms will generally serve you well, but there are times when a top-of-the-line PC simply leaves any Mac in the dust. If you need to push performance in After Effects or Resolve, then Windows-based solutions offer the edge today. Custom systems, like those from Puget Systems, are designed with our needs in mind. That’s something you don’t necessarily get from a mainline PC maker. This workstation is a future-proof, no-compromise system that makes the switch from Mac to PC an easy and graceful transition – and with power to space.

Originally written for RedShark News.

©2019 Oliver Peters

The State of the NLE 2019

It’s a new year, but the doesn’t mean that the editing software landscape will change drastically in the coming months. For all intents and purpose, professional editing options boil down to four choices: Avid Media Composer, Adobe Premiere Pro, Apple Final Cut Pro X, and Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve. Yes, I know Vegas, Lightworks, Edius, and others are still out there, but those are far off on the radar by comparison (no offense meant to any happy practitioners of these tools). Naturally, since blogs are mainly about opinions, everything I say from here on is purely conjecture. Although it’s informed by my own experiences with these tools and my knowing many of the players involved on the respective product design and management teams – past and present.

Avid continues to be the go-to NLE in the feature film and episodic television world. That’s certainly a niche, but it’s a niche that determines the tools developed by designers for the broader scope of video editing. Apple officially noted two million users for Final Cut Pro X last year and I’m sure it’s likely to be at least 2.5M by now. Adobe claims Premiere Pro to be the most widely used NLE by a large margin. I have no reason to doubt that statement, but I have also never seen any actual stats. I’m sure through the Creative Cloud subscription mechanism Adobe not only knows how many Premiere Pro installations have been downloaded, but probably has a good idea as to actual usage (as opposed to simply downloading the software). Bringing up the rear in this quartet is Resolve. While certainly a dominant color correction application, I don’t yet see it as a key player in the creative editing (as opposed to finishing) space. With the stage set, let’s take a closer look.

Avid Media Composer

Editors who have moved away from Media Composer or who have never used it, like to throw shade on Avid and its marquee product. But loyal users – who include some of the biggest names in film editing – stick by it due in part to familiarity, but also its collaborative features and overall stability. As a result, the development pace and rate of change is somewhat slow compared with the other three. In spite of that, Avid is currently on a schedule of a solid, incremental update nearly every month – each of which chips away at a long feature request list. The most recent one dropped on December 31st. Making significant changes without destroying the things that people love is a difficult task. Development pace is also hindered by the fact that each one of these developers is also chasing changes in the operating system, particularly Apple and macOS. Sometimes you get the feeling that it’s two steps forward, one step back.

As editors, we focus on Media Composer, but Avid is a much bigger company than just that, with its fingers in sound, broadcast, storage, cloud, and media management. If you are a Pro Tools user, you are just as concerned about Avid’s commitment to you, as editors are to them. Like any large company, Avid must advance not just a single core product, but its ecosystem of products. Yet it still must advance the features in these products, because that’s what gets users’ attention. In an effort to improve its attraction to new users, Avid has introduced subscription plans and free versions to make it easier to get started. They now cover editing and sound needs with a lower cost-of-entry than ever before.

I started nonlinear editing with Avid and it will always hold a spot in my heart. Truth be told, I use it much less these days. However, I still maintain current versions for the occasional project need plus compatibility with incoming projects. I often find that Media Composer is the single best NLE for certain tasks, mainly because of Avid’s legacy with broadcast. This includes issues like proper treatment of interlaced media and closed captioning. So for many reasons, I don’t see Avid going away any time soon, but whether or not they can grow their base remains an unknown. Fortunately many film and media schools emphasize Avid when they teach editing. If you know Media Composer, it’s an easy jump to any other editing tool.

Adobe Premiere Pro CC

The most widely used NLE? At least from what I can see around me, it’s the most used NLE in my market, including individual editors, corporate media departments, and broadcasters. Its attraction comes from a) the versatility in editing with a wide range of native media formats, and b) the similarity to – and viable replacement for – Final Cut Pro “legacy”. It picked up steam partly as a reaction to the Final Cut Pro X roll-out and users have generally been happy with that choice. While the shift by Adobe to a pure subscription model has been a roadblock for some (who stopped at CS6), it’s also been an advantage for others. I handle the software updates at a production company with nine edit systems and between the Adobe Creative Cloud and Apple Mac App Store applications, upgrades have never been easier.

A big criticism of Adobe has been Premiere’s stability. Of course, that’s based on forum reads, where people who have had problems will pipe up. Rarely does anyone ever post how uneventful their experience has been. I personally don’t find Premiere Pro to be any less stable than any other NLE or application. Nonetheless, working with a mix of oddball native media will certainly tax your system. Avid and Apple get around this by pushing optimized and proxy media. As such, editors reap the benefits of stability. And the same is true with Premiere. Working with consistent, optimized media formats (transcoded in advance) – or working with Adobe’s own proxies – results in a more stable project and a better editing experience.

Avid Media Composer is the dominant editing tool in major markets, but mainly in the long-form entertainment media space. Many of the top trailer and commercial edit shops in those same markets use Premiere Pro. Again, that goes back to the FCP7-to-Premiere Pro shift. Many of these companies had been using the old Final Cut rather than Media Composer. Since some of these top editors also cut features and documentaries, you’ll often see them use Premiere on the features that they cut, too. Once you get below the top tier of studio films and larger broadcast network TV shows, Premiere Pro has a much wider representation. That certainly is good news for Adobe and something for Avid to worry about.

Another criticism is that of Adobe’s development pace. Some users believed that moving to a subscription model would speed the development pace of new versions – independent of annual or semi-annual cycles. Yet cycles still persist – much to the disappointment of those users. This gets down to how software is actually developed, keeping up with OS changes, and to some degree, marketing cycles. For example, if there’s a big Photoshop update, then it’s possible that the marketing “wow” value of a large Premiere Pro update might be overshadowed and needs to wait. Not ideal, but that’s the way it is.

Just because it’s possible, doesn’t mean that users really want to constantly deal with automatic software updates that they have to keep track of. This is especially true with After Effects and Premiere Pro, where old project files often have to be updated once you update the application. And those updates are not backwards compatible. Personally, I’m happy to restrict that need to a couple of times a year.

Users have the fear that a manufacturer is going to end-of-life their favorite application at some point. For video users, this was made all too apparent by Apple and FCPX. Neither Apple nor Adobe has been exempt from killing off products that no longer fit their plans. Markets and user demands shift. Photography is an obvious example here. In recent years, smart phones have become the dominant photographic device, which has enabled cloud-syncing and storage of photos. Adobe and Apple have both shifted the focus for their photo products accordingly. If you follow any of the photo blogs, you’ll know there’s some concern that Adobe Lightroom Classic (the desktop version) will eventually give way completely to Lightroom CC (the cloud version). When a company names something as “classic”, you have to wonder how long it will be supported.

If we apply that logic to Premiere Pro, then the new Adobe Rush comes to mind. Rush is a simpler, nimbler, cross-platform/cross-device NLE targeted as users who produce video starting with their smart phone or tablet. Since there’s also a desktop version, one could certainly surmise that in the future Rush might replace Premiere Pro in the same way that FCPX replaced FCP7. Personally, I don’t think that will happen any time soon. Adobe treats certain software as core products. Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects are such products. Premiere Pro may or may not be viewed that way internally, but certainly more so now than ever in the past. Premiere Pro is being positioned as a “hub” application with connections to companion products, like Prelude and Audition. For now, Rush is simply an interesting offshoot to address a burgeoning market. It’s Adobe’s second NLE, not a replacement. But time will tell.

Apple Final Cut Pro X

Apple released Final Cut Pro X in the summer of 2011 – going on eight years now. It’s a versatile, professional tool that has improved greatly since that 2011 launch and gained a large and loyal fan base. Many FCPX users are also Premiere Pro users and the other way around. It can be used to cut nearly any type of project, but the interface design is different from the others, making it an acquired taste. Being a Mac-only product and developed within the same company that makes the hardware and OS, FCPX is optimized to run on Macs more so than any cross-platform product can be. For example, the fluidity of dealing with 4K ProRes media on even older Macs surpasses that of any other NLE.

Prognosticating Apple’s future plans is a fool’s errand. Some guesses have put the estimated lifespan of FCPX at 10 years, based in part on the lifespan of FCP “legacy”. I have no idea whether that’s true of not. Often when I read interviews with key Apple management (as well as off-the-record, casual discussions I’ve had with people I know on the inside), it seems like a company that actually has less of a concrete plan when it comes to “pro” users. Instead, it often appears to approach them with an attitude of “let’s throw something against the wall and see what sticks”. The 2013 Mac Pro is a striking example of this. It was clearly innovative and a stellar exhibit for Apple’s “think different” mantra. Yet it was a product that obviously was not designed by actually speaking with that product’s target user. Apple’s current “shunning” of Nvidia hardware seems like another example.

One has to ask whether a company so dominated by the iPhone is still agile enough to respond to the niche market of professional video editors. While Apple products (hardware and software) still appeal to creatives and video professionals, it seems like the focus with FCPX is towards the much broader sphere of pro video. Not TV shows and feature films (although that’s great when it comes) – or even high-end commercials and trailers – but rather the world of streaming channels, social media influencers, and traditional publishers who have shifted to an online media presence from a print legacy. These segments of the market have a broad range of needs. After all, so called “YouTube stars” shoot with everything from low-end cameras and smart phones all the way up to Alexas and REDs. Such users are equally professional in their need to deliver a quality product on a timetable and I believe that’s a part of the market that Apple seeks to address with FCPX.

If you are in the world of the more traditional post facility or production company, then those users listed above may be market segments that you don’t see or possibly even look down upon. I would theorize that among the more traditional sectors, FCPX may have largely made the inroads that it’s going to. Its use in films and TV shows (with the exception of certain high-profile, international examples) doesn’t seem to be growing, but I could be wrong. Maybe the marketing is just behind or it no longer has PR value. Regardless, I do see FCPX as continuing strong as a product. Even if it’s not your primary tool, it should be something in your toolkit. Apple’s moves to open up ProRes encoding and offering LumaForge and Blackmagic eGPU products in their online store are further examples that the pro customer (in whatever way you define “pro”) continues to have value to them. That’s a good thing for our industry.

Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve

No one seems to match the development pace of Blackmagic Design. DaVinci Resolve underwent a wholesale transformation from a tool that was mainly a high-end color corrector into an all-purpose editing application. Add to this the fact that Blackmagic has acquired and integrated a number of companies, whose tools have been modernized and integrated into Resolve. Blackmagic now offers a post-production solution with some similarities to FCPX while retaining a traditional, track-based interface. It includes modes for advanced audio post (Fairlight) and visual effects (Fusion) that have been adapted from those acquisitions. Unlike past all-in-one applications, Resolve’s modal pages retain the design and workflow specific to the task at hand, rather than making them fit into the editing application’s interface design. All of this in a very short order and across three operating systems, thus making their pace the envy of the industry.

But a fast development pace doesn’t always translate into a winning product. In my experience each version update has been relatively solid. There are four ways to get Resolve (free and paid, Mac App Store and reseller). That makes it a no-brainer for anyone starting out in video editing, but who doesn’t have the specific requirement for one application over another. I have to wonder though, how many new users go deep into the product. If you only edit, there’s no real need to tap into the Fusion, Fairlight, or color correction pages. Do Resolve editors want to finish audio in Fairlight or would they rather hand off the audio post and mix to a specialist who will probably be using Pro Tools? The nice thing about Resolve is that you can go as deep as you like – or not – depending on your mindset, capabilities, and needs.

On the other hand, is the all-in-one approach better than the alternatives: Media Composer/Pro Tools, Premiere Pro/After Effects/Audition, or Final Cut Pro X/Motion/Logic Pro X? I don’t mean for the user, but rather the developer. Does the all-in-one solution give you the best product? The standalone version of Fusion is more full-featured than the Fusion page in Resolve. Fusion users are rightly concerned that the standalone will go away, leaving them with a smaller subset of those tools. I would argue that there are already unnecessary overlaps in effects and features between the pages. So are you really getting the best editor or is it being compromised by the all-in-one approach? I don’t know the answer to these questions. Resolve for me is a good color correction/grading application that can also work for my finishing needs (although I still prefer to edit in something else and roundtrip to/from Resolve). It’s also a great option for the casual editor who wants a free tool. Yet in spite of all its benefits, I believe Resolve will still be a distant fourth in the NLE world, at least for the next year.

The good news is that there are four great editing options in the lead and even more coming from behind. There are no bad choices and with a lower cost than ever, there’s no reason to limit your knowledge to only one. After all, the products that are on top now may be gone in a decade. So broaden your knowledge and define your skills by your craft – not your tools!

©2019 Oliver Peters

Edit Collaboration and Best Practices

There are many workflows that involve collaboration, with multiple editors and designers working on the same large project or group of projects. Let me say up front that if you want the best possible collaborative experience with multiple editors, then work with Avid Media Composer. Full stop. I have worked both sides of the equation and without a doubt, Media Composer connected to Avid Unity/Isis/Nexis shared storage is simply not matched by Final Cut Pro, Final Cut Pro X, Premiere Pro, or any other editing software/storage/cloud combination. Everything else is a compromise, which is why feature film and TV series editorial teams continue to select Avid solutions as their first choice.

In spite of that, there are many reasons to use other editing tools. I work most of the time in Adobe Premiere Pro CC and freelance at a shop with nine edit workstations connected to shared storage. We work mainly in Adobe Creative Cloud applications and our projects involve a lot of collaboration. Some of these are corporate videos that are frequently edited and revised by different editors. Some are entertainment shows, cut by a small editorial team focused on those shows. For some projects, Premiere Pro is the perfect tool. For others, we have to develop strategies to adapt Premiere to our workflow.

With that in mind, the following are tips and best practices that I’ll share for what has worked best for us over the past three years, while working on large projects with a team of editors. Although it applies to our work with Premiere Pro, the same would generally be true if we were working with Apple Final Cut Pro X instead.

Organization. We organize all projects into a specific folder structure, using a Post Haste template. All media files, like camera footage, audio, graphic elements, etc. go into common folders. Editors know where to look to find things. When new camera footage comes in, files are organized as “dailies” into specific folders by date, camera, and camera card. Non-pro formats, like GoPro and DSLR footage will be batch-renamed to reflect the project, date, and camera card. The objective is to have unique file names for each and every media file.

Optimized, transcoded, or proxy media. Depending on the performance and amount of media, you may need to do some prep work before even starting the edit process. Premiere and FCPX work well with some media formats and not with others. NAS/SAN storage is particularly taxing, especially once you get to resolutions greater than HD. If you want the most fluid experience in a shared workflow, then you will likely need to transcode proxy files from within the application. The reason to stay inside of FCPX or Premiere Pro is so that frame size offsets are properly tracked. Once proxies have been transcoded, it’s a simple matter of toggling between the proxy media (best playback performance) and full-resolution media (best image quality).

On the other hand, if you’d rather stick to full-resolution, native media, then some formats will have to be transcoded into “optimized” media. For instance, GoPro 4K footage is terrible to edit with natively. It should always be transcoded to ProRes or DNxHD before editing, if you don’t want to go the proxy route. This can be done inside or outside of the application and is an easy task with DaVinci Resolve, EditReady, Adobe Media Encoder, or Apple Compressor.

Finally, if you have image sequences from a drone or other source, forget trying to edit from these off of a network. Transcode them right away into some format of master movie file. I find Resolve to be the best tool for this. It’s fast and since these are often camera raw files, you can apply a base grade to them as a starting point for future color correction.

Break up your projects. Depending on the type and size of the job and number of editors working on it, you may choose to work in multiple Premiere projects. There may be a master file where all media is imported and initially organized. Then there may be multiple projects that are offshoots from this for component parts. In a corporate environment, it could be several different videos cut from a single, larger set of media. In a feature film, there could be different Premiere projects for each reel of the film.

Since Premiere Pro employs project locking, any project opened by one editor can also be opened in a read-only mode by other editors. Editors can have multiple Premiere projects open at one time. Thus, it’s simple to bring in elements from one project into another, even while they are all open. This workflow mimics Avid’s bin-locking strategy.

It helps to keep project files streamlined as progress on the production extends over time. You want to keep the number of sequences in any given project small. Periodically duplicate your project(s), strip out old sequences from the current project, and archive the older project files.

As a general note, while working to build the creative story edits – i.e. “offline editing” – you will want to keep plug-in filter effects to a minimum. In fact, it’s generally a good idea to keep the plug-in selection on each system small, so that all workstations in this shared environment are able to have the same set of installed plug-ins. The same is true of fonts.

Finishing stages of post. There are generally two paths in the finishing, aka “online editing” stage. Either all final color correction and assembly of effects is completed within Premiere Pro, or there is a roundtrip through a color correction application, like Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve. The same holds true for audio, where a separate sound editor/designer/mixer may handle the finishing touches in Avid Pro Tools.

To accomplish an easy roundtrip with Resolve, create a sequence with all color correction and effects removed. Flatten the video to a single track (if possible), and remove the audio or do a simple stereo mixdown for reference. Ideally, media with mixed frame rates should be addressed as slow motion in the edited sequence. Avoid modifying the frame rate through any sort of “interpret” function within the application. Export an XML or AAF and send that and the associated media to Resolve. When color correction is complete, you can render the entire timeline at the sequence resolution as a single master file.

Conversely, if you want to send it back to Premiere Pro for final assembly and to complete the roundtrip, then render individual clips at their source resolution with handles of one to two seconds. Back in Premiere, re-apply titles, insert completed visual effects, and add any missing plug-in effects.

With audio post, there will be no roundtrip of elements, since the mixer will deliver a completed mixed stereo or surround track. This should be imported into Premiere (or Resolve if the final master is created in Resolve) and married back to the final video sequence. The mixer should also supply “stems” – the individual dialogue, music, and sound effects (D/M/E) submix tracks.

Mastering. Final sequences should be exported in a master file format (ProRes, DNxHD/HR, uncompressed) in at least two forms: 1) master with final mix and titles, and 2) textless submaster with split-track audio (multiple channels containing the D/M/E stems). All of these files are stored within the same job-based folder structure outlined at the top. It is quite common that future revisions will be made using the textless submaster rather than re-opening the full project, or that it may be used as source material in another edit.

Another aspect of finishing the project is media consolidation. This means taking the final sequence and generating a new project file from it. That file contained only those elements from the sequence, along with a copy of the media used, where each file has been trimmed to the portion within the sequence (plus handles). This is the Project Manager function in Premiere Pro. Unfortunately, Premiere is not consistently good at this task. Some formats will be properly trimmed, while others will be copied in their entirety. That’s OK for a :10 take, but a bummer when it’s a 30-minute interview.

The good news is that if you went through the Resolve roundtrip workflow and rendered individual clips, then effectively Resolve has already done media consolidation as a byproduct. In addition, if your source media is 4K, but you only finished in HD, the Resolve renders will be 4K. If in the future, you need to deliver the same master in 4K, everything is already set. Of course, that assumes that you didn’t do a lot of “punching in” and reframing in your edit sequence.

Cloud-based services. Often collaboration requires a distributed team, when not everyone is under one roof. While Adobe does offer cloud-based team editing methods, this doesn’t really work when editors are on different Creative Cloud accounts or when the collaboration is between an editor and a graphic designer/animator/VFX artist working in non-Adobe tools. In that case the old standbys have been Dropbox, Box, or Google Drive. Syncing is easy and relatively reliable. However, these are really just designed for sharing assets. But when this involves a couple of editors and each has a local, mirrored set of media, then simple sharing/syncing of only small project files makes for a working collaborative method.

Frame.io is the newbie here, with updated extension tools designed for in-application workspace panels within Final Cut Pro X, After Effects, and Premiere Pro. While they tout the ease of moving full-resolution media into their cloud, including camera files, I really wouldn’t recommend doing that. It’s simply not very practical on must projects. But for sharing cuts using a standard review-and-approach workflow, Frame.io definitely hits most of the buttons.

©2018 Oliver Peters

Audio Mixing with Premiere Pro

When budgets permit and project needs dictate, I will send my mixes out-of-house to one of a few regular mixers. Typically that means sending them an OMF or AAF to mix in Pro Tools. Then I get the mix and split-tracks back, drop them into my Premiere Pro timeline, and generate master files.

On the other hand, a lot of my work is cutting simple commercials and corporate presentations for in-house use or the web, and these are often less demanding  – 2 to 8 tracks of dialogue, limited sound effects, and music. It’s easy to do the mix inside of the NLE. Bear in mind that I can – and often have – done such a mix in Apple Logic Pro X or Adobe Audition, but the tools inside Premiere Pro are solid enough that I often just keep everything – mix included – inside my editing application. Let’s walk though that process.

Dealing with multiple channels on source clips

Start with your camera files or double-system audio recordings. Depending on the camera model, Premiere Pro will see these source clips as having either stereo (e.g. a Canon C100) or multi-channel mono (e.g. ARRI Alexa) channels. If you recorded a boom mic on channel 1 and a lavaliere mic on channel 2, then these will drop onto your stereo timeline either as two separate mono tracks (Alexa) – or as a single stereo track (C100), with the boom coming out of the left speaker and the lav out of the right. Which one it is will strictly depend on the device used to generate the original recordings.

First, when dual-mic recordings appear as stereo, you have to understand how Premiere Pro deals with stereo sources. Panning in Premiere Pro doesn’t “shift” the audio left, right, or center. Instead, it increases or decreases the relative volume of the left or right half of this stereo field. In our dual-mic scenario, panning the clip or track full left means that we only hear the boom coming out of the left speaker, but nothing out of the right. There are two ways to fix this – either by changing the channel configuration of the source in the browser – or by changing it after the fact in the timeline. Browser changes will not alter the configuration of clips already edited to the timeline. You can change one or more source clips from stereo to dual-mono in the browser, but you can’t make that same type of change to a clip already in your sequence.

Let’s assume that you aren’t going to make any browser changes and instead just want to work in your sequence. If your source clip is treated as dual-mono, then the boom and lav will cut over to track 1 and 2 of your sequence – and the sound will be summed in mono on the output to your speaks. However, if the clip is treated as stereo, then it will only cut over to track 1 of your sequence – and the sound will stay left and right on the output to your speakers. When it’s dual-mono, you can listen to one track versus the other, determine which mic sounds the best, and disable the clip with the other mic. Or you can blend the two using clip volume levels.

If the source clip ends up in the sequence as a stereo clip, then you will want to determine which one of the two mics you want to use for the best sound. To pick only one mic, you will need to change the clip’s audio configuration. When you do that, it’s still a stereo clip, however, both “sides” can be supplied by either one of the two source channels. So, both left and right output will either be the boom or the lav, but not both. If you want to blend both mics together, then you will need to duplicate (option-drag) the audio clip onto an adjacent timeline track, and change the audio channel configuration for both clips. One would be set to the boom for both channels and the other set to only the lav for its two channels. Then adjust clip volume for the two timeline clips.

Configuring your timeline

Like most editors, while I’m working through the stages of rough cutting on the way to an approved final copy, I will have a somewhat messy timeline. I may have multiple music cues on several tracks with only one enabled – just so I can preview alternates for the client. I will have multiple dialogue clips on a few tracks with some disabled, depending on microphone or take options. But when I’m ready to move to the finishing stage, I will duplicate that sequence to create a “final version” and clean that one up. This means getting rid of any disabled clips, collapsing my audio and video clips to the fewest number of tracks, and using Premiere’s track creation/deletion feature to delete all empty tracks – all so I can have the least amount of visual clutter. 

In other blog posts, I’ve discussed working with additional submix buses to create split-track exports; but, for most of these smaller jobs, I will only add one submix bus. (I will explain its purpose in a moment.) Once created, you will need to open the track mixer panel and route the timeline channels from the master to the submix bus and then the output of the submix bus back to the master.

Plug-ins

Premiere Pro CC comes with a nice set of audio plug-ins, which can be augmented with plenty of third-party audio effects filters. I am partial to Waves and iZotope, but these aren’t essential. However, there are several that I do use quite frequently. These three third-party filters will help improve any vocal-heavy piece.

The first two are Vocal Rider and MV2 from Waves and are designed specifically for vocal performances, like voice-overs and interviews. These can be pricey, but Waves has frequent sales, so I was able to pick these up for a fraction of their retail price. Vocal Rider is a real-time, automatic volume adjustment tool. Set the bottom and top parameters and let Vocal Rider do the rest, by automatically pushing the volume up or down on-the-fly. MV2 is similar, but it achieves this through compression on the top and bottom ends of the range. While they operate in a similar fashion, they do produce a different sound. I tend to pick MV2 for voice-overs and Vocal Rider for interviews.

We all know location audio isn’t perfect, which is where my third filter comes in. FxFactory is knows primarily for video plug-ins, but their partnership with Crumplepop has added a nice set of audio filters to their catalog. I find AudioDenoise to be quite helpful and fast in fixing annoying location sounds, like background air conditioning noise. It’s real-time and good-sounding, but like all audio noise reduction, you have to be careful not to overdo it, or everything will sound like it’s underwater.

For my other mix needs, I’ll stick to Premiere’s built-in effects, like EQ, compressors, etc. One that’s useful for music is the stereo imager. If you have a music cue that sounds too monaural, this will let you “expand” the track’s stereo signal so that it is spread more left and right. This often helps when you want the voice-over to cut through the mix a bit better. 

My last plug-in is a broadcast limiter that is placed onto the master bus. I will adjust this tight with a hard limit for broadcast delivery, but much higher (louder allowed) for web files. Be aware that Premiere’s plug-in architecture allows you to have the filter take affect either pre or post-fader. In the case of the master bus, this will also affect the VU display. In other words, if you place a limiter post-fader, then the result will be heard, but not visible through the levels displayed on the VU meters.

Mixing

I have used different mixing strategies over the years with Premiere Pro. I like using the write function of the track mixer to write fader automation. However, I have lately stopped using it – instead going back to manual keyframes within the clips. The reason is probably that my projects tend to get revised often in ways that change timing. Since track automation is based on absolute timeline position, keyframes don’t move when a clip is shifted, like they would when clip-based volume keyframes are used.

Likewise, Adobe has recently added Audition’s ducking for music to Premiere Pro. This uses Adobe’s Sensei artificial intelligence. Unfortunately I don’t find to be “intelligent” enough. Although sometimes it can provide a starting point. For me, it’s simply too coarse and doesn’t intelligently adjust for areas within a music clip that swell or change volume internally. Therefore, I stick with minor manual adjustments to compensate for music changes and to make the vocal parts easy to understand in the mix. Then I will use the track mixer to set overall levels for each track to get the right balance of voice, sound effects, and music.

Once I have a decent balance to my ears, I will temporarily drop the TC Electronic (included with Premiere Pro) Radar loudness plug-in to make sure my mix is CALM-compliant. This is where the submix bus comes in. If I like the overall balance, but I need to bring everything down, it’s an easy matter to simply lower the submix level and remeasure.

Likewise, it’s customary to deliver web versions with louder volume levels than the broadcast mix. Again the submix bus will help, because you cannot raise the volume on the master – only lower it. If you simply want to raise the overall volume of the broadcast mix for web delivery, simply raise the submix fader. Note that when I say louder, I’m NOT talking about slamming the VUs all the way to the top. Typically, a mix that hits -6 is plenty loud for the web. So, for web delivery, I will set a hard limit at -6, but adjust the mix for an average of about -10.

Hopefully this short explanation has provided some insight into mixing within Premiere Pro and will help you make sure that your next project sounds great.

©2018 Oliver Peters