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

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

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

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

Rams

If you are a fan of the elegant, minimalist design of Apple products, then you have seen the influence of Dieter Rams. The renowned, German industrial designer, associated with functional and unobtrusive design, is known for the iconic consumer products he developed for Braun, as well as his Ten Principles for Good Design. Dieter Rams is the subject of Rams, a new documentary film by Gary Hustwit (Helvetica, Objectified, Urbanized).

This has been a labor of love for Hustwit and partially funded through a Kickstarter campaign. In a statement to the website Designboom, Huswit says, “This film is an opportunity to celebrate a designer whose work continues to impact us and preserve an important piece of design history. I’m also interested in exploring the role that manufactured objects play in our lives and, by extension, the relationship we have with the people who design them. We hope to dig deeper into Rams’ untold story – to try and understand a man of contradictions by design. I want the film to get past the legend of Dieter. I want it to get into his philosophy, process, inspirations, and even his regrets.” 

Hustwit has worked on the documentary for the past three years and premiered it in New York at the end of September. The film is currently on the road for a series of international premiere screenings until the end of the year. I recently had a conversation with Kayla Sklar, the young editor how had the opportunity to tackle this as her first feature film.

______________________________________________________

[OP] Please give me a little background about how you got into editing and then became connected with this project.

[KS] I moved to New York in 2014 after college to pursue working in theater administration for non-profit, Off Broadway theater companies. But at 25, I had sort of a quarter-life crisis and realized that wasn’t what I wanted to do at all. I knew I had to make a career change. I had done some video editing in high school with [Apple] iMovie and in college with [Apple] Final Cut Pro 7 and had enjoyed that. So I enrolled at The Edit Center in Brooklyn. They have an immersive, six-week-long program where you learn the art of editing by working with actual footage from real projects. Indie filmmakers working in documentaries and narrative films, who don’t have a lot of money, can submit their film to The Edit Center. Two are chosen per semester. 12 to 16 students are given scenes and get to work with the director. They give us feedback and at the end, we present a finished rough cut. This process gives us a sense of how to edit.

I knew I could definitely teach myself [Adobe] Premiere Pro, and probably figure out Avid [Media Composer], but I wanted to know if I would even enjoy the process of working with a director. I took the course in 2016 thinking I would pursue narrative films, because it felt the most similar to the world I had come from. But I left the course with an interest in documentary editing. I liked the puzzle-solving aspect of it. It’s where my skillset best aligned.

Afterwards, I took a few assistant editing jobs and eventually started as an assistant editor with Film First, which is owned by Jessica Edwards and Gary Hustwit. That’s how I got connected with Gary. I was assisting on a number of his projects, including working with some of the Rams footage and doing a few rough assemblies for him. Then last year he asked me to be the editor of the film. So I started shifting my focus exclusively to Rams at the beginning of this year. Gary has been working on it since 2015 – shooting on and off for three years. It just premiered in late September, but we even shot some pick-ups in Germany as late as late August / early September.

[OP] So you were working solidly on the film for about nine months. At what point did you lock the cut?

[KS] (laugh) Even now we’re still tinkering. We get more feedback from the screenings and are learning what things are working and aren’t working. The story was locked four days before the New York premiere, but we’re making small changes to things.

[OP] Documentary editing can encompass a variety of structures – narrator-driven, a single subject, a collection of interviewees, etc. What approach did you take with Rams?

[KS] Most of the film is in Dieter Rams’ own words. Gary’s other films have a huge cast of characters. But Gary wanted to make this film different from that and more streamlined. His original concept was that it was going to be Dieter as the only interview footage and you might meet other characters in the verité. But Gary realized that wasn’t going to work, simply because Dieter is a very humble man and he wasn’t really talking about his impact on design. We knew that we needed to give the film a larger context. We needed to bring in other people to tell how influential he has been.

[OP] Obviously a documentary like this has no narrative script to follow. Understanding the interview subject’s answers is critical for the editor in order to build the story arc. I understand that much of the film is in a foreign language. So what was your workflow to edit the film?

[KS] Right. So, the vast majority of the film is in German and a little bit in Japanese, both with subtitles. Maybe 25% is in English, but we’re creating it primarily with an English-speaking audience in mind. I know pretty much no German, except words from Sound of Music and Cabaret. We had a great team of translators on this project, with German transcripts broken down by paragraph and translated into English. I had a two-column set-up with German on one side and English on the other. Before I joined the project, there was an assistant who input titles directly into Premiere – putting subtitles over the dailies with the legacy titler. That was the only way I would be able to even get a rough assembly or ‘radio edit’ of what we wanted.

When you edit an English-speaking documentary, you often splice together two parts of a longer sentence to form a complete and concise thought. But German grammar is really complicated. I don’t think I really grasped how much I was taking on when I first started tackling the project. So I would build a sentence that was pretty close from the transcripts. Thank God for Google Translate, because I would put in my constructed sentence and hope that it spit out something pretty close to what we were going for. And that’s how we did the first rough cut.

Then we had an incredible woman, Katharina Kruse-Ramey, come in. She is a native German speaker living here in New York. She came in for a full eight or nine hours and picked through the edit with a fine tooth comb. For instance, “You can’t use this verb tense with this noun.” That sort of thing. She was hugely helpful and this film wouldn’t have been able to happen without Katharina. We knew then that a German speaker could watch this film and it would make sense! We also had another native German speaker, Eugen Braeunig, who was our archival researcher. He was great for the last minute pick-ups that were shot, when we couldn’t go through the longer workflow.

[OP] I presume you received notes and comments back from Dieter Rams on the cut. What has his response been?

[KS] The film premiered at the Milano Design Film Festival a few weeks ago and Dieter came to that. It was his first time seeing the finished product. From what I’ve heard, he really liked it! As much as one can like seeing themselves on a large screen, I suppose. We had sent him a rough cut a few months ago and in true analytical fashion, the notes that we got back from him were just very specific technical details about dates and products and not about overall storytelling. He really was quite willing to give Gary complete control over the filmmaking process. There was a lot of trust between the two of them.

[OP] Did you cut the film to temp music from the beginning or add music later? I understand that the prolific electronic musician and composer, Brian Eno (The Lego Batman Movie, T2 Trainspotting, The Simpsons), created the soundtrack. What was that like?

[KS] The structure of this film has more breathing room than a lot of docs might have. We really thought about the fact that we needed to give viewers a break from reading subtitles. We didn’t want to go more than ten minutes of reading at a time. So we purposely built in moments for the audience to digest and reflect on all that information. And that’s where Brian’s music was hugely important for us.

We actually didn’t start really editing the film until we had gotten the music back from Brian. I’ve been told that he doesn’t ever score to picture. We sent him some raw footage and he came back with about 16 songs that were inspired by the footage. When you have that gorgeous Brian Eno music, you know that you’re going to have moments where you can just sit back and enjoy the sheer beauty of the moment. Once we had the music in, everything just clicked into place.

[OP] The editor is integral to creating the story structure of a documentary, more so than narrative films – almost as if they are another writer. Tell me a bit about the structure for Rams.

[KS] This film is really not structured the way you would probably structure a normal doc. As I said earlier, we very purposefully put reading breaks in, either through English scenes or with Eno’s music. We had no interest in telling this story linearly. We jump back and forth. One plot line is the chronology of Dieter’s career. Then there’s this other, perhaps more important story, which is Dieter today.  His thoughts on the current state of design and the world. He’s still very active in giving talks and lectures. There’s a company called Vitsoe that makes a lot of his products and he travels to London to give input on their designs. That was the second half of the story and those are interspersed.

[OP] I presume you went outside for finishing services – sound, color correction, and so on. But did the subtitles take on any extra complexity, since they were such an important visual element?

[KS] There are three components to the post. We did an audio mix at one post house; there was a color correction pass at another; and we also had an animation studio – Trollbäck – working with us. There is a section in the film that we knew had to be visually very different and had to convey information in a different way than we had done in any other part of the film. So we gave Trollbäck that five-minute-long sequence. And they also did our opening titles.

We had thought about a stylistic treatment to the subtitles. There were two fonts that Trollbäck had used in their animation. Our initial intent was to use that in our subtitles. We did use one of those treatments in our titles and product credits. For the subtitles, we spent days trying out different looks. Are we going to shadow it or are we using outlines? What point font? What’s the kerning on it? There was going to be so much reading that we knew we had to do the titles thoughtfully. At the end of the day, we knew Helvetica was going to be the easiest (laugh)! We had tried the outline, but some of the internal space in the letters, like an ‘o’ or an ‘e’, looked closed off. We ended up going with a drop shadow. Dieter’s home is almost completely white, so there’s a lot of white space in the film. We used shadows, which looked a little softer, but still quite readable. Those were all built in Premiere’s legacy title tool.

[OP] You are in New York, which is a big Avid Media Composer town. So what was the thought process in deciding to cut this film in Adobe Premiere Pro?

[KS] When I came on-board, the project was already in Premiere. At that point I had been using Avid quite a lot since leaving The Edit Center, which teaches their editing course in Avid. I had taught myself Premiere and I might have tried to transfer the project to Avid, but there was already so much done in terms of the dailies with the subtitles. The thought of going back and spending maybe 50 hours worth of manual subtitling that didn’t migrate over correctly just seemed like a total nightmare. And I was happy to use Premiere. Had I started the project from scratch, I might have used Avid, because it’s the tool that I felt fastest on. Premiere was perfectly fine for the film that we were doing. Plus, if there were days when Gary wanted to tinker around in the project and look at things, he’s much more familiar with Premiere than he is with Avid. He also knows the other Adobe tools, so it made more sense to continue with the same family of creative products that he already knew and used.

Maybe it’s this way with the tool you learn first, but I really like Avid and I feel that I’m faster with it than with Premiere. It’s just the way my brain likes to edit things. But I would be totally happy to edit in Premiere again, if that’s what worked best for a project and what the director wanted. It was great that we didn’t have to transcode our archival footage, because of how Premiere can handle media. Definitely that was helpful, because we had some mixed frame rates and resolutions.

[OP] A closing question. This is your first feature film and with such an influential subjective. What impact did it have on you?

[KS] Dieter has Ten Principles for Good Design. He built them to talk about product design and as a way for him to judge how a product ideally should be made. I had these principles taped to my wall by my desk. His products are very streamlined, elegant, and clean. The framework should be neutral enough that they can convey what the intention was without bells-and-whistles. He wasn’t interested in adding a feature that was unnecessary. I really wanted to evoke those principles with the editing. Had the film been cluttered with extraneous information, or was self-aggrandizing, I think when we revealed the principles to the audience, they would have thought, “Wait a minute, this film isn’t doing that!” We felt that the structure of the film had to serve his principles well, wherever appropriate.

His final principle is ‘Good Design is as Little Design as Possible.’ We joked that ‘Good Filmmaking is as Little Filmmaking as Possible.’ We wanted the audience to be able to draw their own conclusions about Dieter’s work and how that translates into their daily lives. A viewer could walk away knowing what we were trying to accomplish without someone having to tell them what we were trying to accomplish.

There were times when I really didn’t know if I could do it. Being 26 and editing a feature film was daunting. Looking at those principles kept me focused on what the meat of the film’s structure should be. That made me realize how lucky we are to have had a designer who really took the time to think about principles that can be applied to a million different subjects. At one of these screenings someone came up to us, who had become a UI designer for software, in part, because of Dieter. He told us, “I read Dieter’s principles in a book and I realized these can be applied to how people interact with software.” They can be applied to a million different things and we certainly applied it to the edit.

______________________________________________________

Gary Hustwit will tour Rams internationally and in various US cities through December. After that time it will be available in digital form through Film First.

Click here to learn more about Dieter Rams’ Ten Principles for Good Design.

©2018 Oliver Peters

The Old Man & the Gun

Stories of criminal exploits have long captivated the American public. But no story is quirkier than that of Forrest Silva “Woody” Tucker. He was a lifelong bank robber and prison escape artist who was in and out of prison. His most famous escape came in 1979 from San Quentin State Prison. The last crimes were a series of bank robberies around the Florida retirement community where he lived. He was captured in 2000 and died in prison in 2004 at the age of 83. Apparently good at his job – he stole an estimated four million dollars over his lifetime – Tucker was aided by a set of older partners, dubbed the “Over the Hill Gang”. His success, in part, was because he tended to rob lower profile, local banks and credit unions. While he did carry a gun, it seems he never actually used it in any of the robberies.

The Old Man & the Gun is a semi-fictionalized version of Tucker’s story brought to the screen by filmmaker David Lowery (A Ghost Story, Pete’s Dragon, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints). It stars Robert Redford as Tucker, along with Danny Glover and Tom Waits as his gang. Casey Affleck plays John Hunt, a detective who is on his trail. Sissy Spacek is Jewel, a woman who takes an interest in Tucker. Lowery wrote the script in a romanticized style that is reminiscent of how outlaws of the old west are portrayed. The screenplay is based on a 2003 article in The New Yorker magazine by Dale Grann, which chronicled Tucker’s real-life exploits.

David Lowery is a multi-talented filmmaker with a string of editing credits. (He was his own editor on A Ghost Story.) But for this film, he decided to leave the editing to Lisa Zeno Churgin, A.C.E. (Dead Man Walking, Pitch Perfect, Cider House Rules, House of Sand and Fog), with whom he had previously collaborated on Pete’s Dragon. I recently had the opportunity to chat with Churgin about working on The Old Man & the Gun.

___________________________________

[OP] Please tell me a bit about your take on the story and how the screenplay’s sequence ultimately translated into the finished film.

[LZC] The basis of Redford’s character is a boy who started out stealing a bicycle, went to reform school when he was 13, and it continued along that way for the rest of his life. Casey Affleck is a cop in the robbery division who takes it as a personal affront when the bank where he was trying to make a deposit was robbed. He makes it his mission to discover who did it, which he does. But because it’s a case that crosses state lines, the case gets taken over by the FBI. Casey’s character then continues the search on his own.  It’s a wonderful cat and mouse game. 

There are three storylines in the film. The story begins when Tucker is leaving the scene of a robbery and pulls over to the side of the road to help Jewel [Sissy Spacek] while evading the police on his trail. Their story provides a bit of a love interest.  The second storyline is that of the “Over the Hill Gang”. And the third storyline is the one between Tucker and Hunt. It’s not a particularly linear story, so we were always balancing these three storylines. Whenever it started to feel like we’d been away too long from a particular storyline and set of characters, it was time to switch gears.

Although David wrote the script, he wasn’t particularly overprotective of it. As in most films, we experimented a lot, moving scenes around to make those three main stories find their proper place. David dressed Redford in the same blue suit for the entire movie with occasional shirt or tie changes. This made it easier to shift things than when you have costume constraints. Often scenes ended up back where they started, but a lot of times they didn’t – just trying to find the right balance of those three stories. We had absolute freedom to experiment, and because David is a writer, director, and an editor in his own right, he really understands and appreciates the process.

The nature of this film was so unique, because it is of another time and place [the 1980s], but still modern in its own way. I also see it partly as an homage to Bob [Redford], because this is possibly his last starring role. Shooting on 16mm film certainly lends itself to another time and place. The score is a jazz score. That jazz motor places it in time, but also keeps it contemporary. As an aside, a nice touch is when Casey visits Redford in the hospital and he does a little ‘nose salute’ from The Sting, which was Casey’s idea.

[OP] On some films the editor is on location, keeping up to camera with the cut. On others, the editing team stays at a home base. For The Old Man & the Gun, you two were separated during the initial production phase. Tell me how that was handled.

[LZC] David was filming in Cincinnati and I was simultaneously cutting in LA. Because it was being shot on film, they sent it to Fotokem to be developed and then to Technicolor to be digitized. Then it was brought over to us on a drive. When you don’t get to watch dailies together, which is pretty much the norm these days, I try to ask the director to communicate with the script supervisor as much as possible while they are shooting: circled takes, particular line readings, any idea that the director might want to communicate to the editor. That sort of input always helps. Their distant location and the need to process film meant it would be a few days before I got the film and before David could see a scene that he’d shot, cut together. Getting material to him as quickly as possible is the best thing that I can do. That’s always my goal.

When I begin cutting a scene, I start by loading a sequence of all of the set-ups and then scroll through this sequence (what most editors who worked on film call a KEM roll) so that I can see what has been shot. Occasionally, I’ll put together selects, but generally I just start at the beginning and go cut to cut. The hardest part is always figuring out what’s going to be the first cut. Are we going to start tight? Are we going to start wide where we show everything? What is that first cut going to be? I seem to spend more time on that than anything else and once I get into it – and I’m not the first person to say this – the film tells you what to do. My goal is to get it into form as quickly as possible, so I can get a cut back to the director.

I finished the editor’s cut in LA and then we moved the cutting room to Dallas. Then David and I worked on the director’s cut – traditionally ten weeks – and after that, we showed it to the producers. Our time was extended a bit, because we had to wait for Bob’s availability to shoot some of the robbery sequences. They always knew that they were going to have to do some additional filming.

[OP] I know David is an experienced editor. How did you divide up the editorial tasks? Or was David able to step back from diving in and cutting, too?

[LZC] David is an excellent editor in his own right, but he is very happy to have someone else do the first pass. On this film I think he was more interested in playing around with some of the montages sequences. Then he’d hand it back to me so that I could incorporate it back into the film, sometimes making changes that kept it within the style of the film as a whole.

[OP] The scenes used in a film and the final length are always malleable until the final version of the cut. I’m sure this one was no different. Please tell me a bit about that.

[LZC] We definitely lost a fair number of scenes. My assistant makes scene cards that we put up on the wall and then when we lift a scene it goes on the back of the door. That way, you can just open the door and look on the back and see what has been taken out. In this particular film, because of the three separate storylines, scenes went in, out, and rearranged – and then in, out, and rearranged again. Often, scenes that we dropped at the very beginning ended up back in the movie, because it’s like a house of cards. You know you really have to weigh everything and try to juxtapose and balance the storylines and keep it moving. The movie is quite short now, but my first cut wasn’t that long. The final cut is 94 minutes and I think the first cut wasn’t much more than two hours.  

[OP] Let me shift gears a bit. As I understand it, David is a fan of Adobe Creative Cloud and in particularly, Premiere Pro. On The Old Man & the Gun, you shifted to Premiere Pro, as well. As someone who comes from a film and Avid editorial background, how was it to work with Premiere Pro?

[LZC] Over the course of my career, I’ve done what we call ‘doctor jobs’, where an editor comes in and does a recut of a film. On some of these jobs, I had the opportunity to work on Lightworks and on Final Cut. When we began Pete’s Dragon, David asked if I would consider doing it on Premiere Pro. David Fincher’s team had just done Gone Girl using it and David was excited about the possibility of doing Pete’s using Premiere. But for a big visual effects film, Premiere at that stage really wasn’t ready. I said if we do another film together, I’d be happy to learn Premiere. So, when we knew we would be doing Old Man, David spoke to the people at Adobe. They arranged to have Christine Steele tutor me. I worked with her before we began shooting. It was perfect, because we live close to each other and we were able to work in short, three- and four-hour blocks of time. (Note: Steele is an LA-based editor, who is frequently a featured presenter for Adobe.)

I also hired my first assistant, Mike Melendi, who was experienced with Premiere Pro. It was definitely a little intimidating at first, but within a week, I was fine. I actually ended up doing another film on Avid afterwards and I was a little nervous to go back to Avid. But that was like riding a bike. And after that, I took over another film that was on Premiere. Now I know I can go back and forth and that it’s perfectly fine.

[OP] Many feature film editors with an extensive background on Media Composer often rely on Avid’s script integration tools (ScriptSync). That’s something Premiere doesn’t have. Any concerns there?

[LZC] I think ScriptSync is the most wonderful thing in the world, but I grew up without it. When my assistants prepare dailies for me, they’ll put in a bunch of locators, so I know where there are multiple takes within a take. I think ScriptSync is great if you can get the labor of somebody to do it. I know there are a lot of editors who do it themselves while they’re watching dailies. I worked on a half-hour comedy where there was just a massive amount of footage and a tremendous amount of ‘keep rollings’. After working for one week I said to them, ‘We have to get SciptSync’. And they did! We had a dedicated person to do it and that’s all they did. It’s a wonderful luxury, which I would always love to have, but because I learned without it, I’ve created other ways to work without it.

My biggest issue with Premiere was the fact that, because I always work in the icon view and not list view, I had to contend with their grid arrangement within the bins. With Media Composer, you can arrange your clips however you want. Adobe knew that it was a really big issue for me and for other editors, so they are working on a version where you can move and arrange the clips within a bin. I’ve had the opportunity to give input on that and I know we’ll see that changed in a future version.

I would love to keep working on Premiere. Coming back to it again recently, I felt really confident about being able to go back and forth between the two systems. But some directors and studios have specific preferences. Still, I think it would be a lot of fun to continue working in Premiere.

[OP] Any final thoughts on the experience?

[LZC] I enjoyed the opportunity to work on such a wonderful project with such great actors. For me as an editor, that’s always my goal – to work with great performances. To help have a hand in shaping and creating wonderful moments like the ones we have in our film. I hope others feel that we achieved that.

For more, check out Adobe’s customer stories and blog. Also Steve Hullfish’s Art of the Cut interview.

This interview transcribed with the assistance of SpeedScriber.

©2018 Oliver Peters

Apple 2018 MacBook Pro

July was a good month for Apple power users, with the simultaneous release of Blackmagic Design’s eGPU and a refresh of Apple’s popular MacBook Pro line, including both 13″ and 15″ models. Although these new laptops retain the previous model’s form factor, they gained a bump-up in processors, RAM, and storage capacity.

Apple loaned me one of the Touch Bar space gray 15” models for this review. It came maxed out with the 8th generation 2.9 GHz 6-core Intel Core i9 CPU, 32GB DDR4 (faster) RAM, Radeon Pro 560X GPU, and a 2TB SSD. The price range on the 15″ model is pretty wide, due in part to the available SSD choices – from 256GB up to 4TB. Touch Bar 15” configurations start at $2,399 and can go all the way up to $6,699, once you spec the top upgrade for everything. My configuration was only $4,699 with the 2TB SSD. Of course, that’s before you add Apple Care (which I highly recommend for laptops) and any accessories.

Apple also released premium leather sleeves for both the 13″ and 15″ models in three colors ($199 for the 15″ size). They are pricey, of course, but not out of line with other branded, luxury products, like bags and watch bands. They fit the unit snuggly and protect it when you are out and about. In addition, they serve as a good pad on rough desk surfaces or when you have the MacBook Pro on your lap. Depending on the task you are performing, the bottom surface of the MacBook Pro can get warm, but nothing to be concerned about.

Before you point me to the nearest Windows gaming machine instead, let me mention that this review really isn’t a comparison against Windows laptops, but rather advances by Apple within the MacBook Pro line. But for context, I have owned six laptops to date – 3 PCs and 3 Macs. I shifted to Mac in order to have access to Final Cut Pro and have been happy with that move. The first 2 PCs developed stress fractures at the lid hinges before they were even a year old. The third, an HP, was solid, but after I gave it to my daughter, the power supply shorted. In addition, the hard drive became so corrupt (thank you Windows) that it wasn’t worth trying to recover. In short, my Mac laptop experience, like that of others, has been one of good value. MacBook Pros generally last years and if you use them for actual billable work (editing, DIT, sound design, etc.), then the investment will pay for itself.

This is the fastest and best laptop Apple has made. Apple engineering has nicely balanced power, size, weight, and battery life in a way that’s hard to counter. It is expensive, but if you try to find an equivalent PC, it is hard to actually find one with these exact same specs or components, until you get into gaming PCs. Those a) look pretty ugly, b) tend to be larger and heavier, with lower battery life, and c) cost about the same. There’s also the sales experience. Try to navigate nearly any PC-centric laptop supplier in an effort to customize the options and it tends to become an exercise in frustration. On the other hand, Apple makes it quite easy to buy and configure its machines with the options that you want.

I do have to mention that when these MacBook Pros first came out there was an issue of performance throttling, which was quickly addressed by Apple and fixed by a supplemental macOS release. That had already been installed on my unit, so no throttling issues that affected any of my performance tests.

Likewise, there have been debris complaints with the first run of the “butterfly” keys used in this and the previous version of these laptops. As other reviewers have stated when tear-downs have been done, Apple has added a membrane under the keys to help with sound dampening. Some reviewers have speculated that this also helps mitigate or even eliminate the debris issues. Whatever the reason, I liked typing on this keyboard and it did sound quieter to me. I tend to bang on keys, since I’m not a touch typist. The feel of a keyboard to a typist can be very subjective and in the course of a day, I tend to type on several vintages of Apple keyboards. In general, the keyboard on this newest MacBook Pro felt comfortable to me, when used for standard typing.

What did Apple bring new to the mix?

When Apple introduced the Touch Bar in 2016, I thought ‘meh’. But after these couple of weeks, I’ve really enjoyed it, especially when an application like Final Cut Pro X extends its controls to the Touch Bar. You can switch the Touch Bar preferences to only be function keys if you like. But having control strip options makes it quick to adjust screen brightness, volume, and so on. In the case of FCPX, you also get a mini-timeline view in some modes. Even QuickTime player calls up a small movie strip into the Touch Bar screen for the file being played.

These units also include Apple’s T2 security chip, which powers the fingerprint Touch ID and the newly added “Hey Siri” commands. The Retina screen on this laptop is gorgeous with up to 500 nits brightness and a wide color gamut. Another new addition is True Tone, which adjusts the display’s color temperature for the surrounding ambient light. That may become a more important selling point in the coming years. There is growing concern within the industry that blue light emitted from computer displays causes long-term eyesight damage. Generally, True Tone warms up the screen when under interior lighting, which reduces eye fatigue when you are working with a lot of white documents. But my recommendation is that editors, colorists, photographers, and designers turn this feature off when working on tasks that require color accuracy. Otherwise, the color balance of media will appear too warm (yellowish).

The 2018 15” MacBook Pro has four Thunderbolt 3/USB-C ports and a headphone jack. The four ports (two per side) are driven by two internal Thunderbolt 3 (40Gb/s) buses. It appears that’s one for each side, which means that plugging in two devices on one side will split the available Thunderbolt 3 bandwidth on that bus in half. Although, this doesn’t seem to be much of a factor during actual use. The internal bus routing does appear to be different from the previous model, in spite of what otherwise is more or less the same hardware configuration.

Gone are all other connections, so plan on purchasing an assortment of adapters to connect peripherals, such as those ubiquitous USB thumb drives or hardware dongles (license keys). I do wish that Apple had retained at least one standard USB port. Thunderbolt 3 supports power, so no separate MagSafe port is required either. (Power supply and cable are included.) One minor downside of this is that there is no indicator LED when a full battery charge is achieved, like we used to have on the MagSafe plug.

If connected to a Thunderbolt 3 device with an adequate power supply (e.g. the LG displays or the Blackmagic eGPU sold through Apple), then a single cable can both transfer data and power the laptop. One caveat is that Thunderbolt 3 doesn’t pass a video signal in the same way as Thunderbolt 2. You cannot simply add a Thunderbolt 3-to-Thunderbolt 2 adapter and connect a typical monitor’s MiniDisplayPort plug, as was possible with Thunderbolt 2 ports. External monitors without the correct connection will need to go through a dock or monitor adapter in order to pass a video signal. (This is also true for the iMac Pros.)

Many users have taken to relying on their MacBook Pros as the primary machine for their home or office, as well on the road. The upside of Thunderbolt connectively is that when you get back to the office, connecting a single Thunderbolt 3 cable to the rest of your suite peripherals (dock, display, eGPU, whatever) is all you need to get up and running. Simple and clean. Stick the laptop in a cradle in the clamshell mode or on a laptop stand, connect the cable, and you now have a powerful desktop machine. MacBook Pros have gained enough power in recent years that – unless your demands are heavy – they can easily service your editing, photography, and graphic needs.

Is it time to upgrade?

I own a mid-2014 15” MacBook Pro (the last series with an NVIDIA GPU), which I purchased in early 2015. Three years is often a good interval for most professional users to plan on a computer refresh, so I decided to compare the two. To start with, the new 2018 machine boots faster and apps also open faster. It’s even slightly smaller and thinner than the mid-2014 model. Both have fast SSDs, but the 2018 model is significantly faster (2645 MB/s write, 2722 MB/s read – Blackmagic Speed Test).

As with other reviews, I pulled an existing edit project for my test sequence. This timeline could be the same in Final Cut Pro X, Premiere Pro, and Resolve – without effects unique to one specific software application. My timeline consisted of 4K Alexa ProResHQ files that had a LUT and were scaled into a 1080p sequence. A few 1080p B-roll shots were also part of this sequence. The only taxing effect was a reverse slomo 4K clip, using optical flow interpolation. Both machines handled 4K ProRes footage just fine at full resolution using various NLEs. Exports to ProRes and H.264 were approximately twice as fast from Final Cut Pro X on the newer MacBook Pro. The same exports from Premiere Pro were longer overall than from FCPX, but faster on the 2018 machine, as well (see the section at the end for performance by the numbers).

If you are a fan of Final Cut Pro X, this machine is one of the best to use it on, especially if you can store your media on the internal drive. However, as an equalizer of sorts, I also ran these same test projects from an external SSD connected via USB3. While fast (over 200+ MB/s read/write), it wasn’t nearly as fast as the internal SSDs. Nevertheless, performance didn’t really lag behind with either FCPX or Premiere Pro. However, the optical flow clip did pose some issues. It played smoothly at “best quality” in FCPX, but oddly stuttered in the “best performance” setting. It did not play well in Premiere Pro at either full or half resolution. I also believe it contributed to the slower export times evident with Premiere Pro.

I tested a second project made up of all 4K REDCODE raw footage, which was placed into a 4K timeline. The 2018 MacBook Pro played the individual files and edited sequences smoothly when set to “best performance” in FCPX or half resolution in Premiere Pro. However, bumping the settings up to full quality caused stuttering with either NLE.

My last test was the same DaVinci Resolve project that I’ve used for my eGPU “stress” tests. These are anamorphic 4K Alexa files in a 2K DCI timeline. I stripped off all of the added filters that I had applied for the test of the eGPU, leaving a typical editing timeline with only a LUT and basic correction. This sequence played smoothly without dropping frames, which bodes well for editors who are considering a shift to Resolve as their main NLE.

Speaking of the Blackmagic eGPU tests, I had one day of overlap between the loans of the MacBook Pro and the Blackmagic eGPU. DaVinci Resolve’s real-time playback performance and exports were improved by about a 2X factor with the eGPU connected to the 15” model. Naturally,  the 15” machine by itself was quite a bit faster than the 13” MacBook Pro, so the improvement with an eGPU attached wasn’t as dramatic of a margin as the test with the 13” demonstrated. Even with this powerhouse MacBook Pro, the Blackmagic eGPU still adds value as a general appliance, as well as providing Resolve acceleration.

A note on battery life. The spec claims about 10 hours, but that’s largely for simple use, like watching web movies or listening to iTunes. Most of these activities do not cause the graphics to switch over from the integrated Intel to the Radeon Pro GPU, which consumes more power. In my editing tests with the Radeon GPU constantly on – and most of the energy saving settings disabled – I got five to six hours of battery life. That’s even when an application like FCPX was open, but minimized, without any real activity being done on the laptop.

I also ran a “heavy load” test, which involved continually looping my sample 1080 timeline (with 4K source media) full screen at “best quality” in FCPX. This is obviously a worst case scenario, but the charge only lasted about two hours. In short, the battery capacity is very good for a laptop, but one can only expect so much. If you plan on a heavy workload for an extended period of time, stay plugged in.

The 2018 MacBook Pro is a solid update that creative professionals will certainly enjoy, both in the field and even as a desktop replacement. If you bought last year’s model, there’s little reason to refresh your computer, yet. But three years or more? Get out the credit card!

_________________________________________________

Performance by the numbers

Blackmagic Design eGPU test

DaVinci Resolve renders/exports
(using the same test sequence as used for my eGPU review)

13” 2018 MacBook Pro – internal Intel graphics only
Render at source resolution – 1fps
Render at timeline resolution – 4fps

13” 2018 MacBook Pro – with Blackmagic eGPU
Render at source resolution – 5.5fps
Render at timeline resolution – 17.5fps

15” 2018 MacBook Pro – internal Radeon graphics only
Render at source resolution – 2.5fps
Render at timeline resolution – 8fps

15” 2018 MacBook Pro – with Blackmagic eGPU
Render at source resolution – 5.5fps
Render at timeline resolution – 16fps

Standard performance tests – 2018 15” MacBook Pro vs. Mid-2014
(using editing test sequence – 4K ProResHQ media)

2018 export from FCPX to ProRes  :30
2018 export from FCPX to H.264 at 10Mbps  :57
2014 export from FCPX to ProRes  :57
2014 export from FCPX to H.264 at 10Mbps  1:42

2018 export from Premiere Pro to ProRes  2:59
2018 export from Premiere Pro to H.264 at 10Mbps  2:32
2014 export from Premiere Pro to ProRes  3:35
2014 export from Premiere Pro to H.264 at 10Mbps  3:25

2018 export from Resolve to ProRes :35
2018 export from Resolve to H.264 at 10Mbps  :35
(Mid-2014 MBP was not used in this test)

Originally written for RedSharkNews

©2018 Oliver Peters