Stocking Stuffers 2017

It’s holiday time once again. For many editors that means it’s time to gift themselves with some new tools and toys to speed their workflows or just make the coming year more fun! Here are some products to consider.

Just like the tiny house craze, many editors are opting for their laptops as their main editing tool. I’ve done it for work that I cut when I’m not freelancing in other shops, simply because my MacBook Pro is a better machine than my old (but still reliable) 2009 Mac Pro tower. One less machine to deal with, which simplifies life. But to really make it feel like a desktop tool, you need some accessories along with an external display. For me, that boils down to a dock, a stand, and an audio interface. There are several stands for laptops. I bought both the Twelve South BookArc and the Rain Design mStand: the BookArc for when I just want to tuck the closed MacBook Pro out of the way in the clamshell mode and the mStand for when I need to use the laptop’s screen as a second display. Another option some editors like is the Vertical Dock from Henge Docks, which not only holds the MacBook Pro, but also offers some cable management.

The next hardware add-on for me is a USB audio interface. This is useful for any type of computer and may be used with or without other interfaces from Blackmagic Design or AJA. The simplest of these is the Mackie Onyx Blackjack, which combines interface and output monitor mixing into one package. This means no extra small mixer is required. USB input and analog audio output direct to a pair of powered speakers. But if you prefer a separate small mixer and only want a USB interface for input/output, then the PreSonus Audiobox USB or the Focusrite Scarlett series is the way to go.

Another ‘must have’ with any modern system is a Thunderbolt dock in order to expand the native port connectivity of your computer. There are several on the market but it’s hard to go wrong with either the CalDigit Thunderbolt Station 2 or the OWC Thunderbolt 2 Dock. Make sure you double-check which version fits for your needs, depending on whether you have a Thunderbolt 2 or 3 connection and/or USB-C ports. I routinely use each of the CalDigit and OWC products. The choice simply depends on which one has the right combination of ports to fit your needs.

Drives are another issue. With a small system, you want small portable drives. While LaCie Rugged and G-Technology portable drives are popular choices, SSDs are the way to go when you need true, fast performance. A number of editors I’ve spoken to are partial to the Samsung Portable SSD T5 drives. These USB3.0-compatible drives aren’t the cheapest, but they are ultraportable and offer amazing read/write speeds. Another popular solution is to use raw (uncased) drives in a drive caddy/dock for archiving purposes. Since they are raw, you don’t pack for the extra packaging, power supply, and interface electronics with each, just to have it sit on the shelf. My favorite of these is the HGST Deckstar NAS series.

For many editors the software world is changing with free applications, subscription models, and online services. The most common use of the latter is for review-and-approval, along with posting demo clips and short films. Kollaborate.tv, Frame.io, Wipster.io, and Vimeo are the best known. There are plenty of options and even Vimeo Pro and Business plans offer a Frame/Wipster-style review-and-approval and collaboration service. Plus, there’s some transfer ability between these. For example, you can publish to a Vimeo account from your Frame account. Another expansion of the online world is in team workgroups. A popular solution is Slack, which is a workgroup-based messaging/communication service.

As more resources become available online, the benefits of large-scale computing horsepower are available to even single editors. One of the first of these new resources is cloud-based, speech-to-text transcription. A number of online services provide this functionality to any NLE. Products to check out include Scribeomatic (Coremelt), Transcriptive (Digital Anarchy), and Speedscriber (Digital Heaven). They each offer different pricing models and speech analysis engines. Some are still in beta, but one that’s already out is Speedscriber, which I’ve used and am quite happy with. Processing is fast and reasonably accurate, given a solid audio recording.

Naturally free tools make every user happy and the king of the hill is Blackmagic Design with DaVinci Resolve and Fusion. How can you go wrong with something this powerful and free with ongoing company product development? Even the paid versions with some more advanced features are low cost. However, at the very least the free version of Resolve should be in every editor’s toolkit, because it’s such a Swiss Army Knife application.

On the other hand, editors who have the need to learn Avid Media Composer, need look no further than the free Media Composer | First. Avid has tried ‘dumbed-down’ free editing apps before, but First is actually built off of the same code base as the full Media Composer software. Thus, skills translate and most of the core functions are available for you to use.

Many users are quite happy with the advantages of Adobe’s Creative Cloud software subscription model. Others prefer to own their software. If you work in video, then it’s easy to put together alternative software kits for editing, effects, audio, and encoding that don’t touch an Adobe product. Yet for most, the stumbling block is Photoshop – until now. Both Affinity Photo (Serif) and Pixelmator Pro are full-fledged graphic design and creation tools that rival Photoshop in features and quality. Each of these has its own strong points. Affinity Photo offers Mac and Windows versions, while Pixelmator Pro is Mac only, but taps more tightly into macOS functions.

If you work in the Final Cut Pro X world, several utilities are essential. These include SendToX and XtoCC from Intelligent Assistance, along with X2Pro Audio Convert from Marquis Broadcast. Marquis’ newest is Worx4 X – a media management tool. It takes your final sequence and creates a new FCPX library with consolidated (trimmed) media. No transcoding is involved, so the process is lighting fast. Although in some cases media is copied without being trimmed. This can reduce the media to be archived from TBs down to GBs. They also offer Worx4 Pro, which is designed for Premiere Pro CC users. This tool serves as a media tracking application, to let editors find all of the media used in a Premiere Pro project across multiple volumes.

Most editors love to indulge in plug-in packages. If you can only invest in a single, large plug-in package, then BorisFX’s Boris Continuum Complete 11 and/or their Sapphire 11 bundles are the way to go. These are industry-leading tools with wide host and platform support. Both feature mocha tracking integration and Continuum also includes the Primatte Studio chromakey technology.

If you want to go for a build-it-up-as-you-need-it approach – and you are strictly on the Mac – then FxFactory will be more to your liking. You can start with the free, basic platform or buy the Pro version, which includes FxFactory’s own plug-ins. Either way, FxFactory functions as a plug-in management tool. FxFactory’s numerous partner/developers provide their products through the FxFactory platform, which functions like an app store for plug-ins. You can pick and choose the plug-ins that you need when the time is right to purchase them. There are plenty of plug-ins to recommend, but I would start with any of the Crumplepop group, because they work well and provide specific useful functions. They also include the few audio plug-ins available via FxFactory. Another plug-in to check out is the Hawaiki Keyer 4. It installs into both the Apple and Adobe applications and far surpasses the built-in keying tools within these applications.

The Crumplepop FxFactory plug-ins now includes Koji Advance, which is a powerful film look tool. I like Koji a lot, but prefer FilmConvert from Rubber Monkey Software. To my eyes, it creates one of the more pleasing and accurate film emulations around and even adds a very good three-way color corrector. This opens as a floating window inside of FCPX, which is less obtrusive than some of the other color correction plug-ins for FCPX. It’s not just for film emulation – you can actually use it as the primary color corrector for an entire project.

I don’t want to forget audio plug-ins in this end-of-the-year roundup. Most editors don’t feel too comfortable with a ton of surgical audio filters, so let me stick to suggestions that are easy-to-use and very affordable. iZotope is a well-known audio developer and several of its products are perfect for video editors. These fall into repair, mixing, and mastering needs. These include the Nectar, Ozone, and RX bundles, along with the RX Loudness Control. The first three groups are designed to cover a wide range of needs and, like the BCC video plug-ins, are somewhat of an all-encompassing product offering. But if that’s a bit rich for the blood, then check out iZotope’s various Elements versions.

The iZotope RX Loudness Control is great for accurate loudness compliance, and best used with Avid or Adobe products. However, it is not real-time, because it uses analysis and adaptive processing. If you want something more straightforward and real-time, then check out the LUFS Meter from Klangfreund. It can be used for loudness control on individual tracks or the master output. It works with most of the NLEs and DAWs. A similar tool to this is Loudness Change from Videotoolshed.

Finally, let’s not forget the iOS world, which is increasingly becoming a viable production platform. For example, I’ve used my iPad in the last year to do location interview recordings. This is a market that audio powerhouse Apogee has also recognized. If you need a studio-quality hardware interface for an iPhone or iPad, then check out the Apogee ONE. In my case, I tapped the Apogee MetaRecorder iOS application for my iPad, which works with both Apogee products and the iPad’s built-in mic. It can be used in conjunction with FCPX workflows through the integration of metadata tagging for Keywords, Favorites, and Markers.

Have a great holiday season and happy editing in the coming year!

©2017 Oliver Peters

Advertisements

Audio Splits and Stems in Premiere Pro Revisited

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

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

Step 1 – Edit

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

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

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

Output your final mixed master file for delivery.

Step 2 – Multichannel DME sequences

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

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

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

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

Step 3 – Multichannel export

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

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

Presets

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

©2017 Oliver Peters

SpeedScriber

Script-based video editing started with Ediflex. But, it really came into its own when Avid created script integration as a way to cut dialogue-driven stories, like feature films, in Media Composer. The key ingredient is a written script or a transcription of the spoken audio. This is easy with a feature that’s been acted according to defined script lines, but much harder with something freeform, like a documentary or news interview. In those projects, you first need a person or service to transcribe the audio into a written document – or simply cut without it and hunt around when you look for that one specific sentence.

Modern technology has come to the rescue in the form of artificial intelligence, which has enabled a number of transcription services to offer very fast turnaround times from audio upload to a transcribed, speech-to-text document. Several video developers have tapped into these resources to create new transcription services/applications, which can be tied into several of the popular NLE applications.

Transcription for the three “A” companies

One of these new products is SpeedScriber, a transcription application for macOS and its companion service developed by Digital Heaven, which was founded by veteran UK editor and plug-in developer Martin Baker. To start using SpeedScriber, install the free SpeedScriber application, which is available from the Apple Mac App Store. The next steps depend on whether you just want to create transcribed documents, captioning files, or script integration for Avid Media Composer, Adobe Premiere Pro CC, or Apple Final Cut Pro X.

If you just want a document, or plan to use Media Composer or FCPX, then no other tools are required. For Premiere Pro CC workflows, you’ll want to download an panel installer for macOS or Windows from the SpeedScriber website. This integrates as a standard Premiere Pro panel and permits you to import transcription files directly into Premiere Pro. The SpeedScriber application enables roundtripping to/from Final Cut using FCPXML.

First, let’s talk about the transcription itself. It should generally be clip-based and not from edited timelines, unless you just want to document a completed project or for captioning. When you launch SpeedScriber for the first time, you’ll need to create an account. This will include 15 minutes of free transcription time. The file length determines the time used. Billing for the service is based on time and is tiered, ranging from $.50/minute (30/60/120 minutes) down to $.37/minute (6,000 minutes). Minutes are pre-purchased and don’t expire.

Once your account is ready, drag-and-drop or point the application to the file to import. Disable any unwanted audio channels, so that the transcription is based on the best audio channel within the file. Even if all channels are equal, disable all but one of them. Set up the number of speakers and language format, such as British, Australian, or American English. According to Baker, support for five European languages will be added in version 1.1. The service will automatically determine when speakers change, such as between an interviewer and the subject. It’s hard for the system to determine this with great accuracy, so don’t expect these speaker changes to be perfect.

The transcription experience

Accuracy of the transcription can be extremely good, but it depends on the audio quality that you’ve supplied. A clean interview track – well mic’ed and in a quiet room – can be dead-on with only a few corrections needed. Slower speakers who enunciate well result in greater accuracy. On the other hand, having several speakers in a noisy environment, or a very fast speaker with a heavy accent, will require a lot of correction – enough so that manual transcription might be better in those cases.

Once SpeedScriber has completed its automatic transcription, you can play the file to proof it and make any corrections to the text that are required. It’s easy to type corrections to the transcription within the SpeedScriber text editing window. When done, you can export the text in a number of different formats. I ran a test clip of a clear-spoken woman with well-recorded audio. She had a slight southern drawl, but the result from SpeedScriber was excellent. It also did a good job of ignoring speech idiosyncrasies, such a frequent “ums”. This eight minute test clip only required about a dozen text corrections throughout.

If the objective is script integration into an NLE, then the process varies depending on brand. Typically such integration is clip-based, although multi-cam clips are supported. However, it’s tougher when you try to connect the transcription to a timeline. For example, I like to do cutdowns of interviews first, before transcribing, and that’s not really how ScreedScriber works best. In version 1.1, FCPX compound clips will be supported, so segments can be cut before transcription.

A clear set of tutorial videos are available in the support section of  the SpeedScriber website.

Integration with NLEs

Media Composer is easy, because it already has a Script Integration feature. Import the text file that was exported from SpeedScriber as a new script into Media Composer and link the video clip to it. If you purchased Avid’s ScriptSync, then you can automatically line up the clip to sentences within the script. This happens automatically thanks to ScriptSync’s speech analysis function. But if you didn’t purchase this add-on, simply add sync points manually.

With Premiere Pro, select the clip, open the SpeedScriber panel and from it, import the corresponding transcription. The text appears in the Speech Analysis section of that clip’s metadata display. It will actually be embedded into the media file so that the clip can be moved between projects complete with that clip’s transcription. You can view and use this text display to mark in/out by words for accurate script-based selections. When you import the script and link it to a multi-cam clip, synced clip, or sequence, text will show up as markers and can be viewed in the markers panel. Premiere Pro is the only integration that can easily update existing speech metadata or markers. So you can start editing with the raw transcript and then update it later when corrections have been made. However, when I tested transcriptions on an edited sequence instead of a clip, it locked up Premiere Pro, requiring a Force Quit. Fortunately, when I re-opened the recovered project, the markers were there as expected.

The most straight forward approach seems to be its use with Final Cut Pro X. According to Baker, “This is the first Digital Heaven product with broad appeal by supporting Avid and Premiere Pro. But FCPX has ended up having the deepest integration due to the ability to drag-and-drop the Library, which was introduced in 10.3. So with roundtripping, SpeedScriber rebuilds the clip’s timeline without any need to export. Another advantage of the roundtripping is that SpeedScriber can read the audio channel status from the dropped XML, which is important for getting the best accuracy.”

There’s a roundtrip procedure with FCPX, but even without it, simply export an FCPXML from SpeedScriber. Import that into your Final Cut Pro X Library. The clip will then show a number of keyword entries corresponding to line breaks. For each keyword entry, the browser notes field will display the associated text, making it easy to find any dialogue. Plus, these entries are already marked as selections. When clips are edited into the sequence (an FCPX Project), the timeline index enables these notes to be displayed under the Tags section.

SpeedScriber shows tremendous potential to accelerate the efficiency of many spoken-word projects, like documentaries. Half the battle is trying to figure out the story that you want to tell, so having the text right in front of you makes this job easier. Applying modern technology to this challenge is refreshing and the constantly improving accuracy of these systems makes it an easy consideration. SpeedScriber is one of those tools that not only gets you home earlier, but will give you the assurance that you can easily find that clip you are looking for in the proverbial haystack of clips.

©2017 Oliver Peters

A Light Footprint

When I started video editing, the norm was an edit suite with three large quadraplex (2”) videotape recorders, video switcher, audio mixer, B&W graphics camera(s) for titles, and a computer-assisted, timecode-based edit controller. This was generally considered  an “online edit suite”, but in many markets, this was both “offline” (creative cutting) and “online” (finishing). Not too long thereafter, digital effects (ADO, NEC, Quantel) and character generators (Chyron, Aston, 3M) joined the repertoire. 2” quad eventually gave way to 1” VTRs and those, in turn, were replaced by digital – D1, D2, and finally Digital Betacam. A few facilities with money and clientele migrated to HD versions of these million dollar rooms.

Towards the midpoint in the lifespan for this way of working, nonlinear editing took hold. After a few different contenders had their day in the sun, the world largely settled in with Avid and/or Media 100 rooms. While a lower cost commitment than the large online bays of the day, these nonlinear edit bays (NLE) still required custom-configured Macs, a fair amount of external storage, along with proprietary hardware and monitoring to see a high-quality video image. Though crude at first, NLEs eventually proved capable of handling all the video needs, including HD-quality projects and even higher resolutions today.

The trend towards smaller

As technology advanced, computers because faster and more powerful, storage capacities increased, and software that required custom hardware evolved to work in a software-only mode. Today, it’s possible to operate with a fraction of the cost, equipment, and hassle of just a few years ago, let along a room from the mid-70s. As a result, when designing or installing a new room, it’s important to question the assumptions about what makes a good edit bay configuration.

For example, today I frequently work in rooms running newer iMacs, 2013 Mac Pros, and even MacBook Pro laptops. These are all perfectly capable of running Apple Final Cut Pro X, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid Media Composer, and other applications, without the need for additional hardware. In my interview with Thomas Grove Carter, he mentioned often working off of his laptop with a connected external drive for media. And that’s at Trim, a high-end London commercial editing boutique.

In my own home edit room, I recently set aside my older Mac Pro tower in favor of working entirely with my 2015 MacBook Pro. No more need to keep two machines synced up and the MBP is zippier in all respects. With the exception of some heavy-duty rendering (infrequent), I don’t miss using the tower. I run the laptop with an external Dell display and have configured my editing application workspaces around a single screen. The laptop is closed and parked in a BookArc stand tucked behind the Dell. But I also bought a Rain stand for those times when I need the MBP open and functioning as a second display.

Reduce your editing footprint

I find more and more editors working in similar configurations. For example, one of my clients is a production company with seven networked (NAS storage) workstations. Most of these are iMacs with few other connected peripherals. The main room has a 2013 “trash can” Mac Pro and a bit more gear, since this is the “hero” room for clients. If you are looking to downsize your editing environment, here are some pointers.

While you can work strictly from a laptop, I prefer to build it up for a better experience. Essential for me is a Thunderbolt dock. Check out OWC or CalDigit for two of the best options. This lets you connect the computer to the dock and then everything else connects to that dock. One Thunderbolt cable to the laptop, plus power for the computer, leaving you with a clean installation with an easy-to-move computer. From the dock, I’m running a Presonus Audiobox USB audio interface (to a Mackie mixer and speakers), a TimeMachine drive, a G-Tech media drive, and the Dell display. If I were to buy something different today, I would use the Mackie Onyx Blackjack interface instead of the Presonus/Mackie mixer combo. The Blackjack is an all-in-one solution.

Expand your peripherals as needed

At the production company’s hero room, we have the extra need to drive some video monitors for color correction and client viewing. That room is similarly configured as above, except with a Mac Pro and connection to a QNAP shared storage solution. The latter connects over 10Gb/s Ethernet via a Sonnet Thunderbolt/Ethernet adapter.

When we initially installed the room, video to the displays was handled by a Blackmagic Design UltraStudio device. However, we had a lot of playback performance issues with the UltraStudio, especially when using FCPX. After some experimenting, we realized that both Premiere Pro and FCPX can send a fullscreen, [generally] color-accurate signal to the wall-mounted flat panel using only HDMI and no other video i/o hardware. We ended up connecting the HDMI from the dock to the display and that’s the standard working routine when we are cutting in either Premiere Pro or Final Cut.

The rub for us is DaVinci Resolve. You must use some type of Blackmagic Design hardware product in order to get fullscreen video to a display when in Resolve. Therefore, the Ultrastudio’s HDMI port connects to the second HDMI input of the large client display and SDI feeds a separate TV Logic broadcast monitor. This is for more accurate color rendition while grading. With Media Composer, there were no performance issues, but the audio and video signal wants to go through the same device. So, if we edit Avid, then the signal chain goes through the UltraStudio, as well.

All of this means that in today’s world, you can work as lightly as you like. Laptop-only – no problem. iMac with some peripherals – no problem. A fancy, client-oriented room – still less hassle and cost than just a few short years ago. Load it up with extra control surfaces or stay light with a keyboard, mouse, or tablet. It all works today – pretty much as advertised. Gone are the days when you absolutely need to drop a small fortune to edit high-quality video. You just have to know what you are doing and understand the trade-offs as they arise.

©2017 Oliver Peters

Customize Premiere Pro with Workspaces

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

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

It all starts with displays

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

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

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

Edit layout 1

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

Edit layout 2

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

Edit layout 3

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

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

Edit layout 4

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

Edit layout 5

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

Edit layout 6

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

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

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

©2017 Oliver Peters

Premiere Pro Workflow Tips

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2017 Oliver Peters

Bricklayers and Sculptors

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________

Simon Ubsdell – Bricklayers and Sculptors in practical terms

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

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

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

Working subtractively

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

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

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

Feeling the pacing and flow

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

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

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

Working towards the delivery target

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

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

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

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

Learning to tell the story in pictures

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

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

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

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

Freeing yourself of the Browser/Bins

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

The edit comes to shape organically

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

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

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

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

– Simon Ubsdell

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

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

©2017 Oliver Peters