-
Great FCPX Event today in Hollywood!
-
[Tim Wilson] “I don’t think it’s fair to expect cameras to flip the bird.”
I’m not expecting camera makers (or any other manufacturer) to flip the bird. I’m just pointing out that a group of self-professed pirate rebel disruptors of the status quo opted to use a camera that is as accepted by the establishment as their choice of NLE is rejected by the establishment.
It’s like finding out Evil Knievel’s favorite car is a nice, safe Volvo sedan. lol
[Tim Wilson] “The point of X on Focus is NOT that “we can make a guerilla-style run and gun feature with X.” The point of X on Focus is that we can do exactly what we need to do in order for X to be at the heart of big-budget blockbuster filmmaking.”
The presenters at the event repeatedly referred to themselves pirates (and had repeated calls to action for all the other ‘pirates’ in the audience) and if they weren’t doing/saying things that made other people uncomfortable they weren’t doing their jobs. Their words, not mine. RED, which makes nice looking images too, would fit that mantra better than Arri, IMO. Does it really matter? No, just an observation I had while at the event.
[Tim Wilson] “I don’t think that disruption requires a middle finger.”
Neither do I, which is why I’m enjoying poking fun at some of the over-the-top rhetoric used by the presenters. The apparent smoothness of using X on Focus speaks for itself so the rhetoric, IMO, was unnecessary. The crowd ate it up though so maybe I’m just not the target demo for that line of salesmanship.
Coming back full circle, Charlie made the observation that while both Gone Girl and Focus used ‘unproven’ NLEs, Gone Girl went a more traditional route with PPro and Focus went a less traditional (some might say hated) route with X. In a cheeky response I just pointed out that when it came to the camera decision the roles seemed reversed.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “At the Focus event there was lot of rhetoric from the presenters (well, not the Arri presenter) about wanting to rock the boat, wanting to be pirates, not doing their jobs unless they are making people uncomfortable, etc., and that’s what I’m riffing on (though it obviously wouldn’t be apparent if you weren’t at the presentation). It’s the posturing, not the product choices that caught my attention. I mean, when was the last time choosing to shoot a feature film on an Arri camera was a rebellious, radical, middle-finger-to-the-establishment decision?
If the Focus teams said they set out to pick the bets tools for the job then that’s one thing, but if you are selling yourself as a rebellious pirate bent on disrupting the status quo then, I’m sorry, you can’t pick the most popular d-cinema camera made by one of the oldest companies in the film biz.haha Just doesn’t fit the mantra.”
I see. Well, yes. I wasn’t there so I do not have the luxury of the presentation perspective.
In general, picking “Apple” (like picking “Arri”) is a pretty safe bet, Apple computers (devoid of Apple NLEs) have a long standing film and digital film track record and pedigree. Picking the specific tool, (FCPX) is no where near as safe.
Not only that, for 85% of the film they used ProRes 4444, another Apple pick, rather than ARRIRAW (which they saved for VFX).
So while The Alexa has roots in an ‘old guard’ company, you could say that FCPX is from an ‘old guard’ company relative to their respective industries and time on Earth. What isn’t old guard is the physical tool. The Alexa is tested, X is not. Not only that, they has to run this up the flag pole and get a studio to support them. That couldn’t have been very easy and it included a contingency plan of getting the whole feature back to FCP7 if needed.
[Andrew Kimery] “Arri set out too make a great digital camera that could easily slip in to existing production and post workflows where as Apple set out to make a great NLE that would disrupt existing workflows. Sometimes very good products come from relatively young companies, sometimes very good products come from relatively old companies. Sometimes very good products cause disruption and sometimes very good products fit in to place without anyone missing a beat.
“Arri’s camera fit in to NEW existing workflows. Workflows where the offline and the online are not that far away from each other, where editorial and finishing are using the exact same media, where editing is happening right next to the set. That is a relatively new concept, and ProRes 444 with FCPX fits really well here, even on the consumer iMac computers being used on set. It’s not that other NLE’s couldn’t do this, it’s that FCPX can do this, and the Arri Alexa helps them to do this in a pretty efficient manner at an extremely high quality.
I think the pirate comments are more about choosing FCPX and getting a studio to OK it, flying in the face of the internet backlash from professionals with loud typing voices that have been against the notion of FCPX from the very first day it was shown to the public.
-
I wonder how Aindreas Gallagher is these days?
Motion Pictures actually released with FCPX, Several TV Networks using the workflow including his beloved beeb.
🙂
Dean Neal…
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “…it’s that FCPX can do this, and the Arri Alexa helps them to do this in a pretty efficient manner at an extremely high quality.”
And I’m certainly not trying undermine anything the team did. At the time it was just a weird juxtaposition where there was a lot of talk about all these readily available tools (iMacs, iPads, FCP X, a laundry list of apps from the Mac App Store, etc.,) and then Arri. Suddenly the “one of the these things is not like the others” song from Sesame Street starts playing in my head. haha
Speaking of the online workflow though, both the editor and director commented more than once about how easy it was to switch from the full res to the proxy files w/in FCP X which makes me think they utilized that somewhat often. With editing collaboration happening offsite it would make sense for the full res files just to exist onsite and for people to take the proxies w/them for offsite work. I didn’t ask though so I don’t know how often (and for what purposes) they switched between the online and offline quality footage.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think the pirate comments are more about choosing FCPX and getting a studio to OK it, flying in the face of the internet backlash from professionals with loud typing voices that have been against the notion of FCPX from the very first day it was shown to the public.”
They also dislike the current state of post audio (really, really dislike the current state of post audio) and I think any part of the workflow that isn’t electronic. lol
-
[Andrew Kimery] “And I’m certainly not trying undermine anything the team did. At the time it was just a weird juxtaposition where there was a lot of talk about all these readily available tools (iMacs, iPads, FCP X, a laundry list of apps from the Mac App Store, etc.,) and then Arri. Suddenly the “one of the these things is not like the others” song from Sesame Street starts playing in my head. haha”
I guess we feel differently about the Alexa in general. I see it, albeit rather expensive to shoot and rent on a day to day basis, as a very accessible and rather easy to use tool with exceptional quality. As Tim W points out, there’s a reason the Alexa is so pervasive, and besides the image quality, it’s also the workflow.
There’s a big difference when using off the shelf production gear (let’s just say something like a DSLR) and off the shelf post-production gear. It goes to show what a lot of us have been arguing over the last few years. How much of a sizzle core beast do you need to edit (truly edit) a feature? If you use the big budget movie of Focus as the example, it turns out, you just enough of snazzle and not a metric ton of sizzle, and yet you still are able to pass the quality on to the finish (which in this case was Pablo).
For cameras, on the other hand, there’s a big difference between The Alexa and a DSLR. One day soon, those two technologies will also converge. We all know it’s already starting to happen.
I wonder if you are you saying that FCPX isn’t up to the task because it uses off the shelf hardware? I’d say that the Focus team proved that it could be done, and it took a lot of “yarrrrrggs!” to convince both the studio and the editing public. But even I don’t think there’d be enough parrots and peg legs to persuade them to shoot on a DSLR.
[Andrew Kimery] “They also dislike the current state of post audio (really, really dislike the current state of post audio) and I think any part of the workflow that isn’t electronic. lol”
Can you explain what you mean by this? Meaning they didn’t use Sync-N-Link at first?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” it took a lot of “yarrrrrggs!” to convince both the studio and the editing public.”
You’re exactly right, illustrating to me exactly where this metaphor falls completely apart for me. The filmmakers are all “Woo-hoo! We’re pirates! We chose X to piss people off!” or whatever, but you know what? Pirates used the same boats the navies did, maybe just better tuned to the task. But the reason they were able to run from navies is because their ships were state of the art, and every bit as expensive.
Not only were they no less pirates for those ships, those ships are all that enabled them to BE pirates. That, and pirate-y attitudes and, uhm, workflows. The pirate part is who’s ON the ship…but no fancy ship, no pirates.
That’s why Alexa and Pablo have ZERO to do with whether or not these guys were pirates. I’m 100% on board with acknowledging them as pirates (see what I did there?), but expecting them to have used cheap cameras or cheap DI to maintain pirate cred is the OPPOSITE of what a pirate would do in this situation. Can’t be running on the high seas with DV.
I know I’m belaboring a metaphor…but maybe THAT’s what we should rename the forum. FCPX or Not: Belaboring Metaphors.
I do think this is an important one, though, and it speaks to the fundamental nature of a revolution like this, which necessarily includes absolutely state of the art tools. The point of the Focus with X story is to establish that X absolutely IS state of the art.
I mean, they’re no less pirate-y for using Technocranes or a video village, either.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I guess we feel differently about the Alexa in general. I see it, albeit rather expensive to shoot and rent on a day to day basis, as a very accessible and rather easy to use tool with exceptional quality. As Tim W points out, there’s a reason the Alexa is so pervasive, and besides the image quality, it’s also the workflow.”
Maybe I spent too much time at REDUser back in the day and that warped my perception of Alexa. 😉
My not-big-budget narrative background might have something to do with it as well. On low budget narrative projects I’ve been a part of (typically as a colorist, not an editor) I’m used to online quality media being used throughout because the infrastructure and organization wasn’t in place to facilitate an offline/online workflow. They’d rather spend more money on a faster computer and some bigger, better drives than have to deal with the offline/online process. It also seemed archaic to many of them since they came up during the digital revolution so shooting to a tape/card/drive and plugging that footage straight into the NLE was the normal thing to do.
When RED came along this same market was super excited at the price point and the quality of the footage. The RAW workflow was especially alluring since it offered more control over the image than the cameras they were used to which typically baked in Rec 709/601. Since then more cameras have starting shooting in some form of LOG so you get a happy medium between an easy to handle codec (as opposed to RAW) that is stuck in 709/601.
Where am I going with this? I have no idea. I stopped mid-post to feed the baby and completely lost my train of thought. I think I was just trying to give backstory on my perception of Arri, but lord only knows at this point. Feel free to correct anything I’ve gotten wrong here as the camera side isn’t my forte though I do try and keep tabs on it.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I wonder if you are you saying that FCPX isn’t up to the task because it uses off the shelf hardware? “
I never said (or meant to imply) that X wasn’t up for the task. For what the Focus team wanted it was obviously up to the task. As far as off the shelf hardware goes, I feel like editorial has commonly been using off the shelf machines for at least a decade now. When I think of off the shelf I basically think any computer that can be readily purchased from a major supplier so, to me, even a super expensive nMP is still an off the shelf machine. Not off the shelf machines would be the SGI Octane boxes running IRIX that Smoke used to require or the heavy Resolve users that run Linux rigs with PCI expansion boxes. Maybe even Avid back before they started selling MC as software only (even though those were pretty much still off the shelf computers that just had Avid’s BOB).
[Jeremy Garchow] “Can you explain what you mean by this? Meaning they didn’t use Sync-N-Link at first?”
I don’t have much detail, just that the director of Focus seemed very annoyed at the ubiquitousness of ProTools. If someone in attendance could have offered a viable alternative I think the director would’ve hired that person on the spot.
[Tim Wilson] “Pirates used the same boats the navies did, maybe just better tuned to the task. But the reason they were able to run from navies is because their ships were state of the art, and every bit as expensive.”
The pirates in Captain Philips looked decidedly low-tech. 😉
I make one off the cuff remark and it completely hijacks the thread. I love this forum.
-
Since they are shooting their current film on ‘pirate cameras’ (Blackmagic Pocket camera and a Sony A7S) I can now overlook their use of the mainstream, no-one-ever-got-fired-for-using-an-Arri Alexa on Focus. 😉
“The directors are currently in Santa Fe, where they are filming a new untitled comedy with Tina Fey.
They are shooting it on the Blackmagic pocket cinema camera, and the Sony A7S mirrorless digital camera, and editing on Final Cut again.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/25/final-cut-x-used-for-hollywood-film-focus/23911667/
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Maybe I spent too much time at REDUser back in the day and that warped my perception of Alexa. 😉 “
It all makes sense now!
[Andrew Kimery] “When RED came along this same market was super excited at the price point and the quality of the footage. The RAW workflow was especially alluring since it offered more control over the image than the cameras they were used to which typically baked in Rec 709/601. Since then more cameras have starting shooting in some form of LOG so you get a happy medium between an easy to handle codec (as opposed to RAW) that is stuck in 709/601.
Where am I going with this? I have no idea. I stopped mid-post to feed the baby and completely lost my train of thought. I think I was just trying to give backstory on my perception of Arri, but lord only knows at this point. Feel free to correct anything I’ve gotten wrong here as the camera side isn’t my forte though I do try and keep tabs on it.
“Ha! It wont be the last time that happens.
Getting off on yet another tangent, I think Red sold the indie dream for a really long time (4k for 4k, or 3k for 3k). Arri didn’t have to. The ease of us of the Alexa vs the entire ramp up of the Red workflow didn’t really compare, at least in my experience. The Red camera took a lot of study to families yourself with it. What button does what, what slider does what, what the FLUT does what? The Arri is much more of a film borrowed workflow. Pick an ASA, pick a color space, and shoot it. You can almost expose by eye, if it looks good there, it’s going to look good later, and the idea of pushing and pulling exposure holds up in an Arri based workflow. Red has many steps in the process where that process is much harder to deal with and understand. The argument, though, is that since it’s RAW, you can “redevelop” the footage to get what you need as long as it’s not entirely over exposed.
Sure, Red was a more affordable camera (was, it isn’t so much anymore as both companies offer some similar price points) but a Red workflow required lots of transcoding time. And if you didn’t have that time, then you had to buy a Red coprocessor for a decent chunk of change. If you needed multiple computers to access the red raw footage, then you needed multiple red coprocessors for multiple decent chunks of change.
On the other hand, someone could hand you ProRes based Alexa footage without knowing a single things about Alexa footage, and you could import and start editing right away without any fuss and all at exceptional quality. You would have to figure out to put on a LUT, but that’s really easy, easier than ever in FCPX, certainly.
Both cameras take fantastic pictures. They both deserve a lot of credit, but Arri did have the luxury of time while watching Red bumble around for while in the early days. Then there was corporate espionage, and the whole thing turned even weirder.
[Andrew Kimery] “I never said (or meant to imply) that X wasn’t up for the task. For what the Focus team wanted it was obviously up to the task. As far as off the shelf hardware goes, I feel like editorial has commonly been using off the shelf machines for at least a decade now.”
I guess I am still hung up on the “one of these things is not like the other” pirate comment. I wasn’t there so again, I am probably missing the subtleties but I would assume they see themselves as ‘pirates’ because they took a chance on a product that was pretty much bad mouthed from day one, and ended up not only liking it, but introducing it on a big stage with the backing of a studio with big money. I’d feel like a pirate, too.
[Andrew Kimery] “[Jeremy Garchow] “Can you explain what you mean by this? Meaning they didn’t use Sync-N-Link at first?”
I don’t have much detail, just that the director of Focus seemed very annoyed at the ubiquitousness of ProTools. If someone in attendance could have offered a viable alternative I think the director would’ve hired that person on the spot.”
Ah, got it. Thanks for clarifying.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “They are shooting it on the Blackmagic pocket cinema camera,”
I wish them the best.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up