-
Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
-
The Raptor video was certainly high quality. I have been a fan of airplanes since the fifties. New ones come along much less often than in the 50’s were innovation was more rapid.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “This is always going to come down to anecdotes, but in my world the standard of finishing expected by our clients keeps going up year on year.”
You’re correct on both counts, of course, which points to a third observation, that some anecdotes are very easy to extrapolate outward toward general applicability, and some are very easy to reject.
If finishing were finished, we’d be seeing fewer options for it, on every platform, in every context, and every pricepoint, when in fact the opposite is true. As I noted upthread, all of those are exploding.
As another example, you and I might swap anecdotes about how much we personally love disks, and how every one of our clients demands disk deliverables….but what does the market for DVD creation software look like? The question verges on rhetorical, because the answer verges on, “Market? What market?” Tools still exist, obviously, but it’s not a product category the way it was just a few years ago. Calling it a “niche” almost gives it too much credit. The market has spoken. Disks are done.
The market has spoken even more forcefully on finishing. This isn’t the decade of proliferating NLE options. It’s the decade of finishing going all the way mainstream, and expanding outward in every possible direction, at every price point, from free to Baselight. ???? Heritage providers of finishing solutions including Autodesk and SAM (formerly Quantel) doing well, a plethora of X plug-ins (to say nothing of expanding finishing toolsets in multi-host plugs like Boris FX Continuum, Sapphire, mocha)…
…PLUS the increasing finishing sophistication built in to hosts like Premiere Pro and X (Avid has always taken this seriously since Symphony, plus, well, Resolve, whose finishing capabilities are driving its adoption as an NLE, which is how Grant Petty tells us it’s most often being used.
[Joe Marler] “However the movie “Saved By Grace” was finished entirely in FCPX: https://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1830-hollywood-veteran-lance-bache...”
I love this story. Couldn’t possibly make a stronger case for the to which finishing is more critical than ever, “even” if it’s being done in FCPX.
(And I am genuinely mystified how anyone could equate the rise of FCPX with any kind of decline of finishing. Are we back to skateboard videos as the new benchmark of the reality? Go to YouTube and look up “Skateboard Video RED camera” and “Skateboard Phantom camera” and be prepared to be amazed by YEARS of 4K skateboard videos at up to 7000 frames per second that will blow your mind.)
The first thing to note is that Steve’s approach to imagery is impeccable. I’m delighted to be following Steve on Instagram, where even his goofing-around touristy stuff looks better than what some folks shoot for a living. ????
For Saved By Grace, he was shooting on two RED Dragons in 4K, ProRes 4444, with a “classical” film workflow that included dailies, sync sound, the whole shebang.
Here’s what he has to say about finishing in that article. I added some highlights in bold that Steve may wish to comment on, but I think he says it quite well here. He spent a lot of time on finishing inside FCPX, with a diverse handful of third party tools, plus a native toolset that has been driven by the demand for more and better finishing tools.
I worked probably 6 weeks finishing the edit in my home studio and then handed off the audio files for the mix. While the mix was being completed the Director and I began creating a look for the film and color grading.
Although I did export the final show to Resolve 12 for color timing we were not happy with what we were getting (not to mention all the crashes), and went back to Redcine to do most of the color. There were radical white balance problems between the 2 Dragons, and Redcine has a great white balance tool.
We didn’t go back to Resolve at all. Instead, we found the combination of RedcineX and Color Finale inside FCP X to be a fantastic combo. I did the first color pass using the Alchemy tool inside Redcine, which is great for creating a really nice and filmic first-pass contrast and look.
The problem with Alchemy is it is only available in the metadata in Redcine and it does not show up in any NLE. So once we approved the look in Redcine I would render 4K 4444 XQ ProRes files out and cut those in to the final reels in FCPX, on top of the Red raw files. From there I would use Color Finale for the final look, scoping everything along the way using the FCP X scopes which I feel are far and away the best software scopes in the industry.
We used CoreMelt SliceX with Color Finale to track power windows. It worked great and was such a pleasure to do inside FCP X. I also added some adjustment layers, using the Color Board for final tweaks.
Scopes! He used SCOPES!
Does this sound like somebody who thinks finishing is finished? NO. And while Resolve turned out to be a no-go for him (a true-as-it-needs-to-be anecdote that may note), he beautifully illustrates my point about the rich ecosystem for advanced finishing using plug-ins for X, and X’s own finishing toolset, working with Redcine, RedcineX, Color Finale, Alchemy, SliceX, AND FCPX. So, one editing toolset, seven finishing toolsets. THAT’s what I’m talking about.
On its own, yes, Steve’s story is “just another anecdote”, but one that clearly aligns with the overwhelming direction of the industry to more emphasis on finishing, not less.
This does not discount for one second, for one iota, the validity of a “finishing doesn’t matter anymore” for any individual producer. If it’s true for you, it’s as true as it needs to be.
But to attempt to extrapolate that into any industry-wide trend, even one that includes YouTube, replete with its Phantoms, REDs, Blackmagic Cinema Cameras, and 35mm DSLRs, is objectively, factually, demonstrably simply not true at all. The most characteristic characteristic of digital content creation in the 21st century’s second decade is exponentially expanding options for finishing, driven by real-world demand.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “[Joe Marler] “I don’t see that, at least in TV news.”
Indeed, there are many areas where standards have plummeted to a pitiful low.”
When has TV news driven anything resembling aesthetics? It’s kind of the anti-aesthetic, and always has been. “Run and gun” comes from news, and points to the exact opposite of finesse. It’s never finished.
I do agree that that’s no excuse for not white balancing. You do THAT before you start running, and it ain’t that hard to do while you’re actually running, either. ????
But acknowledging the respect due to producers who DO care about production values under the gun, the fact that the worst of TV news is continuing to lower the bar of the lowest possible bar isn’t reflective of any trends in any other part of the industry. I mean, sports is done on the fly, and that stuff is looking amazing — sometimes through the application of technologies that we’d previously only seen in post.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Me, too. However, let’s not forget that Adobe has also been doing essentially the same with Premiere Pro. Audio is largely from Audition, color correction (Lumetri) is totally SpeedGrade, and now the new title tool is using elements of Photoshop.
“True! Buuuuuut…..Audition isn’t quite the scale of Fairlight, and it took Adobe longer than 5 months to integrate it. ???? And a little longer than that to integrate Photoshop as a title tool. ????
I’m totally with you on Lumetri, though. I do think it played a meaningful role on raising the game for grading using an NLE’s native toolset rather than an external application. Apple noticed, as did third parties who raised their own game for X as well. Actual GRADING toolsets, not just “color correction” are no longer “nice to haves”. They’re “must haves”.
-
People were doing YouTube videos long before FCPX without the need for handing of to a post production house for finishing. It is nothing new. Having said that why would a YouTuber higher a motion graphics artist or 3-D animator if it is not needed? On the flip side what if Justin Tse was asked to create the the next Avatar movie from start to finish. Do you think he could do it all using only FCPX? It should be easy to see every video project will require different software. Anyone who thinks all video projects can be done from start to finish using FCPX might want to rethink things. Having said that does anyone remember when I stated I thought the FCPX’s 3-D titles looked cheesy and I explained why? I later stated I like to use mattes and masks vs 3-D titles? Something Premiere Pro can do very easy. Having said that I did not see the 3-D titling of FCPX used in the video. Instead I saw some mattes and 2-D titles. So now key-framed 2-D titles and mattes are better than 3-D titles? If that is the case I think Premiere Pro might have and advantage over FCPX.
-
Again, we’re down to a semantic gulf.
If the group in this thread accepts that “finishing” now includes an editor at home using X’s color board or Color Finale, we have no difference.
My assumption was those taking umbrage regarding my blasphemy ???? were of the “unless you’re sending it out to an expert – you’re doing it wrong” variety.
My mistake.
If the hive mind agree henceforth that a Kid using Premiere to match a 2 camera switch, and a dedicated Baselight artist are all “finishing.” – then we we have no disagreement here.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “If the hive mind agree henceforth that a Kid using Premiere to match a 2 camera switch, and a dedicated Baselight artist are all “finishing.” – then we we have no disagreement here.”
Hive mind? just because everyone disagreed with your post?
Everybody here knows that finishing is changing and you can “finish” on pretty much any NLE but you said
“But it’s also true that “finishing” is changing. And worse, becoming less and less relevant in the modern era. ”
It’s the “less and less relevant” bit that everyone disagreed with.
-
[Bill Davis] “If the group in this thread accepts that “finishing” now includes an editor at home using X’s color board or Color Finale, we have no difference.
….. were of the “unless you’re sending it out to an expert – you’re doing it wrong” variety. “Both can be true. You can be an expert and use X+tools to do your finishing. Conversely, you can be less than an expert, use X, and get terrible results.
The point is that proper finishing requires expertise regardless of the tools used. You divide up the tasks based on the expertise that you do or don’t have and/or require to get the job done at a quality level that the deliverables warrant. That hasn’t changed and in fact, given the increased outlets (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) and the demand for higher-quality deliverables (UHD, HDR, etc.), the need for qualified finishing has actually increased.
The additional factor is that your client may or may not recognize and accept your expertise. You might be a whiz at creating mixes in X, but if your client doesn’t feel comfortable in that, it’s still going to go out to an audio specialist.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Scott Witthaus] “Can there be such a thing as too MUCH content?”
I’m going to go with no on this Scott. There is a lot of stuff out there but we are all not watching everything. It just means that now everyone has their own tailored viewing if you will.
More outlets means more jobs, more opportunities to make money. Also more opportunities to get your work to the public if you are a filmmaker. One says no, you place it with 5 others and keep stepping.
[Scott Witthaus] “Sling was the first to go with Netflix being examined next. Amazon stays because of my Prime account.”
I totally agree here because Netflix has been cutting their content like documentaries where as Amazon is brining in more docs and people can watch them easier because they shop on there with their membership. I liked a few of the Netflix shows but the ones I like have gotten kind of out there.
[Scott Witthaus] ” HBO never was”
Got to disagree here Scott, some of the best TV I have ever seen has been on HBO. “The Wire” alone was worth the cost of admission for me and “True Detectives”? Come on Scott, that first season was a flat-out masterpiece : )
HBO has had plenty I enjoy over the years with “Game Of Thrones”, “Westworld”, “Big Little Lies” recently. “Curb Your Enthusiasm” was one of the funniest series I have ever seen. “I’m a surviver, no, I’m a surviver”
I work so much that I use my Apple TV to watch HBO and other shows on my own schedule.
Those are my thoughts, my brother : )
-
[Oliver Peters] “You can be an expert and use X+tools to do your finishing. Conversely, you can be less than an expert, use X, and get terrible results.”
Of course, it really depends what you mean by “finishing”, what type of programme you are finishing and what your audience expectations are.
Broadly speaking there are these main areas that come under finishing: audio mixing, conforming and color grading, VFX, motion graphics, and mastering.
Let’s take audio. I want to flag up this quote from the Saving Grace project: “I worked probably 6 weeks finishing the edit in my home studio and then handed off the audio files for the mix.”
Having worked in pro audio for over thirty years, I could probably put together a cinema quality sound mix entirely inside FCP X if you put a gun to my head – at least for a certain type of feature film project. Of course, I’d want to have access to all my expensive third party plug-ins to even contemplate doing so, but there’s no doubt it would be possible – for some types of project.
Would I be happy that the mix I created in my small studio would stand up in a large theatre? I could certainly make a reasonable guess based on extensive experience, but I’d really hate to have to rely on that guess. (Edit: I should add that mixing to a large picture means you balance everything very differently compared to mixing to a small picture.)
In other words, if you’re mixing for cinema, you really do need access to a big, fully certified room in a large facility. Your desktop set-up just isn’t going to cut it, even if you know exactly what you are doing.
Would I contemplate mixing Guardians of the Galaxy this way with tracks stacked hundreds of layers deep? Of course not. It would be ridiculous to try.
Let’s look at color grading. Obviously there are projects that you can successfully grade on your desktop using your favourite NLE. Clearly there have been features that have been graded this way.
But would you try to grade The Revenant using Color Finale in your back bedroom? You could try, but there are just so many reasons to choose a high end grading suite for a high end project: the ease, speed and accuracy of dedicated grading hardware; grading software built for the job; a properly calibrated projected image; a fully controlled light environment; not to mention the skills and natural talent of a top flight colorist who has made color grading their life’s work.
How about motion graphics? The feature film Focus made a big deal of having created their title sequence in FCP X, but I’m really not sure why anyone would think there’s anything remarkable about that. You could have done the same in most NLEs ten years ago. But could you have made the title sequence for, say, Man in the High Castle in FCP X? You might be able to do a final composite, but it’s simply not even remotely conceivable you could do any of the rest of it. It’s a complete non-starter.
Moving on to VFX. Obviously there are a number of tasks that could reasonably be considered VFX that you can perform inside your favourite NLE: screen replacement, cloning, sky replacement, etc. But could you create the visual effects for Guardians of the Galaxy? Why do we even have to ask the question – of course you couldn’t, not in a million years. What you can do inside your NLE represents perhaps 5% of what is typically meant by visual effects – it’s absurd to think that that 5% is at all meaningful.
Finally, mastering. Vashi Nedomansky talked recently about using the Wraptor plug-in available free with Adobe Media Encoder for making screening DCPs and that’s a seriously nice bonus. But I’d be pretty certain they didn’t master the feature using this method. We frequently make DCPs this way for your clients for market and other industry screenings, but we would always want them to go to a dedicated facility to create their definitive distribution masters. Not least because it’s a process with complex requirements once you go beyond the most basic options, and most importantly because we don’t want to have to be responsible for potentially very expensive and serious mistakes. One of the reasons you pay experts is so that you don’t have to take the flak when something goes wrong!
In other words, of course you can “finish on your desktop”, as long as you acknowledge the very real limits to what this means.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up