Andrew Kimery
Forum Replies Created
-
[Shane Ross] “Premiere…if you cut native…requires fast fast processors, lots of RAM, and a kick ass graphics card. It’s not so hot on the offline/online workflow…it’ll do it, but not nearly as slick as Avid. BUT, if you want to work native, and have lots of drive space…it’s a way to go.”
It depends on what the native footage is and how much of a performance hit you find objectionable. I edit camera native footage (HD, not UHD) with ’09 MacPro and 2011 MacBookPro in PPro and I find the performance acceptable. The GPU in the MacPro was middle of the road 2-3yrs ago and, at leasts in the tests I’ve done, I can pull a couple of streams of 4K RED clips with a key and CC just fine if I drop it down to 1/4 res playback (which means I’m ‘only’ looking at 1080p).
[Shane Ross] “FCX…you can work native or convert. It has a balance between kick ass computer specs and being able to work with what you have. “
I’ve only kicked around with X a tiny bit, but from what I’ve heard it really, really wants to be on newer hardware. I think PPro and Avid probably run better on older Macs than FCP X does.
-
CC 2015 (which wasn’t released when this thread was first started) is supposed to be better about not duplicating media when importing sequences from other projects. I would go ahead and give it a shot and see what happens.
-
I haven’t used Prelude but I just add keywords in PPro. The Search Bin feature in CC 2015 is way better than the version in CC2014 and so far I’m really enjoying using it. I wish you could choose more fields to search from (including custom fields) and that it had full Boolean search support (right now you can choose “and” and “or” but “not” is not an option), but it’s much improved even though I don’t remember Adobe saying much about the updates (which is a shame).
Also, and this seems to be a bug, if you are using sequences not all of the searchable fields work. For example, keywords in the “Description” column seem to be ignored but keywords in the “Comment” column are found so I’ve been putting all my keywords in the Comment column when using sequences (and I typically like to work from sequences as opposed to loose clips). I’ve got many interviews in many locations and I’ve used keywords so they will appear in different sort bins. For example, one bin might be “Montana” so every interview I did in Montana shows up there where as another bin might be “Bob” so every interview I did with Bob, regardless of location, shows up there.
This is my first project using the Search Bin feature so I’m still figuring out it’s strengths and limitations.
-
[Bill Davis] “Makes you think, huh.”
He’s inflexible and stuck in his ways? 😉
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “I wouldn’t particularly recommend this as a workflow, It was a little bit of a pain.””
Here’s the rest of the quote though, “But for me it was much nicer cutting in X for 2 weeks and spending half a day sending it to Avid, than spending 2 weeks in Avid.”
Anytime you transfer an edit from one NLE to another you are going to lose things, especially to/from Avid since it’s the only one that uses AAF as opposed to XML.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Actually two-cameras and multicam are often shot for dialogue scenes. But, the logistics of camera placement generally dictate two over-the-shoulder shots or two different framings from the same angle or two cameras at 90-degrees apart. You don’t get the same effect as the Coens’ examples. “
Right, but we were talking about the Coen’s approach which could possibly be achieved with small enough cameras likes the ones I mentioned. Even with those small cameras though whether or not a dirctor would want to shoot that way, or could shoot that way, is another question. Not to state the obvious, but the single vs multicam ‘debate’ isn’t just one of technical differences but also aesthetic differences and preferences.
-
[Bill Davis] “And options are good, right? “
Yes, but you had asked:
[Bill Davis] “Why necessarily shoot these sequentially any more? Sure that may still be the directors preference. But what if it’s not?”
So Oliver and I were trying trying to give you some examples of “why not”.
[Bill Davis] “There are lots of worthy production types that would relish having the option to capture these types of “inside reaction shots” quicker and easier while spending less to do so.”
There are, but like you said the focus of the discussion was on the “…top end of the production pyramid..”so that’s what we talked about. As long as the director didn’t run into any technical or aesthetic limitations there’s no reason one couldn’t setup two GoPros, iPhones, DSLRs, Blackmagic Pocket cameras, SI-2k Mini’s, ARRI Alexa Mini’s, etc., and edit it as multicam as you suggested. I’d honestly be surprised if someone, somewhere hadn’t already tried it yet. People are even going ‘beyond’ what we are talking about (shooting both angles at the same time) and shooting all ‘angles’ at the same time with 360 degree camera rigs for VR.
-
[Scott Witthaus] “In my humble opinion, I think this is a dumb way to choose an NLE (or market an NLE). “
Agreed and, to clarify, these were people had already picked their NLE (presumably based on their specific needs) and just felt it legitimized their decision. That’s the whole point of the ‘Cold Mountain moment” we talk about for FCP Legend. A high profile, well respected editor chose to use it on a high profile Hollywood project and you couldn’t ignore it. On a more local scale the same thing happened when Bunim/Murray switched from Avid to FCP Legend. Were they the first company that did RealityTV to use FCP? No, but they were a large, respected company that could chose anything they wanted and they chose FCP. That had ripple effects that a small shop choosing to use FCP (or whatever) could never produce.
To be fair though high profile, external validation impact many (most?) people’s decisions. If it didn’t product placement, celebrity endorsements, the phrase “no one ever got fired for buying IBM”, etc., wouldn’t exist. Heck how many people have a seemingly hardwired connection between price and quality (if it’s expensive it must be good, if it’s inexpensive it must suck)?
-
[Bill Davis] “And I kept having the powerful feeling that it was my personal inability to communicate it properly that was driving so much of my angst. “
Don’t worry, it’s not all your fault Bill. Some, but not all. 😉
Editors are normal people and like normal people there is a large section that is drawn to external validation. Recently on Facebook I’ve seen editors (some use Avid, some use X, some use PPro) all basically say the same thing, which is that they like the fact that big Hollywood projects are using their chosen NLE because it solidifies (justifies? vindicates?) the decision that they made in choosing that NLE. It’s our equivalent of the celebrity endorsement. Even if the person edits corporate videos and not movies there is the sense or prestige that their NLE of choice has also be chosen by big, hollywood people to edit big, hollywood movies.
I recently read an article about Chevy’s relationship with NASCAR and even though there has been nothing ‘stock’ about stock car racing for decades the motto of win on Sunday, sell on Monday still holds true. Chevy still sees an increase in Chevy sales after one of their cards wins on Sunday which is why, no matter the health of the company, Chevy has never considered putting their racing ties on the chopping block. The connection between the prestige of winning and selling cars is too strong.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Precisely because it is the director’s choice. These choices are often made to control lighting in a creative fashion. For example, if you study Robert Richardson’s lighting (Tarantino’s DP) it almost never comes from the direction of a natural, logical source. So using existing light might be technically viable, but it isn’t creatively viable for everyone unless that’s what the script calls for.”
I’ll go one step further and say even in controlled environment like a studio the required setup to get Person A lit correctly might conflict with the required setup to get Person B lit correctly on the reverse so even if you had two cameras to shoot both at the same time you still wouldn’t because you couldn’t reconcile the lighting issues. For a simple example, say you want Person A extremely back light but by doing so you make Person B, on the reverse, washed out. Or, even more basic than that, you just can’t physically place the lights where you want them to be if you are shooting both angles at the same time.
It gets down to the basic difference between shooting single came vs multicam. In single cam you can really fine tune the look you want (the lighting, set design, blocking, etc.,) because you always know what the audience will be seeing. With multicam you have to