[Tim Wilson]

And an update from Charlie Austin over there on the electric twitter machine:

[Tim Wilson]

Just adding a couple of press releases:

Final Cut Pro X introduces third-party workflow extensions

Since someone mentioned timecode…

And….

Frame.io Introduces Powerful Workflow Extension for Final Cut Pro X

[Steve Connor] “[Oliver Peters] “Since some of you were ragging on Resolve for playing “catch up”, let me point out that Workflow Extensions and Batch Share are merely features that “catch up” to similar features in Premiere Pro ☺
”

You beat me to it ☺
“

????

[Tim Wilson]

[James Culbertson] “It’s a recognition that FCP 10 has matured and there is no longer a need to debate its place among professional NLEs… the current name no longer applies.”

Yes, and some more.

Debate is out. No more debates, period. The “There Can Be Only One” ship sailed long ago. Most people use more than one, and even if someone prefers one, it’s not a debate. It’s a preference.

More broadly, in the spirit of allowing debate, we also allowed a far longer leash here than was appropriate to the heritage of our site. Creative COW is a HELP site, not fight club. Yes, the broader parameters here have extended well beyond help, but they went too far. Anyone who wants a debate from here on is going to have to go somewhere else.

That said, also speaking broadly, we’ve always wanted to have a forum where pretty much up everything was up for conversation, and this was as close as we’ve come.

[Scott Witthaus] “[Michael Gissing] ” that name was rejected and numerous more appropriate names were proposed. ”

And I guess ignored?”

That’s not fair at all. We’ve never commented on every single thread about the name of the forum (there’s typically a couple per year), but we listen, and indeed, we’ve changed the forum’s name multiple times as a result.

Even if we go another way, or indeed stick with Apple Talk, it won’t be because we’ve ignored anyone. We talk about this stuff constantly, which is after the first six names, plus the next one, there will surely be more.

I’ll say that while I’m currently disinclined to go with Apple Talk, I haven’t heard the right one yet, and underscore again that it won’t have Debate in the name. Conversation, yes. Compare/contrast, yes. Energetic engagement, yes.

Debate, no. Be nice. You have been warned. ????

But I feel like you guys are being intentionally disingenuous about Apple Talk being so far off the mark. The longest threads here have been FCPX threads, for sure, plus some good comparison threads, and a couple of long ones about approaches to editing, and yeah, a couple of Adobe ones — so far, so good — but after that, they’re virtually ALL about Apple, and you know it. YOU KNOW IT.

I don’t get why you’re making me go through this, but I’m going to do it anyway. Just from the past year or two:

iMac Pro or next year’s Mac Pro? 147 posts
Apple drops ProApps from corporate definition 129 posts
A Bridge Too Far (about Apple’s approach to updates) 123 posts
wwdc 86 posts
RED 8k camera, a sign of things to come from apple? 74 posts
So, about that Apple event…. 74 posts
Lightworks Mac public beta (I’m including this because no Mac, no story) 93 posts
Randy Ubillos retires from Apple 69 posts
Reactions to today’s Apple Event 69 posts
Will FCX be around for a while? (Definitely talking about APPLE on this thread, not fcpx per se) 65 posts
Apple apparently keeps stumbling it’s way to success, somehow ???? 63 posts
1,000 days since the last Mac Pro update 57 posts
The new Mac Pro VS MSI? 57 posts (although I’m thinking about killing a few posts on this thread.) ????
iMac Pro 12/14 56 posts
Apple, FCPX and Secrecy (again, about APPLE, not fcpx per se) 56 posts
Waiting for Apple again. And again. And again … 55 posts
The Verge Explains Apple Photos 54 posts
The iMac Pro Looks Interesting 53 posts
Apple and the relentless pursuit of excellence … 42 posts
Apple is getting ready for the new MacPros? 40 posts

Plus gazillions of shorter ones, pasted in no particular order:

2013 Franken Mac Pro Tube
Apple to Ditch Intel?
A depressing visit to the Apple Store
17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro
nMP or iMac for 4K
Apple and Thunderbolt 3
iPad vs. Surface Pro
iMac Pro vs PC performance
Hackintosh
NVIDIA and Macs again someday?
Is anyone ready for Thunderbolt 3?
OT – is the “new” Mac Pro a failure (gotta love that “OT”)
2016 MacBook / Pro
Monitoring out with new Mac Pro?
Apple’s latest innovation
Why no iOS control surface app?
2013 nMac Pro with eGPU?
27/30″ monitors for new Mac Pro (w/ D700s)?
The sad state of Macintosh hardware
New tube / no tube….
New tube?
30th Anniversary of Mac film shot entirely on iPhones
Mac Pro- Ars Technica review
Questions to those considering the new Mac Pro
Apple’s slapdash approach to image processing
Prores delivery
Apple patents 3D editing
Geekbench of 4 core Mac Pro
Race against the phones
Keeping the old Mac Pro breathing

This is barely scratching the surface AND YOU KNOW IT.

So make all the jokes you want, I can take it, but please don’t act like we haven’t in fact gone through the entire 7 year history of the forum and counted all these up, because we have.

Which is to say again, we ignore NOTHING. Even when we wish we could. ????

In the end, though, I’d rather talk about fruit than debate anything, so maybe that’s reason enough to stick with Apple Talk.

I’ll start another thread on the forum name, as well as provide an update on our development progress. I’ll also make some other replies to other topics on this thread, a number of which have been very much on my mind….

More soon,

Yr pal.
Timmy
????

[Tim Wilson]

Hi Bryce,

I know that this is frustrating. It’s definitely possible that they’re trying to thwart you in some back door manner, but it’s far more likely that they’re just doing their job. Their job is to keep out-of-spec footage from airing, full stop.

Their job doesn’t include helping you bring it in to compliance . It’d be nice if they were nice about it, but we don’t know what else is going on with their day. It just might not be possible for them to help…but in any case, that’s really not their job.

There are a couple of other steps to consider in the meantime. Did you read the frame.io link that Bob included in an earlier reply? Here’s the link again.

You really need to check it out. It’s got bunches of super-important stuff that Larry’s article doesn’t begin to touch. That one is focused almost exclusively on LKFS, but there’s much, much more to the audio spec than that.

Here’s a key image from the frame.io article. It’s the Netflix spec, which is different from a broadcast spec, but still, it shows some important principles.

Check out what it says about peaks — you need to manage peaks with a limiter, and NOT by lowering overall program volume. So they’ve given a maximum peak level, but also a minimum program level.

(This is a good time to raise the question — has the station given you the entire spec, or just a guideline for peaks? Not the same. Not the same at all. Get the entire spec.)

If you followed Larry’s and Ed’s advice, you’d have moved in the right direction for handling peaks, but you’d be missing the mark on program volume. It’s possible that that’s why the engineers would say, okay, fine, you’ve got the peak level under control, but everything non-peak is now too low.

Also note in the rest of the frame.io article that they’re not using a native Premiere plug-in. They’re using Izotope Insight, a vastly more extensive toolset that’s focused on this exact set of problems. It’s not expensive — only $149, with a free trial — but I think it’s an absolutely critical missing link to what you’re attempting here.

Look at this video. I think you’ll see in literally the first 2 seconds the difference between what you’ve done, and what you NEED to do if you want to get this on TV. There are vastly more tools, and a huge amount of information that Loudness Radar just isn’t designed to provide.

Before I end this reply, I just want to assure you that the old-timers here been where you are before, going back 25 years to when this forum was first founded. We constantly fought with engineers (not just in broadcast, but at post houses, duplication houses, and many more) about what was acceptable video. As a community, we went through a very long learning curve to bridge the gap between what NLE companies said was broadcast-quality, and what broadcast engineers said was broadcast quality.

The answer turned out to be relatively simple. Stop fighting and do what the broadcast engineers said. ???? Although in your case, I’m still wondering if the engineers have told you enough. There really should be a printed spec that includes more than guidance about peaks.

This is getting longer than I intended, but here’s the bottom line. Audition is a good starting place but in this case clearly not enough to get you across the finish line. The good news is that you really may well find the rest of what you need in Izotope for a very reasonable price. Until you’ve at least taken it for a spin, you haven’t done the minimum required to meet the entire spec.

Don’t give up yet, Bryce! Keep taking steps, and keep letting us know what you find.

[Tim Wilson]

[Bob Mark] “I am curious as to why, specifically, your audio failed QC. What did they say about it?”

That’s the key question. If they’re saying the audio is still high, you need to lower it, regardless of what Premiere is telling you.

Is that what they’re saying, or is it something else?

[Tim Wilson]

I noticed that you posted this to the color grading forum too, and that seems like a good guess. ☺

I’d love to know too, so I’ll be keeping an eye out!

Tim Wilson
Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW

[Tim Wilson]

[Michael Hancock] “Which doesn’t help the OP at all, so why post it? It’s too late for him to take your advice now, so why not do what others have done and post an actual solution, rather than admonish him for not updating sooner? “

A wonderful reminder that this a HELP forum rather than a SCOLD forum. It’s helpful once to remind people that if you want to live in Apple’s world, it’s wise to remember that Apple has built that world around regular updates, with consequences for people who don’t stay on the train.

But only once. After that, it’s just noise. People should feel free to continue to add any actual insight to David’s situation (which has now in fact been remedied), but we’ve got the scolding base covered for now.

Regards,

Tim Wilson
Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW

[Tim Wilson]

[Mark Suszko] “The job changes lives. And it changes you.”

One of the best posts in the history of the COW, Mark! Thanks so much for your insights into the job, including some crazy cool production tips. More important, thanks for the reminder that, among the drudgery of troubleshooting that support forums are necessarily built around, the work we do on the other side of the workflow issues can mean something.

[Tim Wilson]

[Bouke Vahl] “But, granted, US laws are strange and a very good reason not to go to the US anymore, but all this is becoming highly political and forbidden banned contagious OT ☺”

Kidding aside, if we were an ISP, you’d generally be right, but we’re just a site, and we are responsible for what’s posted here.

We learned this the hard way when we hosted member demo reels. We had over 10,000 of them here….and then we started getting letters from lawyers. LOTS of letters from lawyers, all telling us the same thing: the unlicensed music in these reels was sitting on our servers, so WE were responsible for the licensing fees. Not even the guys who made the reels. WE were the ones distributing it, so WE owed the fees.

Needless to say, our response was to take them down. ???? Anyone who wants to post their reel to the COW now has to use an embed link from YouTube (which now pays licensing fees for otherwise unlicensed music) or Vimeo.

(And to completely agree with your earlier point, it’s not the ISP who’s in trouble for that unlicensed music. It’s the SITE, in this case YouTube or Vimeo, and they’ve had to create complicated agreements with rights holders to deal with the same kinds of lawyer letters that WE used to get.)

But the same principle is generally true for posts. If somebody makes a post with threatening language, offering cracked software (which used to be a big problem for us, less so these days), or with images that violate standards in the region in which they’re viewed, or any other of the many things that we already monitor for, WE’RE responsible.

And that’s fine. We ARE responsible. We really do watch every post, and we have no complaints about that. That’s why we get paid.

The only problem is what happens when we’re not able to watch a potentially massive number of private channels. That’s what we’re wrestling with.

[Bouke Vahl] “Don’t steal my lines!”

Hey man, I only steal from the best. ????

[Tim Wilson]

[ryan elder] “But I don’t think that just white would be enough, and the car would actually have to say police on it, as well as some other things, in order for the audience to buy it, won’t they?”

Yes. Create the labels in Photoshop, use Mocha or your favorite native After Effects toolset for corner-pinning and displacement mapping to “attach” the police labels to the car, adjust lighting, dirt, etc. to taste.

[ryan elder] “instead of using a real ones for the other parts, can I just have forced perspective then, since no one gets in and out of the other cars?”

Remember Dave’s point about bad monster movies and toys? If you WANT to make the aesthetic choice to intentionally use toys to look kitschy and cheesy, that’s fine. Embrace it, because that’s what you’re gonna get.

But it sounds like you’re going for something more realistic, like that video that you picked from Film Riot. They didn’t use physical models. They used 3D models and compositing tricks to make the finished scene look more realistic. It sounds like that’s what you’re going for, so take a closer look at what you’re doing. It happens that this is also the approach that fits best with having After Effects closer to the heart of your toolset: compositing 3D models into 2D scenes, adding things like lights, dirt, grain, lens flares, and color grading to blend all the elements together.

[ryan elder] “What about a police road block?”

Vastly easier to get a real road block. Even if it’s a saw horse and blinking lights, you can pick these up at your local hardware store for a pittance. If you need something more official-looking, there’s also surely a construction site near you where you can borrow some cones and barrels for a night.

(And if you’re not ready to raid a construction site to borrow some “props” for the night, you should ask yourself if you’re ready for independent filmmaking. ????)

Otherwise, once again, you’re going to better off buying or building a 3D element than trying forced perspective with a toy.

These kinds of questions are why Dave suggested that you may be getting ahead of yourself by thinking about After Effects first, though. Some of these are broader aesthetic choices that you’ll need to make as a director, for how you want VFX and SFX elements to interact with your world, and how you want your audience to feel about them.

Ain’t nothing wrong with cheese, man. You can do amazing stuff with cheese. Every filmmaker in your position needs to watch El Mariachi and listen to the DVD commentary.

But if you’re aiming for more realism, forget forced perspective and toys. Either use real elements or 3D models, and use After Effects for “dressing” them to fit into your world.