[Herb Sevush]

[Marcus Moore] “The watch costs $350.”

From tim’s original post

“The numbers for $/sale were worldwide. Here in the US, the for each sale: $707.04!”

[Marcus Moore] ” If someone chooses to spend more for fashion reasons- that’s no more indulgent than someone who doesn’t buy the absolute cheapest car, pants, wine, or any other consumer product on the market.”

A key aspect of “conspicuous consumption” is that it be conspicuous – cars and clothes, yes, wine much less so, although it is conspicuous for that class of people you have gathered around your table.

But what can be more conspicuous than a Rolex, and now an Iwatch, that you wear on your wrist. In this case it isn’t, like the rolex, to demonstrate how rich you are by showing how much money you can waste, but rather by proving how smart you are by displaying Apples latest bauble for all to see. $700 is pretty cheap for that sort of validation.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Marcus Moore] “As for the comments below about self indulgence… I’m fairly bored by people who take their personal priorities as gospel.

The Apple watch, like ANY technology product, is not for everyone. If it’s health, fitness, or quick messaging priorities aren’t for you- that’s fine. But calling them self-indulgent just seems petty.”

Heaven forbid anyone think a $700 calorie counter was self indulgent. This watch is the definition of conspicuous consumption and Thorstein Veblen is laughing from the grave.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Scott Witthaus] “You are correct here. Morph cuts makes it simpler to deceive in some hands. At least with a cutaway, a semi-knowledgeable person could deduce that “something” might have happened underneath that cover.”

There is nothing in motion pictures that isn’t deceptive; even the motion is an illusion.

I would recommend the film “F is for Fake” by Orson Welles as the last word on this subject.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Marissa Aroy] “I chose all cameras and thus have the unfortunate task of having dozens of tracks of audio and trying to figure out what is what.”

If you open up the multicam clips in the timeline you will see clearly how the audio is distributed. My guess is the first 6 channels will be the audio from the first 3 cameras, then the WAV file will be set on the final track as a single “Adaptive” track which means multiclip audio 7-10 will be WAV 1-4.

Good luck.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Marissa Aroy] “Q. How does Premiere order my audio tracks?”

[Marissa Aroy] “Q. Is there a way to know where my discrete wav file will live?”

PPro places Video multicam sources in the order they are selected. Literally. if you click on Cam B, then A and then C then your mulitcam will have B as angle 1, A as angle 2, C as angle 3. After you have created your multicam you can re-order by using the “Edit Cameras” function – (put your multicam in the event viewer, choose the wrench icon in the the viewer, then select “edit cameras.”) – but this will only effect where the video cameras are placed in the multicam matrix.

WAV files do not follow this rule. The crucial element for using WAV files is choosing the proper audio layout when creating your multiclip. After selecting your audio and video files and then hitting create multiclip you will get the “Create Multicamera” dialogue box. About halfway down there is an “Audio” area and the key is the “Sequence Settings” selector. I would suggest you choose “Camera 1” – this way your WAV file will be the default audio for the multiclip – in your case the 4 audio channels will be available whenever you want to add audio, they will be laid out in the order of the WAV file. You will not see the WAV file as an “angle” when viewing the multicamera clip in the source or program viewer, but if you select the multiclip in the browser and then right click and choose “open in timeline” you will see the WAV file tracks laid out as the first 4 tracks in the multiclip timeline. If you need to get back to the camera mic sound you can hit match frame (F key) once to pull pull up the multiclip, then a second time to pull up the original source clip, which you can then use to access your camera audio.

The other 2 choices for Audio layout – “All Cameras” and “Switch Audio” will place your WAV file as the last angle and it will be labeled as such in the event viewer. With these options you would have mulitclip access to both WAV and Camera audio in the multiclip but it can be a major PITA working this way, having to constantly switch off unwanted audio tracks and I don’t think these would be appropriate for what you want, but you can experiment by creating a test multiclip using each of these options and then opening them in a timeline to see the results.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

Why the higher speed SSD for the cache? I have the same drives but setup the other way around – The high-speed PCI SSD for the boot drive and the regular SSD for the cache. What’s the advantage the other way around – not doubting you, just genuinely curious.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Michael Phillips] “Even flatbeds had their differences between KEM and Steenbeck.”

and the flatbed Moviola as well. And editors had distinct preferences between them. There is no difference in emotional pitch between NLEs then there was between the various flatbed proponents … the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Tim Wilson] ” “Living in Oblivion” by Tom DiCillo.”

One of my favorite movies-about-making-movies; actually it would be interesting to post a list of movies-about-making-movies — on another day.

[Tim Wilson] “I consciously left off Jackson is that I only love three of his movies.”

I don’t love any movies by Wes Anderson, but I recognize that he should be on this list. Speaking of which,Paul Thomas Anderson should be on this list too, and I loathe most of his movies. This list is about directors that you can care about one way or another – most film’s directors are immaterial, despite the possessory credit.

[Tim Wilson] “compared to Cameron, across both of their careers, not even vaguely in the same league”

True.

[Tim Wilson] “Sorkin, Whedon, and Mamet, in that order — whose LANGUAGE as writers is immediately distinctive, and who use that voice as the starting point for their authorial imperative as producers…but the gap between Sorkin and the other two is pretty wide…and I’d put Mamet higher than Whedon if he just did more stuff, in more venues.”

“Isn’t it just like a dago to bring a knife to a gunfight.”
Most people would put Mamet way ahead of the other two – even if you don’t consider his theatrical work. Though an excellent screenwriter Mamet is a pretty bad film director – I think “State and Main” is his best film work as director and could be included in that list of films-about-making-films I mentioned earlier. He wrote a book “On Directing Film” that is not very insightful about directing but rather a great book on screenwriting. He has another book, “Three Uses of the Knife,” which is the most interesting book on dramatic structure I’ve ever come across – I can no longer talk about the act of writing without paraphrasing it.

While I like Whedon – loved Serenity and Firefly – I don’t put him that high up the ladder.

[Tim Wilson] “I may have let that part of the post get away from me, but in my mind, the “auteur” part was strictly secondary to the consideration of CINEMATIC INTENT at the intersection of cinematography and editing,”

Intent is not confined to art direction. John Cassavete’s movies looked awful, sounded worse, and had no narrative flow whatsoever, yet were marked by a fierce directorial point of view and intent.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

Tim –

You did leave out the Cohen Brothers, not that I’m overly fond of them, but they certainly belong on this list. And if Cameron is on it than certainly Peter Jackson should be there as well – the two masters of CGI movies.

On the Indie side I would invite you to consider
Edgar Wright – Shaun of the Dead, Scott Pilgrim vs the world, Hot fuzz and The World’s End
Thomas McCarthy – Station Agent, The Visitor, Win Win
Jason Reitman – Juno, Thank You for Not Smoking, Up in the Air

And for TV you somehow left out the single most prominent writer/producer of our time – Aaron Sorkin, Sports NIght (my favorite) West Wing, Newsroom – who writes every single script for every episode on all his shows as well as screenwriter – A Few Good Men, The American President, Moneyball, the Social Network – and playwright – The Farnsworth Invention. There is no more consistent voice in American pop culture.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “If you’re doing NAB this year, I’ll even pay off with a beer.”

Would love to take you up on that, but I’m chained to my Mac. Finishing up post on season 15 and then straight into shooting season 16. Life is good. You’ll have to drink for the both of us.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf