Jeff Markgraf
Forum Replies Created
-
@Andrew & Shawn:
Those PC-based Avids are at facilities in LA that have multiple seats of editors and use asset management systems like Interplay. CBS On-Air Promo. Victory Studios (part of Telepictures/Warner Bros.). NBC (I’m pretty sure). Lifetime/A&E Networks, now in NY. I’m sure there are lots more.
When you look at buying an Avid/ISIS/Interplay system, Avid really wants you to do a PC system. All the edit bays, the ingest suites, especially the newsroom producer stations. It all works very well together, and I say that as a long-time Mac fan.
ABC Promo was a notable exception when they went FCP a number of years ago. Not sure what server they used, but they ran away from Avid pretty hard. Now, the recent shootout was FCPX vs Premiere. Sadly, they apparently are going with Premiere. Still on Mac, though, unless someone had a change of heart.
Interestingly, I know of several smaller facilities who bought into the PC-Avid-Unity for a smaller system who have ditched PCs and vowed never again! Only Macs from here on out. Go figure!
-
Which name?
-
Tru dat. I guess the browser and smart collections sorta serve that function now. But I’m with you. I really liked the work area.
-
Maybe “Lightworks vs. Resolve: The Debate.”
What say you, Timmy?
-
Can’t wait for the inevitable “Lightworks or Not: The Debate” forum.
On a related note, I was thinking while reading some of the recent threads about the idea that it takes a while to really internalize a different system (see Bill Davis, et al). As one of the resident old men here, I recalled my favorite NLE ever, the Immix VideoCube (Turbo Cube, Accom Sphere, etc.) It really worked like nothing else before or since. In many ways, FCPX feels very similar. The interface was just as quirky, and once I got used to it, I could fly on that thing like nobody’s business. But man, the Avid guys hated the thing, even as the relatively inexperienced took to it like a duck to water. I came to it from linear online, so I had few preconceptions about non-linear editing. Amusingly, when I first got a Final Cut legacy system (v.1, back when you had to render a dissolve), it took me a couple of days to stop trying to make it work like a Cube and let it do its thing! At least by then I had Avid as a reference.
One thing it had in common with Lightworks is the custom controller. The Cube controller had a jog wheel with a bunch of customizable buttons. The wheel was used as you would expect it to be used, but also for changing the value of certain parameters. For example, add a fade to the in-point of the clip on the B-roll track by holding one button and moving the wheel. All could be done one-handed. The visual on the clip was a ramp that expanded and contracted to match the length of the fade. (Hello, FCPX-I’m talking to you.) Really fast, very tactile and intuitive. Plus limited audio faders, All on one controller. When used in conjunction with the keyboard, it was a very elegant solution. Much like I expect the Lightworks controller system to be.
A bit OT for this thread, perhaps, but it’s A-Roll track was much like the Primary Storyline, and the B-Roll track acted much like the connected clips. Cut your A-roll, add B-roll on top, fade in and fade out the b-roll clips (i.e., dissolve) or use effects. Audio included with the video. One monitor: the actual picture monitor, which switched to show “source” clip or “record” timeline. Kinda like an online bay (or FCPX, for that matter). Plus a realtime alpha key track. “Mixdown” to comp effects, truly an artifact of the limited hardware capabilities of the day (but the only system that could output broadcast quality, full raster (720×486) video).
While the Lightworks has obvious tracks and a source/record layout, I expect it to show its film roots in a big way. And the sharing workflow sounds a helluva lot like Unity/ISIS, which would be great. Of course, the Pro version with all the codecs ain’t gonna be no $299, that’s for sure. But it sure looks interesting.
tl;dr: the more things change, the more they stay the same.
-
Well, I know Lujack was a legend and all that. Deservedly so. But there was something unpredictable and off-kilter about Fried – er, Fred – Winston that appealed to me more.
-
re: Fred Winston. My favorite Chicago jock ever. Mornings on WFYR, back in the day. Then Dick Bartlett would come in after Fred’s shift and make it a point to spray and clean the studio before starting his shift. Fred is a regional, if not national, treasure.
-
Well, I suppose that’s kind of squishy. Technically, it’s public. But it’s not public exhibition for profit in any practical sense, so Mr. Attorney would have a hard time making a case that it’s a violation. I mean, a certain amount of common sense has to apply. Since (I presume) Charter isn’t charging a fee to stand at the booth and it’s not part of a larger trade-show-sponsored exhibit charging a fee, it pretty well falls under promo use.
Again, not a lawyer, etc. But studios and other rights-holders have MUCH bigger fish to fry with rampant piracy, Aerio, HULU, etc., and myriad syndication deals. Local/regional cable promotion and sales is not likely to be on anyone’s radar.
-
OB “…not a lawyer, blah blah blah…” Also, long post.
Richard, this whole area is a little squishy, partly because it depends on the audience.
I’ve cut more network sales and sizzle and upfront reels than I care to think about. In the case of up fronts, the audience is ad agencies and their buyers. Lots of money at stake, etc. We never worry about, say, music rights clearance for these presentations. It can be argued that these are private use, not public exhibitions, and no money is charged or directly made from the presentations. Whereas the networks are scrupulous about getting music clearance from all parties for broadcast use (which is why we use mostly library music instead of pop music for 99% of promos), all bets are off for upfront presentations. Same goes for sales and/or sizzle reels.
What you’re describing falls into the same non-public-exhibition-for-profit category. An on-air (or “on-cable”) sizzle is promotional, and there’s no problem showing the clips. If Charter licenses the shows for air, those shows can be used for promotion. If the clips are used to promote something else (like an on-demand viewer app, for instance), some kind of tune-in info (“NCIS, Sundays at 9) makes it safe for use. Again, using the clips in a “private” use such as sales meetings or pitching clients is standard use in broadcast and cable.
A nervous nelly lawyer will ALWAYS say no as a reflex. Usually it’s because he doesn’t really know the answer, so “no” is safe. Realistically, it would be impossible to get clearances from even a fraction of the rights holders in this situation. Sales reels may fall into a a grey area, since you’re using the copyrighted material not just to promote, but also ultimately to make money. This future money-making is probably what freaks out the lawyer. But in reality, it’s a non-issue.
tl;dr: Using clips for promotion is fair game. Sales and sizzle reels shown in private meetings to generate future sales are fair game. Music or other copyrighted used in a promo or sizzle must be cleared if used “on-air.” Licensing isn’t needed for private sales meetings and the like. Decades of network practice says so.
-
Yes indeed. That rings a bell.
Since we’re all so OT here, I’m curious how many on this forum are from an online background? By which I mean old school, linear editing using Beta/1″/D2/DigiBeta/D3/HDCam, etc. Switchers, ADOs, TBCs, knowing how to set SC/H phase, and all the other stuff. How do you think it has influenced how you approach non-linear editing?
Maybe a different thread would be in order? Or does no one actually care?