[Jim Giberti]

I’ve grown up as a music producer and a film/video producer.
I’ve spent countless hours sitting at different evolutions of mixing consoles and yeah, as a musician I can definitely see the analogy of the console as an instrument.
In fact just the other day my partner and I were talking about complex mixes, before automation, where we would rehearse our fader moves on 32 track mixes, repeated over and over – taking the instrument/band analogy even further.

That said, I just finished a mix in FCPX that didn’t allow for me to get the audio into Logic or DP where I mix now.
But, having my main processors from Logic available in FCPX and after getting very comfortable with CCing levels of audio, using the range tool to even initial levels, and then using the CCs as “fader groups”, I was able to get a very good mix done.

Coincidental to this thread, I made a comment to said partner how I’ve really evolved away from the mixer/instrument paradigm as the sole means of creating good audio.

Now, I’m not talking music, where I would/could never create elaborate mixes without everything laid out in real time before me. But that’s a demonstrably different experience than creating, say, a 3, 6 or maybe 8 track audio mix for a TV spot.

[Jim Giberti]

If it ain’t broke…

[Jim Giberti]

I’ve been producing with BM cameras lately and I’ve yet to see anything from the 4k world that’s better than the DR, color and IQ, including the new BMPC4k.

[Jim Giberti]

The bottom line to me is if you’re a fixed in your ways editor then you’re more prone to reject the fundamental changes in FCPX and obviously there are real issues with larger facilities and exchange of a lot of media.

If you’re willing/able to entertain a different paradigm, where weaknesses absolutely exist (as they do in each program) but improvements at many levels also exist then FCPX will start to make more and more sense.

I think the new media management is finally a solid one and a better one than any of FCP’s incarnations.

I also think Apple made a smart decision based on the future and present of editing.
Like so many things in the creative industry, it’s become much more democratized.
I know it’s been said a lot but it’s true. I don’t know how much as a percentage but it’s obvious to me in real life how much work, outside of the narrow realm of broadcast, is being handled by small and individual editors.
And how much work is also being done by non-dedicated editors who also shoot and composite…and mix audio for that matter.

It’s the new reality and it’s certainly going to become that more and more – certainly not go the other way.
Pro editing has a new definition just like pro shooting does.
For a block of pros FCPX just isn’t the right tool, but for the growing block of editors/creatives it seems to be an ideal tool for a number of reasons.

In that regard, I think Apple has made the right choice looking forward.
And for us, producing a lot of promotional film work and TV spots for broadcast and web, it’s a great program.

[Jim Giberti]

For smaller shops like mine, I just don’t think it’s a smart time to make a major investment in 4K. I’m not talking about a camera like a GH4 – it’s a no brainer because it’s a write off on a project. I’m talking about my next big camera. Canon is going to do something different, Sony definitely as well. BM is always an adventure, and as rudimentary as their systems are, I’m in the middle of a production using them w/ all MFT glass and it’s some of the best footage I’ve shot.

Aside from a GH4 for when I need it, I’m going to wait to see how things shake out in the coming months. I’ll bet there will be a pretty different range of interesting options and I’ve really grown fond of smaller cameras, ProRes and cards that I can off load and check on a Retina in the field.

[Jim Giberti]

I think the pressure to provide a 4k camera is unavoidable for any camera maker, especially when you’ve got people like Sony with a $2k consumer 4k that’s got pretty amazing resolution.

I try and just keep it in perspective to my creative and deliverables. I really never thought of the web as viable a media outlet (for our work) even a few years ago, but I’m booked producing work directly to web as much as anything else. Most of my work of the last few years is for web and TV (cable and satellite.) In neither instance do I see bandwidth and compression mandating 4k delivery.

But hey, things change and I could be very wrong in a year or two. Good news is 4k camera s are already ridiculously affordable.

Right now, while I’m editing on my Retina at night and the TV is on I regularly turn my monitor to my wife and say “does anything you’re seeing in that HD broadcast looks as detailed as what I shot today?” Not even close. Last night I was watching the Godfather and commenting on the same thing after working on a two camera BM edit all day. I was stunned at the lack of detail in Directv “HD”. At the end of the credits they actually had a card that read “digitally transferred and restored in 4k…” It certainly didn’t show in broadcast.

It isn’t just the old “the story rules” argument. I think, for viewers, the story rules and is better told with cameras that can provide a powerful, emotional image, and resolution is just one part of that. And unless you’re comparing 4k and 1080 side by side, I don’t think it’s nearly the most important factor.

[Jim Giberti]

I put a couple of VF Contineo cages on the BMPCCs…really great gear. Also using the Kinotehnik VF which is great with the BM.

[Jim Giberti]

Of course youtube and all online video is heavily compressed, but while compression can smooth some faults, create moire where there may not be on the original file, and reduce actual resolution; it’s still easy to judge relative depth of color, dynamic range, skin tones/handling, etc.
I also just looked at a 2 GB GH4 from Vimeo.
It only confirmed what I see in the other stuff I’ve looked at – great, detailed image but it just has a look that never worked for me as anything like an A camera.

While the camera itself is really fun to use, and I’m sure the GH4 will be even more so, it just doesn’t have the kind of “negative” I’ve grown to love with BM cameras. There’s also something different in the way they implement 24p that just works for me, BM vs GH.

I’m sure I’ll get a GH4. I’ve got a lot of MFT glass I use with BM and for the $ it’s a no brainer.
But for narrative and commercial work…people, the BM cameras can capture a native 800 ASA image that’s just silly good for the money…10 bit 4:2:2 ProRes…to an SD card

[Jim Giberti]

I’ve looked at a number of examples fro the GH4 and despite increased resolution, it exhibits the same “issue” for serious work that I found with the GH3 (that I picked up as an inexpensive 60p camera) – skin tones and depth of the codec.

I haven’t seen anything from it regarding people – which are my main subjects vs cats and city traffic at night – that comes close to the image from even my BMPCC. I’d so much rather have 10 bit ProRes in camera than more detail wrapped in AVCHD.

To me, at 1080p where all my work ends up and most will for quite a while to come, less DR (BMPC) or thinner “negative” (GH4) doesn’t win the argument. Now, an F55 is another issue. But honestly, regardless of it’s simplicity/lack of features, the image from even the $1k BMPCC wins the day for my work.

[Jim Giberti]

A “Glossary of Terms for Future Developers” would be a handy tool for the industry to have.

Otherwise don’t look at the package contents…it just makes things more confusing.