The American Side is picture-locked.
A still from the upcoming feature film "The American Side", directed by Jenna Ricker and edited by me.
Some "In Lieu Of Flowers" reviews...
Recently, In Lieu Of Flowers, a feature film I edited premiered at the 2013 Newport Beach Film Festival. It was directed by my good friend Bill Savage and starred Josh Pence (Gangster Squad) and Spencer Grammar (Greek). I wanted to drop a few reviews here and show some of the things people have been saying about the movie.
"Savage shows some real potential as a filmmaker with a soft and intimate touch."
In Lieu Of Flowers is a remarkably touching story, filled with strong portrayals of emotion and most importantly, the advent of friendship. Its real success is that it does not fall prey to genre conventions or force unrealistic goals upon its protagonists. Eric and Rachel are not going to solve all of their problems by sharing a cup of coffee; nor are they going to fall madly in love one night and forget the pain and sadness that has consumed their lives over a given period of time. There is hope, though, and In Lieu Of Flowersnever allows its viewer to forget that essential fact.
Hopefully I am getting across that there are a few flaws but at the same time, some many beautiful powerful moments that help this movie stand above others. [...] It definitely left a feeling of emotion for me, which to me is a successful film.
There are many moments in the movie where there are clever witty lines by the characters as the two lean on each other for support through this painful time in their lives. Their relationship with one another slowly evolves but it seems that neither one of them are fully ready to move on to a new relationship.
Automatic Duck Somewhat-Almost-Best Practices
In my travels, I’ve had to do a fair number of Automatic Duck project conversions. While I was learning this process, I found that there wasn’t much good information containing tips and tricks about making this process smooth. Especially now with the exodus from Apple because of FCPX, streamlining this process is more essential now than ever. I don’t propose to know all the answers, but I thought it was high time somebody started putting down their experiences so that we can start working towards some kind of a “Best Practices” document. I’m humble about my experience here, but I will say that I’ve done it a fair amount and I think my tips are good. I’d love to hear what you think. Please leave a note in the Comments section and tell me what I got right or wrong. Quick note: What I’ll talk about here is transferring between Avid and Final Cut Pro, because that’s what I have experience doing. However, since Adobe After Effects workflows are prevalent nowadays as well, I’d love to hear about your experiences there. Please, leave comments.
WHAT IS AUTODUCK?
Automatic Duck is shorthand for a number of programs developed by Wes Plate as a way to move editor sequences between Avid/Apple/Adobe products. Now that Wes has joined Adobe, his programs are now thankfully free to download. The apps are basically plugins for Final Cut Pro 7 and Adobe After Effects, so you’ll need one of these apps (as well as Avid Media Composer, if that’s part of your workflow) in order to transfer your footage.
HOW AUTODUCK WORKS:
- You can only send footage between different programs via sequences. There is no way to transfer whole projects at one time.
- Automatic Duck will take your sequence (and if you choose, your media) and convert it into files to import into another editing application. It can retain many simple effect information and titles, but everything must be checked to ensure accuracy.
- You can send media as either sequence information alone (where you’ll import/relink media after), or you can have Automatic Duck convert your media during the export/conversion process.
- When it comes to exporting media, you should figure what stage you’re at in the post process. If you’re still in offline, you should maintain the resolution of something like DNx36/ProRes(LT), if you’re editing in 23.98 FPS. If you are ready to finish your project, I’d transfer at DNx220X/ProRes4444.
- Remember that for every sequence you send, you create new copies of the clips in that sequence. Your new clips will not reference any clip from other imported sequences, even if it's the same clip. So, if you add a locator to one copy of the clip, it won’t appear in another matching clip if it was brought in from a different sequence.
MAKING THE SMOOTH TRANSITION:
- Key to successful transfer: tape names and timecode. Make sure your clips ALL have proper tape names assigned. There is really no substitute for this. Your project HAS TO BE well-logged. The safest way to reconnected media is using the tape name and timecode metadata. This way, you will also associate new media you create with a tape name, so it becomes easier to relink to new imported sequences.
- If you have audio from a separate source, be sure that the proper tape name for the sound roll is assigned to those clips as well.
DEALING WITH SYNCED/MULTICLIPS/GROUP CLIPS:
- Multiclips aka Avid Multigroups are NOT supported via AutoDuck Pro Import FCP or Pro Export FCP. That means you must collapse/remove your multigroups in your sequence before you export your sequence.
- PROTIP: assign locators to the slate mark frames and sync points for multigroups. Locators will transfer over between sequences, so it will be easier to see where your sync points are for re-grouping everything. At least you won't have to actually resync everything.
DEALING WITH BINS OF MEDIA:
- If you are trying to send scene bins, you should take your synced clips and string them out in a sequence. If you have multi-clips, you should take your video with synced audio for EACH CAMERA and drop it into the timeline. Once you bring the media into your other editor, you’ll need to rebuild your group clips, so act as if you never had them in the first place.
ONE WORKFLOW THAT MAY WORK FOR YOU:
- Make a duplicate of your current sequence edit.
- At the tail end of that sequence, add a stringout of all clips from the scenes referenced in your cut. By sending all your clips in one sequence, you can maintain the links between the clips you sort into scene bins and the clips in your sequence. Your sequence will be hours and hours long, but then you’ll have clips that link to each other. Now, editorial tools like Match Frame will work.
- Don’t convert your media with AutoDuck. Just batch import the Quicktimes for your shots in Avid. Too many times I’ve found that AutoDuck crashed overnight while trying to move clips from FCP<->Avid.
- If you’re moving your project from Avid->FCP, you have three choices depending on how your media was imported. If your media was captured to tape, your best bet is to recapture. If your media was imported tapelessly into Avid via AMA, I’d probably suggest just using FCP’s Log & Transfer to convert your media to FCP-friendly flavors, then relink those clips to the clips brought in via AutoDuck. Lastly, if your media was simply imported from Quicktime into Avid, just relink to the original media files!
BONUS: EXPORT AAFS FROM FINAL CUT PRO 7!
- For a long time, FCP7's support for normal ProTools workflows havs been sub-par. But by using AutoDuck's Pro Export FCP, you can now export new modern AAFs for your sound finishing needs. Since Pro Export FCP exports AAFs for Avid to import, and you have all the normal AAF export options available (consolidate whole clips, consolidate to folder, link to media, etc), you are now free from FCP's OMF 2.0 export function. Yay!
FINAL NOTES
- In my experience, transferring projects from FCP->Avid and relinking via AMA has rarely worked. Maybe you’ll get lucky, but I find that it just doesn’t always see the right clips. Your best bet is to batch import, since you can force Avid to recognize a certain clip as coming from a certain movie file.
- Automatic Duck is not a perfect app but it’s better than nothing. As with many “unsupported” workflows, GIVE YOURSELF TIME AND DO NOT EXPECT IT TO WORK RIGHT IMMEDIATELY. I can’t stress this enough. Run some tests. Decide what might be best. Don’t force it.LASTLY, and most importantly, please tell me about your experiences in the Comments section.
GOOD LUCK!
What I'm Working On - CLAIRE Rides.TV Interactive Experience
A quick note to update everyone on a "transmedia experience" I edited last month. The project is an interactive video that includes you in the story through emails, phone calls, and texts. It was a collaboration with fellow Emerson alums Landon Zakheim and Justin Gurnari the great crew at Fourth Wall Studios. It was a blast to work on and a lot of fun to experiment with the medium. Check out this LA Times article written about the company.
Click this screenshot to take you to the site.
If you want to check out the trailer for their other project Dirty Work, you can watch it below.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=421So0gGpoY]
What I'm Working On - Everything Is A Remix: THE MATRIX
A new addendum to Kirby Ferguson's web series Everything Is A Remix is up. I edited it and produced it with Kirby's help and script help from Cynthia Closkey. Check it out! I hope you like it. You can also see the link to the video on everythingisaremix.info. [vimeo 29996808 w=640h=360]
Quick Avid Tip: Display your UNC File Path in the bin!
Okay, just a quick tip I worked out yesterday while I was trying to organize dailies for a documentary I am working on. The producer/directors had organized everything I needed to build out the Avid project on a hard drive: hours and hours of Quicktimes, all sorted out by subject or location. I was going to import them in one fell swoop, but I needed some way to organize the media once it came into the Avid. As it was, all the media arrived in one big bin. This is where the UNC File Path comes in. For those who don't know, the UNC File Path is short for Universal Naming Convention and is basically a piece of metadata that tracks the folder directory location of every imported piece of media into Avid. This is how, when you go to batch import, the Avid remembers where your imported Quicktime came from. It records it in the UNC File Path.
So back to where I was. Now that I have all my Quicktimes imported, I needed a way to display the UNC File Paths so that I could organize the media into separate bins. The hard thing about this situation is the the metadata will not display in every type of Avid project. Currently, I'm working in an SD 29.97 project since most of my media is HDV and DV. When I go to my Bin Headings...
...and I try to select UNC File Path, it's not an option for me.
Ahhhh! Why, Avid, why? Why do you torment me by knowing this information and not displaying it?!?!?
Never fear, though. When it comes to the task at hand, the Avid will give me everything I need. Currently, the UNC File Path will only display in a 24p Avid Project. "But Rob, my project isn't a 24p project?" No sweat! In current versions of Avid Media Composer, you can still open and view video media of any project frame rate in any other project frame rate. That means that you can still take a copy of your bin and move it into a 24p Project, view everything, organize it into any order you want, and move it back into your native project when you're done.
Do like I do: create a 24p project with the Film radio box checked. I called mine UNC File Path, so that I can keep it forever.
Now, make a copy of your bin that has the media you want to see the UNC File Path for, and copy it into your new 24p project.
Do the same thing as above: go to select your Bin Columns, and then, like magic, it appears. Yay! Go to town!
Now a quick caveat to this tip. Thus far, I have not been able to make the Avid display this bin column in every type of project. My tip is limited to bin and clip organization. If for some reason you need to create any media, do NOT do it in your 24p project. Sort the master clips into new bins and bring it back into your native resolution project. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better than what I was doing before I figured this out. Happy Editing!
PS - Oh yeah...hey Avid! Can you fix this please? I shouldn't need a work around. Lovingly, Rob.
Why FCPX getting lobotomized means job security for editors. Yes, I'm serious.
A quick thought before I get into my rant: don't you just hate it when your day job takes you away from something you really want to be working on? Right after Apple's well-documented, well-staged NAB presentation of the new features of FCPX, I went right to Wordpress and started drafting an article with the title: "What if FCPX is not awesome?" I then proceeded to go right back to my 60-hour-a-week gig with little time to think about blogging. Smart, Rob. That was months ago. Now that I'm back to funemployment, all I can think is how I wish I had finished that article. Instead, I'm here with my late-to-the-game opinion.
The thoughts I wanted to get down on paper the internet were a few musings on how big a gamble it was for Apple to completely re-write FCP and how many changes it could create in our industry if it was a flop. I wanted to talk about how, if indeed FCPX was indeed not awesome, it was going to tarnish Apple's reputation as a company of not only great consumer apps like iPhoto but also high-end professional ones like Final Cut Pro and Logic. I was going to prognosticate that Adobe and Avid would be jumping for joy, but I was also going to say how worried I was if suddenly our entire post-production ecosystem is devastated.
So now I say, with no great joy and without getting into too much more hyperbole: FCPX is not awesome. I won't go into listing out how FCPX has major problems. Chances are, if you ended up here, you already know most of the issues. If you need a refresher, check here, here, here, here, and here, and read a simple list of what it simply does not do anymore here. Or you can just watch this video made by Conan O'Brien's editing team (shouts to @robtheeditor and @ddandthecups) which basically sums up everything you need to know about the consensus opinion:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxKYuF9pENQ&w=400&h=260]
So then where does this leave us? Well, for starters, disappointed. I have been using Final Cut Pro since 1.0, the very beginning. It was my first real introduction to non-linear editing. Hell, I did ten times my film school projects in my dorm-room on FCP than I ever did on any of the school's editing stations. I certainly knew more about FCP then Avid or Adobe when I left school. FCP was a welcomed addition to the marketplace because it was relatively inexpensive, easy to use, and robust. To see it now neutered, that's a hard pill to swallow.
But we're here now, so eventually we must reach the last stage of grief: acceptance. We must accept that now there is one less professional-grade editing software on the market. Our baby has been put out to pasture. But lo-and-behold, part of me actually feels relieved and excited about the future of post-production. Could it be that Apple has actually helped us? "But Rob, whatever do you mean?" you say. The key is this: barriers to entry.
About a year ago, I wrote a two-part piece on getting into the Motion Picture Editor's Guild (Part 1, Part 2). In it, I wrote about inexpensive non-linear editing systems and the problems that poses for making a living as an editor:
Experience aside, one once needed access to extremely pricey equipment to be able to hone one’s skills and practice as an editor. This provided an extra barrier to entry for anyone trying to get into the business. With the introduction of [Final Cut Pro], it has become easy for any person with about $5000 to be able to create a broadcast-capable editing system. [...] That has made it easy for young kids in high school and college (I’m speaking about yours truly and many following after me) to learn the skill of editing quite easily.
But today, it seems the tide as shifted back somewhat. Not completely, but somewhat. At the time I wrote that, the $5,000 number came from my loose budgeting around a Mac laptop, a copy of Final Cut Studio 3, some extra RAM and peripherals, and maybe some hard drives to boot. I was not considering the $2500 price-tag for Avid Media Composer or Adobe Master Suite. It seems now, though, that my math should be adjusted, because I would never call the current version of FCPX broadcast-capable. And given that math, it seems that a broadcast-capable edit suite just went up in price.
In the past, many new post houses and editors chose Final Cut Pro over Avid or Adobe because of budget. There were always small arguments to be made for which fit the required workflow the best but, in truth, all three basically provided the same functionality. The exception to this was that FCP cost much much less. Since the release of FCPX, though, the paradigm has changed. Now, I'd be willing to bet that the average beginning filmmaker will spend their money on the new FCPX while most professionals and production companies will focus on Media Composer and Premiere. And why shouldn't they? FCPX is easy to use and does a lot of thinking for you, while Adobe and Avid provide support for nearly every type of production and the architecture of the software is scalable up to the largest projects. But, because not every level of editor requires the same software, us professionals can breath a sigh of relief about some young kid with a Mac and FCP asking for half our rate and thusly eating our lunch. It's not that easy anymore.
Before, someone could buy FCP7 and cut their home movies on it while reading the press about how Walter Murch and the editors from The Social Network used the same software to edit Oscar-winning films. (Side note: has anyone interview these people about for their thoughts on FCPX? Can someone please get on that? Send me a link!) While that was great to imagine, believing that was simply drinking Apple's Kool-Aid. Not all editors need the same software. Here's an example: in-the-field documentarians and journalists don't need a particularly robust editor. They just need to get their footage in, view it, tweak it, and spit it out fast to Youtube, CNN iReport, and so on. They don't need advanced media-management tools for dealing with terabytes of footage. They don't need power-windows and secondary color-correction effects. They don't need the ability to export data and sequences for Pro-Tools, Resolve, or Smoke. And now there's software to serve their needs. This is good.
But this new version of Final Cut Pro is also good for editors who need more advanced tools, in the way that it pushes professionals to harder-to-reach software. There used to be two levels of software: consumer and professional. Now, though, Apple has created a new class of software that requires an intermediate-level knowledge of editing and post, but not a mastery. And so, for those of us out there who are required to be masters, the talent pool just got smaller. And that's also a good thing. Now, I don't need to look over my shoulder as much, wondering when the next development is going to take away the need for an Assistant Editor, or whether some new hotshot film director is just going to cut out the need for an editor entirely and cut their projects themselves. Apple is revolutionizing the prosumer market, and there's no shame in that. From where I sit, the more prosumers we have, the more it separates me from everyone else.
PS: Just caught this as I was writing this, from the ever-excellent Revision 3 show Film Riot. It's another good primer on the good and bad of FCPX, and recommends it exactly to who the software is targeted to: the beginner. Please let me know what you think in the comments. I'd love feedback on my thoughts. Also thanks to @therealjimhall for his feedback.
One other small post-script: I fear for the life of Aperture and Logic. If I use those programs on a daily basis, I'd be very afraid of this trend.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBZXQV7hTI&feature=player_embedded&w=400&h=260]
Quick Avid Tip: Rename your MXF folders!
Okay folks. A quick tip here about ways to organize your media when you're working on different projects on the same hard drive. It requires a little maintenance, but it will work just as well as your current system and provide for an easy ability to manage media at the Finder level. Let's review by establishing the common Avid MediaFiles folder structure: Hard Drive/Avid MediaFiles/MXF/1
On every hard drive where you're currently carrying Avid media, your media lives in this folder labelled "1". But did you know that you could rename this "1" folder to something more project-specific? Apparently, as long as the folder is within the Avid MediaFiles/MXF folder structure and there are Avid Database files in there (those two MSM files in the folder with all your media), you can name your folder whatever you want.
But when would this come in handy? If you're managing multiple projects, or multiple phases of a project, such as offline and online on the same drive, this will be truly helpful. That way, if you ever need to consolidate, manage media, or do anything when you only want to affect one project's media and don't want to manage it in the Avid Media Tool, you have set yourself up to do this very easily.
As a example, I was recently editing a music video on my laptop. The media was stored locally on my internal hard drive. Another project came up and I wanted to be able to keep the other media on my hard drive too. So I took my current "1" folder, which I knew was only media from my music video, and I renamed it "Music Video". Then I imported the media from my other project. When there isn't a "1" folder in the Avid folder structure, Avid will automatically create one for you when creating new media, so when the media was done importing, I simply renamed the newly created "1" folder to the name of my other project. And bang, two folders, two projects. This came in handy when I wanted to take the music video to online on another system. Without needing to consolidate or manage media at all, I just grabbed my "Music Video" Avid MediaFiles folder and copied it to a new hard drive. No Media Tool necessary.
Here is an example of how I have my current work set up:
PS - Just a note: this only works to my knowledge on versions of Avid that use the MXF folder structure. I have not investigated this on old (but still perfectly useable) OMF-based systems.
File-Based Basics (c/o Splice Here)
The ever-brilliant Splice Here blog (soon to be Splice Now) by Steve Cohen lays out the perfect list of questions that every production should answer before they shoot one frame. If you or someone on your production team can't answer this question before you start shooting, STOP! and get it answered. Not knowing the answer can get you in to trouble. Original link: File-Based Basics « Splice Here.
- Production Which camera(s) are you using? Which audio recorder? What kinds of files are you creating? What frame rate, sample rate, timecode rate, raster size are you recording?
- Dailies Who’s doing them? What do you need for editing, review and conforming? Who syncs and how will they do it? Who backs up and when? How are drives being moved around; where are they stored?
- Editing What system will you use? What kind of drives/raid? How will you output cut material for review? What are you turning over to sound and music?
- Conforming Will you roll your own or have a post house do it? How do you handle visual effects created in your editing room? And those created by the vfx team? What kinds of files will you use for color correction? And for television, a crucial question — when do you convert to HD?
Thanks Steve!
The Editor's Guild (Part 2 - The Double-Edged Sword)
Are you curious about the union? This blog is a continuation of my previous entry on how you get into the Motion Picture Editors Guild. I thought it would be a good idea to provide a little insight into getting into the union. What I didn't realize is that it would devolve into an entire diatribe about the state of the Editors Guild in the larger Hollywood perspective. So I packed my first entry with information, and saved the rant for here. I guess I figured that it would be a good idea to keep my thoughts organized, no? These days, so much editing work in Hollywood is non-union. You can find nearly any type of production being done without the protections of the Editors Guild. But why is this, you ask? This is due cheifly to the introduction of inexpensive editing systems in the last ten years. Experience aside, one once needed access to extremely pricey equipment to be able to hone one’s skills and practice as an editor. This provided an extra barrier to entry for anyone trying to get into the business. With the introduction of Avid and Lightworks and then Final Cut Pro, it has become easy for any person with about $5000 to be able to create a broadcast-capable editing system. Now, all people need are talent, skill, and connections. (He says, as if it was nothing.) That has made it easy for young kids in high school and college (I'm speaking about yours truly and many following after me) to learn the skill of editing quite easily.
This situation has created a problem for the union because, given its current setup, its members maintain no monopoly on any tangible skill anymore. Unlike the other Hollywood unions such as SAG or the DGA, the Editors Guild places no requirement on its members to only work on union productions. In order to maintain your benefits, a union member must work 300 hours every six months. (Here is a link explaining the requirements.) This is a double-edged sword, because it allows union members to take advantage of all the non-union work but sometimes have to choose less union work over more non-union work. You can be a member in good standing but not be given benefits based on the fact that you have not enough hours in your given six-month window. Now, you can "bank" hours, which means that you can keep some of your hours if you work more than the 300, but it's not that simple because the bank is limited to 450 hours, meaning that you can really only keep your benefits for another six months without a union gig of at least 3-4 weeks. Not as easy as it seems, is it?
When it comes to getting non-union work, I have seen more better-paying jobs as an assistant editor there than I have working union. Typically, I do independently-financed union features, and that work typically comes with depressed budgets and depressed rates. Granted, at least these productions are union projects, where I can work for a depressed rate but still get my union hours, but the grass is not necessarily greener on the union side. Other work, like reality TV and award shows, can be well-compensating but not pay into your benefits at all. And thus, I am constantly left with a dilemma. Recently, I turned down a large amount of non-union work for a smaller amount of union work, because its cheaper in the long run to not pay for my own individual health insurance. But its only getting harder to make those choices. Starting in August 2011, a union member must work 400 hours to maintain benefits!
In today's post-production reality, it does make sense how the union has positioned itself. Their allowance for union members to work non-union without penalty has allowed me to keep working union but not lose out on all my previous connections. This is good. However, this has only contributed to the union's increasing irrelevance in this town. Unless the project is a high-profile film or scripted television show, it is almost certainly non-union. American Idol, the biggest show on TV right now, is non-union. The biggest producers of reality television right now are non-union. Many of the biggest post-production houses in Los Angeles are non-union. And union people will take those jobs because they pay. I am no fan of this. Let it be said, though, that all I am trying to do is make clear the realities to people who are looking at joining the union. I don't know how to fix this. I just know I wish I could keep my benefits and be able to pay my bills. Sometimes I wonder if that will ever come to pass.
The Editor's Guild (Part 1 - Getting In, and is it worth it?)
An important question I often get is "how do I join the union?" This question comes from many people I meet, from established editors to the young people just starting out in the Hollywood. The catch is that the answer isn't at all that simple. The question should be: "should I join the union?" Putting it simply, if you're asking that question, the answer is not quite yet. But that's just the beginning of the story.
The people who should "join the union" are people who have been offered a position on a union show and are either rostered or have some other loophole to exploit. Since the latter is a longshot, your best bet to joining the union is to roster. But let's slow down a minute and talk about why you would want to join the union. The Motion Picture Editors Guild is a valuable organization of many of the most talented post-production artists in Hollywood. It provides great benefits: health insurance, a pension plan, protection from overwork/underpay, free screenings and seminars, and finally great discounts for things like software and cellphone plans. (For a complete list, check out this link.) But with every benefit, there is a downside. But that's another rant.
So what do you need to join the union? Well, the answer is you need to work non-union. You need to work, be paid, and be credited as an editor (or whatever editing title you join the union as, i.e. Assistant Editor, etc.) You can make below union scale. You can work inconsistently. All you need to have is the ability to demonstrate that you have 175 days of non-union work experience in the three years prior to applying. If you're joining as an Assistant or something else, the day requirement will be even less! Now, let's say you've met these requirements. What should you do? Well, you should roster. What is rostering? Rostering is a list of membership-eligible people who the union says are qualified for work, but haven't gotten their first union job yet. It's a sneaky way to keep you on their radar and to keep you from lying when you say "yes" if someone asks about your union status. Of course, you don't get anything tangable for rostering besides the piece of mind, but the advantage this provides is it allows a potential union employer to judge your resume without worrying about whether you're in the union or not. For information about what to do once you're at this stage, click over to this link at the union's website.
Now, if you've made it this far, you must be asking yourself "how do I get a union job?" Honestly, that's the hard part. Meeting people who could potentially hire you on union productions is entirely based on who you know. Not being able to help anyone with that, I'll address the circumstances under which you should jump from rostering to actually becoming a full member: don't do it unless you are offered a job for more than a few months. The initiation fees are hundreds of dollars, and in order to get any of the health benefits, you need to work an initial 600 hours to qualify, so don't do it if you won't be working enough to justify it. You should be very confident that you'll be working for months, not weeks, and if you're not making enough, keep your money and wait. I personally waited two years between rostering and joining.
And what is it like on the inside? Well, it's kind of a double-edged sword. I'll save you the rant for Part 2 (forthcoming) but it certainly can be awesome. The hardest part is to keep working union shows enough to maintain your benefits. But if you can do that, it's a great thing to have. My only question is whether its sustainable in its current model. But again, I'll save that for Part 2.
For more information, leave a comment here or head on over to the Guild's website. Check back for my next entry in the saga of the Editor's Guild...
Artbeats Free Clip of the Day! Free stock footage!
Hey all. Do you use stock footage ever? Think you might want to keep some on hand, for that random occasion. If you ever need that great clip as a background or insert or establishing shot that you couldn't go out and shoot, Artbeats is there to save the day. Well, Artbeats is now giving away one free clip of stock footage every day! And now you can start building your collection through their Daily Free Clip program. Just register for an account (also free!) and every day you can download either an HD, NTSC, or PAL quicktime for you to keep. Unfortunately, they're not letting people download anything higher than that for free, but who's complaining?
All of Artbeat's material is royalty-free unlimited-use, which means that you can use it over and over again without needing to pay them anything, as long as your project isn't made of more than 25% stock footage. Right now all the HD footage you get is Photo-JPEG, but the footage looks great and they claim there is negligible loss in quality as a result of the compression. Obviously, it's not ideal, but hey, IT'S FREE! Check it out and get started on building your stock footage collection...
Movie Business = Music Business minus 5 years?
Interesting post from the ever-excellent Silicon Alley Insider: Sorry, There's No Way To Save The TV Business...
As with print-based media, Internet-based distribution generates only a tiny fraction of the revenue and profit that today's incumbent cable, broadcast, and satellite distribution models do. As Internet-based distribution gains steam, therefore, most TV industry incumbents will no longer be able to support their existing cost structures.
Here's the gist: we're all going to be out of work in five years. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but the truth is that I don't see much of a future for the industry. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT I DON'T LOVE THE BUSINESS AND WANT TO DO THIS FOREVER, but the fact of the matter is, especially with post-production, job levels are taking a nose-dive and revenue streams are not far behind it. I mean, we already have internet-equipped televisions, internet video on the rise, and more people then ever on the internet, so the technology is there. How long before the industry has the rug pulled out from under us, just like the newspaper and record industry?
And things are already dead in this town. What from the Writer's Strike, the SAG "strike", and the down economy, I can't image jobs ever getting back to the levels they were at when I first moved out here. I don't want to say that we'll never find a way to work, but if you've got any ideas, I suggest you pick up the phone and call some industry executives, because they want to know.
Quick link to a recent episode of KCRW's The Business: Below The Line and Under The Gun. It's probably the best description of the job market facing us below-the-line'rs in this town. Only problem is that it doesn't even address the job market for post-production, because with the addition of technology to all these problems, editorial staffs have gone from double-digit crews to maybe two or three people for multi-million dollar projects! You want to talk about too much supply vs. demand, here is your example #1!
I'd love to hear what anyone has to say about this. Hell, talk me down if you think I'm crazy. I would love for someone to make me feel better about this. Please comment!
What I'm Working On: Every Day (Local 700 baby!)
Every Day Written and Directed by Richard Levine (Nip/Tuck)
Edited by Pam Wise, ACE (Secretary, Transamerica, Then She Found Me)
First Assistant Editor: Robert Grigsby Wilson
Local 700 baby! My first union job. After busting my ass for years trying to get a shot on a union gig, Pam hooked it up and gave me a chance to be her Assistant Editor on her indie feature. I met Pam way back when I was a production assistant for Carl Byker on a PBS Frontline documentary called "The Meth Epidemic," which she edited. We've stayed in touch since then, so now here I am!
The film was shot on the RED Cam, which is basically the "new hotness" of digital filmmaking. It records at 4k resolution (although its quality is frankly debatable) which is comparable in quality to 35mm film. The essential benefit of this is that you can shoot without the constraints of film, film equipment, and film processing on your budget. In addition to that, there was no need for heavy editing equipment either. Pam and I are editing the entire film on our new MacBook Pros and a couple 1 TB drives.
Oh we had problems, but mostly it arised out of not being able to manage the original RED media ourselves. A lab in New York (that shall remain nameless) received all our original media and downconverted everything into DNxHD 36, Avid's new compressed HD codec. In an ideal situation, this would've been fine, since they would have taken that extra step out of my hands. However, this was all during the time when Final Cut Pro had exclusive rights to the SDK for RED, which essentially meant Avid and Red didn't always want to talk to each other correctly. Thus creating huge headaches with converting media, all while trying to stay on schedule. I'd say, if you plan on making your film with the RED, either edit in Final Cut Pro or at least manage all your RED files yourself.
Some RED links: Avid and The Red | Spilling The Beans On The Red One | Avid/Red Forum on Reduser | Peter Jackson shoots RED | Soderberg shoots RED
Not bad for a first entry, eh?