FORUMS: list search recent posts

Interview with Thomas Grove Carter

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Ronny Courtens
Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 7, 2017 at 4:13:26 pm

I have really enjoyed reading this:

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/a-conversation-with-thomas-gr...

Thank you, Oliver.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 7, 2017 at 5:09:04 pm

For storage, we’re currently using Samsung T3 SSD drives, which are so fast and light, they can handle most things we throw at them. It’s a really slick and flexible set up. But with a few potential feature films in the near future, we are looking again at shared storage.




reply -
wow, doing major shows, with small SSD's and no shared storage. Wow.
Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 10, 2017 at 10:47:55 pm

[Bob Zelin] "reply -
wow, doing major shows, with small SSD's and no shared storage. Wow.
Bob Zelin"


Tom works extremely high level short form projects for clients like global automakers - and equally high end music video work like Ed Sheeran's recent Castle on the Hill project. I'm sure the field footage is stored on complex storage systems and backed up appropriately in their shop.

What's changed is what's required to load and work with that footage for the editor. This is the era of creating metadata ABOUT the footage - not so much always needing to touch the original footage and pass it around a facility. Sure there's still a place for that. But it's not the same place that it used to be. At least from where I'm seeing things these days.

I think I know Thomas well enough now to opine that what he likely values over all else, is the ability to launch a project and simply get lost in the creative side of it - with as few distractions pulling his focus away from the material as possible.

That he can do this on a Laptop with an SSD "not" tethered to a larger network - successfully - is likely liberating. I know it has been for me.

I'm pretty sure his shop has plenty of network capability and secure storage - but the point is that not that long ago, an editor had to be hanging directly ON THAT NETWORK for an effective workflow. But editing, itself, today - even with very high quality decently large raster video streams just isn't the kind of network stressing process it was just a few years ago. Not in the era where the decisions are just modifying metadata that can show you the results on a laptop - and instantly scale the same creative choices against the highest available display tech back at home base with just a mouse click

And if a "fit in your briefcase" SSD & laptop combo successfully lets him be creative away from his desk -(even part of the time) and lose nothing when his editorial choices are transferred to the larger system - well, that's all the really matters, right?

Work as you like, when you like, where you like. And lose no quality along the way.

Golden era stuff, right there.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 11, 2017 at 6:40:53 am

[Bill Davis] "Work as you like, when you like, where you like. And lose no quality along the way.

Golden era stuff, right there.
"


It really is, and it's achievable on any NLE on both Mac and PC. The choices we have now are amazing!


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 7, 2017 at 5:31:15 pm

Another great interview by Oliver! I have read brief interviews with Carter before; this is by far the best, most insightful piece! We're lucky to have OP on this forum.

Doug D


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 7, 2017 at 5:55:05 pm

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. I certainly enjoyed chatting with Thomas.

Bob - the SSDs were related to their commercial work. They are currently investigating shared storage for upcoming projects. They used to have Avid Isis in their previous building, but opted not to initially go that way when they moved into new digs.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Tony West
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 11, 2017 at 3:41:41 pm

"What I’ve found with everyone who has moved to it, including myself – there were always a few little hooks that keep people coming back, even if you don’t like the whole app initially. "

That's one of the best descriptions I have seen of X.

X has a bunch of things that are cool and fun even if you don't like the concept of the timeline, that peak the interest of many editors.

When I'm showing the tools of X to people for the first time they will often say, "Well.......I do like thaaaat part" : )


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 11, 2017 at 7:00:53 pm

[Tony West] "When I'm showing the tools of X to people for the first time they will often say, "Well.......I do like thaaaat part" : )"

That's true even for me! ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research

linkedIn: http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
vimeo: vimeo.com/album/2271696
web: propaganda.com
facebook: /dlawrence
twitter: @dhl


Return to posts index

Neil Sadwelkar
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 12, 2017 at 11:13:08 am

With a Samsung T3 SSD of 2 TB running $ 750 or so, its like carrying a RAID of yesteryear in your pocket. 2 Tb can hold over 100 hrs of ProRes Proxy (or DNxHD36) so you could have down-converted rushes of an entire feature or feature length docu, in a tiny package which has the speed (300+ MB/sec) of a 4-bay RAID. And FCP X lets you store everything in one convenient library.

-----------------------------------
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 12, 2017 at 2:35:37 pm

People tend to forget that this is creative ("offline") editing - not "finishing". So while the camera originals might be higher resolution, the editors tend to work with 1080 or 720 ProResProxy or LT. Secondly, it's not a shared editing situation. One editor and maybe an assistant is working all the way through. Ultimately, keeping everything together in a single location makes more workflow sense than a large SAN. However, that's where Thomas mentioned that they are also looking at a SAN/NAS, because of possible indie film projects coming their way. Those have different workflow needs.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 12, 2017 at 11:44:14 pm

[Oliver Peters] "People tend to forget that this is creative ("offline") editing - not "finishing". "

This is absolutely true.

But it's also true that "finishing" is changing. And worse, becoming less and less relevant in the modern era.

Honestly, for a LONG time, finishing was a thing done by separate people in separate facilities using separate tools and deploying separate specific "hard to gain" expertise.

That's still happens. But it's NOT the only way things get professionally produced anymore.

This is the era where one person CAN touch everything from creation to delivery - at an impressively high level of success - and deliver content that doesn't compare all that badly to what the "pro team" can produce.

Is it the most efficient way in all circumstances? Heck no. But that's not the HUGE change. The huge change is that it was IMPOSSIBLE for a small team (or a talented individual) to compete with a huge team not so long ago.

And now it's just not.

I was watching the work of one of those kids who go to school during the day - and produces a weekly tech based web-series in his free time. He's got more than 100,000 subscribers. And his work looks GREAT. His shooting is clear. His graphic design aesthetic is solid. His delivery, both on-camera and via VO is totally credible. And his audience RELATES to him the way I related to the TV hosts of my era. He's produced more than 100 "episodes" over the past few years for his YouTube audience and he's killing it.

This tells me that anyone who clings too strongly to the classic production modes of yesterday is making a dangerous decision (in my opinion.) The traditional production process still works just fine today. It creates excellence. It leverages expertise built over long hard work. But if you don't understand that there are NON traditional production processes nipping at the traditional ones heels - you're delusional.

Basically, only a tiny sliver of the MOST highly conditioned professionals can discern the visual and audio differences between that young YouTubers work - and a high dollar professional production companies work. And worse, the cheaper process probably looks more "authentic" and more "organic" to that audience. And that audience is growing WAY faster than the one it's replacing.

So do NOT get complacent about this stuff.

Do NOT think that what you (or I) know now, is what's going to be what you need to know tomorrow.

Because it isn't.

That's all.

Heck, Look at what Apple just started doing in their public facing customer training right now.
Watch some of these.






And it does NOT look like what I used to do in my training work.

And, to my distress, MUCH better than even what I'm trying to learn how to do now with my XinTwo thing. I've got to step up my game and evolve even FASTER than I have been. 😳 Because the video space is now a very fast moving target.

More change coming. Faster.

And I still think that if you're still doing the same kind of work you did a decade ago - the same way you did it back then, look out.

My 2 cents.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 12:41:43 am

[Bill Davis] "But it's also true that "finishing" is changing. And worse, becoming less and less relevant in the modern era."

Have to disagree. Finishing is changing, but it's certainly not becoming less relevant, and won't long as people continue to pay to see movies in a theater. Try grading a stereoscopic DCP for stereo projection on your laptop and you'll quickly see what I mean. 😉 That's just one example.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research

linkedIn: http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
vimeo: vimeo.com/album/2271696
web: propaganda.com
facebook: /dlawrence
twitter: @dhl


Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 1:11:07 am

[David Lawrence] " Finishing is changing, but it's certainly not becoming less relevant, and won't long as people continue to pay to see movies in a theater. Try grading a stereoscopic DCP for stereo projection on your laptop and you'll quickly see what I mean. 😉 That's just one example."

Finishing is becoming more relevant to every level of production, including corporate, local, whatever. For that matter, Apple are the ones who blew this wide open with Color in the first place. It was perhaps largely the realm of specialists before then, but absolutely not since.

Resolve is certainly doing its part to finish knocking down the walls (SEE WHAT I DID THERE) with apex-class tools available for anywhere from free to $299, and significantly extending the utility of control surfaces for as little as a few hundred bucks, up to a genuinely game changing box at all of $1000. Look at all the YouTubers shooting with Phantoms, REDs, and Blackmagic's cinema cameras and tell me that $1000 is an elite price. It just isn't -- as indeed, FREE is not either. 😅

I've also been enjoying watching Baselight and Mistika helping extend the market at the high end, too. They're helping put an end to the fiction that heavy iron is passé -- not in a world where you need heavy lifting it ain't. Autodesk and SAM (formerly Quantel) are continuing to thrive as never before.

That's not counting ever-more-powerful tools built into NLEs (eg Lumetri) and powerful FX plug offerings for X, including Color Finale ($99), Colorista ($199), and cineLook (formerly $99, now free if you join CGM).

I'd argue that top to bottom, there's no ecosystem anywhere in our creative space that's richer, more robust, more diverse or growing more quickly than finishing. Not even editing. Not even close.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 1:23:34 am

[Tim Wilson] "Resolve is certainly doing its part to finish knocking down the walls (SEE WHAT I DID THERE) with apex-class tools available for anywhere from free to $299, and significantly extending the utility of control surfaces for as little as a few hundred bucks, up to a genuinely game changing box at all of $1000."

The interesting thing with Resolve is this. Yes, one person can do it all with a single tool. However, a small shop can also set up 3 "hero" rooms optimized for different tasks - editing, grading with control surfaces, and mixing with a mixing surface. And the beauty is that it's all using the same app - no need for project translation.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 2:10:07 am

[Oliver Peters] "The interesting thing with Resolve is this. Yes, one person can do it all with a single tool. However, a small shop can also set up 3 "hero" rooms optimized for different tasks - editing, grading with control surfaces, and mixing with a mixing surface. And the beauty is that it's all using the same app - no need for project translation.
"


This story is absolutely astounding to me. That Grant Petty managed to update and mainstream a true alternative to Pro Tools and release it for $299....or zero, if you think of it as being thrown in for free with Resolve....I'm speechless. In any other year, the industry would be howling about a truly viable, robust standalone $299 alternative to Pro Tools, with what looks to be a considerably more affordable approach to control surfaces...but he just threw it into Resolve! And expanded the scope of what it can do for free!!!

I mean, I do love that his specific goal was to make high-end audio tools accessible to video editors rather than saddle up on Pro Tools per se, but still. What an amazing story.

I was the Senior Product Marketing Manager for Avid Xpress Studio back in 2004, and I saw firsthand how difficult it is to have THIS level of audio and video production share the same software real estate so to speak. Pro Tools has been part of Avid for over 20 years and it STILL hasn't happened.

Your guess is as good as mine if this is even vaguely on the agenda at Apple, who bought emagic back in 2002. Not that Logic is attempting to do what PT and Fairlight are, but its significantly lesser relative ambition should have made it easier to integrate, but 15 years later, not so much.

That Grant could update, mainstream, AND INTEGRATE Fairlight and Resolve in a matter of months is entirely unprecedented -- and he managed to blow performance through the roof AND the price through the floor!

When people say that not much of consequence happened at NAB, I'm floored. Well, I guess only if you don't do anything with NLEs, color grading, or audio. 😅


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 7:20:17 pm

[Tim Wilson] "This story is absolutely astounding to me. That Grant Petty managed to update and mainstream a true alternative to Pro Tools and release it for $299....or zero, if you think of it as being thrown in for free with Resolve....I'm speechless...."

Me, too. However, let's not forget that Adobe has also been doing essentially the same with Premiere Pro. Audio is largely from Audition, color correction (Lumetri) is totally SpeedGrade, and now the new title tool is using elements of Photoshop.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 14, 2017 at 1:22:07 am

[Oliver Peters] "Me, too. However, let's not forget that Adobe has also been doing essentially the same with Premiere Pro. Audio is largely from Audition, color correction (Lumetri) is totally SpeedGrade, and now the new title tool is using elements of Photoshop.
"


True! Buuuuuut.....Audition isn't quite the scale of Fairlight, and it took Adobe longer than 5 months to integrate it. 😊 And a little longer than that to integrate Photoshop as a title tool. 😅

I'm totally with you on Lumetri, though. I do think it played a meaningful role on raising the game for grading using an NLE's native toolset rather than an external application. Apple noticed, as did third parties who raised their own game for X as well. Actual GRADING toolsets, not just "color correction" are no longer "nice to haves". They're "must haves".


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 6:40:39 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on May 13, 2017 at 6:43:19 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Bill Davis] "But it's also true that "finishing" is changing. And worse, becoming less and less relevant in the modern era."

Have to disagree. Finishing is changing, but it's certainly not becoming less relevant, and won't long as people continue to pay to see movies in a theater. Try grading a stereoscopic DCP for stereo projection on your laptop and you'll quickly see what I mean. 😉 That's just one example."


Not realizing that this would catch on, I realize that I didn't post a link to the original YouTube video that caused me to mentally make that point.

Here it is:





Based on the content - Justin does NOT employ any "traditional finishing" for his work, merely doing some "inside X" fundamental auto correcting and matching.

But if you WATCH his content, it looks functionally very close to the work produced by major operations.

THAT was my point. Not the "finishing" per se is obsolete. That's silly. But that what kids like him (He does say his channel production is interrupted by his need to GO TO SCHOOL!) are doing, is aggregating massive audiences (does 100,000 plus subscribers not qualify?) without the need for any traditional outside "finishing" stages.

THAT is the change. The video quality and " look" he can achieve (even without "finishing" TOTALLY BLOWS AWAY was I was able to achieve in terms of image quality for the entire first 20 YEARS of my career, at least in my self-produced work. And arguably, even in my professional studio and TV Station produced stuff, since that was all NTSC SD stuff for a LONG time.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 7:29:22 pm

[Bill Davis] "But if you WATCH his content, it looks functionally very close to the work produced by major operations"

I'm not sure I see that. I don't mean to take away from him. Ultimately it's an issue of talent and he is clearly talented. But I still don't see the comparison you are trying to draw. It's essentially the same as saying you don't need a small army of a crew to get good content. Well, that's really a big "maybe". Most productions, even corporate videos for the web, do take a lot of production effort and expertise, more so than most one-man-bands can offer.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 8:34:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "THAT is the change. The video quality and " look" he can achieve (even without "finishing" TOTALLY BLOWS AWAY was I was able to achieve in terms of image quality for the entire first 20 YEARS of my career..."

[Oliver Peters] "I'm not sure I see that. I don't mean to take away from him. Ultimately it's an issue of talent and he is clearly talented. But I still don't see the comparison you are trying to draw. It's essentially the same as saying you don't need a small army of a crew to get good content. Well, that's really a big "maybe". Most productions, even corporate videos for the web, do take a lot of production effort and expertise, more so than most one-man-bands can offer."

Yep. and today millions of people carry a 4K video camera in their pockets they can also make phone calls with. Tools always improve, better quality is always becoming more accessible, but talent always wins the day. Filmmaking is a team sport and for big shows, I don't see that ever changing, no matter how much the tools evolve.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research

linkedIn: http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
vimeo: vimeo.com/album/2271696
web: propaganda.com
facebook: /dlawrence
twitter: @dhl


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 9:14:34 pm

As a one man band, who has a Youtube channel focused on West Coast College lacrosse (truly an niche subject) I used to wonder why the best films always had large teams. I think the point is that even with the great cameras, editing software that a one man band can utilize, a team approach where each member has expertise will win. It is that deeper expertise in each area that can produce higher quality.
If I have a second shooter, I get different angles of the sport and more choices in editing. If I have a sound person, I can get higher quality and unique audio.
My modest goal is to reach a million views on Youtube, 815 k at the moment and I find quality translates to views.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 9:30:52 pm

[Claude Lyneis] "My modest goal is to reach a million views on Youtube, 815 k at the moment and I find quality translates to views."

Sometimes, but one of the Channels I have got nearly 4.5 million views with this simple clip





Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 10:28:16 pm

Yeah, one good cat video equals a million views. More cat lovers than lacrosse lovers.


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 10:31:16 pm

The Raptor video was certainly high quality. I have been a fan of airplanes since the fifties. New ones come along much less often than in the 50's were innovation was more rapid.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 14, 2017 at 4:57:44 am

People were doing YouTube videos long before FCPX without the need for handing of to a post production house for finishing. It is nothing new. Having said that why would a YouTuber higher a motion graphics artist or 3-D animator if it is not needed? On the flip side what if Justin Tse was asked to create the the next Avatar movie from start to finish. Do you think he could do it all using only FCPX? It should be easy to see every video project will require different software. Anyone who thinks all video projects can be done from start to finish using FCPX might want to rethink things. Having said that does anyone remember when I stated I thought the FCPX's 3-D titles looked cheesy and I explained why? I later stated I like to use mattes and masks vs 3-D titles? Something Premiere Pro can do very easy. Having said that I did not see the 3-D titling of FCPX used in the video. Instead I saw some mattes and 2-D titles. So now key-framed 2-D titles and mattes are better than 3-D titles? If that is the case I think Premiere Pro might have and advantage over FCPX.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 15, 2017 at 3:12:32 am

I think Justin short sales himself a bit. He is very smart and talented. He's also a good instructor. There are no wasted words in his presentation, just straight to the point and clear.

He points out one of the "real" game changers and that's plugins. 20 years ago you had to make all those effects yourself from scratch and it cost more to do it. (He even had a plugin to straighten a shot. I didn't know such a thing existed: )

The second game changer is of course there are tons of people like him on YT explaining how to do production for free.
20 years ago you had to figure it out on your own.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 7:23:25 pm

[David Lawrence] "Try grading a stereoscopic DCP for stereo projection on your laptop and you'll quickly see what I mean."

I interviewed an editor working on a Hulu series. They require UHD (4K) masters in HDR, although they are only streaming SDR so far.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 1:18:47 am

[Bill Davis] "This is the era where one person CAN touch everything from creation to delivery - at an impressively high level of success - and deliver content that doesn't compare all that badly to what the "pro team" can produce."

Not sure I agree here. I started professional video editing in the 70s and we were editing "online" the whole time. No offline/finishing there at all. If you go back to film, it was quite common for people/companies to be one-man bands, because the tools were relatively cheap for the time. You could own the camera, sound gear and a film editing bench and be largely self-contained. The extra was just the lab and optical effects - the "online" of its day.

The reason for separation of responsibilities is because of the expertise and mindset that many people bring to the table. There are plenty of great editors who are good creatively, but terrible when it comes to quality control. I can design, but a true graphic designer does better work. I can mix, but a skilled ProTools mixer does a much better job.

So while one person can own and do everything, it doesn't often give you the best results and that's just as true today and in years past.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 8:44:42 am

[Bill Davis] "But it's also true that "finishing" is changing. And worse, becoming less and less relevant in the modern era.
"


Less relevant for who? Broadcasters? Movie Producers? I'm not sure it's true in those sectors at all

[Bill Davis] "This tells me that anyone who clings too strongly to the classic production modes of yesterday is making a dangerous decision (in my opinion.) The traditional production process still works just fine today. It creates excellence. It leverages expertise built over long hard work. But if you don't understand that there are NON traditional production processes nipping at the traditional ones heels - you're delusional. "

I'll mention that the next time I'm chatting with the owner of Molinaire in London, a very well known finishing house, I think he might disagree with you

[Bill Davis] "Basically, only a tiny sliver of the MOST highly conditioned professionals can discern the visual and audio differences between that young YouTubers work - and a high dollar professional production companies work."

I'm pleased to be in that tiny sliver who can spot the difference between good and great

[Bill Davis] "So do NOT get complacent about this stuff.

Do NOT think that what you (or I) know now, is what's going to be what you need to know tomorrow.
"


Absolutely right, but that's been true over the last few decades too.

I understand what you are trying to say Bill, Web TV is changing all the models at an astonishing pace but there at the moment it's all still in ADDITION to traditional Broadcast and Film and it shows no sign of making any significant inroads in this area.

For me the biggest disruptors in the industry are Netflix and Amazon and they have VERY high production quality in their output, which I'm assuming, is still made with "traditional" finishing.


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 12:18:40 pm

[Steve Connor] "Web TV is....still in ADDITION to traditional Broadcast and Film and it shows no sign of making any significant inroads in this area...For me the biggest disruptors in the industry are Netflix and Amazon and they have VERY high production quality in their output, which I'm assuming, is still made with "traditional" finishing."

I don't quite understand this. Netflix and Amazon ARE web-based TV, IOW, "new media". Netflix is spending $6 billion per year just on new content, and in 2016 got 54 Emmy nominations. Amazon's biggest series is Grand Tour (a new media production), reportedly budgeted at $5.8 million per episode. To me, that is "Web TV" making significant inroads.

The Star Trek fan film Prelude to Axanar has extremely high production values, yet is a pure new media product. It was probably finished traditionally but is definitely not a traditional commercial production: http://www.axanarproductions.com/

By "Web TV" if you mean only non-traditionally finished products, normally that's not done for higher-budget productions. However the movie "Saved By Grace" was finished entirely in FCPX: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1830-hollywood-veteran-lance-bache...

I'm not sure it's possible to isolate revenue from all streaming web content that is not traditionally finished, so I don't know if there are numbers to definitively assess that as not making any significant inroads. However Youtube alone is estimated to have $27 billion in revenue by 2020, and the demographic chart on this page is interesting: http://www.tubefilter.com/2016/04/15/youtube-estimated-revenues-27-billion-...

By contrast Hollywood's *global* box office revenue in 2016 was about $38 billion.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 1:44:54 pm

[Joe Marler] "I don't quite understand this. Netflix and Amazon ARE web-based TV, IOW, "new media". Netflix is spending $6 billion per year just on new content, and in 2016 got 54 Emmy nominations. Amazon's biggest series is Grand Tour (a new media production), reportedly budgeted at $5.8 million per episode. To me, that is "Web TV" making significant inroads.
"


I should have said YouTube TV :)


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 12:23:07 pm

[Steve Connor] "For me the biggest disruptors in the industry are Netflix and Amazon and they have VERY high production quality in their output"

Can there be such a thing as too MUCH content? The amount of content is now overwhelming to the point where (in my opinion) a lot of it is not very good and we are missing good stuff because it's "lost in the sauce" of web content. I rarely have the patience to find and then sit and watch a series online or over the air. What's more interesting is that when we do watch "regular" TV, the commercial breaks are so much more annoying than they ever were.

After cutting the cord years ago, I have now started reducing my online content footprint as well. Sling was the first to go with Netflix being examined next. Amazon stays because of my Prime account. Hulu is gone and HBO never was. At our household (kids are grown and gone) the actual TV rarely gets turned on anymore (until football season) I have an antennae on the roof for "local" stations (local for us is 40 miles straight line to the transmit point) and that is just for more localized weather information.

Just a muse on a rainy cold morning in Virginia. Thoughts?

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 14, 2017 at 12:22:19 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Can there be such a thing as too MUCH content?"

I'm going to go with no on this Scott. There is a lot of stuff out there but we are all not watching everything. It just means that now everyone has their own tailored viewing if you will.

More outlets means more jobs, more opportunities to make money. Also more opportunities to get your work to the public if you are a filmmaker. One says no, you place it with 5 others and keep stepping.

[Scott Witthaus] "Sling was the first to go with Netflix being examined next. Amazon stays because of my Prime account."

I totally agree here because Netflix has been cutting their content like documentaries where as Amazon is brining in more docs and people can watch them easier because they shop on there with their membership. I liked a few of the Netflix shows but the ones I like have gotten kind of out there.

[Scott Witthaus] " HBO never was"

Got to disagree here Scott, some of the best TV I have ever seen has been on HBO. "The Wire" alone was worth the cost of admission for me and "True Detectives"? Come on Scott, that first season was a flat-out masterpiece : )

HBO has had plenty I enjoy over the years with "Game Of Thrones", "Westworld", "Big Little Lies" recently. "Curb Your Enthusiasm" was one of the funniest series I have ever seen. "I'm a surviver, no, I'm a surviver"

I work so much that I use my Apple TV to watch HBO and other shows on my own schedule.

Those are my thoughts, my brother : )


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 29, 2017 at 5:31:13 am

I think there is more demand for finishing now than ever before... and I think there is less need for finishing now than ever before. It just depends on what part of the market you are looking at. In terms of sheer volume, user generated content that is uploaded to YouTube, Vimeo, etc., outnumbers everything else, but with more and more outlets for 'broadcast quality' (for lack of a better term) original content such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, the premium side of YouTube, a plethora of cable channels, etc., I don't think finishing is going to be less relevant any time soon (even if the toolset used to get there keeps expanding).

One thing I notice in many conversations here is when the discussion turns to Old Media and New Media we largely focus on the high end of Old Media and the lower end of New Media even though both have their own stratifications. New Media outlets produce/distribute high-end content (Man in the High Castle, House of Cards, The Handmaid's Tale, etc.) and Old Media has lower production such as well (like local/regional programming). Sure, all programing intended for broadcast had to meet some basic technical standards (which brick wall limiters could brutally impose), but quality standards were all across the board. Do the local commercials for Crazy Eddie's Crazy Car Emporium have the same spit and polish as The Abyss? Public Access Television has been around for decades and could be seen as the father of user generated content distributors like YouTube. The biggest difference is local/regional distribution vs global.


[Joe Marler] "However Youtube alone is estimated to have $27 billion in revenue by 2020, and the demographic chart on this page is interesting: http://www.tubefilter.com/2016/04/15/youtube-estimated-revenues-27-billion-....."

Google doesn't split out specific numbers for YouTube, but from the analyst estimates I've read, YouTube has never turned a profit (their overhead is insane) and likely won't until they get a handle on premium content because that's what viewers and advertisers will pay for. Google knows this which is why they've launched things like YouTube Original Channel Innovative (now defunct), YouTube Red, and YouTube TV. YouTube is also becoming more and more advertiser friendly even if it's to the detriment of traditional YouTubers. For example, YouTube recently changed some policies so that content deemed "inappropriate for advertising" can't be monetized. "Violence" was one of the inappropriate categories so this meant that YouTubers covering video games containing violence (like the best selling Call of Duty series) have seen their revenue plummet even as their views go up. Their only recourse is to complain to YT and hope that something changes.

https://kotaku.com/youtubers-say-they-cant-make-money-covering-call-of-dut-...

[Scott Witthaus] "Can there be such a thing as too MUCH content? The amount of content is now overwhelming to the point where (in my opinion) a lot of it is not very good and we are missing good stuff because it's "lost in the sauce" of web content."

I think so, which is why the New Media gatekeepers (Amazon, Hulu, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, etc.,) will become as powerful and influential as the Old Media gate keepers. On a related note, Indiewire recently had a piece about Netflix buying good movies that ultimately get buried and remain largely unseen ( http://www.indiewire.com/2017/04/netflix-bad-for-movies-theaters-okja-tramp... ). Making content is easier than ever. Distributing content is easier than ever. Garnering an audience and/or monetizing your content is whole other ball of wax.



-Andrew


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 29, 2017 at 8:01:18 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Making content is easier than ever. Distributing content is easier than ever. Garnering an audience and/or monetizing your content is whole other ball of wax."

Lot of very reasonable observations in this post.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 29, 2017 at 8:13:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "[Andrew Kimery] "Making content is easier than ever. Distributing content is easier than ever. Garnering an audience and/or monetizing your content is whole other ball of wax."

Lot of very reasonable observations in this post.
"


It's a giant, house-crushing ball of wax!


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 30, 2017 at 6:22:53 pm

[Steve Connor] "It's a giant, house-crushing ball of wax!"

Dude, it's the biggest ball of wax you've ever seen, bro! ;)


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 2:15:05 pm

[Steve Connor] "Less relevant for who? Broadcasters? Movie Producers? I'm not sure it's true in those sectors at all"

This is always going to come down to anecdotes, but in my world the standard of finishing expected by our clients keeps going up year on year.

As the tools continue to improve and allow for better and better results, so the expectations become more and more demanding. Our clients are continually discovering that they can ask for more and more "perfection" and thanks to some incredible advances in software we can keep delivering it.

I think it's great that our clients continue to build on their expectations and demand results that they would never have considered possible only a couple of years ago, let alone ten or twenty years ago.

However although it is possible to keep up with the pace at a cost that keeps getting cheaper, it's still not possible to deliver what our clients expect without using the tools (both software and hardware) that are specifically designed for the job with the highest specification in mind.

On a more general note, although there are still millions who cannot tell good or bad from a hole in the ground, there are ever-growing legions of extremely knowledgeable and exacting younger audiences with a very keen eye for even the smallest deviation from what we currently think of as "perfection".

And today's "perfection" will always be tomorrow's "I can't believe they used to live with that!"

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 8:57:08 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "in my world the standard of finishing expected by our clients keeps going up year on year."

I don't see that, at least in TV news. Note the major color problems on this CNN piece from 00:38 to 01:17 and 03:50 to 04:00. This wasn't a failure to use Quantel Pablo Rio, or a failure to use Resolve, or a failure to use a white balance plugin -- it was a failure to do *anything*: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-grid/index.html


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 9:42:44 pm

[Joe Marler] "I don't see that, at least in TV news."

Indeed, there are many areas where standards have plummeted to a pitiful low. (And despite what one sometimes hears to the contrary, there is quite a lot of truly appalling video and audio on YouTube, not just on TV news.)

But there are also many other areas where quality is even more in demand than it ever was and where the quality benchmark keeps getting higher.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 14, 2017 at 1:07:23 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Joe Marler] "I don't see that, at least in TV news."

Indeed, there are many areas where standards have plummeted to a pitiful low."


When has TV news driven anything resembling aesthetics? It's kind of the anti-aesthetic, and always has been. "Run and gun" comes from news, and points to the exact opposite of finesse. It's never finished.

I do agree that that's no excuse for not white balancing. You do THAT before you start running, and it ain't that hard to do while you're actually running, either. 😅

But acknowledging the respect due to producers who DO care about production values under the gun, the fact that the worst of TV news is continuing to lower the bar of the lowest possible bar isn't reflective of any trends in any other part of the industry. I mean, sports is done on the fly, and that stuff is looking amazing -- sometimes through the application of technologies that we'd previously only seen in post.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 13, 2017 at 11:25:43 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "This is always going to come down to anecdotes, but in my world the standard of finishing expected by our clients keeps going up year on year."

You're correct on both counts, of course, which points to a third observation, that some anecdotes are very easy to extrapolate outward toward general applicability, and some are very easy to reject.

If finishing were finished, we'd be seeing fewer options for it, on every platform, in every context, and every pricepoint, when in fact the opposite is true. As I noted upthread, all of those are exploding.

As another example, you and I might swap anecdotes about how much we personally love disks, and how every one of our clients demands disk deliverables....but what does the market for DVD creation software look like? The question verges on rhetorical, because the answer verges on, "Market? What market?" Tools still exist, obviously, but it's not a product category the way it was just a few years ago. Calling it a "niche" almost gives it too much credit. The market has spoken. Disks are done.

The market has spoken even more forcefully on finishing. This isn't the decade of proliferating NLE options. It's the decade of finishing going all the way mainstream, and expanding outward in every possible direction, at every price point, from free to Baselight. 😅 Heritage providers of finishing solutions including Autodesk and SAM (formerly Quantel) doing well, a plethora of X plug-ins (to say nothing of expanding finishing toolsets in multi-host plugs like Boris FX Continuum, Sapphire, mocha)...

...PLUS the increasing finishing sophistication built in to hosts like Premiere Pro and X (Avid has always taken this seriously since Symphony, plus, well, Resolve, whose finishing capabilities are driving its adoption as an NLE, which is how Grant Petty tells us it's most often being used.

[Joe Marler] "However the movie "Saved By Grace" was finished entirely in FCPX: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1830-hollywood-veteran-lance-bache....."

I love this story. Couldn't possibly make a stronger case for the to which finishing is more critical than ever, "even" if it's being done in FCPX.

(And I am genuinely mystified how anyone could equate the rise of FCPX with any kind of decline of finishing. Are we back to skateboard videos as the new benchmark of the reality? Go to YouTube and look up "Skateboard Video RED camera" and "Skateboard Phantom camera" and be prepared to be amazed by YEARS of 4K skateboard videos at up to 7000 frames per second that will blow your mind.)

The first thing to note is that Steve's approach to imagery is impeccable. I'm delighted to be following Steve on Instagram, where even his goofing-around touristy stuff looks better than what some folks shoot for a living. 😅

For Saved By Grace, he was shooting on two RED Dragons in 4K, ProRes 4444, with a "classical" film workflow that included dailies, sync sound, the whole shebang.

Here's what he has to say about finishing in that article. I added some highlights in bold that Steve may wish to comment on, but I think he says it quite well here. He spent a lot of time on finishing inside FCPX, with a diverse handful of third party tools, plus a native toolset that has been driven by the demand for more and better finishing tools.

I worked probably 6 weeks finishing the edit in my home studio and then handed off the audio files for the mix. While the mix was being completed the Director and I began creating a look for the film and color grading.

Although I did export the final show to Resolve 12 for color timing we were not happy with what we were getting (not to mention all the crashes), and went back to Redcine to do most of the color. There were radical white balance problems between the 2 Dragons, and Redcine has a great white balance tool.

We didn’t go back to Resolve at all. Instead, we found the combination of RedcineX and Color Finale inside FCP X to be a fantastic combo. I did the first color pass using the Alchemy tool inside Redcine, which is great for creating a really nice and filmic first-pass contrast and look.

The problem with Alchemy is it is only available in the metadata in Redcine and it does not show up in any NLE. So once we approved the look in Redcine I would render 4K 4444 XQ ProRes files out and cut those in to the final reels in FCPX, on top of the Red raw files. From there I would use Color Finale for the final look, scoping everything along the way using the FCP X scopes which I feel are far and away the best software scopes in the industry.

We used CoreMelt SliceX with Color Finale to track power windows. It worked great and was such a pleasure to do inside FCP X. I also added some adjustment layers, using the Color Board for final tweaks.


Scopes! He used SCOPES!

Does this sound like somebody who thinks finishing is finished? NO. And while Resolve turned out to be a no-go for him (a true-as-it-needs-to-be anecdote that may note), he beautifully illustrates my point about the rich ecosystem for advanced finishing using plug-ins for X, and X's own finishing toolset, working with Redcine, RedcineX, Color Finale, Alchemy, SliceX, AND FCPX. So, one editing toolset, seven finishing toolsets. THAT's what I'm talking about.

On its own, yes, Steve's story is "just another anecdote", but one that clearly aligns with the overwhelming direction of the industry to more emphasis on finishing, not less.

This does not discount for one second, for one iota, the validity of a "finishing doesn't matter anymore" for any individual producer. If it's true for you, it's as true as it needs to be.

But to attempt to extrapolate that into any industry-wide trend, even one that includes YouTube, replete with its Phantoms, REDs, Blackmagic Cinema Cameras, and 35mm DSLRs, is objectively, factually, demonstrably simply not true at all. The most characteristic characteristic of digital content creation in the 21st century's second decade is exponentially expanding options for finishing, driven by real-world demand.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 14, 2017 at 5:50:20 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on May 14, 2017 at 5:51:27 am

Again, we're down to a semantic gulf.

If the group in this thread accepts that "finishing" now includes an editor at home using X's color board or Color Finale, we have no difference.

My assumption was those taking umbrage regarding my blasphemy 😉 were of the "unless you're sending it out to an expert - you're doing it wrong" variety.

My mistake.

If the hive mind agree henceforth that a Kid using Premiere to match a 2 camera switch, and a dedicated Baselight artist are all "finishing." - then we we have no disagreement here.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 14, 2017 at 8:53:30 am

[Bill Davis] "If the hive mind agree henceforth that a Kid using Premiere to match a 2 camera switch, and a dedicated Baselight artist are all "finishing." - then we we have no disagreement here."

Hive mind? just because everyone disagreed with your post?

Everybody here knows that finishing is changing and you can "finish" on pretty much any NLE but you said

"But it's also true that "finishing" is changing. And worse, becoming less and less relevant in the modern era. "

It's the "less and less relevant" bit that everyone disagreed with.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 14, 2017 at 12:14:58 pm

[Bill Davis] "If the group in this thread accepts that "finishing" now includes an editor at home using X's color board or Color Finale, we have no difference.
..... were of the "unless you're sending it out to an expert - you're doing it wrong" variety. "


Both can be true. You can be an expert and use X+tools to do your finishing. Conversely, you can be less than an expert, use X, and get terrible results.

The point is that proper finishing requires expertise regardless of the tools used. You divide up the tasks based on the expertise that you do or don't have and/or require to get the job done at a quality level that the deliverables warrant. That hasn't changed and in fact, given the increased outlets (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) and the demand for higher-quality deliverables (UHD, HDR, etc.), the need for qualified finishing has actually increased.

The additional factor is that your client may or may not recognize and accept your expertise. You might be a whiz at creating mixes in X, but if your client doesn't feel comfortable in that, it's still going to go out to an audio specialist.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 14, 2017 at 2:09:58 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on May 14, 2017 at 2:33:33 pm

[Oliver Peters] "You can be an expert and use X+tools to do your finishing. Conversely, you can be less than an expert, use X, and get terrible results."

Of course, it really depends what you mean by "finishing", what type of programme you are finishing and what your audience expectations are.

Broadly speaking there are these main areas that come under finishing: audio mixing, conforming and color grading, VFX, motion graphics, and mastering.

Let's take audio. I want to flag up this quote from the Saving Grace project: "I worked probably 6 weeks finishing the edit in my home studio and then handed off the audio files for the mix."

Having worked in pro audio for over thirty years, I could probably put together a cinema quality sound mix entirely inside FCP X if you put a gun to my head - at least for a certain type of feature film project. Of course, I'd want to have access to all my expensive third party plug-ins to even contemplate doing so, but there's no doubt it would be possible - for some types of project.

Would I be happy that the mix I created in my small studio would stand up in a large theatre? I could certainly make a reasonable guess based on extensive experience, but I'd really hate to have to rely on that guess. (Edit: I should add that mixing to a large picture means you balance everything very differently compared to mixing to a small picture.)

In other words, if you're mixing for cinema, you really do need access to a big, fully certified room in a large facility. Your desktop set-up just isn't going to cut it, even if you know exactly what you are doing.

Would I contemplate mixing Guardians of the Galaxy this way with tracks stacked hundreds of layers deep? Of course not. It would be ridiculous to try.

Let's look at color grading. Obviously there are projects that you can successfully grade on your desktop using your favourite NLE. Clearly there have been features that have been graded this way.

But would you try to grade The Revenant using Color Finale in your back bedroom? You could try, but there are just so many reasons to choose a high end grading suite for a high end project: the ease, speed and accuracy of dedicated grading hardware; grading software built for the job; a properly calibrated projected image; a fully controlled light environment; not to mention the skills and natural talent of a top flight colorist who has made color grading their life's work.

How about motion graphics? The feature film Focus made a big deal of having created their title sequence in FCP X, but I'm really not sure why anyone would think there's anything remarkable about that. You could have done the same in most NLEs ten years ago. But could you have made the title sequence for, say, Man in the High Castle in FCP X? You might be able to do a final composite, but it's simply not even remotely conceivable you could do any of the rest of it. It's a complete non-starter.

Moving on to VFX. Obviously there are a number of tasks that could reasonably be considered VFX that you can perform inside your favourite NLE: screen replacement, cloning, sky replacement, etc. But could you create the visual effects for Guardians of the Galaxy? Why do we even have to ask the question - of course you couldn't, not in a million years. What you can do inside your NLE represents perhaps 5% of what is typically meant by visual effects - it's absurd to think that that 5% is at all meaningful.

Finally, mastering. Vashi Nedomansky talked recently about using the Wraptor plug-in available free with Adobe Media Encoder for making screening DCPs and that's a seriously nice bonus. But I'd be pretty certain they didn't master the feature using this method. We frequently make DCPs this way for your clients for market and other industry screenings, but we would always want them to go to a dedicated facility to create their definitive distribution masters. Not least because it's a process with complex requirements once you go beyond the most basic options, and most importantly because we don't want to have to be responsible for potentially very expensive and serious mistakes. One of the reasons you pay experts is so that you don't have to take the flak when something goes wrong!

In other words, of course you can "finish on your desktop", as long as you acknowledge the very real limits to what this means.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 14, 2017 at 5:26:29 pm

This is exactly the clarification I think the original discussion was lacking.

"Finishing" as a term of art, still means widely divergent things to different people.

One persons "finish" is another's woefully amateurish and totally unacceptable effort.
At the other extreme, a different producer finds the look and sound of the submitted master file meets ALL their criteria for effective communications right off their desktop.

For either party to get to tell the other that they must change their practices in order to be doing things "correctly" is more about defensiveness than it is about objectivity, IMO.

The producer paying big bills for outside expertise may find those increasingly unacceptable as the bottom rises and more grading and audio skills move into the general editing population.

And the less experienced folk NEED to constantly build appreciation and knowledge about the value of traditional post processes.

The middle ground will almost certainly expand. Less so, perhaps, the market for those who refuse to budge from a polar position.

Maybe.

Time will tell.

My 2 cents.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 15, 2017 at 3:23:36 am

[Bill Davis] "For either party to get to tell the other that they must change their practices in order to be doing things "correctly" is more about defensiveness than it is about objectivity, IMO."

I don't think anyone stated Youtubers should outsource their videos for finishing. You have implied time and time again that FCPX can do everything. For some FCPX is all that is needed but for others that is not the case.

[Bill Davis] "The producer paying big bills for outside expertise may find those increasingly unacceptable as the bottom rises and more grading and audio skills move into the general editing population."

[Bill Davis] "And the less experienced folk NEED to constantly build appreciation and knowledge about the value of traditional post processes."

I agree but some folks are stuck thinking FCXP can do everything when other FCPX users have stated Apple should have a graphic design/photo program. Will BMD introduce such a program at NAB 2018? Should Apple introduce 3-D software? The 3-D titling system of FCPX would not cut it for my clients. I could either use FCPX and outsource or learn how to do 3-D animation myself. 10 years ago some projects could be done entirely in FCP and Premiere Pro. Other projects needed more than what either software program had to offer and the same is true today. Keep in mind Avatar made use of InDesing, Photoshop, Premiere Pro, AE and Illustrator because they used the Adobe products for flyers and posters. I agree that one man bands are here to stay but they cannot rely on just one editing program if they want to meet the needs of everyone.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 14, 2017 at 7:29:31 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on May 14, 2017 at 7:29:55 pm

[Tim Wilson] "The most characteristic characteristic of digital content creation in the 21st century's second decade is exponentially expanding options for finishing, driven by real-world demand."

You quite rightly emphasise the astonishing growth in the technical means for finishing, but does that give us the complete picture?

Are you perhaps not sidelining an equally important factor, namely the skill, experience and talent to operate them at the highest level?

While software and hardware continue to become exponentially more available, the same is (sadly) unlikely to be true of these human factors which cannot be bought off the shelf or acquired overnight, and sometimes can never be acquired at all. There are people with better eyes and better ears who are better equipped to maximise the potential this gifts them. That's a playing field I just can't see ever being levelled.

Of course, it's an outrageous affront to democracy that this should be so, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Iñárritu is still going to want to be grading and mixing his next movie with the most talented artists he can find. (I sincerely wish that he would turn to me but I have to accept the fact that he is never likely to in this lifetime.) And the most talented artists are always going to want to work in the best rooms using the best options that technology can currently offer because that allows them to deliver the best that their talent can achieve.

I doubt somehow that cheap software and hardware changes that picture at all.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 15, 2017 at 12:45:41 am
Last Edited By Michael Gissing on May 15, 2017 at 1:40:32 am

The tools to edit and completely finish have been available for a long time. I started grading in FCP4.5 and finishing for broadcast. This is over 12 years ago. All that has changed is the tools have gotten vastly more sophisticated and cheaper. What hasn't changed is the skills and expertise.

I've had editors hand over picture and sound to me who possibly could have done a good job with grade or sound. But they didn't want to. There is so much more to collaboration than just handing over from the edit experts software to finish experts software & hardware. It is a fresh set of eyes, ears and creative juice. This whole argument forgets the power of collaboration by getting bogged down in democratization of gear. With my background in broadcast telecine, news sound and camera, location docos including producing and then specialising in sound and picture post I can do everything. I now shoot, can do edits on small or basic things, finish and deliver.

But I don't want to. On anything other than a simple little job I really want an editor. Not because they have software that I don't. It's the creative energy they bring, their point of view and skill in teasing out story nuance that I can't see because I shot it and know the story. I will emp[loy a director writer just to get further point of view and to be able to interview while I worry about light and sound. When it comes to post I will employ a sound editor, even though I will mix it. I'll grade my shows but with the director so I there is story perspective, not cinematographer bias to the look.

It's not about the software or computer but making the creative experience fun.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
on May 18, 2017 at 2:09:18 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "I have really enjoyed reading this:"

He's a really nice guy in person, too. And by far THE fastest Final Cut Pro X editor I have ever seen… mind-boggling.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]