Welcome to The Target Audience, for a little change of pace from our usual ranting I wanted to take a look backwards in time to 1999 and show you an article I wrote for www.hardwarecentral.com about getting started with video editing. I think it is a fun read that will help to remind us just how lucky we are these days in regards to video editing tools.

Back then I’m pretty sure I thought video editing was done by tiny little magic gnomes who lived inside your computer and lived off “blue smoke”. Live and learn.

So lets hop in our DeLorean, start up the flux capacitor and go “Back in Time” (cue the Huey Lewis and the News music”. But whatever you do, don’t mess with your parents (or you in the past)!

Don’t forgot to check out the “Time Machine Gallery included with this post!”

Have fun!

Desktop Video: A Starter’s Guide to Video Editing

Introduction

August 19, 1999

The home video; for years now it has been a staple of North American households due to the affordability of consumer level camcorders. Home videos cameras may be attractively priced, but they almost completely lack editing capability. I’m sure everyone has had to watch a home video that just seemed to go on forever because it practically did. The traditional analog methods of video editing are usually beyond the financial reach of the majority of home users, so the only method available was the archaic VCR to VCR dubbing platform. Not only is this method difficult and time consuming, it also tends to produce messy results on consumer level VCRs. Clean cuts, nice transitions and attractive titles were just not available to the average home user.

Computers eventually started to ease the video editing process, but this was limited by cost to the high-end professional market. The beauty of these expensive editing computers was that you could edit a video just like a document with cutting and pasting. This was called non-linear editing, as opposed to linear editing, in which a video had to be edited in sequence. These new computers were also capable of adding digital effects, smooth transitions and multiple layers of audio.

Finally the trickle-down effect has reached the home computing market. Home computers powerful enough to handle the demands of decent quality video editing! The lower costs of CPUs, RAM, and especially hard drives, have made the dream of good quality video on the home PC a reality.

How Does it Work?

Why, suddenly after years of it being impossible to edit video at reasonable cost on home computers, is the technology suddenly now affordable? Some of the answer has to do with the lowering of computer prices over the past few years, but mostly it results from new, cost-effective video compression.

Compression

The only way a home computer can effectively deal with the huge amounts of data required for good quality video is to compress it. To give you an idea of the storage needed for non-compressed video data, here are a few interesting numbers: a 9-second uncompressed (no audio) AVI file takes up 261 Megabytes. That’s 29 Megabytes a second. In order to produce a 20-minute video file (with no audio) over 38 gigabytes of storage space would be required. That’s fine for George Lucas, but average computer users cannot afford to buy drives like that by the dozen.

To get around this problem, compression formats were devised to dramatically reduce file size, yet retain acceptable quality. These compressors work by throwing out data unimportant to the overall quality of the image.

Take, for example, a blue sky: when you digitize this image there will most likely be thousands of shades of blue present in the image. The compressor takes those thousands of colours and makes them into one, in this case blue. Compressors will also take the movement data out of portions of the video file in which little or no movement are taking place.

The consumer often has the choice of how much to compress, while considering final image quality. Our 38 Gigabyte 20 minute file would only take 2.6 Gigabytes compressed in MJPEG format, high quality mode: quite a difference in size, but not a huge difference in quality when viewed on a TV.

Of course, these compression chips and their software were very expensive to produce until recently; but today’s CPUs are so fast they can help with a lot of the work, reducing overall cost.

Types of Compression

MJPEG: The industry standard, capable of images up to S-VHS quality. 
Indeo: Intel’s software compression format, most suitable for web based video. 
Cinepak: The compression format used most often in QuickTime files. 
DV: The format used by Digital Camcorders, very similar to MPEG-2. 
MPEG: High compression ratio, tops out at VHS quality. 
MPEG-2: Format used by DVD extremely high quality.

Edit Decision Lists

The other way to edit video with a computer is to do so with edit decision lists. Using this style the computer only digitizes very small, poor quality clips from the video source. Using these poor quality clips the consumer then uses his or her software to decide what edits are to be made and what transitions are to be produced. After the decisions are made the software and the computer control the camera and automatically do the edits. The only part the computer plays in the editing is producing the transitions and controlling the camera. This method of editing is often quicker than digitizing everything and there is no compression. The only downside is that a very high-end video camera and capture device are required with the proper controls and outputs. One of these control formats is called Control L-Lanc and is only found on very expensive camcorders. Many new DV camcorders can be controlled in a similar way but that is a whole article in itself.

Smart Rendering

Something that almost all new video editing devices do in some fashion is Smartrender. This allows portions of the video file to avoid being re-rendered when the final output file is created. Previously, all segments of a video had to be re-rendered when the final file was produced even if no changes (besides simple cuts) had been made. Smartrender can figure out if anything was done to a segment and decide to not re-render the file, saving a lot of time in the final rendering process.

Quality

All new video-editing devices let you decide about the quality of the final project you are attempting to produce. Depending on your destination medium, you can decide what resolution and compression level is best for your project. If you were developing a video for the web you would use a popular compression format with high compression and a low resolution; if your final output was an S-VHS tape or other high quality format, you would use less compression and a higher resolution. The ability to dictate your quality level is an important tool for desktop video producers.

What Do You Need?

The following segment will address what’s needed to start working with Desktop Video on a PC.

Source

Before you can edit you have to have something to edit. Your source can be any of the following: video camera, VCR, and/or television. Your source just requires a video output of some kind (of course your capture device must have the same style of input).
Video formats are as follows: 

DV: Digital format similar to MPEG-2, almost broadcast quality. About 500 lines of resolution. 
HI-8: Analog, good quality. About 400 lines of resolution. 
8-MM: Analog, decent quality. About 300 lines of resolution. 
VHS: Analog, poor quality. About 250 lines of resolution. 
Betacam SP: Analog, professional quality. 500 Lines of Resolution.

Computer

Get as powerful a system as possible.

Processor: P-II 350 or higher.

Due to the complex mathematical nature of compression codecs, the faster your CPU is the faster your projects will render. I have noticed that Celeron systems are almost as fast as their equivalent P-II or P-III processors while working with video. Most major software editing packages are planning to support the Pentium III’s new SSE instructions, so if you can afford a P-III it could be a wise investment.

RAM: 64 Megabytes of RAM or higher.

Video editing is very data-intensive and requires constant data updates. The more RAM, the less your hard drive has to be accessed. This in turn speeds up the responsiveness of your editing software.

Free PCI slot (for the capture device).

Sound Card: 16 bit 44khz PCI sound card or better.

Why PCI? Well, PCI sound cards tend to have lower CPU utilization rates than ISA, which in turn frees up more CPU time for compression and decompression. This lower CPU utilization also tends to create videos with better sound synchronization.

Hard Drive: 8.4 Gigabyte Hard Drive or better (get a 7200 rpm drive or faster if possible).

Video capturing and editing are just plain space hogs, so get the largest drive you can afford. 7200 rpm (or better) drives are recommended because the higher spindle rate translates into better data transfer rates. Because of the immense amounts of data being pushed through your computer while editing, even a slight increase in transfer rates will speed up your work. Buffer size seems to be only important up to 512K; larger buffers do not improve performance dramatically.

Capture Device:

This is how you get the video into the computer, a very important part of the overall video editing system. Most capture devices do pretty much the same thing, but the more expensive ones tend to do it faster. Get as good a device as you can afford and you will save time and effort in the long run. Of course, if you’re only going to be producing video for the Web or a CD-ROM, then you won’t need the extra speed and features of the of the higher end devices.
There are two types of capture devices, analog and Firewire.

Analog capture devices take the analog signal of a camcorder, such as a Hi-8 camera or VHS camera, and digitize its video into a format the computer can handle. These devices tend to compress the video file on the fly, as the computer captures the data.

Firewire capture cards only work with Digital camcorders (DV or Digital with a Firewire (IEE1394, or I-Link) on-camera interface. The Firewire capture card does a straight digital transfer of the camcorder data onto the hard drive. Since the data is already compressed, further compression is not required. Firewire cards and Firewire-capable cameras enable the consumer to create video with no "generation loss" whatsoever, because an exact duplicate of ones and zeros is all that’s being used.

Capture Cards and Software

Capture Cards and Prices

Before you buy your capture card, do yourself a favor: do your research. There are countless Web Pages and discussion groups concerning desktop video and there’s a good chance someone out there has been in the same situation as you are. Here are a few cards that offer good value to the consumer:

Low End: (suitable for creating home VHS videos and clips for the Internet)

Pinnacle StudioDC10+ ($199.95): A MJPEG based internal PCI device, which is capable of close to S-VHS quality video. Comes bundled with Pinnacle’s own editing software, which is easy to use but not that powerful. A great card for someone just starting with video editing.

Pinnacle Studio400 ($199.95): An external device that captures a low quality series of files to your hard drive, and which, after you have finished your editing, controls your camcorder (via remote) to complete the process. Final quality is VHS , which is fine for home videos and the Internet. Comes with Pinnacle’s own editing software. Note: Your camera must have a wireless remote control in order for this device to work.

Matrox Marvel ($249.95): This all-in-one AGP card acts as a MJPEG capture device, 3D accelerator, 2D video card, and TV tuner. The video output is VHS to low end S-VHS quality. The card comes bundled with AVID Cinema which is very easy to use but not very flexible. A good choice for the starting video editor with little computer expansion potential.

Higher End: (suitable for better quality home video and low-end professional work)

Pinnacle DC30pro ($749.99): Internal PCI device capable of delivering S-VHS (nearly professional) quality video. Comes bundled with Premiere 5.1 and a host of effects plug-ins. Captures its own audio as opposed to going through your sound card to ensure prefect sound synchronization. Great software and good image quality make this a good card for the higher end home user.

Truevision Bravado 2000 ($499.99): This internal FIREWIRE device lets DV camcorder users edit video without any generation loss. This card comes bundled with the full version of Premiere 5.0. For consumers with a DV camcorder looking to make very high quality videos at a decent price this is the perfect package. The only reason a solution like this is not considered professional is the speed of the final rendering. Professional Firewire devices have a hardware-based compression chip which renders files in real time. This package is exceptional because it cost less than Premiere does when purchased separately and it includes a Firewire capture card.

Of course there are lots of other cards out there, with more being released every day; but the above devices are all considered good products in the industry.

Software

To produce any video with all this raw footage on your hard drive, you must have software which enables the cutting and pasting and easy transitions unique to computer non-linear editing. Most capture cards come with some kind of usable video production software, but for your info, here is a list of the most popular non-linear editing software packages. In the future, I would like to conduct a roundup of a number of popular editing packages available.

Adobe Premiere 5.1   $895 
Avid Cinema   $139 
Avid McXpress   $2495 
ClipView by FutureTel   $199 
In Sync Speed Razor LE   $895 
In Sync Speed Razor DV   $2100 
In Sync Mach Razor   $2100 
In Sync Mach Razor RT   $5000 (RT means Real-Time rendering) 
MGI VideoWave   $99 
Ulead Media Studio Pro   $595

These prices are scary looking, but many capture cards come with a lite version of Premiere or MediaStudio. When it comes to overall flexibility and power among the lower end software packages, Premiere and Media Studio offer the best value for money. Both are very similar to the professional packages but at a much lower price. Programs like Video Wave and AVID Cinema are strictly for beginners.

Getting Started

You’ve got your software, you’ve get your hardware, you’ve got your very messy and unwieldy video footage of your trip to Rome, and at last now you’re ready to become the next George Lucas.
This article is not going to get into the installation process because installing a capture device is just like installing any other PCI device; you just plug and pray.

When you’re working with your desktop video make sure that you have disabled any terminate-and-stay-resident programs that aren’t absolutely essential to the operation to your computer. Video editing is a major resource hog, so running as clean as possible is essential to smooth operation.

In your own best interest you should get used to saving your work as often as possible; PCs in general are not the most stable, and with video editing you have to be extra careful.

Simplify your video editing by naming your un-edited captured files something meaningful, easily associated with the images. There’s nothing worse than not remembering that snzldunjim.avi is a clip of a very load sneezing fit by your large nosed Uncle Jim.

The Time Line

When you are actually editing you’ll likely be working with a time-line based piece of software. The beauty of the time-line is that you can more easily get a feel for the completed video, and a good sense of timing of transitions and effects.
The time-line method of video editing is used by the high-end professional systems like AVID. In fact many professionals consider these consumer level products to be excellent training devices for professional style work.

A Few Tips

Don’t overuse digital effects and 3D transitions; they label your work as amateur. Simple cuts have always worked best, as is proven by over 100 years of movie history.
Sound is important; many amateur producers tend to forget how much emotional impact sound and music can have. Use music when you need to heighten response, when the video images alone just aren’t achieving the desired effect…
Keep it short and simple; the best home videos show highlights of an event, not every mind-numbing moment.

Have fun with your video production; if you’re not enjoying it, then why do it?

Professional vs. Consumer

An important thing to understand about consumer digital video editing is the difference between it and the professional systems. A consumer systems like the ones discussed here are quite often capable of producing the same quality as the professional ones.
The biggest differences are speed and reliability. Most professional editing systems are capable of rendering (i.e., creating the final video file) in real time. Most consumer products are unable to do this…thus the price difference between professional and consumer equipment.

The other important factor is reliability; the professional systems were designed usually from the ground up for one use only–to edit video. Our home systems are often portrayed as the Jack of All Trades, with multiple roles besides being a high-powered video editing system. Professional systems also tend to not use the home computer Operating Systems like Win95 and Win98, instead opting for NT and the Mac OS, which are inherently more stable.

With a home-based system you may not be getting the performance of a $45000 Hollywood-style AVID, but you will be getting something that works in a similar fashion, and just might make your home videos watchable by those outside your immediate family.

Conclusion

When it comes right down to it, anyone who wishes to get started in the field of PC-based video editing has to be prepared to spend some time to get everything working right and learn the trade secrets. A good thing about the time spent is that you will most likely learn a lot about how your PC performs.
Spend as much money as you can afford for your output needs. If the final destination of your edited work is going to be a small AVI or QuickTime file than don’t buy that $6000 capture card. Of course if you’re going to be doing professional or semi-professional work then unfortunately that $199 capture device will most likely not suit your needs.
Non-linear computer-based video editing is now feasible for most home computer users, and the results it produces can sometime astonish those around you. With camcorder sales in North America skyrocketing and computer prices plummeting the time for the marriage of these technologies is near. Video as an art form is something that catches the eye because of our culture’s absorption with television. For a long time, we humans have been intrigued by moving images, and now we are nearing the time when almost everyone will have opportunity and resources to create polished, professional-looking work.

Have fun and don’t forgot to refill the DeLorean when you bring the car back!

How many of us have ever said things like this?

“if I only had a faster computer, I could edit better/faster, and finish more work, which means I would get more work!”
“sure the image on my video’s look fine, but no one will take me seriously if I can’t produce a shallow depth of field with nice BOKEH”
“if I buy this new gear it will give me an incentive to look more diligently for work”
“what if a client calls and I don’t have the gear needed to do the job that instant”
“the 1.9Ks of my HD camera aren’t enough, I need 2K or 4K!”
“what if my project gets picked up for film distribution”
“I NEED A RED!”
“something new is coming that will change the world!”

Of course of we all have said things like this, most digital video creators are tech nerds to some extent and usually have an unhealthy need for more gear than they can actually use. There is nothing wrong with wanting new gear, sometimes its even needed.

Gear lust only becomes a problem when we let it become a barrier to us actually creating or moving forward with plans to create. Or when or gear lust is responsible for us making poor financial choices that hinder are ability to create (like making us broke).

This is when “gear lust” becomes “the gear excuse”.

Definition of “the gear excuse”:

“the gear excuse is a state of mind that allows one to create gear related excuses for not starting, finishing, or moving actively forward with an endeavor”

“the (false) belief that acquisition of a new piece of equipment will finally solve all your problems”

“never fully believing you can create something special because of a lack of gear”

I personally have a long history with this disease having suffered from it myself and been involved with others with the same curse.

I’ve fallen prey to this curse many times. For the longest time I was “unwilling” to start shooting a script that I had written until I “got a good enough camera” and of it was something I had to purchase. Many times I’ve decided that some new piece of equipment (AV/NETWORKING/PHONE/TV/etc) will be the one to finally solve all life’s problems. Unfortunately things never seem to work out that way.

I’ve purchased equipment that “I had to have to succeed” and sometimes found myself never using it, or the fad that brought it on started to fade away.

Having spent a number of years in retail I’ve seen (and aided and abetted) many people who were suffering from this horrible disease. I’ve seen many people purchase things they never needed, or even worse I’ve seen too many people never really start to create the content they had the potential to create. I’ve also seen people not show any confidence in the work they can do because of their “lack” of gear.

The gear excuse costs you money, and it costs you time, and it costs you a chance to create something wonderful.

To try to wrap up I’d like to share this Steve Jobs quote:

“real artists ship”

Basically, what this quote means to me in the context of this blog is that you are not actually a producer of creative digital content until you produce some creative digital content.

By all means get the best gear you can justify, just don’t let the specter of the need or desire for prospective gear get in the way of doing what you enjoy. Don’t let yourself make choices that in the long run might ruin your career, like purchasing things you don’t need.

Remember these things when you are confronted with the gear excuse:

- new gear is always coming out, don’t worry about the future, worry about what you need now
- fads come and go, its often best to wait things out
- think about your project in realistic terms, do you really need to shoot it in 8K?
- your gear is only part of the equation, you are the one who creates
- something new isn’t always the solution to a problem
- you are always going to be out of date whatever you do, so keep focused on what are working on now

Please don’t take this blog as being against purchasing new gear, or even against waiting to purchase the right gear, just take it as advice to be careful of the gear excuse.

Have fun, go shoot, go edit, go record, just make sure you go!

Welcome to blog number 2 here at The Target Audience. I hope everyone enjoyed the first blog post about my history with video editing. The feedback I’ve received has been very positive.

This second post is going to focus on one of my weaknesses, my love for Apple products. Specifically how that love is starting to diminish a bit. For those who haven’t read my first blog I bought my first Mac in 2003 so I could run both AVID and FCP on the same machine. Of course the other reason was the pure beauty of the 1GHZ Titanium Powerbook G4 and the steady improvements in Mac OS X (10.3 at that time if I remember correctly). As an added history lesson I’ve included an album of pictures of my Mac’s over the years.

I operated in a mixed household for a number of years until late 2006 when I bit the bullet on a 4-Core Mac Pro system. I had built a number of powerful PC systems over that time but the new Mac Pro was so fast, and flexible (Boot Camp was pretty reliable at this point), that I didn’t need an actual PC in the house. This also marked my switch to Final Cut Studio as my primary video-editing tool of choice.

Basically I am planning to go over some of the things floating around my mind on this topic, in a hopefully thought provoking fashion.

Forced Obsolescence

A long time ago Apple had a reputation for increased longevity in their professional computers which basically meant older systems were often able to run productive professional software for many years longer than the equivalent PC. It was not uncommon for video and photo professionals to be using PowerMac systems for 5-6 years after purchase in a meaningful way. This usually included support for the latest OS updates for many years.

A funny thing happened though with the change to Intel processors (and I do think the change was needed) as Apple started to accelerate forced obsolescence on the software end of things. This started out with the abandoning of the PowerPC architecture sooner than was needed based on performance and rolled right into the relatively quick dumping of support for early Intel architecture. An example of this is Final Cut Pro 7 dumping PowerPC support in mid 2009. This left very fast quad core G5 computers that were sold in 2006 out in the cold. This cycle has also been noticeable in the Intel era as well with the changing requirements in video cards and processors with new OS/Software packages. For example I recently sold my 2006 Mac Pro, not because of performance, but because it was to difficult to get a new supported video card to help me run the latest Apple software.

I could no longer brag to my PC friends how long my Mac was going to last in comparison to their PC to justify the expense of my purchase.

Another thing to note about this is the 3rd party software developers are very much tied to Apple’s software cycle, as Apple is notorious for removing support for older SDKs (software development kits) in order to ensure everyone is on the same page as them.

Upgrade Cycle

This rolls right into the concept of the upgrade cycle. Part of the reasoning I always used in paying more for professional Apple computers was that I would be using the system for a lot longer than a similar PC. If I planned on 4-5 years of professional usage it was completely justifiable to spend more on a Mac Pro or Macbook Pro or whatever because I would be using it for a longer period of time.

If I am going to have to get a new system every 2-3 years anyway due to Apple’s use of software/hardware forced obsolescence, maybe it makes more sense to look at less expensive PC’s that I can actually customize to my actual needs.

Demise of Professional Products and Choice

This leads to the next part of this discussion, which discusses the question of whether Apple has an interest in supporting the needs of professional users. Apple has long had a reputation for believing they know what the customer needs more than the customer does. I believe this may be mostly true on the consumer end of things but professionals need a certain amount of flexibility to ensure their workflow is doing what it needs to do.

The first sign of this in my mind was the removal of the ExpressCard slot on 15-inch MacBook Pro systems. Apple was one of the first manufacturers to support this slot, which opened the door to faster external storage, I/O options, and various network interfaces. Sure newer machines have Thunderbolt on them but no one is rushing to create cost-effective solutions for this interface meaning this “Professional” laptop has very limited high speed storage options.

Another sign of this new attitude is the stagnation of the Mac Pro line-up of systems, its been left to wither since a pretty minor update in August 2010. I also see signs of this with the discontinuation of SHAKE, and the lack of meaningful updates to LOGIC PRO.

A big part of the professional equation is the need for choice. Professionals use lots of different software, have lots of different workflows, and by definition have varied computing needs. This is not a market that likes to be told you can only use this software, on this OS, with this hardware, and only the way we want you to.

Final Cut X

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on Final Cut X but it ties into the concepts of the lack of professional products, choice and forced obsolescence very nicely.

With X Apple has basically told professionals they must work a certain way if they want to use their software and that outside tools are to be frowned upon. Of course one of the biggest issues in my book with Final Cut X is that it is extremely resource intensive and barely runs well on the latest and greatest Mac Pro hardware. This is the same hardware that Apple has decided not to upgrade in over a year.

I find it extremely dismaying that Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and AVID Media Composer both run much better on my new MacBook Pro than Apple’s own video editing software. Of course I can also configure a PC to run Adobe and AVID even better due to the greater choices in video cards in that market.

Anyway, enough said about Final Cut X, it’s not the real point of this post.

Windows 7

Lion is not the end of the world as we know it for the Mac OS, but it is a sign of things to come in the future in regards to less control over what the OS does and more of a tablet style experience for Mac users. If anything Lion showcases Apple’s desire to go further down the path of the “walled garden” environment for application development and software distribution.

The thing that is more interesting for professional Mac users is that Windows 7 is a very good operating system. Vista was a disaster, no question at all in that regards. Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit is a stable, attractive, flexible, and customizable OS that is very pleasant to use.

It isn’t quite pretty as OS X, and it’s missing some cool features like Expose, and some things are a bit more complex than they need to be, but it works. With various add-ons a lot of things I like about OS X can be integrated into Windows 7.

Of course the included software in a Mac is much better than a PC but I’ve been finding myself using other alternatives more often these days. The same thing goes with the iLife suite of applications. At one time in my life I would have recommended a Mac just for iMovie, iPhoto, iWeb, iTunes, and Garageband. These days I find I don’t use these applications often as they have become bloated, buggy parodies of their former selves.

Windows is no longer the bad joke of the OS world.

It’s a consumer world

Apple makes great phones and tablets (even though I have moved to Android on both those counts myself), and makes wonderful consumer level computers that do everything that most users need. Unfortunately professional users are not most users for Apple anymore and are not a large part of revenue stream flowing into the corporate coffers.

Apple makes money from iPads, iApps, iPhones, iMacs, and Macbook Airs. They make a lot of money from these products. They don’t make a lot of money from Mac Pro systems, or pro applications, or even from supporting professionals. In fact the professional side of Apple’s world probably costs more in R&D and support than it brings in.

I understand why Apple does what it does, but it doesn’t make me happy. I used to be involved as an Apple reseller during the time that the pro market kept Apple in business. It upsets me to see this market neglected but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

So what about me?

I guess this is the end of the post, the part where I magically conclude a solid answer based on my research and deliberations.

Unfortunately life is never that easy and emotions get in the way. Yes that’s right, for me computing is an emotional experience and I enjoy identifying myself as a Mac user. Its been part of my daily life for so many years that the thought of change is hard, but I need to remember that change is good. Even though many of the advantages that I have commented on no longer exist or are limited in their appeal I have a strong desire to keep using Apple computers.

But I am not stupid either and I have a business to operate and a life to lead and if the Mac environment is no longer the best choice for me things will need to change. Change can be hard but it can often be good. I had a hard time moving to Android for my phone and tablet experience but I can honestly say I don’t miss my iPhone in the least.

As it stands I have probably purchased my last Mac as my primary work computer (my recent Macbook Pro) for video editing and professional purposes. Since I have moved most of my editing to Adobe and am looking at working more with AVID changing to a PC for this purpose should be a smooth transition. I’m actually looking forward to speccing out my next editing computer in the not to distant future.

Of course, I will almost always keep a Mac around in a secondary computing capacity since I know I will have clients who need Apple interoperability and it will always be good to keep myself abreast of whatever pro software Apple may be selling at the time.

So I’m not rushing out to sell all my Apple stuff but the change has started and it will be interesting to see how it all works out in the end.

Feel free to argue and discuss to your hearts content.

To get the proverbial ball rolling I’ve decided to do a little history of my history with prosumer/professional digital video editing software. The specific reason I’ve started with this topic is to create some discussion and thought about the constantly changing nature of this business. Of course the most recent catalyst of this thought has been the release and reception of Apple’s Final Cut X. So without further ado lets begin.

I’ve decided to lay this out based on each major platform that I’ve used and briefly chat about my experiences. These are not in-depth reviews, just quick thoughts about some of my experiences.

From my recollections it looks like I have spent serious time with at least 7 major video editing platforms in the last 18 years, and this is not even counting the various consumer based solutions that I have dabbled with at some time or another.

Please note that these experiences are set out and written down based on my somewhat fluid memory skills. Also please note that these are the same memories that tell me I may have possibly used my mad ninja video editing skills to save the entire world from the perils of an alien invasion featuring thousands of Michael Bay clones.

ADOBE PREMIERE

Review of Adobe Premiere 4.0

My first experience with video editing software was Premiere 4.0, of course at this time I had no way to capture video so all I could do was play around with a few animations but it was still a start. I didn’t actually do much of editing with software until Premiere 4.2 hit the market and I started to re-edit trailers/movies I had downloaded from the Internet (the Star Wars Special Edition trailer being a big one for me).

Premiere 5.1 was a big update for me since it was the first software (that I knew of) that supported the latest in cost effective real-time video editing add-on cards. Editing had changed for me in a big way now that I could preview fancy page curls, and 3D cube transitions using in real-time using cards like the Matrox RT2000 (Review of Matrox RT 2000) and Canopus Raptor RT (Canopus Raptor RT Review). Of course I quickly realized 3D cube transitions suck and never really used the power of these cards I bought to their full potential (expect for the real-time video preview output to NTSC, that was a gift from the video editing gods). I also spent some time with Premiere during my studies at Sheridan College in Media Arts.

I stuck with Premiere through version 6.5 (and the associated Matrox RT2500 card) and was fully comfortable with its very quaint A/B and transition layer style of working. I started to move away from personal use of Premiere at this time (even though I still used it at the places I was working at the time) and started moving towards AVID and Final Cut.

ULEAD

ULEAD Mediastudio Pro Site
Review of MediaStudio Pro 7

Ulead is a software company that most do not associate with video editing but there was a time that they were indeed a player in the market with their MediaStudio Pro software. Mediastudio came to me bundled with my first video capture card, the Matrox Rainbow Runner(Rainbow Runner Review) which allowed me to capture S-VIDEO or Composite video at up to 720×480 in M-JPEG. Of course due to the limits of IDE hard drives I was limited to 352×480 resolution (which was still better then VHS quality).

MediaStudio was remarkable for its time and was actually one of the first software solutions to offer OHCI Firewire support and I seem to remember some very early software real-time effects. Unfortunately Corel eventually purchased ULEAD and MediaStudio started to fade into the mists of video editing history. I seem to remember using ULEAD from 1997-2000 as it was my tool of choice while Premiere got its act together with versions 5.1c. and 6.0.

AVID

Avid Media Composer Site
Review of Avid Xpress DV 3.5

My first introduction to AVID was at Sheridan College in the Media Arts program. Unfortunately the number of AVID systems (Media Composer and Symphony) was so limited that I only ever got a few minutes here and there on them. I did get enough time with them to at least get comfortable with the basics of editing the AVID way.

I got reacquainted with AVID later on while working for a reseller who sold Xpress DV. I decided to spend some time with AVID (I even took some courses at Centennial College on AVID), so I purchased the current version of Xpress DV in 2003 or so and upgraded to Xpress Pro when that became available. I used AVID in conjunction with some other tools till sometime in 2006 when the software version of Media Composer debuted.

AVID was a real change of pace compared to the versions of Premiere I had been using at the time but I loved the way the media management worked and was really impressed with the robust nature of the colour correction tools.

Nothing really made me stop using AVID at that point in my life (except for the way AVID seemed to treat their dealers and their low end customers like dirt) but I had really started to become a mac head and was starting to spend a lot of my editing time with Final Cut Pro.

I haven’t used the latest version of Media Composer 6.0 but it definitely looks promising.

FINAL CUT PRO

Apple’s Final Cut X Site
Review of Final Cut Pro 5

My first introduction to Final Cut was sometime during 2001, which means it was probably version 3.0. I was working for the Canadian distributor of Matrox products when their very buggy RT Mac I/O real-time capture card was released. At this time in my life I was very much a PC person so it was a big surprise to me when my boss told me I was now his “Mac Guy”. Anyway I had been mostly using Premiere at that time and hated everything to do with Apple so I really only learned the bare minimum needed to do my job. I couldn’t believe that Final Cut didn’t have a dedicated transition layer like Premiere! What was an editor to do?

My next job was with a company that really had a strong focus on Apple and slowly but surely I started to get hooked. The hardware was beautiful, and Final Cut was in a lot of ways just like AVID, which was something I was getting myself re-acquainted with at the time. In 2003 I bought my first ever Mac so I could run AVID Xpress DV and Final Cut Pro on the same machine.

I used Final Cut and AVID as my primary personal editing solutions (while still keeping up on Adobe/Sony/Pinnacle due to work responsibilities) for the next few years.

2006 saw the introduction of Final Cut Studio and my switch to using Final Cut as my full-time primary editing tool of choice. The value inherent in the bundle was just amazing compared to the competition and each version of Final Cut offered me new tools that made my workflow more productive.

By the time Final Cut 7 in 2009 rolled around kinks in Apple’s armor were starting to appear. The application itself was still widely popular, the workflow was proven and robust but it was starting to fall behind the competition in many ways.

Memory support was still weak (2GB max I think), multi-processer utilization was almost non-existent, no native support for AVCHD/DSLR cameras, and very little GPU utilization. Final Cut was getting old, the base software code was ancient by computing standards and customers wanted more. Final Cut 7 was still a great tool for editing but other tools where starting to become much more attractive.

It wasn’t till July 2011 that something new came from Apple. Final Cut X changed everything. I’m not going to get into Final Cut X here, its been discussed to death in other places but lets just say it is different.

Personally I still use Final Cut 7 for quite a bit of my work but I find myself spending more and more time with Premiere Pro CS 5.5 these days. I’ve tried Final Cut X a number of times and still haven’t really become comfortable with it but I do intend to develop a strong degree of competence with this software in the near future.

SONY (VEGAS VIDEO)

Sony’s Vegas Video Site
Review of Vegas Pro 11

Sony Vegas Video is a really powerful and robust video editing tool for Windows computers, but I hate it. Vegas Video has a long history of being ahead of the curve in regards to technological advancements, like multi-processing, GPU acceleration, Blu-Ray authoring, Surround Sound Mixing, 64 Bit memory use, HDV support, AVCHD support, multi-cam editing and XDCAM EX support.

The issue for Vegas for users like myself is that it doesn’t work at all like Adobe, AVID, or Final Cut. Users who are new to video editing find Vegas easy to understand and to master, old school users like myself find the interface counter-intuitive and mid boggling at best. Part of issue may be that Vegas evolved from an audio editing tool.

Due to my employment requirements I had to learn how to use Vegas to a certain degree, but unfortunately I never got around to using it for my own work. It’s a shame though, as Vegas was and still is a very good video editing tool. The other shame is that Sony has no idea how to market this exceptional program.

I spent time with Vegas Pro from 2003 through to 2008 and I still recommend it to new PC users getting started with video editing (who are not planning to collaborate with other users).

PINNACLE Liquid Edition

Liquid/Premiere Comparison Document
Review of Liquid Pro 6

My dealings with Pinnacle started when they bundled real-time capture cards (like the DV 500/DC1000) with Adobe Premiere. The problem was the cards they bundled were no better than anyone else’s bundled cards and the constantly changing nature of CPU speeds meant cheap hardware real-time cards had no future anyway.

Pinnacle had been successful in the consumer market with their low-end Studio line of video editing software but needed something to help on the pro side of things for the future. What they did was purchase a software package called Fast DV and rebranded it as Pinnacle Liquid.

Liquid was different, it was designed early on to be a scalable software solution (though its was bundled with hardware cards for a while) that would lead Pinnacle into the future of video editing. It was PC only, which at the time was somewhat of a limitation as Mac products dominated the video-editing world but it offered a different way of doing things. It was completely different from the other major players but its colour correction tools, key-framing tools, and responsiveness made it a formidable tool. Liquid also featured strong GPU acceleration and was the first software package with background rendering.

Liquid was so impressive that I actually bought a PC to use at home to learn more about the software. Unfortunately support started to become and issue (bugs took way to long to get fixed), and new updates started to come extremely slowly. Eventually AVID bought Pinnacle and Liquid faded away.

ADOBE PREMIERE PRO

Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5 Site
Review of Premiere Pro CS 3

When Adobe Premiere Pro 1.0 came out I took a good look at it but frankly all I saw was a clone of the current version of Final Cut with some better After Effects integration. Of course Premiere Pro was a PC only solution from 2003 to 2007 and by this time I was firmly in the Apple camp in regards to computing hardware. I still ended up learning how to use the software since I was selling it at the time but I wasn’t using it for personal work or play.

It wasn’t until CS3 hit in 2007 for Mac and PC that I started to put some serious time into Premiere Pro. I found CS3 a pretty powerfully program if a little on the buggy side of things with performance that was a little lacking on a Mac. CS4 was even better with good support for XDCAM EX (which was big for me at the time).

The introduction of CS 5.5 really got me back into Premiere Pro in a big way with its very powerful Mercury engine, excellent DSLR support and extremely robust performance.

At this time due to the current limitations performance wise in Final Cut 7 and my relative dislike of Final Cut X, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 has become my primary video editing tool (and the most requested program to train with my clients).

Will that change? More than likely, these things always change.

CHANGE HAPPENS

I guess the whole point to the rather lengthy blog is that things change. Software changes, hardware changes, styles of editing change, workflows change, even your preference in operating systems change. What doesn’t change is the need to create good work, the need to deliver a product on time and on budget, or the need to actually enjoy doing the work you do.

I know a lot of people who have gotten angry about the changes in Final Cut X and this is what prompted this blog. I too don’t like a lot of what Final Cut X brings to the table but if my history with video editing is like anyone else’s (and I’m sure it is) people are quite willing and able to make changes, and often for the better.

Have fun cutting.