Bottom line, unless the budgets of the films you’re working on are high enough to pay you decent for your time, don’t expect to make much unless their profits are significant.  It’s the age old problem of balancing investment and returns.  If you spend $100,000 on a small character driven drama with a tiny crew who gets paid for their time (decent but not amazing rates) and let them go, and pay your actors a decent rate of maybe $100 / day, then there’s not much left for you if you’ve already considered a marketing budget inside that $100,000, equipment rentals (if any), your score, initial copies being made if you’re selling them yourself, etc.  The reason to make a sub $100k film or $50k film is to just simply get the movie completed, in hopes of making a decent sale and profiting enough on the backend to get your “pay.”  That gives you most of the risk, but it yields the greater reward.  Oh, lets not forget you’re doing a lot of the jobs, so you need to be talented and proactive, and there’s also risk if your film being a bit worse since your freedom to collaborate creatively is minimized the more hats you wear and don’t hire others for.  Doing things this way means you’re going to make less movies then the average full-time filmmaker, and you’ll need to do a few of them before what they make you every year is enough to truly step away from whatever else you’re doing to make another.

This has always been my plan since I started learning the realities of the market.  I want to make three (two left) films under $150k (under $100k is even better) that allow me to hone my skills a bit more, improve with each one, and profit larger amounts so that by the time they’re completed and have tapered off, what they bring in on average (even after bottoming out) will be enough for a decent base income.  At that point, taking a bigger risk with a film in the $250-350k range makes more sense.  This also means (like I said above) that I’ll continue to wear a lot of hats.  However, in doing that there’s risks, and as much as possible on the second and third film I do, I want to give up as much of them as possible on the production end.  Post-production isn’t an issue, and while some might think I could benefit from having another editor, the comments and critiques of friends are more then enough to improve a product, and when you’re working on these lower budgets, sparing thousands for an editor on the front-end or (worse) back-end isn’t my idea of wisdom, not with this business model.

Now lets look at the alternative.

The alternative is what I see most other people doing.  Some have a grasp of what the market can handle and want to take a risk, and others don’t.  Filmmakers are throwing money at movie after movie assuming the higher production quality is going to raise their DVD sales.  Most of the time this isn’t the case, and it ultimately comes down to the strength of the story, the marketability of your story and message, including cast (if that even applies), and the care with which you design your marketing campaign overall.  This includes choosing the proper title with as little competition as possible on the shelf as well as online which isn’t just limited to other products with your name, but the availability of domain names, usernames on social media sites, etc.  It’s easy for expensive movies to get some of these things wrong, and set themselves up for disappointment.  There’s also the possibility of overshooting how many people will care about the story you’re making, which should effect how much you spent on it.  People spending $250k+ have a lot more risk then people sticking to the <$150k range.  Now granted, I’m assuming you’re going to do as well as the average movie in my market which means if you sold anywhere near 50,000 copies you did really well.  Considering the typical distribution deal giving you a few bucks (if that), you still have a lot of catching up to do.  That 50,000 will likely be sold in the first 2 years as well, so consider the timeframe here.  Of course there’s always exceptions.  The distribution deal you make has a heavy influence on all of this, as do foreign sales, TV broadcast, personal copies you sell, etc.  Folks making movies in this budget range normally leave room for a small salary which can get them through the shoot and maybe give them a little extra (maybe).  Typically the crew is bigger, most major crew positions have someone very capable, but they’re all working for modest or low rates at best.  With smaller stories on much lower budgets, it can actually be easier (in my opinion) to pay people higher rates, since the amount of people to pay is fewer.  It’s funny because odds are (story depending) the difference between you spending $150k and $250k won’t be much.  All it takes is a few more crew positions, a better score, having more then one camera, etc. to bump up a cost that much.  If you shoot it faster, that’ll change things since you can squeeze more out of your crew for the same pay.  I could blog all day about the different options you have because it’s almost unlimited, but really when it comes down to it, you have a lot more money to pay back with interest.

On investor sheets, my toes scrunch up in my shoes when people try to name the Sherwood movies or Left Behind, or some other huge movies in our market as the justification for why said investor should pay for their film.  When people do that I know either they’re ignorant of the realities of what they’re getting into, or they don’t have any problem using a mediocre and unbalanced example for why their film is worth investing in.  I know I just stepped on some toes since everyone and their brother points to films like that as the financial success they hope to emulate.  I’m not in that game.  I’m not even in the theaters game, or even the Blu-ray game right now.  DVD is still where it’s at for the Christian market and I can assure you we’ll be one of the last to let it go.  You may bring up the technological advances in churches the last 10 years, but I would submit to you that only a small percentage of those regularly buying Christian movies go to them or run them.  That’ll change, but for now DVD is the large majority of what is sold.  Why does that matter?  Well, lots of people justify spending (or what they plan to spend) on their movies because theaters are their goal.  If you want my personal opinion, the theaters are going to become increasingly more difficult to get into, even more so then they are right now.  If you want them because you want to reach outside the Christian market with your movie, then I suggest you find another market, because the Christian market probably isn’t for you.  That’s not an airtight case, and there’s exceptions, but lets be honest, the large majority of those going to see distinctly Christian movies at the theaters are the Christian folks.  Where are the marketing dollars spent in the first place? Besides Courageous and Soul Surfer, you haven’t really seen any mainstream advertising running things for my market, and the dollars to do it are astronomical, far outside the reach of those who don’t have a special deal with bigger studios like Sony.  I’m not saying don’t spend the extra dollars just in case you end up in a theater, but at least know the likelihood that you’ll ever get there, and even if you get there know the realities of doing well or not and what that can mean for a film that’s probably too expensive already to succeed on DVD without some above average sales.  Am I crushing any dreams yet?  In a way I hope so, because I’m just as tired of hearing flights of fancy as I am seeing people quit because they didn’t bother to get the facts before blowing some eager wealthy mans money on their masterpiece.

The reality is, very few people actually make money in Christian market and if they do, it’s because they fit into one of few categories.  A) They make a lot of movies a year, like PureFlix. B) They distribute their own movies, like Rich Christiano. C) Their budgets are so low even modest success means big profits. D) They have another job as well, which is where you’ll find most people including me.  The goal is to become B more exclusively with a mix of C when it’s appropriate.  I personally have no problem making smaller character driven stories my entire career.  I have no aspirations of making a giant epic, or a sci-fi extravaganza, or whatever else.  Thank goodness for that!  To those that do, keep dreaming, and put together a solid script and business model, and then wait.  For a lot of folks, waiting until the market proves it can sustain what they’re looking to do is the best option.  Unless you have a really good reason to take the risk, it’s just not worth it.  I’m not saying don’t take any risks, but if you’re putting everything on the line for a movie that clearly has no audience or from a financial standpoint stands almost ZERO chance of getting money back, then I say don’t do it.  I say that and have said it many times to people just on principle of stewardship.  I don’t care what your investor signing knowing that their risk is high, it’s not their money you’re spending.  It is, but there’s a lot of more useful places for money to go then into a project that’s foolish.  They’re just as responsible for giving you investment as you are for taking it in the first place.  I’m not trying to point fingers, just keep that in mind when considering how much money you want to spend and on what.

What about those of you who want to work in specific positions on crew?  Well, the fact of the matter is, there just isn’t enough movies being made to sustain a career right now, not if you want to work in Christian content only.  For those carrying a flag for content that’s specifically Christian, it’s time to give it up.  I didn’t say you had to work on something questionable, but you won’t be working on Christian movies only.  Find work on other projects, because for the most part, that’s where the more experienced people are anyways.  Work on a Christian project when you can get on one, but they’re few and the people interested in working on them are many.

Truthfully, and I say this as truthfully as I can, very few people make much of anything off their movies.  Distributors make a decent amount and for the most part unless you get a good deal, you don’t make much, not unless your movie sells quite a few copies.  You think Sherwood is making $19.99 when their movie sells at Lifeway?  Think again, but even with the low amounts most larger distribution deals give, when you sell millions of copies like they do, the dollars coming back are very nice.  For you filmmakers like me, the plan needs to be different.  There is a way to do this and not until after my movie came out did I realize I just was lucky enough to have done it a good way, but some aren’t so lucky.  Be careful, and stop looking at the huge successes of the market thinking your film will be the exception because you think God spoke to you in some dream.  Cut it out.  Of course God can wow and surprise us, but that’s no reason to take a ton of the facts and the way things typically work and toss them aside.  Exceptions don’t remove the rule or standard, that’s why they’re exceptions.  Unfortunately too many folks get too deep too fast having never given things enough thought, and they’re dead in the water faster then you can say “Name it and claim it is goofy.”

Some will take what I have to say and toss it away, and Lord knows I’ve been proven wrong before, but if this article even has some thinking harder about what they’re doing and whether or not they’ve thought it through enough then I’ll consider the post a success.  There’s no straight answer to the title of this post, it’s all dependent on 1000 factors.  I just hope I’ve dispelled some of the rumors and assumptions floating around out there.  Yes you can make movies for a living, but many of you can’t and won’t that want to, and those that do have a long, laborious, and often lonely but (if successful) rewarding road ahead.  Be smart, take good counsel, do research, have good business sense, protect your families, discern well of others before you’re waist deep in their crap, and stay alert because at every turn is sin or worldliness looking to trap you.

I hope this blabbing of mine has been helpful.  If so please comment…adios!

OTHER ARTICLES:

Christian Movies…just how good are they?

Trouble Writing Stories For The Christian Market

IMDB.com has a built in algorithm that’s meant to help offset voting abuse.  What’s voting abuse?  Well it’s giving something a review it really doesn’t deserve, and that being done multiple times over.  Example?  Fangirls of the latest Twilight movie heading over to IMDB to give their shirtless idol better chance of a pay increase with their 10.0 rating.  They text all their friends to have them do the same.  Viola!  A padded score bloated with reviews from the rabid fans based solely on the passion of the moment.  Wait, Christians don’t do that…do they?

October Baby made by two friends of mine, The Erwin Brothers, has a 4.4 currently on IMDB with 47.7% voting 10/10 and 26.8% voting 1/10.  Had the Christian folks who gave it a 10/10 given it something more honest in the 6-9 range, IMDB wouldn’t have had to bias the score to account for both abuses…in fact it probably would’ve given the film a much higher score then 4.4 if the abuse was heavily on the low end and well balanced on the top end.

I hate to be crude, but it’s like a one night stand after a night of drinking, where you wake up with a hangover and roll over to see the hideous person you thought was hot the night before.  You get up quietly and sneak out so they don’t feel cheap, preserving what little honor you had to begin with.  Anybody ever see a movie and feel that way later?  While it was playing you wanted so badly to like it (for whatever reason), that you’re willing to convince yourself afterward that it was as good as you’d like it to be.  Anybody else ever have that kind of experience?  I sure have, and the next morning when you actually give it thought you realize where you went wrong.

Lets face it, very few movies deserve a 10/10 because that means PERFECT.  You might have that perfect movie in your mind, and if you’re being honest then by all means, click away.  1/10 is reserved for the very worst of movies, and I think there’s actually place for movies to have a rating that low.  But on the top-end, 10/10 should be nearly impossible, so why do so many Christian movie fans enthusiastically pad our scores in an attempt to legitimize the movies we love?  If you didn’t know already, voting that way on IMDB actually HURTS the score of a film.  At one point because of the score my film was getting on IMDB, and because of all the 10′s the film had received, I asked friends who I knew had done it to change the vote to something honest.  Whether that meant it went from a 10 to a 5 or a 10 to a 3 doesn’t matter.  Don’t judge a film high just because it affirms things you do, but weigh things out, logically and carefully.  It’s not that hard to do really.  Afterwards my score balanced out a bit more into territory that felt more fair to me.  To those who would say “well we gotta vote 10/10 or 5 stars because of all the liberal wackjobs who are giving it 1/10 and 1 star!” you’re not helping you’re hurting.  Extreme kickback and reaction is never surprising but always annoying.  What you’re doing is just as harmful as what they’re doing.  You’re mad at them because they’re bias, but aren’t you doing the same?  They think it’s the biggest piece of trash ever, and you think it’s the greatest thing to ever grace the silver screen.  Anybody seeing a pattern here?

Some may say any review I might give of a movie is super critical and I’m just being a “perfectionist” or I’m just dumping on everyone’s work.  Is it that, or did they guzzle the Koolaid?

Is it because we fear criticism?  I could go on for pages and pages about how the LACK of loving rebuke and criticism has hurt the church at large, but to keep my blood pressure down I’ll refrain.  Are we so anxious to see our little industry flourish that we’ll sing unanimous praise for anything the next big distributor dishes out or (gasp!) the next Sherwood movie?  God forbid any movie made by Christian people be criticized thoughtfully.  Oh goodness, whatever will we do if we don’t bow down in worship of the next big Christian movie!  It’s very common today to be called hateful or “unloving” in the broad evangelical church today if even a syllable of criticism comes from your mouth.  ”God used it to touch someone therefore it’s off limits!”  Really?  Does anyone have any intention of improving and growing or shall we all just stay in our little bubble of self-perpetuating mediocrity while we eat the scraps off the table?  I’m not attacking any one movie, or any one person, but the mindset and the attitude that I see rampant online in the Christian community in regard to our movies (and outside of movies honestly).  The comments blasted at some reviewers of popular Christian movies like Fireproof or Courageous are downright shameful for a Christian.  Is it possible that some reviews out there are actually accurate, and not soaked in some sort of God-hating agenda?  If someone reviews a Christian film who’s not a believer, is there any chance they can still review it based on artistic merit alone?  If we took the Christian content out of most “great” Christian movies, what you’d find is a lot of average to below average work.  Now I realize, there’s reasons for that.  A lot of first timers aren’t going to have fantastic work, and my movie is no exception.  The Christian market is actually a wonderful market for upcoming filmmakers, because (for better or worse) you can sell almost ANYTHING in this market and come out on the other end alive.  From a business standpoint that’s encouraging, but in other ways it doesn’t speak well to our quality standards does it?

I suppose my greatest frustration is with the soft, fluffy, and pansy-like nature of the market I work in. The creators of South Park at one point made up a plan to create their own Christian music album, with love songs rewritten to include the name of Christ.  The reason this was so amusing to them, is because based on what they see in the Christian market (on the music end) they could likely make a CD full of normal love songs replacing “baby” and “lover” with “Jesus” and make a buck with it, since a large portion of Christian consumers would eat it up.  They even joked about doing it all with their own money, going to conventions disguised, and selling the CD from booths.  Would they have gotten away with it?  Honestly, I think so.  Sound outrageous?  Well, the idea is certainly a bold one, but I hate that a plan like that could probably work.  Are we really that stupid and blind?  Are we really that foolish?  Has our discernment been degraded that much?  I don’t think I have enough strength in my fingers to blog about why I think that’s true and what I think that means for our future as the Body of Christ.

A little Jesus here or there and a few Bible verses doesn’t warrant bias for a thumbs up, at least not for me.  Unfortunately that’s often the case, with little discernment given.  We’re so gullible to accept what merely feels good or sounds good, without giving much thought to whether or not it IS actually good, or whether it’s just playing us like a fiddle.  The Christian movie audience is the most gullible audience, akin to movies made for toddlers.  We jump for joy for almost anything, as long as it meets our spiritual content standards or in a toddlers case goofy characters and a lot of colors.  I understand the hunger for family-friendly content or content that isn’t what Hollywood is putting out all the time, but can’t we strike a balance somehow?  Must we be so shallow?  The Asylum is a production company in LA that makes low-budget rip-off movies for the DVD market.  They often make movies with similar titles of upcoming Hollywood movies as to rob sales from the films publicity.  It’s a brilliant business model, and they often come out very profitable.  Well, as they looked at the Christian movie industry they saw a perfect opportunity, and they’re now with their production arm “Faith Films” making cookie-cutter ripoff Christian content for the Christian market.  The fact they can even get away with it is pathetic.  Their first effort was Sunday School Musical, a Christian version of High School Musical.  I just found out the other day they made Countdown: Jerusalem which they lifted from PureFlix Entertainment’s upcoming movie Jerusalem Countdown.  Do you really want the company making Sharkoctopus 5 producing the next slew of Christian movies?  The fact a company that makes horrible B-movies on purpose is looking at the Christian market as a market that could fit into their business model doesn’t speak well to our future.  Because of the recent success of the Sherwood movies and the viable business opportunity being recognized around the country, expect to see a lot more secular companies getting involved in making “Christian” content (or their opinion of it) for your families.  Be careful and be discerning!

I realize there’s always personal bias when it comes to rating a film.  Everyone brings their own scale, so there’s no way to draw the line.  If someone rates movies purely on how it made them feel, that’s going to be different from someone who is a student of cinema and weighs in all the factors with how they rate something.  I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that most Christians review products based on how it makes them feel.  That’s the age we’re in isn’t it?  Church is all about how I feel; worship is all about how I feel, etc.  I think C.H. Spurgeon would have a thing or two to say about that kind of mentality in regards to what we buy, how we run our churches, what relationships we allow or don’t allow our children (or ourselves) into.  For those that want to operate that way, you be my guest and see where it takes you, but can we at least have the decency to leave those alone who are seeking not just truth but quality and honesty in their art?

Christian distributors and leaders wave their flag every time a big new movie is about to come out saying “This time Hollywood is going to take us seriously!  This time we’ll show them!  Get out there and buy tickets or buy DVDs!  Send them a message!”  Really?  The message I see Hollywood coming up with is “Yes!  We like these mediocre movies and by golly I’ll pay $10 at the theater and $20+ at the store to have it in my home!”  That’s not the right message people.  By all means support the Christian movies out there, and yes please buy them for your home, but lets keep a level head shall we?  Lets try to be a bit more constructive so we can see the quality of the films we consume increase over time.  Production quality is the easy part to increase because all it takes is the right people and some money where necessary, but we need better crafted stories with better performances, realistic dialog, and we need to be able to live with endings and narratives that don’t fit the same cookie cutter mold over and over again.

See Post: Trouble Writing Stories For The Christian Market

I love this market, I really do and I appreciate the people in it, but there comes a time every once in a while for a biff upside the head.  I have no problem giving one when I think the consumers in the market I sell in are too busy rubbing the shoulders of my peers instead of giving them a slap on the back of encouragement to improve, while at the same time supporting what it is they’ve been able to dish out at the current time with the resources they have.  Can we celebrate the latest Christian movie at the theater and be thankful for growth?  Absolutely, but does that mean that it needs to be given a perfect score?  NO.  A good filmmaker would welcome criticism, and cherish it, because if they care about making good films they’ll realize that criticism is the key to greater art and (in return) greater impact not just in the target audience but beyond.

In closing before anybody lobs an arrow at me saying my movie wasn’t all that great, I’ll say here publicly without fear that it’s indeed a mediocre movie.  It’s a 5/10 at the most.  It was made for nothing over a long period of time starting when I was 18 and finished when I was 22.  However, I make no apologies for making it or for selling it. It is what it is for the time it was made in, and the same should be said of other movies out there in my market.  By God’s grace I’ll improve and I feel incredibly Blessed that my little movie will be in a RedBox kiosk near you on April 24th.  It almost doesn’t seem fair, and believe me I know the blessing that is, because I know more then any of you what my movie is.  For those that really love it, I’m grateful, and for some that’s truly the case.  My comments aren’t meant to downplay your enjoyment or hurt any feelings of those involved with the movie, but I will not puff up my chest to look like something I’m not, because what I am is a filmmaker with a long way to go and (Lord willing) a hopeful future ahead.  We’ll find out next time I make a movie whether the criticism I’m lucky enough to have goes to use!

Blessings,

Kyle Prohaska

New beta of Photoshop CS6 shows OpenCL support? Good news for Mac Premiere users with ATI cards?  I sure hope so, because I would give the Adobe suite (more specifically Premiere) a lot more attention as my main editing application if it included GPU Acceleration with ATI cards.  Currently Final Cut Pro X is the only editing program that can take full advantage of GPU/Memory AND GPU (it you’re using ATI).  Unless you’re on a MacPro with the original ATI card you paid for tossed and replaced with a CUDA enabled Nvidia card, you can’t get the support.  That leaves laptop users and iMac users hanging. :/

Now of course this is all guessing, but seeing it as an option in Photoshop CS6 gives me hope.

See post: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/3/922548

Top 70 Requests for Final Cut Pro X – FCPX.TV

10.0.4 and beyond – DVXUser

View Other Posts on Final Cut Pro X

How well does 7toX work? Opening FCP7 Projects In FCPX
Final Cut Pro X: Crash Course With Evan Schechtman
Final Cut Pro 7, X, Premiere CS5, & OS Choices

Read The Review of 7toX from ProVideoCoalition.com

Why didn’t Apple make this a feature included in FCPX from the very start?  What does Apple have to say?

“The whole structure of this in Final Cut Pro X is completely different — different effects processing engine, different effects stack, the magnetic timeline works completely differently, so it was never going to be possible for us to do perfect fidelity. But Phillip Hodgetts, who runs Intelligent Assistance, really understands metadata and XML. He had already written a 10 to 7 converter, so he naturally decided to do the opposite. He has impressed us with the stuff he has done.” – Director of Pro Video Product Marketing, Apple

Quote Source: http://www.postmagazine.com/Press-Center/Daily-News/2012/Multicam-and-other-tools-for-pros-added-to-FCP-X.aspx

NOTE: A few off-color jokes and a few swear words, for those who might be offended by such things.

NOTE: If you want an EXCELLENT crash course in Final Cut Pro X, check out this great demo from Evan Schechtman that is sure to calm some fears.  View Post

Disclaimer: I’m by no means a computer expert, an editing software expert, etc. so please take what I have to say with discernment.  If anybody points out errors, I’ll be glad to correct them.  The rest of the article comes from my personal experiences, so my opinion soaks this article.  You’ve been warned!

A Bit Of History

I’ve used both Premiere and Final Cut Pro for a number of years.  Premiere I’ve been using since version 5.0 which was out in the late 90s.  I used it for years since I was on a Windows PC, the same goes for the other Adobe products.  It was always a solid program to work in, After Effects too where I spent a lot of time.  We had an old Apple II back in the day, but beyond that my Mac expertise was limited until I got into middle school and then I used it a lot more by the time high school came around.  That’s where Final Cut Pro entered my life.  At first, I wasn’t a fan.  It had less to do with the editor and a lot more to do with the lack of resources I had in my video class to export, transcode, etc.  I was used to having all my special programs back home for a ton of different things, and now I was stuck with this thing I barely knew how to use that seems very limited.  In time though, I got used to it.

It wasn’t until Summer 2007 that I bought my first Mac for home.  I dumped my PC that year and got a MacPro, my first Mac.  It cost quite a bit, but I decided to take the plunge, mostly because I was sick of taking the time constantly to keep my PC running well.  Defragmenting, virus scans, constant spyware/malware scans, etc.  It was just tiresome, and I wanted a change.  However, I did feel like I was giving Windows the bird, because it had a lot to do with why I do what I do today, and why I got into computers initially (mostly because it failed to work well most of the time, forcing me to learn how to fix things and understand software).  Still, my bank account cried a river, and in came my MacPro in the mail.  It was by far the fastest machine I had ever used personally, and I still have it.  It runs well to this day, although it could use a fresh install of OSX.  I still find it amazing how long Macs can last, even with their high prices.  I do think you get what you pay for, although PC’s can last a long time too.  I did all of Standing Firm (2010) on that machine using Final Cut Pro 7 utilizing the HDV footage I shot the film on.  In 2008 I got a MacBook Pro adding it to my Mac collection.  The 17 inch beast was a monster, and not particularly portable, but I tend to go for the power not the size.  That recently died after I gave it to Denise and she had it about a year.  I had given it to her because I decided to switch from desktop to laptop officially and get myself a 2011 MacBook Pro.  High price, 17 inches again, but an absolutely powerhouse less then 1 inch thick.  Based on tests it’s (not kidding) twice as fast as that old MacPro which is unbelievable.  That has been what I’ve done all my work on up to today.  Video editing, graphics work, web design, personal browsing, and on the list goes.  Overall it’s been perfectly capable, and even when rendering it’s incredibly fast, although sometimes it feels like it could levitate off my desk.  Keep in mind I work primarily in 1080p not something like 4K from a RED.  Still, it’s amazing to have this thing as my main machine, capable of doing whatever I personally need, and portable like it is.  That brings us to the present where on that computer I currently have Adobe CS5.5 Master Collection, Final Cut Studio 3, and Final Cut Pro…X (don’t throw stones I’m a sensitive man).

The Dilemma Of Performance

When I edited Standing Firm on Final Cut Pro 7 and that older MacPro, I rarely had performance issues.  Crashes were semi-typical, which had a lot more to do with the size of the project I think then anything else.  It took quite a while to save the project whenever I needed to.  The reason I’m going into this is to mention playback performance.  HDV is an old codec, and the camera I used to shoot my film was the XH-A1 that released in 2006, so already older tech as far as cameras go.  That means that the bit-rate of the footage is very low, 25mbits/s and the resolution less then 1080p.  It’s 1440×1080 with a 1.3 (approx.) Pixel Aspect Ratio giving you the 1920×1080 on playback.  Overall, not very complex footage to handle for that old MacPro, and not a challenge for FCP either.  Not unless I did some heavy FX did I have to render the footage to play it back and when I was playing it back I was using “high” quality most of the time without dropping frames.  When I use HDV footage in Premiere CS5.5, and add a simple Fast Color Corrector (a basic CC of exposure or saturation), I have a hard time playing it back for more then a few seconds without dropping frames.  This has always been confusing to me since it’s very primitive footage to deal with.  A friend of mine suggested that it could be the actual color-correction filter I’m using, since it’s (according to him) and older filter bought by Adobe and incorporated, not something built from the ground up to take advantage of the new CS5 framework.  EDIT: I installed the trial for Red Giant’s Colorista II, and I can confirm indeed that my old HDV footage plays back without dropping frames IF I’m using Colorista and not the built in Three-Way Color Corrector.  That’s a relief!

One of the greatest benefits of using Premiere CS5.5 over FCP 7 is the 32-bit vs. 64-bit performance.  Still, in 1080p the difference isn’t that big, but if I was working with 4K footage, Premiere is the only option I would currently take.  Many use other editors to “edit” RED footage, but it’s all with proxies for the most part, save a few exceptions.  There are other editing systems out there used by folks (AVID for instance) but I’m sticking to FCP & Premiere since they’re the only two I’ve ever known, and what most of my friends are using.  Premiere’s excellent ability to edit .R3D files natively is amazing, and its integration of the RAW workflow, especially if you pair it with a CUDA card.  One of the other strengths of Premiere is the seamless integration with After Effects, but that’s not something I use often.  Adobe still seems to have some gamma issues depending on the format you’re using, but that’s more a Quicktime problem then anything else.  Final Cut Pro X seems to be the best at keeping things consistent due to its use of Colorsync all the way through the process.  Again, keep in mind I’m coming at this from a 1080p perspective, so everything I say has an obvious slant to it.  If I had a CUDA enabled card (which is impossible to add since I’m on a Mac laptop and Mac currently uses ATI cards exclusively by default, although if you have a MacPro there are CUDA compatible cards you can get thirdparty) I could easily pick Premiere the winner in performance compared to FCP not just for playback reasons, but future performance needs if I ever moved beyond 1080p.  The other benefit is when I hit the “render” button, and Premiere would be utilizing the CUDA GPU to compile my output.  Now let me talk a bit about Final Cut Pro X and its performance.  Because of the newly released update of FCPX called 10.0.3, I’ve given it a second look.  This is closer to what people wanted in the first place, although still missing a few things, and still utilizing the “updated” way of editing that Apple has implemented in the interface.  One big benefit of using it is it’s built from the ground up to utilize all of my Macs power, including the GPU.  FCPX in terms of the power it can suck from my computer as a whole is similar to Premiere.  Both 64-bit, and both use the CPU to their fullest potential, however without a MacPro and a CUDA card, Premiere can’t use my GPU for acceleration while FCPX can.  Unless you’re a MacPro owner and you swap out the ATI Card you’ve likely already paid for with a CUDA compatible Nvidia card, FCPX is the only editor currently available that will utilize your Macs full potential.  That means any of you who work off of laptops or iMacs primarily should probably give FCPX a closer look.  I was honestly shocked the first time I used FCPX despite all the things I HATED, it was incredibly fast.  The scrubbing of video, playback, ability to add complex FX and playback without any issues whatsoever, the ability to browse through FX and see a realtime example of what it’ll look like one after another without my computer freaking out (keep in mind I’m on a laptop) is pretty impressive.  The rendering performance is equally so, with me seeing a faster output then I’m used to seeing, which I’m sure had to do with the GPU’s help.  Overall, FCPX is a winner in terms of general speed, playback, and render performance.  It’s media management is definitely something to get used to since it’s brand new, and it’s been my biggest hurdle, but the more I’ve learned about how to proper use keywords and meta data within the program, the more I see the genius behind it.  I think this might be one of the most significant changes that Apple has brought along, and something you might see being copied in other editors you currently like.  It’s incredibly powerful!

Read what 7 other editors think of FCPX on Philip Bloom’s site here: http://philipbloom.net/2012/02/07/fcpxeditors/

EDIT: I’ve played with FCPX more and most of the things I thought it couldn’t do anymore, it still does.  For instance, I was reading on a forum about a guy who said he hates the magnetic timeline because he’s used to editing to music for his projects, and likes to edit out of order.  You know, building your edit in pieces no matter where you want to start or continue on the timeline.  To the casual observer, particularly the feature videos on Apple.com, it makes it look like that isn’t possible.  By simply hitting “P” and turning on the position tool, you can place clips on the physical timeline anywhere you want.  The “Placeholder” function of FCPX is also awesome and I see myself using it often.  The audio filters and functionality ported over from Logic is great as well.  The “Auditions” function is something I don’t think I’ll use much the way I edit, but I can see it being a huge strength for many pros out there.

Feature Sets

I’ll be straightforward, most of the features people go crazy about in a lot of programs has absolutely no hold on me.  I have terrible editing etiquette and always have.  I barely ever use keyboard shortcuts, which speeds things up a lot.  I’m primarily using my mouse, arrow keys, and the spacebar.  I bet I do most of my editing that way, even my fine tuning.  Most editors out there have the same basic functions, but they each provide their own unique special sub-features that you normally can’t get without using one of the other.  Premiere has CUDA accelleration and integration with the rest of the Adobe suite (something not to overlook).  Final Cut Studio 3 is older and stable, but as technology grows those who are die hard fans will be forced to adapt.  Final Cut Pro X uses its own form of GPU acceleration on the Mac and doesn’t require an Nvidia GPU and includes roundtrip functions for Motion.  Premiere currently edits R3D natively and has a great RAW workflow so if you’re using RED, it’s a great option.  When it comes to basic editing functions, I don’t have a lot to say or die hard keyboard shortcut preferences.  I rarely use trim controls.  In fact, in FCP I’ve NEVER used the slip and roll tools to make edits, ever.  I rely on the viewer window for in/out points, then my playhead and snapping in FCP when I trim the edges of things.  That and the simple blade tool, which I almost always used by snapping to the specific place I hit the spacebar and left my playhead.  Reading that probably makes the typical editor scream in agony, but that’s how I like to work, and after you do anything for a while (even something that looks inefficient) you can eventually get very fast.  I say all this because for the most part, internal performance, good basic tools, good export options, and other things of that sort are what I rely on the most for making software choices.  Very rarely do the things people rant about affect my work.  Performance is key to me.  I’m one of those folks who knows pretty much frame to frame where I’m going to cut things before I cut them, so most of the time (for initial edits) I get what I want the first time around, which is why constant use of the roll/trim tools hasn’t been necessary otherwise I would definitely be using them.  It feels more like cutting film (old film, you know that shiny stuff you used to cut by hand?) where you’d run through the film, stop it where you knew you’d need to cut, physically cut the film, put things together, check, etc.  We’re really spoiled now being able to make unlimited cutting decisions about one single cut without having all the trouble that would cause you in the old days.  EDIT: The more I’ve played with FCPX, the more I like it’s way of trimming and rolling.  Because of the magnetic timeline, performing those actions are more attractive to me, since I know it won’t mess up things before/after the clips I’m working with.

Choosing An Operating System

There’s a lot of debate out there about whether to drop Apple and move to PC, stay Mac and go to Premiere, etc.  There’s a lot of options out there now, and I’ve done the research, so I know you can build an incredible PC for $2200 or so with a top-end CPU and one of the fastest GPU’s on the market, SSD, the whole thing while you’d pay much more for a comparable MacPro.  It’s long been known that Mac’s cost far more then PC’s, but I won’t get into that whole argument beginning to end, it’s a long one.  I’ve played with Windows 7 lately and it seems fine, but I’m not convinced I want to move to a PC and Windows again.  If I was using my editing machine for that purpose alone, then probably, but OSX has become apart of how I work, and switching again would be painful.  A hackintosh is always a possibility, but you need to be very careful when doing that to use compatible parts, and I don’t think it’s worth the trouble.  One of the sole reasons I was looking at going PC was Premiere + CUDA processing.  Being able to use your GPU in playback, rendering, etc. is attractive.  However, since I’ve recently realized that my current 2011 MacBook Pro (2.2Ghz, 8GB RAM, etc.) can playback footage fine if I don’t use the internal color-correction tools (I talked about that farther up), then my original reason to want to switch is gone.  That doesn’t mean the obvious benefits aren’t still there, but nobody knows the future of Apple’s pro line.  It seems that Apple is waiting for the new Intel chips to release, Sandy Bridge…before they update.  That makes sense to me, and I think it’s worth the wait.  I’ve also heard rumors here/there that they could switch back to Nvidia, which would solve the CUDA problems for the most part.  OpenCL support in Premiere isn’t likely for a long time, so I’m not banking on that.  If I decide to keep using Final Cut Pro more exclusively, then all of this becomes a moot point.  FCPX takes full advantage of my Macs resources, including the GPU.  It’s incredibly fast, and this 2011 MacBook Pro is twice as fast as my 2007 MacPro, so my need to upgrade if I stick to 1080p is minimal.  The only real limitation right now without spending a little money, is the inputs/outputs on my MacBook Pro.  If some more Thunderbolt peripherals come out, that’ll make things easier, and if Apple releases their new MacPro with a few Thunderbolt ports (which they will), then that’ll be excellent!  As I’ve thought about all these things, weighed out prices, pros/cons, etc., I sorta realized that for those working in 1080p and planning to for quite some time, all these big decisions don’t have to be that complicated, since almost anything now can handle 1080p competently and be fast enough for the typical editor.  Choose what works best for you and stick to it!

Some Remaining Thoughts about Final Cut Pro X

I liked what I read in that Philip Bloom article.  I was one of those people who took one look at FCPX and wanted to vomit.  It looked like an absolute atrocity.  Often I’m right about this kind of thing, and FCPX’s initial release build was pretty crappy given all it was missing and the stability issues.  BUT, this isn’t a common thing for Apple in my opinion, so perhaps I should’ve given them the benefit of the doubt and actually spent some time using the program.  It’s no surprise that the first one to try to truly change how editors work was going to get bloodied.  I’m sure they saw that coming, and if not then that’s their shortsightedness.  Now that I’ve used Final Cut Pro X enough and took the time to read articles, look up a few tutorials, double-check whether or not certain things I wanted the program to do were available or not, etc. I’ve found it to be a very competent and powerful program up to the task of editing.  It’s certainly as I said before the fastest editor I’ve ever used on my Mac, which is a welcomed change compared to FCP7′s 32-bit bottleneck.  Yes, it’s still missing some things, and yes, of course I have my quibbles with some of its functions, but there are some things that if I open up Premiere, I’ll definitely miss.  Calling FCPX “iMovie Pro” is a little harsh I think.  The UI looks like iMovie, but FCPX is miles ahead of what iMovie is capable of.  Don’t let the weirdness of it at first glance and the foreign/changed way of working scare you.  I think there’s a lot to be enjoyed and loved in FCPX.  If Apple can keep updating it and listening to users, and make sure it holds up for use in larger projects then there isn’t much that should keep people away besides fear.  We always fear what we don’t understand.  I think that unless you have a newer MacPro, or a MacPro with a CUDA card, FCPX is likely the only other editor you can get for your Mac that will utilize the entire machine the way Premiere does on a PC.  FCPX is like OSX, it’s a ground floor rewrite.  It’s version 10.0.3 currently but you should really be seeing it as 1.0.3.  Those wanting FCP8 with the 64-bit advantages and all that comes with FCPX obviously haven’t given much thought to what FCP7 was, which was a bloated program full of old code.  A total revamp was the only way forward, and while you could argue they should’ve kept things the same, is any of what has happened with FCPX out of character for Apple?  Perhaps they brought it out a tad early, but nobody said that all FCP users had to switch and dump FCP7.  Look at it how you would any revamp of a program.  Give it time, let it get into the wild, get a few updates, try it out, slowly transition if you feel it’s worth it, etc.  Anyone thinking FCPX’s release and it’s setbacks means they have to bet the farm on Premiere wasn’t thinking straight.  Odds are those people were going to switch anyways so that’s fine.  Those who hate FCPX with a passion need to have a bit more perspective.  There is much to be loved in FCPX that I miss when I open Premiere or another application.  I miss the speed on my MacBook Pro first and foremost.  Keep a level head, tread cautiously, do your research, and in time if you’ve put the program through its paces and actually given it a chance, make your choice.

Final Thoughts

Don’t worry about what’s “pro” or what’s being used by other people.  Use what editor and OS that works best for you given your needs and wants.  If you don’t mind paying for a Mac and think it’s worth the value, then by all means buy one.  If you don’t, leave people alone who do.  No need to bicker back and forth about what’s better and what’s not.  Go edit something instead, because if the people who fight on the internet about this stuff spent more time shooting or editing and less time bickering, there’d be a lot more great content out there for us to share!  There’s people I know who swear by Sony Vegas, and they use it for their “pro” stuff no matter who snubs their nose at the program.  ”Lightworks” was used to edit The King’s Speech, and that’s not a program you’ll see in many Hollywood Post-Houses.  So, it’s it worthless?  It was used to edit last years Best Pictures winner so…obviously not.  We get caught up in the politics and groupie mentality and it’s just a waste of breath.  We do it with camera’s and gear as well, but that’s another post for another time!  If you remember from the beginning of the article, I said I hated FCP (ver6 at the time) when I first used it.  It felt like it was made by aliens (and I wasn’t a Mac guy at that point so that didn’t help), but eventually I got used to it once I gave it time, and then it became THE editor I would turn to.  It’s funny how quickly we forget that almost everything requires practice, and FCPX is no different or any other program that comes out that we bash against.  I’m not saying FCPX is the holy grail of editors, or that it’s perfect, because that’s certainly not true.  However, with practice, patience, and some humility, maybe it’ll become my new favorite?  Only time will tell.  Happy editing…

EDIT: Here’s a growing wish-list of new features to be added to FCPX in the 10.0.4 update.

There’s a lot of great films in the festival this year, and a ton of documentaries that I look forward to seeing.  It’ll be interesting to see the turn out this year, and the results on awards night.

For more information about the festival visit http://www.saicff.org

Read The Article: http://workbookproject.com/newbreed/2011/05/10/facebook-marketing-the-key-to-independent-film-marketing/