We rightly focus on the “big” decisions of life: high school major, college choice, partner, where to live, what job to take, etc. These are important decisions and will affect your future.

The funny thing is, some of the smallest decisions I’ve made, have had the biggest affect on my life. Deciding to leave a fairly boring nightclub to go to another, and overhearing a comment that may have been about me, and therefore changing my mind, turned out to be close to one of the most important decisions of my life, as I met Greg that night.

Some decisions are obviously “big,” but five seconds either way could be the difference between being in the path of an out of control car, or not. A life changing moment one way, barely noticed the other. Five seconds.

A stray bullet could radically change the path of our lives, with zero forethought or planning.

Or a chance meeting in a hallway at NAB might lead to one of the most productive partnerships or radical innovation the industry has seen!

It’s probably best that we don’t realize there are no small decisions, because to give every minor decision the attention it could deserve, would be crippling. I find it much easier not to dwell on it too much.

In a follow up Tweet to my comments about Resolve 16, the Tweeter suggested they could use the Neural Engine to “improve translation of XML from other apps,” which led me to spend a little time (oversimplifying) how we train Machines for Machine learning.

There are three approaches: training sets, oppositional training, simple goal.

Most Machine Learning neural networks are trained using massive amounts of “qualified” data: examples that have been tagged with the desired results to train the machine, then more known examples to test the machine. This has been the approach used for facial recognition, speech-to-text, emotion extraction, color grading, etc. Most of the things we’ve known Machine Learning for so far, have been trained using this type of data set.

Oppositional training is where you have one machine – for example – trying to create a human face, and another machine determining if what is presented is a human face. Because these are machines they iterate very, very quickly and some amazingly realistic human faces have resulted.

Then there’s the Simple goal. The clearest example I’ve seen so far is where a bipedal stick figure in a simulated environment was given the challenge “Stay upright and move forward.” After millions of iterations and experiments the goal was achieved, so they made it more complex with terrain.

Given those gross oversimplifications of some very clever technology, let’s examine the idea of improving XML translation. I’m not aware of any existing training set, or how you’d go about creating a training set that had perfectly matched timelines in two different apps, and the XMLs that they represent. The matching timelines would have to be built manually (or corrected manually) so they were a perfect representation of the other app’s timeline. Not particularly practical.

I don’t see how we can simplify the request to use either oppositional training or boil it down to a simple goal.

Now, another Tweeter suggested they use the Resolve Neural Engine to improve cut detection, and that’s an entirely reasonable, and feasible goal, as we have a substantial body of timelines with EDLs representing the cuts.

Ultimately, what we can do with Machine Learning will come down to how we train it, which is why I am not expecting a Machine-based editing tool for a very long time.

While I’m still to see a demo, there are few announced features that I definitely think are in the right direction, particularly those driven by Resolve’s “Neural Engine.” It seems, like Adobe Sensei and Apple’s CoreML, to be a playback engine that implements the Machine Learning models in practical tools.

Improved retiming, facial recognition, color matching, color balance and upscaling are the first implemented features. These are in line with what I have been expecting from ML: smart features that make the process easier for editors. All Resolve’s current Neural Engine driven features are better ways (faster) to do things we’ve been doing for years (other than facial recognition).

Adobe have already implemented ML driven features in their apps, and marketing tools. I’d hope that Avid have taken likely future use of ML into account in their NAB-announced revamp of Media Composer, although I doubt we’ll see any ML driven features there for many years to come, for two reasons. The Media Composer market is largely not ready for it, and Avid will have enough on their plate bringing a newly rewritten version to maturity. I expect we’ll see ML in Media Central before any desktop app.

Apple have made very good use of ML across all their products. It’s why Apple Mail predicts mailboxes for you, among dozens of little features across their devices. The have an excellent playback engine in CoreML, and developers of macOS or iOS have access to some of IBM Watson’s models. The Pro Apps team were also advertising a position for a Machine Learning specialist in late 2017.

Thanks to the Content Auto Analysis (that no-one uses) they even have a pipeline within the app to bring ML derived keywords into the app.

I’m sure we’ll see ML driven tools in FCP X at some future time. It largely depends on the priorities within the Pro Apps Team. I’d love to see a big focus on ML in a future FCP X, but there are those who would rather see collaboration, dupe detection or scrolling timelines.

One of the best things about conferences (like NAB) is the opportunity to discuss topics of the day with other smart people. I frequently imagine that the best part of being in a larger company would be the robust discussions during feature development.

In one of those discussions, I found myself saying “Track based NLEs are for people who make video for others; FCP X is for people who make video for themselves.” Even if true it would be a gross oversimplification, but indulge me for a minute.

The original NLE for making TV for a lot of “someone else’s” is of course Avid’s Media Composer. Absolutely track based.

The NLE’s that followed – Media 100, Final Cut Pro (classic), etc – were all track based and shared conceptual similarities with Media Composer, because that’s what people expected. That they were used to make video for other people was almost a given: that gear was expensive so it had to generate a good income.

NLE software became affordable when it was separated from a hardware component, so FCP Classic started to empower those who would have otherwise gone to a production company, to start doing it themselves.

At that time I was still producing video for others, but our good friends in Sydney, who “produced video” by hiring camera operators, cameras and edit bays and expertise, bought a DV camera and FCP and started doing it themselves. It was FCP 1.2.5 that bought us together when I answered a 2-pop.com forum question for them, before we realized we were in adjacent cities.

All generalizations are going to be inaccurate somewhere. Trackless FCP X is definitely being used by those making videos for others. And Resolve, Media Composer and Premiere Pro all have individual users making video for themselves, but those using track based tools, tend to have been in the industry the longest, and they know track based tools because the only way we could afford them was by making video for others.

Now there are a hundreds of ways people making video for themselves as part of their primary job, or as their primary income, and they tend not to have come out of a traditional production workflow. FCP X is definitely easier for those people to pick up and be productive, which I think is why it is so popular (outside the traditional industry circles).

NAB 2019 was almost like returning to the past as were were podcasting from the show floor, just like 2004 – 2007! Back then it was DV Guys/Digital Production BuZZ and we had a huge case of gear for an audio only show.

Fast forward a decade and a half, and we’re live streaming with Switcher Studio, adding multicam video switching to the live stream! Of course, we all know that no-one watches live streams, but we had some quality interviews recorded for OWC Radio hosted by Cirina Catania interviewing creatives about tech.

This year’s production gear would fit in a bag about a quarter the size of our audio only rig of earlier days! Not to make it easy we added lighting.

In return for assistance with the podcast OWC gave us a home on the corner of the booth for NAB. Let’s just say that OWC Radio got a lot of attention while the corner table was mostly empty.

Lumberjack System was one of the sponsors of the Content Creators Celebration where we mostly handed out finger lights and glow sticks, while talking to people about how Lumberjack gives them more time to be creative.

The highlight of the week was, without a doubt, the Faster Together Stage where LumaForge did all the heavy lifting organizing a truly inspirational evening. The Faster Together stage replaced the Supermeet on the Tuesday night. Dan Berube and Michael Horton – the people behind the Supermeets – called an end to a successful 18 years in January of this year.

Now, I’ve heard some criticism that the Faster Together stage was “very corporate” because one company was hosting, but in reality, the event was way less corporate than the Supermeets, where the stage presentations were mostly sponsored. Occasionally Avid, or Adobe would put up a creative on stage, but mostly it was “dog and pony” shows of the latest, just announced, features of their flagship apps. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

When I first talked with Sam Mestman about the Faster Together Stage he indicated he wanted to move the event back toward creativity and community – away from the corporate approach!

He, and a very dedicated team from LumaForge, delivered on that with a stage full of editors, producers, colorists, YouTube stars and technologists. Not a corporate or product presentation in site.

We had planned to demonstrate the entire Lumberjack Workflow at our table, but I didn’t expect our reliable NEX 7 to simply stop recording!

As a team, Lumberjack was able to contribute to the on stage presentations by doing what we started doing; logging during the shoot. Chris Fenwick, Alan Seawright and Brad Olsen (and probably others) had planned to interview guests at the event before it started, asking them six questions like what inspired them to get into production, and edit those into six on stage presentations during the event.

Ambitious yes, but Chris recruited our Greg Clarke to log during the shoot, and used Lumberjack to do six string-outs, one for each question. This gave Chris a huge head start and he made the screen time for the presentations. After the event he posted on Twitter:

Could NOT have pulled it off without @philiphodgetts and Greg from @LumberjackSys – their logging system made the quick turn possible. I’m SO thankful they were able to assist. 

Chris Fenwick @chrisfenwick

After more interviews for OWC Radio on the Wednesday, we packed up the production gear on the booth, had a relaxed evening when we finished, and returned home on the final day of the show.

Driving back from NAB last week I realized how grateful I am to my friends, not only for their friendship, but what I’ve learnt from them.

From Larry Jordan I’ve learned to be a better talk show guest. Larry always makes sure his audience “keep up” with the conversation, and has frequently guided me to “back up a little and explain” before we go forward. He’ll probably need to do it again, but I am learning to make sure those listening are understanding.

From Sam Mestman, Cirina Catania and Michael Horton I am relearning the importance of community, and that we’re not in the software business, we’re in the business of giving people time. Time they can spend doing what’s really important to them.

From Cirina I’m learning, not only how to be more positive, but also how to simplify topics when I discuss them.

I’m sure there are dozens of other lessons I’ve learnt from friends, but these come to mind right now.

Workflow Extensions are definitely my favorite new feature from FCP X 10.4.4. I had long been jealous of Panels in Premiere Pro CC, even with their limitations. Being able to put an interface to someone’s (our) app within the NLE seemed like a nice feature. I think Apple’s Workflow Extension are superior because they run native code (not through a Javascript/HTML interface).

Of course, we immediately get questions about when we’re going to put all our apps in Workflow Extensions. It happens with every new Apple technology release. “When will you do an iOS version?” “When are you going to create a Watch app?”

Since these are Workflow Extensions we need to think about workflow. What makes sense being in the host app, and what does not make sense? What makes sense are workflow apps that you “touch” and get back to FCP X. Workflow apps where you go away from FCP X, perform some combination of activities and then go back to FCP X, do not make sense.

Thus, asset management, review and approval, and training apps make sense. You want to view the reviewer comments in FCP X, in the native timeline or clip being commented on. You want to search for a clip and bring it to FCP X.

As we proved in 1999 with the first of our training products, The DV Companion for FCP, having the instructional video floating over the app makes a lot of sense. (Technically Workflow Extensions don’t float, but they are there in the app, so it’s much the same.)

A limitation on Workflow Extension is that they must have a single interface window, so document based apps aren’t suitable.

So, when it comes to the Intelligent Assistance Software and Lumberjack System apps, it makes sense for some to become Workflow Extensions, and not others, based on workflows. Apps like Producer’s Best Friend – where you generate reports and then get back to FCP X – or Sync-N-Link X – where you have clips in FCP X that you want synchronized and immediately sent back in FCP X – make a lot of sense.

Conversely Change List X makes less sense in a Workflow Extension because the output is not used in FCP X at all. Similarly the two translation apps don’t make much sense as Workflow Extensions.

For Lumberjack System, Lumberyard makes sense as a Workflow Extension because – again – it uses Event Clips as the input and the result is updated in FCP X. noteLogger and backLogger make no sense as Workflow Extensions because the are used before FCP X. They are, as is real time logging in the iOS app, “pre editing” tools to be used before the NLE.

Similarly Lumberjack Builder not only makes no sense as a Workflow Extension, but isn’t even possible. Builder takes an input from FCP X (Event Clips) but work continues in Builder. You can update an Event with Keywords logged in Builder (because it’s more efficient) but Builder is really designed as a companion NLE to FCP X, again to be used before finishing work is done in FCP X.

Transcription Workflow Extensions only make sense if you haven’t really considered the workflow. While it wasn’t automated transcription, Lumberjack was first to bring transcripts into FCP X back in early 2015 for the OJ Simpson Documentaries. We discovered that even a perfect transcript in FCP X is still a terrible workflow. Searching is difficult, and there’s no way to build a story based on text, the way transcripts are used.

Getting transcripts into FCP X is solving the wrong problem, which is working with transcripts in a way that makes sense. That’s why Greg and I spend a lot of time thinking about the workflow, and realized there was no way that transcript workflows could be grafted into FCP X, and it was/is our belief that it’s not a high priority for the Pro Apps team. So we built an entirely new kind of NLE for text driven editing.

Being a document based app, meaning you can have multiple documents open at once, with each document carrying multiple stories, it can’t be shoehorned into a Workflow Extension, but more importantly it would be the wrong thing to do. FCP X is not the place to be editing with text.

So, when thinking about Workflow Extensions, consider what workflow problem they solve. Where the Workflow Extension functionality is used IN a FCP X workflow, it probably belongs in a Workflow Extension. Where it independently enhances FCP X workflows, either before or after the primary FCP X work, then it isn’t appropriate for a Workflow Extension.

In a rather interesting article on creative collaboration, Here Comes the Automation: How AI is Poised to Change Filmmaking, we get this quote:

“When a distinguished but elderly industry executive says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” — Clarke’s  Law No. 1, slightly modified

It led me to think of how many of our creative tools in use every day were simply impossible a few years back. You don’t have to go back too far to be in a pre Internet era. Non-Linear Video Editing is less than 30 years old. A million dollar Da Vinci Resolve suite is now a free download from that Internet!

HD and 4K capable cameras on portable computers good enough to edit that with. (Speaking of which, check out LumaTouch for a look at what can be done on those iPhones and iPads carrying the camera.) Creative storytelling is more accessible than ever.

Our creative tools are in a constant state of evolution – a.k.a. change – and we’ve only just started realizing how “artificial intelligence” (i.e. machine learning based) tools are going to work their way into creative tools and workflows. This will likely fundamentally change the way we interact with creative tools, much the way non-linear editing of video on computers did 25 years ago.

Being open to change is essential, otherwise we risk being that “elderly industry executive” saying something was impossible, that others are doing every day!

I’ve certainly learnt to stop saying “that’s impossible” because it’s rarely true for very long.

Thanks to an introduction by a mutual friend, I had the opportunity to chat with Alex LoVerde of SyncOnSet, and it stuck me that the best technology is one driven by a direct, and often personal need. It also struck me how different two ostensibly similar “metadata companies” can be.

(more…)

I don’t always cross post my appearances on Larry Jordan’s Digital Production BuZZ, but I thought I did a particularly good explanation of the basics of AI and Machine Learning and how they might apply in production, that I thought I’d share this one.

Philip Hodgetts: The Basics of AI – Explained