On April 12, 2011, Final Cut Pro saw its first major redesign and update since 2001… Even earlier if you remember the program as Key Grip (the name of the program at Apple purchased as the foundation for FCP in 1999).

As I tuned into the twitter feeds of #FCP last night to experience the cumulative reaction of the 1700 people at the FCPUG users SuperMeet at NAB, I found myself to be outside of the “Reality Distortion Field” normally found in Apple keynote addresses. You see, unlike the next iPhone or the next iPad, Final Cut Pro has been theprogram that I have made my living for the past 10 years. It has been my lifeblood, a passion, and the one piece of software that I can truly say I’m an expert with. What makes me so comfortable with this program I know how to fix this bugger when it breaks. I know how to avoid problems with this clunker because of known bugs, and more importantly I can navigate this program with an efficiency that takes years to develop. It is another thing altogether to create something wonderful with this tool.

But as I utter these words, I realize that there are many other programs I rely on to do my job. Microsoft Word, any e-mail program, any operating system… These are all just cogs in a greater skill-set to do my job effectively and efficiently. By owning Microsoft Word I don’t call myself a professional writer. By knowing how to navigate WordPress, I’m not a professional blogger. And by owning a hammer and knowing that I can swing it, does not make me a carpenter. Anyone can give themselves a creative title until they have to build “it”. Only then, can someone can be called a “Professional”, whether it be a writer, a blogger, or Jesus.

With that said. If Jesus have been an editor, he would use Final Cut Pro X.

In my analysis of this announcement, I will look at this the changes to FCP from two different perspectives. One from an editors perspective, and the other from the role of an Educator and Multimedia Systems Administrator. Additionally, because this announcement was a “sneak peek” I will not recap the feature-set. For a complete list of changes to the program thus far, or to watch the Keynote address please visit the following links:

From an Editors Perspective:

Forgoing the easy analysis of Final Cut Pro X as “iMovie on Steroids”, I truly believe Apple is trying to accomplish many goals. One of the obvious goals in the demo was efficiency disguised as making things “easier” for the editor. Every single new feature that was demoed is intended to make finding your media faster, and implementing decisions quicker.

As the demo for Magnetic Timeline and Compound Clips was happening, I was counting the steps or “clicks” that I would no longer have to do for insert editing or choosing b-roll/environmental. Those who perform many repetitive actions to nested sequence of over 700 clips know what I’m talking about. Those micro-tasks add up quick,  and after seeing FCPX “editing during ingest” of h.264, I was sold. Those features alone can save hours.

The Twitterverse might ask, “So what about the UI?”.. Well to that I say, “Meh”. UI’s change. They become more efficient, especially in Apple’s world. So what if it looks like iMovie. Spend a week with the program and learn how to be more efficient by starting over. You’re a professional, aren’t you? You’ve done it before with almost every other program you have. Grow up.

There is no way that this upgrade will make FCP less powerful. It provides the underpinnings to an exciting, powerful future where any format will “just work.” Isn’t that how we want all of our software to do… Just work with what we want? Apple is leveraging it’s core technologies (Open CL, Grand Central Dispatch, and Core Animation) to make things in FCP “just work.” From DSLR’s to flip cams, to legacy codecs (I’m looking at you DV).. These decisions [by Apple] will make editing easier for everyone because it strips the high-level of understanding away and makes the technology invisible.

Knowing how to fix compression problems with mpeg-2 will always come in handy, but if those problems are not there in the first place because the software “took care of it”, who’s to know, and who’s to care? Producers only care about the final product. As an editor/producer I look forward to a more efficient and seamless FCP experience so that I can concentrate on creativity and story, not codecs and metadata. Jesus can do my offline.

From a Systems Administrator/Educator Perspective:

If this version of Final Cut is not adopted by the professional community, FCP is dead as a Pro App. Lots of people will use it, but a toy it will be.

The decision to continue with Final Cut in the classroom will only be decided if it is taken seriously in the post-production world. Will the new price ($299.00) scare post-production houses away? Or will producers ask for FCPX by name, to keep costs down? The assumption 10 years ago was that because FCP was cheap and accessible, it would require lower post-production costs and “less-skilled” editors. Producers quickly realized that only the former turned out to be true. But the “non-professionals” still called themselves shooters and editors… with their DVX-100′s and XL-1′s, they pointed their Quicktime Export to YouTube, starting MANYcareers in the process. Consumers became producers with technology that was now more accessible.

I owe some of my career to my basement and my XL-1. My early knowledge and adoption gave me a leg up at the first of many small studios that I have worked. This (DV+FCP) was technology that caught salty Media-100 and Fast VM/Linear “Professional Editors” off-guard, and changed an industry in 8 years. I don’t believe this version (of FCP) will make waves like it did in the 2000′s… but you will see a new generation of filmmakers with DSLR’s and Macbooks creating stories with a different (read: more advanced) aesthetic than DV and our G4′s hurled at the industry 10 years ago.

So will I install FCPX in the classroom? Only if it benefits the students professionally.. and that depends ultimately on how you define a “professional”. This will take time. But given the current economic condition of education right now… There may be a clear choice. Adobe, and especially Avid, are more nimble and affordable than ever, but a 4G modem, a Macbook preloaded with FCPX, tied to a Canon T2i, for under 2K?.. Well that sounds like anyone, anywhere, can tell a professionalstory.

I say as an editor, use it immediately. If you like it add it to your toolset and move on. If it’s more efficient, tell producers that you can get it done faster in FCPX. Charge less, make more.

As a systems administrator. Wait a year. Look at the details. Call production houses and media outlets to see what their plans are. They will tell you their direction. The popular vote wins. (hint: most provide multiple NLE’s)

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to let me know. You can also find me on the twits @danielphelps, or  email me at dphelps{at}york.cuny.edu

The following track is a short audio piece I did surrounding my current documentary (2011) entitled The Domino Effect. For more information on this issue and the concurring documentary, please visit thedominoeffectmovie.com.

Click the play button below to listen.

Early philosophers and scientists have long known the science and theory of 3D vision. Specifically, the dominant physiological apparatus of binocular vision is what allows all sighted living beings to interpret the three dimensional world that we live in. The physician Galen noted this recognition of binocular vision as the major sense that lends itself to 3D vision. In the second century A.D. Galen notes in his writing On the Use of the Different Parts of the Human Body, “that a person standing near a column and observing first with the left eye and then with the right eye will see different portions of the background column” (qtd. in Zone 5). That is, each eye records a slightly different images from one another. These two images are interpreted by the brain to translate spatial depth and object dimension. Further study by Charles Wheatstone in 1838 would go on to define the characteristics of binocular vision and the techniques that would be required to recreate 3d vision from two separate 2D images. This “Binocular disparity is one of the most, if not the most effective depth cue.” (Pizlo 119).

Along with his hand drawings included in his paper, he also debuted a new invention dubbed the “stereoscope”, and was able to successfully prove that the recreation of three-dimensional space was possible using traditional and undiscovered orthographic techniques. The stereoscope was able to provide two separate images to each eye, effectively tricking the spatial recognition portion of the brain into interpreting depth. This form of 3D viewing of 2D media would not become popular, at the time, due to its difficulty to reproduce the 3D effect with hand drawn or hand painted images.

While stereoscopic hand drawing was successful within the scientific community in the early 1800’s, the general public would not embrace the technology until the mid 19th century when Wheatstone’s stereoscopic techniques would be combined with early photographic methods. With the introduction of stereo photography in conjunction with a cheaper mass-produced stereoscopic apparatus dubbed the “Holmes Stereoscope,” named after its inventor, Oliver Wendell Holmes. In Rosalind E. Krauss’ book “The Optical Unconsciousness,” the rise of the Holmes stereoscope as a popular form of viewing of 3D media had nothing to do with it’s technological superiority. Krauss states, “For the Wheatstone stereoscope, a product of physiological research in the 1830’s, was constructed to produce it’s experience of depth in a way that proved to be much more powerful than later devices such as the Holmes or Brewster stereoscope”(133). The popularity of the Holmes Stereoscope was due to its simplicity and affordability, not its technical advantage.

With the invention of the moving image in the late 19th century, and the development of the narrative storytelling model using motion pictures in the early days of the 20th century, the technology to capture and playback stereoscopic images quickly developed. Moving images quickly replaced their still counterparts for the dominant form of popular media. The popular stereoscope gave way to movies and the motion picture.

The recording of a stereo image, whether still or moving, has remained unchanged since the mid 1800’s. Essentially, two disparate images are taken, using two cameras or lenses. The placement of these imagers must be positioned, on average, 2.5 inches a part. Referred to as the inter-ocular or inter-axial distance, this particular distance is representative of the average gap between human eyes. This distance can be changed to manipulate the 3D effect during recording or playback, to achieve a more sensational 3D result. This adjustable width, straight ahead approach to shooting 3D is often referred to as “parallel” recording. Parallel recording is the simplest form of reproducing 3D images.

For added enhancement of the dept effect, the technique of “convergence” was introduced to further emulate the natural vision of the eyes. Convergence can simply be explained by the visual phenomena of the eyes “crossing” to view an object that is closer than an object that is far away. To understand this effect, all one must do is to hold an object about 4 inches from the eyes and examine the natural tendency of the eyes to cross to keep the item in view. Although convergence is used to further the effect of 3D, its use can also become a determent to the 3D effect because of subtle differences between the shape of eyes versus the shape of film or a video imager. Whereas the eye has a round “image plane” the technology that is used to record electronic images (ccd’s and film) are flat. This inherent flatness produces distortions in each eye that the brain has trouble resolving the intended 3D effect. The human eyes and brain usually correct for deviations in color, resolution and brightness. In the case of the “keystoning” effect created by the convergence method, the brain has trouble believing the effect and produces increased eye strain. Keystoning is one of many defects in the 3D recording process.

To talk about only the recording method of 3D images would only be half of what makes stereoscopy effective. The technology for viewing 3D motion pictures is just as essential as the capture method. Over the past 100 years, several forms of 3D projection and display have been developed and all are in use today. Essentially the technology uses the same principles that were developed by Wheatstone’s experiments in the mid 19th century; isolate recorded left and right images and deliver them simultaneously to each eye.

In order of development, the types of 3D playback can be broken down into 5 different technologies; anaglyph, polarized, active shutter, isolated stereoscopic, and auto stereoscopic. Anaglyph display technology is the cheapest and most inferior technology. Often using the classic red/blue glasses, this technology separates the left and right images into two colors, red for right and blue for left. The user wears red and blue glasses to filter out the opposite image when viewed on screen. This method creates inferior color representation due to the filters red/blue display method.

The polarized method uses two types of polarized lenses (circular or linear) to produce the left and right image, along with the opposite polarization in the form of glasses that filter the polarized light from the audience. Unlike anaglyph, polarized tech does not alter the color of the recorded material and produces a full color image.

Active shutter technology uses glasses that contain a battery to actively “block” out projected left and right images. The shutter method also produces a full color image and lends itself to being a simple, yet expensive, playback technology. This method is the current technology most widely available to home television sets.

Isolated stereoscopic technology is an updated form of the stereoscope that uses small displays with double images to produce the 3D effect. This cheap and pocketable 3D tech is often used in wearable glasses or cases for mobile devices.

The holy grail of 3D display technology is referred to as “auto stereoscopic”. This is the only method that uses no glasses and relies on shifted lens technology to deliver each image to both eyes. Essentially, the auto stereoscopic delivery system overlays small lenses on a transmissive screen such as a LCD. Each row of lenses sends one image left, and one image right. Images are only able to be viewed by one eye at a time, essentially blocking any overlapping that can occur with any other system. Auto stereoscopic screens produce a “sweet” spot for the user. That is, the intended audience must be an exact distance away from the screen for the 3D effect to work.

With all of the various forms of technologies available for 3D viewing developed over the years, why haven’t 3D movies, television and overall 3D storytelling become the dominant form of media? A story that is told in a format that more closely resembles human depth and vision has to be superior, right? Well, there are many reasons that 3D has not become consistently popular over the years.

Some would argue that the technology is not convincing enough, while others would argue that what the 3rd dimension adds to storytelling has not been widely accepted due to it’s improper use as a storytelling apparatus. Ray Zone writes in “Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3D Film.”

When the first publicly exhibited stereoscopic motion pictures were shown in 1915 at the Astor Theater in New York. Lynde Denig, a reviewer for

Moving Picture World, wrote. “These pictures would appeal first by reason of their novelty, then because of the wonderful effects obtained, and after

that, when they had become familiar, there would be the same old demand for an interesting story,” (qtd. in Zone 84).

During the early 20th century, 3D and 2D storytelling were in direct competition for an audience via stereoscopic cards and movies, respectively. Although the technology to playback 3D films was widely available, albeit inferior to the quality of similar 2D storytelling experience, the audience preferred the 2D familiarity. Eventually the 2D movie became the favored medium for storytelling due to its simplicity and believability. The “composite, synthetic nature of the stereoscopic image could never be fully effaced. An apparatus openly based on a principle of disparity, on a “binocular” body, and on an illusion patently derived from the binary referent of the stereoscopic card of paired images” (Crary, 133). 2D wasn’t better or worse than 3D because of its lack of realism, but because of its familiarity and ease of acceptance with the audience. The public was able to “see” the film from a distance rather than be a part of it due to a technical 3D “brain hack”. Although 3D storytelling persisted and at times flourished over the next 95 years, its popularity has never been able to match the 2D juggernaut that is modern cinema.

So what is the future of 3D storytelling? Well, in today’s 3D world, the technology to record and playback 3D has not changed much. What has changed is the proliferation and access to 3D tech, and more importantly, content.

Over the past 3 years, a resurgence in 3D has been adopted by many consumer companies and content producers. Phones and gaming systems are available with auto stereoscopic screens, TV’s are available to playback 3D with the assistance of active shutter technology, universal standards have been set, and the number of 3D capable theatres has increased world wide to over 7,000. The consumer push of 3D technology is only going to increase as tech companies encourage consumers to purchase the latest and greatest media devices. James Cameron agrees that consumer televisions are the future, but are lacking in one key area, content.

“We’re going to have 3D TVs all around us … and we’re going to need thousands of hours of sports, comedy and music and all kinds of entertainment,”(qtd. Herskovitz, and Lewis 1-1).

If visual 3D is to be finally accepted in our society, I believe that the driving force will not be the technology, but the quality of the content created for the 3D apparatus. Current technology is often seen as a gimmick or hook to drive the media consumer to devour (and pay) for the content. With the different 3D technologies being pushed upon us without the content to support it, it’s the content that will ultimately drive the embracing of the medium. Movies like “Avatar” that shun the traditional spectacle that 3D has been seen as in the past, the 3rd dimension will become another storytelling device, much like computer generated graphics have changed modern storytelling. 3D will have to be seen and used by storytellers as not a device to sell ticket or gadgets, but as a way to deliver depth and further understanding of the story, game, or user interface. Stereographer Jeanne Guillot’s dissertation entitled, “Is 3D Cinema Necessarily Spectacular?” Goes on to say:

This is the reason why I feel rather confident about the future of 3D cinema. I believe it will spark the curiosity and certainly the creativity of a number of directors, who will find ways of bringing this format into new realms. Stereoscopy is too rich a medium to remain confined to a restricted realm. (74)

3D has not changed much in the past 150 years. From still photography to 3D on mobile devices, the technology of 3D has never driven its adoption. The sensation of depth that 3D gives to viewers is no more than another storytelling tool. I believe that what will finally push this cinematic device over the tipping point into widespread acceptance, will be the quality of the content using new cinematic techniques. A new breed of storytellers that have unprecedented and universal access to the technology will develop 3D into a new art form. One that is accepted by the masses not for its “wow” factor, but for the feeling it yields to the story, character, or theme presented before them.

Works Cited

Crary, Jonathan. Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle, and Modern Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1999. Print.

Crary, Jonathan. Techniques of the Observer: on Vision and Modernity in the 19th Century. Cambridge: MIT, 1992. Print.

Guillot, Jeanne. “Is 3D Cinema Necessarily Spectacular?” French Film Festival, Richmond Virginia. La Fémis, 01092009. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.frenchfilm.vcu.edu/2010/pdf/Version%20final%20de%20la %20these%20en%20anglais.pdf>.

Krauss, Rosalind E. The Optical Unconscious. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1993. Print.

Pizlo, Zygmunt. 3D Shape: Its Unique Place in Visual Perception. Cambridge: MIT, 2008. Print.

Zone, Ray. Stereoscopic Cinema & the Origins of 3-D Film, 1838-1952. Lexington, Ky: University of Kentucky, 2007. Print.

Herskovitz, Jon, and Chris Lewis. “Avatar’s James Cameron urges producers to embrace 3D TV.” Reuters 13 May 2010: 1-1. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE64C1CE20100513?feedType=RSS&f eedName=technologyNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&ut m_campaign=Feed:+reuters/UKTechnologyNews+(News+/+UK+/+Technolo gy+News)&utm_content=Google+Reader>.

kickstarter.com/​projects/​thedominoeffect/​the-domino-effect

The Domino Effect is a feature length documentary film that explores the process of real estate development in New York City and digs deep to uncover the complex networks of banks, developers, politicians, and non-profit organizations that shape our cities.

For detailed information you can find us at info@thedominoeffectmovie.com

Or to view our full trailer, please visit:
thedominoeffectmovie.com/​

During the last decade, the communities of Williamsburg and Greenpoint in North Brooklyn have experienced the negative impacts of excessive luxury development and gentrification more than any other neighborhoods in New York. In the last ten years, average rents have doubled, over 10,000 industrial jobs have been lost, and more than 40% of the Latino population has been displaced. Many of the artists and workers in the creative industries who made the community a hip and popular destination in the 1990’s have also been pushed out.

Despite the widely recognized negative impacts, development continues to proceed on the same models—high rise towers that pair thousands of luxury condos with small percentages of “affordable housing” aimed at incomes far above what the average Williamsburg resident can actually afford, with the developers receiving tens of millions of dollars of public money for the service.

The Community Preservation Corporation’s “New Domino” project—the redevelopment of the Domino Sugar Factory on the East River into a complex of 2,200 apartments and condos in towers up to 40 stories high—serves as the film’s case study for examining the complex politics of urban development in the 21st century.

Told through the voices of longtime residents, the film conveys the personal impact of gentrification while also shedding light on issues encountered by residents of cities all across the country. Why have decent jobs and affordable housing for the middle and working classes become increasingly scarce while gleaming towers of luxury condos, high-end retail, and offices continue to rise? What is at stake in the shaping of the 21st century city and how can we intervene to protect the neighborhoods we love?

These issues are not unique to Williamsburg; they are occurring in neighborhoods all throughout New York and many other cities. This story needs to be told now, and with your help it can!

For different 3D viewing methods, please visit the alternate YouTube site here:
youtube.com/​watch?v=ccwHXT_Z0GU

The HD version consists of two Kodak Zi8’s. The cameras themselves can be found for around $130.00. They feature a remote for sync, 1080p recording, 720p 60fps recording, and a 3.5mm audio in port. These cameras have proved to be an amazing addition to this rig. It does very well in low light, ant the 60fps setting is a dream for 3D. Both have HDMI out and usb ports built into the camera itself, so viewing and uploading is a breeze. I’ve also attached a Audio-Technica powered shotgun mic as well. In the future I hope to add another mic for 4-channel surround recording.

I am currently using this system for low budget 3D shoots throughout the city. It is also a great compliment to my Large format 3D camera also appearing in this blog.

You could read about the original 3D recording/playback project here. It’s really simple.. Mount 2 Cameras next to each other (about 2.5 inches apart) and record. Once you edit them together in a simple editing program you can upload them to YouTube for all to enjoy. Because the iPhone has the built in YouTube application, the video distribution is easy. You can see my example video here. Although, my hope is that the community will take this idea and apply it to the PSP, Nokia Phones, Samsung Phones, or anything with a decent screen.

If you’ve never heard about stereoscopes before. This is a good start. Above, you’ll also find my explanation of the device itself.

So here we go.. The supplies that you will need for this project are as follows:

One sheet of corrugated plastic. This could come from an art supply store or a lawn sign. It’s just like cardboard, but plastic. Very strong and easy to cut. I used to use it on radio control aircraft when I was a kid. The small picture on the right shows what the “core” looks like.

Two Bottles of superglue. One the brush on kind, the other the gel kind. This is the easiest to use for this project. Yes, you could use epoxy (I like JB Weld) but that doesn’t give the instant bond satisfaction that the superglue gives. This is one of the secrets that makes this project so easy to make. USE LIBERALLY.

One #1 or #2 Xacto Knife. It could actually be any knife, as long as its thin and sharp. Some extra blades would be great too if you’re making a few of these for demonstration purposes.

One pair of Pocket Stereoscope lenses. You can find these on Ebay.

The photos below represent what will be shown in the instructable coming soon!