Fantastic details, much appreciated!
It all makes sense (and the historical context is a great point), but there is still part of me asking ... if the film is double perf couldn't they also literally run it through the projector/scanner tail first, and suffer no additional quality loss ... this works with 16mm, but I can't speak to 65mm ... and I very well might be mistaken.
Fascinating topic. It makes sense, and Nolan is going to do what he wants in the most real/realistic/practical ways possible, but I still can't help but question the logic.
Consider, how does one achieve an "upside down" shot? Do you flip it in post, flip the camera upside down while on set, or, design a custom camera/mag with a mirror that allows the camera to stay upright while capturing the image upside down on the film? Of course the best result (image quality wise) will be to physically flip the camera upside down, but this might not be possible or practical depending on various factors. Really confusing to think that, the equivalent of turning the camera upside down, (when attempting to invert the flow of time) is to design a custom inverted IMAX mag. It seems like the most complicated solution for such a simple problem. Yet, I see how flipping the image in post, or designing a custom mirrored camera/mag for an upside down shot, actually will degrade the footage on the same theoretical level as inverting the footage in post.
It totally does make sense, but I still have a hard time believing that it really makes sense. Kind of like the movie on the whole.
No mention of the batshit crazy custom IMAX mags that actually run the film in reverse? Took me a few days to wrap my mind around why this insanely pretentious decision actually sorta kinda makes sense, instead of just playing the footage in reverse in the edit. Because there are certain shots in the film which only exist in reverse for the purpose of the story, and they wanted that source footage to exist only in reverse. Still boggles my mind a bit to consider the mental gymnastics of this topic.
This comments section is so cathartic to read through!
19/20 comments so far agree "Premiere is simply dysfunctional."
Premiere Pro CC used to be able to import .mp4 files. You know, those video files that come out of your camera.
Since a recent update, Premiere will no longer import .mp4 correctly. For me, importing 26 files, the first 8 appear as regular video files, while the remaining 18 files are imported as audio only. These files were captured on the same camera over the course of a single afternoon with no changes in formatting. Resolve can import these files. FCPX can import these files.
This was the last straw. I cancelled my CC subscription. I have endured many bugs and glitches within Premiere for a long time, but when the software fails to import footage, that is the end of the line. I am just trying to start a new project and literally can not import 2/3 of the files I need to edit. That is not functional editing software. I don't know what the fuck it is, but it is definitely not functional editing software.
When there are numerous threads on the Adobe Help Forum about this .mp4 audio importing issue, but all the Adobe Staff can suggest is reporting your machine's specs, it is abundantly clear to me that they are too busy designing glitchy new features and have no interest in solving the most basic problems.
I was a hold out against FCPX for a very long time, but after making the switch last week, I am finding that it is actually very functional, and in many ways more intuitive than Premiere. Not to mention, the COLOR CORRECTION ACTUALLY FUCKING WORKS because, you know, color management exists. Premiere Pro doesn't seem to know anything about that (even though After Effects does? WTF?)
As an editor who grew up learning on FCP 4-7, it seemed like Premiere was trying to emulate FCP7 when FCP turned into "iMovie Pro." But despite the similarities to FCP7, Premiere was always a chore to use, and various glitches annoyed me to no end. I can't tell you how many times in the past 6 months I was joking with my boss to get me an iMac G5 with FCP 7, because I know that setup would be more efficient than using Premiere on my MBP.
Coming back into FCPX feels familiar because the keyboard shortcuts are actually intuitive. Various things that I always wanted a shortcut for in Premiere, have shortcuts in FCPX. But even moreso, the interface actually works very smoothly. And holy fuck, it renders everything in the background! It is completely seamless! I can actually scrub through footage and find what I'm looking for when I want to find it. I have heard people say FCPX makes editing feel fun again, and I have to admit I agree. Even exporting makes Adobe Media Encoder look like a lawn mower.
Sure there are some weird things, the file system is rather unconventional, batch exporting isn't as simple, and some of the tools took a minute to get used to. I was very concerned that FCPX would hold me back because at first glance many features seem to have dumbed down controls. After using it for 2 weeks I am finding that the controls aren't truly dumbed down, they are just streamlined. As far as I can tell, FCPX is actually usable software, while Premiere Pro no longer is.
That's my 2 cents. I am choosing to influence the future of Premiere Pro by admitting it is broken and beyond repair and switching to software that works.
I have a sneaking suspicion that V. Renee isn't a real person, but an fictional persona invented by NFS in order to post sponsored content and clickbait, to keep the actual writers from looking foolish for sharing this stuff.