On Adobe, Apple, BlackMagic and 'being careful' ...

[mercer]

​And then there's movies like The Room which become popular because of how bad they are.....

Like Ed Wood said, you don't like this one, wait until you see my next film. Paraphrasing. 

[Axel]

​Probability says there aren't so many filmmakers around (like folks who can link to something on Vimeo or Youtube that makes people like us shut up). My EOSHD profile reads 'filmmaker', but I have no idea who labelled me so. As an avid cinema goer, I visit the screening room here regularly, and if I like something, I bookmark it. It`s a short list. Maybe you are naive to think you can top these clips, but feel free to prove the opposite.

​

Axel, sorry but I think something is lost in translation. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought we were arguing the same point? Unless, I misunderstood your comment. If so, sorry. 

​I was referring to your irritation, that people on this site "look down on you"  for willing to sacrifice technical perfection in order to get a film finished. Whereas I really believe this is the wrong approach, nobody is in a position to "look down on you".

 

Back on topic, which is about the distinction of professionalism on one side and amateurs (or better ambitious indie​ filmmakers) on the other. The whole purpose of this forum, as I see it, is to discuss low-budget means for not having to sacrifice technical perfection. There hadn't been many excuses twelve years ago, when people had DV-cameras with 35mm adapters and some other things. There are less excuses today. You can buy cheap equipment with high image quality, you can even rent it. A BMPC (4k raw), for instance, costs around 50 € a day in my area, if you rent it for 10 days and you are nice, you might even get it fully rigged for that. The software is *free*.  

Designing sound is a whole different chapter, but recording usable sound on low budget isn't, as Jay_Rox wrote. But there should be someone in your *team* who is responsible for that.

 

[mercer]

​

​I was referring to your irritation, that people on this site "look down on you"  for willing to sacrifice technical perfection in order to get a film finished. Whereas I really believe this is the wrong approach, nobody is in a position to "look down on you".

 

Back on topic, which is about the distinction of professionalism on one side and amateurs (or better ambitious indie​ filmmakers) on the other. The whole purpose of this forum, as I see it, is to discuss low-budget means for not having to sacrifice technical perfection. There hadn't been many excuses twelve years ago, when people had DV-cameras with 35mm adapters and some other things. There are less excuses today. You can buy cheap equipment with high image quality, you can even rent it. A BMPC (4k raw), for instance, costs around 50 € a day in my area, if you rent it for 10 days and you are nice, you might even get it fully rigged for that. The software is *free*.  

Designing sound is a whole different chapter, but recording usable sound on low budget isn't, as Jay_Rox wrote. But there should be someone in your *team* who is responsible for that.

 

Axel, I honestly don't care if they do or don't look down on me, I just find it curious why people care. Now Jay said he was being helpful, maybe I am naive but I try to take what people say at face value, if he says he is trying to be helpful, then who am I to say he isn't. 

But I agree let's get back on topic. You are right we have many options to shoot with. Rental is always an option and an inexpensive one if you're working with a scheduled shoot. I would rather own a lesser camera and have the freedom that affords. As you know, it isn't always easy to get actors together. When you own the camera, you have the flexibility for scheduling. You also have the flexibility to do b shots, insert shots, etc... On your own time.

Obviously, money is an important factor in amateur vs professional but time is just as important.

When I was a younger man and my father was teaching me carpentry, he would tell me I was wasting time doing something a certain way and I thought... I have all the time in the world... It wasn't until I was older that I realized time is money... Time is a commodity.

So, what can a filmmaker cut to save time while not sacrificing quality?

I can only speak for myself and for me it requires developing projects that fit a certain paradigm.

1. Few locations, but great locations. If you can steal a location, guerrilla style, to add a little production value... Do it. It's better to get the footage and be scolded, then ask permission and be told no.

If you can shoot the scene outside, shoot it outside.

2. A small cast with little dialogue. Film is a visual medium anyway plus this rule solves two problems... The small cast alleviates potential scheduling conflicts. Little dialogue frees the audio production while allowing beginner actors, which I can afford, the ability to really nail their character and dialogue. No monologues and little exposition.

Those are really the only rules I put upon myself when conceiving an idea. But to make myself clear this all theoretical because I have never made a feature film. I am a screenwriter first and although I understand the filmmaking process, I only recently decided to make a film.

To Be Continued: Necessary Equipment.

 

[DayRaven]

Mistaken post, sorry

[IronFilm]

This is an excellent point. Back in the 90's when there was a big indie movement, you would specifically design your story around one or two locations. Today, the concept still exists, and in fact, was very popular a few years ago as the "contained thriller." But in the 90s, most indie filmmakers were still shooting 16mm, and even if you used short ends, the cost was enormous.

 

Never heard of "contained thriller", thanks. 

IMO, you also want to write a script with the least amount of dialogue possible... good actors are hard to come by, sound is a pain in the ass, and writing quality dialogue is a craft in and of itself. 

So, you're left with a story with few locations, a small cast and little dialogue, which is why horror has always been such a popular genre amongst indie filmmakers. Well, that and the marketability of horror without needing known stars to sell tickets  in fact, having a big name star can hurt a horror film. It can take the visceral feeling away from the project because Tom Hanks, or whoever, is starring in it.

Good further analysis and breakdown. 

I wish I could work with more screenwriters who really truly and deeply understand to the core what it means to make an ultra low budget movie. (because the easiest way to make budget savings is in the script!! Thus why it is so essential the scriptwriter is on board with that)

 

​

​How many have crews that are in the 1-2 people range? I'm going to take a guess and say none.

I can't recall the last film that was made for <$10k with a crew of one that ended up getting picked up for mass distribution - can you? Perhaps Monsters, but then that was ~$25k + 10 times that or so to get it to a distributable level, and then distribute it...

Even Like Crazy had a $200,000 budget and a pretty large crew, despite being shot on a 7D and being a really rather simple, non-extravagant love story.

I'm happy to be proven wrong - I guess I just don't really understand the whole playing the odds of doing it all yourself - you've likely got more chance of winning the lottery; at least someone wins the lottery each week. ​

You're forgetting that:

1) a movie which costs millions *MUST* get fairly mass distribution so as to recoup the costs and then make a profit. Even a film which cost in the tens of thousands needs at least a certain degree of minimal market penetration. Which is no easy task, and indeed the odds are stacked against them for most. 

2) but a film which costs a few thousand, or even just a few hundred, doesn't have the same pressing needs to have such a far reach. Even just an incredibly tiny number of viewers can be sufficient to recoup the financial outlay so as to enable the filmmaker to make their next one. Mainstream distribution is no longer essential for this second category of films. 

So while going for 2) isn't everybody's cup of tea, I do understand and respect those who do choose to take that path instead. 
(but yeah.... why  not at least use lav mics instead of a camera mounted shotgun??)

[jax_rox]

2) but a film which costs a few thousand, or even just a few hundred, doesn't have the same pressing needs to have such a far reach. Even just an incredibly tiny number of viewers can be sufficient to recoup the financial outlay so as to enable the filmmaker to make their next one. Mainstream distribution is no longer essential for this second category of films. 

So while going for 2) isn't everybody's cup of tea, I do understand and respect those who do choose to take that path instead. 
(but yeah.... why  not at least use lav mics instead of a camera mounted shotgun??)

​Perhaps you're right - but aren't those who are doing this, doing so because they are not in a position at this current point in time to be able to make bigger budget films? Isn't the end goal to be able to work with budgets that allow you to do what you want and need to be able to effectively tell the stories you want to?

If so, shouldn't you at least be attempting to make your film in a similar way, and to at least attempt to get to the same kind of standard - that is, if someone one day sees enough potential in you to give you a bigger budget, don't you want to be educated enough, and understand why exactly you're going to have to spend time micing up actors and hiring sound guys, rather than suggesting that you 'mount a mic on the camera and get close enough - I've done it heaps of times before and the audio is perfectly usable'?

Sure - if you only ever want to make small films, then fine. I was simply under the impression that people were making tiny budget films out of necessity, rather than because that's what they want to do.

[mercer]

​Perhaps you're right - but aren't those who are doing this, doing so because they are not in a position at this current point in time to be able to make bigger budget films? Isn't the end goal to be able to work with budgets that allow you to do what you want and need to be able to effectively tell the stories you want to?

If so, shouldn't you at least be attempting to make your film in a similar way, and to at least attempt to get to the same kind of standard - that is, if someone one day sees enough potential in you to give you a bigger budget, don't you want to be educated enough, and understand why exactly you're going to have to spend time micing up actors and hiring sound guys, rather than suggesting that you 'mount a mic on the camera and get close enough - I've done it heaps of times before and the audio is perfectly usable'?

Sure - if you only ever want to make small films, then fine. I was simply under the impression that people were making tiny budget films out of necessity, rather than because that's what they want to do.

Is that what you took from our discussion?

[jax_rox]

Is that what you took from our discussion?

​No - I'm talking more generally than anything.

[Axel]

​Perhaps you're right - but aren't those who are doing this, doing so because they are not in a position at this current point in time to be able to make bigger budget films? Isn't the end goal to be able to work with budgets that allow you to do what you want and need to be able to effectively tell the stories you want to?

If so, shouldn't you at least be attempting to make your film in a similar way, and to at least attempt to get to the same kind of standard - that is, if someone one day sees enough potential in you to give you a bigger budget, don't you want to be educated enough, and understand why exactly you're going to have to spend time micing up actors and hiring sound guys, rather than suggesting that you 'mount a mic on the camera and get close enough - I've done it heaps of times before and the audio is perfectly usable'?

​Good point.

Do you remember how Peter Jackson gave his 48 Epics for The Hobbit nicknames, a method for him to keep track of their individual tasks? This was covered in a 'production diary', and though those making of teasers often were mockumentaries (i.e. the production designers who painted 3D drafts, one in red, one in green), I do believe this detail. You should read a Peter Jackson biography, on how he started as a filmmaker. His early attempts could hardly have been called professional. He filmed with a 16mm Bolex, spring mechanism, see the crank in this image:

The tricks were shirt-sleeved, if not outright crude, but he could do them all alone. The unauthorized biography by Ian Pryor also shows his somewhat darker side. Of course he couldn't make Bad Taste alone, he had a talent to get people work for him like slaves, even unpaid, sometimes with vague promises to share any possible profit.

His early experiences as a one-man-band, controlling every aspect of the process, just having 'helping hands' around him, made him the best producer and VFX/SFX supervisor in the world. Without such knowledge and giant self-esteem the LOTR trilogy could not have been made. People tend to forget the roots.

So imo there is nothing wrong with a hands-on approach, if you haven't money to do it professionally. One should just be able to scale down expectations.

But to make myself clear this all theoretical because I have never made a feature film. I am a screenwriter first and although I understand the filmmaking process, I only recently decided to make a film.

​All lectures on writing (novels or screenwriting) stress the importance of not simultaneously inventing and editing. If you doubt that what you write down is any good, don't stop writing. Keep the flow. And then, instead of script doctoring weak parts (made easy by Word or the like), you dismiss the whole and start over again. Every new version is a better one. Wash, rinse, repeat.

This could also be a good advise for us indie filmmakers. So we've got a plan. Why not make a very amateurish first version? Built-in mic (could as well be a smartphone version), no lights, no tripod. Location scouting as you go. Some friends to play the characters. Like children re-enacting The Avengers. Improvisations welcomed. Temporary score. Makeshift, deliberately crude tricks.

After editing this shit, you know better. You can kill your babies, you know where you need to invest more time and/or money to enhance story and production value. You could do a second, a better version, and so forth. 

What think?

 

[mercer]

 

Never heard of "contained thriller", thanks. 

Good further analysis and breakdown. 

I wish I could work with more screenwriters who really truly and deeply understand to the core what it means to make an ultra low budget movie. (because the easiest way to make budget savings is in the script!! Thus why it is so essential the scriptwriter is on board with that)

 

 

 

You're forgetting that:

1) a movie which costs millions *MUST* get fairly mass distribution so as to recoup the costs and then make a profit. Even a film which cost in the tens of thousands needs at least a certain degree of minimal market penetration. Which is no easy task, and indeed the odds are stacked against them for most. 

2) but a film which costs a few thousand, or even just a few hundred, doesn't have the same pressing needs to have such a far reach. Even just an incredibly tiny number of viewers can be sufficient to recoup the financial outlay so as to enable the filmmaker to make their next one. Mainstream distribution is no longer essential for this second category of films. 

So while going for 2) isn't everybody's cup of tea, I do understand and respect those who do choose to take that path instead. 
(but yeah.... why  not at least use lav mics instead of a camera mounted shotgun??)

 

 

Hey Ironfilm, contained thrillers are a great story device for indie film. Budgetary concerns are born into the concept.

Saw is a modern example of this, but one of the earlier examples is Rear Window.

If you can create a taut, riveting thriller idea, set in one room, or one house, or a subway car, or a school bus, or whatever you have access to... You could be well on your way to a successful indie film concept.

I think no film school may have an article about the contained thriller if you google it.

I've been reading a little about Joe Swanberg, a director that came to rise during the Mumblecore movement of the mid '00s. He used an hd video camera with xlr inputs and a shotgun mic... Probably an eng mic I assume.

Anyway, he was a darling at SXSW film festival for years and would debut his movies there every year.

In the past decade he has made something like 20 movies. He made them as cheap as he could, sometimes using his apartment as the major set.

Since the distribution model for indie films has so drastically changed since the death of the video store and the emergence of Netflix, the direct to video possibilities, although still available, aren't as lucrative as they once were.

Swanberg uses a quantity model, his 20 movies may make him a couple grand a month each, so with his catalog of films he has been pulling in about 500 grand a year. Of course, you need material and a fan base for his model to truly work and now he makes Hollywood films.

Now I am getting a whole lot of flack for this shotgun mic method... as if I am the first and only person to conceive such a thing. I mean, the Rode Mic is designed for such an application. Surely someone must be using it?

Another consideration is this... I have a zoom h2n, I could easily lav an actor with it. Or attach it to a boom pole with a good condenser mic.

But the hardest part I have found with making movies, with no budget, is scheduling. It is difficult to get all the actors you need to film a scene together on the same day and same time, so much so, that it's sometimes necessary to film their sides separately. So it is equally hard to get a few hands to help with sound.

I have heard decent, usable sound with a Rode mic plugged into the camera. Also, it saves a ton of time in post.

Now this topic, at its heart, is about pro vs amateur. Pros don't use zooms. Pros have a sound mixer on set. Pros have a dedicated boom pole operator that is trained in the exact proper placement of the mic and how to track with actors.

And then a good percentage of the time, those tracks aren't used anyway and they ADR the dialogue in studio.

So, is this a discussion on kinda pro vs amateur?

BTW, my mic rant isn't really directed at you... It's just easier, from my phone, to type this all in one comment and it isn't solely about sound, some posters just want to grasp onto that one idea.

My argument has been that to make no budget films, the filmmaker has to make sacrifices.

But in realizing that indie filmmakers come from the many disciplines of the process, certain time saving, or money saving, necessities will be different for each filmmaker.

I am a screenwriter first, and a visualist second. For me, sound is way down on the list. For others, the list may be different and sound may be number 1 or 2.

 

[IronFilm]

After editing this shit, you know better. You can kill your babies, you know where you need to invest more time and/or money to enhance story and production value. You could do a second, a better version, and so forth. 

What think?

I agree, in the years and years which a person might spend to produce just one "high quality"​ film (it might even never happen...), another person could've in the same length of time produced half a dozen or more quick films that gradually escalated in complexity and budget. 

Who do you think at the end of this period has gained greater knowledge and more contacts, and is better prepared for his next film? I'd say obviously the latter person.

​Perhaps you're right - but aren't those who are doing this, doing so because they are not in a position at this current point in time to be able to make bigger budget films? Isn't the end goal to be able to work with budgets that allow you to do what you want and need to be able to effectively tell the stories you want to?

If so, shouldn't you at least be attempting to make your film in a similar way, and to at least attempt to get to the same kind of standard - that is, if someone one day sees enough potential in you to give you a bigger budget, don't you want to be educated enough, and understand why exactly you're going to have to spend time micing up actors and hiring sound guys, rather than suggesting that you 'mount a mic on the camera and get close enough - I've done it heaps of times before and the audio is perfectly usable'?

Sure - if you only ever want to make small films, then fine. I was simply under the impression that people were making tiny budget films out of necessity, rather than because that's what they want to do.

​You're making some huge assumptions here. Take another example: running. Does everybody who takes up jogging aims or even want to go to the Olympics? Nope!

Some runners just enjoy the process of running, and who cares about how far back they finish?? They don't. 

Others enjoy running for all the other benefits they reap from running (which is many many!), other than the elusive Olympus Gold Medal. 

Yet another group of runners are happy if simply their PB drops each year to be faster than the year before, even if they never ever get close to breaking 30 minutes for 10km (let alone a 26 minute something 10km for top Olympic standards!). 

Now, why should filmmaking have to be any different? 

There are a very very diverse range of reasons and motivations as to why people are filmmakers. 

[Axel]

This could also be a good advise for us indie filmmakers. So we've got a plan. Why not make a very amateurish first version? Built-in mic (could as well be a smartphone version), no lights, no tripod. Location scouting as you go. Some friends to play the characters. Like children re-enacting The Avengers. Improvisations welcomed. Temporary score. Makeshift, deliberately crude tricks.

After editing this shit, you know better. You can kill your babies, you know where you need to invest more time and/or money to enhance story and production value. You could do a second, a better version, and so forth. 

What think?

​

I agree, in the years and years which a person might spend to produce just one "high quality"​ film (it might even never happen...), another person could've in the same length of time produced half a dozen or more quick films that gradually escalated in complexity and budget. 
Who do you think at the end of this period has gained greater knowledge and more contacts, and is better prepared for his next film? I'd say obviously the latter person.

​I agree, but I didn't suggest to make a dozen different low quality films. For an indie filmmaker, who somehow has to master many if not all crafts and arts, it could be efficient to combine some of the preproduction stages that professional filmmakers use (for good reasons). To quote Mercer:

I make adjustments and cut corners, but still attempt to put out the best product I can.

Let me explain. Usually someone has an idea for a film. He writes a synopsis, sells it, then treatments, and when those are approved, he writes a script, then another one, and so forth. Paralelly, a production designer is hired. He discusses the current script with the director and visualizes the scenes, using photos from location scouting, moodboards, paintings. Models of the sets are built (like doll houses), and the preproduction people make up their minds. Costs are being calculated, and the script is being revised again, storyboards are drawn.

One could cut corners by making a low quality version of his first temporary script at an early stage. Seeing the outcome, it would be much clearer where adjustments were needed and where improvisation brought new ideas. 

One could scrutinize the scenes take by take, decide when and why certain things are missing or should not be in the frame, make a list. Where exactly digital tricks (more time and care) could help dressing sets or where additional props were necessary to guarantee production value. Make up, costumes, light, fog (other actors) ...

And then, back to topic again, one has to know what software one really needs and what is best. Color correction only or serious grading with re-lighting and tracked masks? Greenscreen? Serious compositing? CGI? Can one master the tools he has? Do the demands of professional productions apply at all? 

Just one instance. Say, your humble goal is to publish your film on Vimeo. You shoot 8-bit, which limits your options for grading anyway. But you need to have some greenscreen compositing. For that, FCP X could be sufficient (good keyer for 8-bit, because the background colors are used with subpixel accuracy to counteract green spill instead of magenta, easy to use). 

Gunfire? Explosions? Is Hitfilm the right tool for that?

You are an AE old hand? Gratulations, you can obviously add production value on a big scale in post (where old Hitchcock, talking about Rear Windows, needed giant sets or complicated glass matte paintings). Don't know a lot about Fusion (not yet Mac-compatible).

You really are determined to enhance colors and lighting, and you therefore shoot raw or at least 10-bit log? Then of course you have to learn Resolve, in earnest. What is more, if you spent so much time for every individual clip, you can as well edit in Resolve 12, even if the (then allegedly advanced) editing tools still not reach Premiere's or FCP X's. An edit decision is nothing to be done in a hurry anyway.

[mercer]

 

​

 

​I agree, but I didn't suggest to make a dozen different low quality films. For an indie filmmaker, who somehow has to master many if not all crafts and arts, it could be efficient to combine some of the preproduction stages that professional filmmakers use (for good reasons). To quote Mercer:

Let me explain. Usually someone has an idea for a film. He writes a synopsis, sells it, then treatments, and when those are approved, he writes a script, then another one, and so forth. Paralelly, a production designer is hired. He discusses the current script with the director and visualizes the scenes, using photos from location scouting, moodboards, paintings. Models of the sets are built (like doll houses), and the preproduction people make up their minds. Costs are being calculated, and the script is being revised again, storyboards are drawn.

One could cut corners by making a low quality version of his first temporary script at an early stage. Seeing the outcome, it would be much clearer where adjustments were needed and where improvisation brought new ideas. 

One could scrutinize the scenes take by take, decide when and why certain things are missing or should not be in the frame, make a list. Where exactly digital tricks (more time and care) could help dressing sets or where additional props were necessary to guarantee production value. Make up, costumes, light, fog (other actors) ...

And then, back to topic again, one has to know what software one really needs and what is best. Color correction only or serious grading with re-lighting and tracked masks? Greenscreen? Serious compositing? CGI? Can one master the tools he has? Do the demands of professional productions apply at all? 

Just one instance. Say, your humble goal is to publish your film on Vimeo. You shoot 8-bit, which limits your options for grading anyway. But you need to have some greenscreen compositing. For that, FCP X could be sufficient (good keyer for 8-bit, because the background colors are used with subpixel accuracy to counteract green spill instead of magenta, easy to use). 

Gunfire? Explosions? Is Hitfilm the right tool for that?

You are an AE old hand? Gratulations, you can obviously add production value on a big scale in post (where old Hitchcock, talking about Rear Windows, needed giant sets or complicated glass matte paintings). Don't know a lot about Fusion (not yet Mac-compatible).

You really are determined to enhance colors and lighting, and you therefore shoot raw or at least 10-bit log? Then of course you have to learn Resolve, in earnest. What is more, if you spent so much time for every individual clip, you can as well edit in Resolve 12, even if the (then allegedly advanced) editing tools still not reach Premiere's or FCP X's. An edit decision is nothing to be done in a hurry anyway.

I think this idea is interesting. As you said, it's about making a rough draft first and then analyzing what works.

This is kinda my plan. Except my intent is to shoot a short version of a feature, or a short that ends at the 1st act plot point. If the footage is good and the idea has legs, then it can be expanded or even reshot into a feature.

I may realize it works great as a short, who knows? 

I recently was out shooting a lens test for my newly acquired Minolta MC 35mm 1.8... A lens I have been lusting over for months and months and months. Anyway, while out shooting and testing, the normal ubiquitous shots, I had an idea for a weird rack focus shot. It looked cool. 

Later when I was looking at the footage and started editing it, I felt it needed some other shots, just to add a little tension in between.

After thinking about that, I thought of a story that may fit into the confines of that location and those shots.

Now, due to a simple lens test, I have an idea for a little short. But that short could also be the prologue to a feature. I'm writing the script now and hope to have it shot by the end of the month.

so, we'll see. 

I could end up with the beginning of a feature, it could be a cool little short I enter into some festivals, or maybe it will be a good installment for a web series?

The point is that sometimes you need to explore an idea to see if it has potential. And maybe various drafts/versions of an indie film isn't a bad idea. I've said this before, making movies is hard, it is like trying to move a mountain with every damn thing you attempt....

Sometimes you have to accept the realistic limitations of what you have, other times you fight tooth and nail to get the shot/scene/film exactly how you envision it. And sometimes, you just realize the material or product isn't working and you either have to start from scratch, or tweak where needed, or just scratch it altogether.

If I were to put together all the screenplay ideas I scrapped after being 10, 15, sometimes 30 pages in... I would probably have 3 or 4 extra scripts... Albeit nonsensical ones. 

[Axel]

I could end up with the beginning of a feature, it could be a cool little short I enter into some festivals, or maybe it will be a good installment for a web series?

​Some of the best short films deal with an isolated incident without exposition, much in the 'man bites dog' manner, like the urban myths we tell another in the subway or the staff canteen.

Feature films are too much classical drama with predictable plot points. Everybody sees how the cookie crumbles, the characters can only be walking clichés, because their motivations must fit exactly to the structure - exceptions prove the rule, and they are risky, 

Series are the ultimate narrational form, they are epic. They combine isolated situations with slowly developing characters and fates. Audiences love long excurses in modern series, something they seldom accept in a feature (The Lonely Grave Of Paula Schultz, derisive chapter title that could also say And now for something completely different, and absurd). The stories are almost deconstructivistic, and the suspense can't be more addictive.

 

[Axel]

So another year passed by, and Adobe surreptitiously dumped their caution in the Guadalupe River and made the Lumetri integration their new major feature:

https://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/whats-coming-next-in-adobe-premiere-pro-cc-and-media-encoder-cc/

Another novum: the CC now allows for proxies, which are being transcoded in the background (where did I last hear of such a thing, in these words?)

Of course, with the incomparable realtime-power of Premieres native capabilities, Adobe feels obliged to clarify the rare occasions where such a feature could be useful:

Quote

"... 6K and 8K files from the RED Weapon camera (...) – for example, when you want to work on a lightweight portable device"

Very carefully said. Let's wait another year if the cloud's crowd embraces a, er, native alternative to natively editing highly compressed 4k.