As we know the days of picture lock are gone, in this article, we are going to explore how our Expert Panel of Reid Caulfield, Kevin Dallas, Graham Kirkman and Korey Pereira handle the inevitable changes in the picture edit after we have started work on the audio post-production.
What Is Re-Conforming?
With the demise of the so-called ‘Picture Lock’, we need a tool that will compare the two video EDLs and produce a set of changes that can be imposed on the Pro Tools session to trim, expand or move sections of the session to match the picture changes that come in after we have started the audio post-production.
Change Notes can be OK on simpler projects but are often made way too complicated by video effects noise that can completely swamp the relatively simple picture edit changes. Fortunately, there are applications that compare two video EDLs and work from that. The 4 main players in this sector are Matchbox and Conformalizer from The Cargo Cult, Virtual Katy and EdiLoad from Sounds In Sync. These enable us to update an audio post-production project without having to start again by moving content around the timeline to reflect the picture changes and bring in new material where necessary.
The Expert Panel
Graham Kirkman (GK) - Graham has been mixing, tracklaying and recording VOs for over 25 years now working on many projects ranging from Features to Advertising and everything in-between! In September 2016, Graham decided he wanted to be his own boss and started Luminol Audio Ltd. and he has been doing all things audio ever since
Kevin Dallas (KD) - Kevin is an audio specialist twice nominated for an RTS Award for Professional Excellence in Sound. Working remotely from my custom built garden studio "The Dubshakk" he provides remote Voice-over recording, Sound Design, Tracklay, Editing and Mixing for 5.1 delivery. Remote review for sign-off is also available.
Reid Caulfield (RC) - Reid is Re-Recording Mixer & VP of Operations at Central Post in L.A. He has merged decades of creative sound and video work with highly technical ability and infrastructure build-out experience for large & small facilities.
Korey Pereira (KP) - Korey is the owner and creative director of Soularity Sound, a post-production company based in Austin, Texas. They recently completed upgrading their space to Atmos. They work on everything from student films to features to immersive audio for 360. In addition to his work as an editor and mixer, he is a lecturer at the University of Texas at Austin and a guest lecturer at Texas State University.
What reconforming software do you use?
GK: I used to use Conformalizer from The Cargo Cult but now use their Matchbox software.
KD: I use Conformalizer.
RC: We are testing Matchbox now. We were using Conformalizer until recently.
KP: I think it really depends on the project and shop I am working with. When I am supervising and working with an established client through Soularity, I had for a long time relied on Conformalizer from The Cargo Cult. With the release of Matchbox, I have updated my spec sheet for the files required for that. When working as a freelance at another post-house, I tend to go with the flow.
For some projects, including a recurring tv show I work on, this means a good ol’ fashioned hand-conform. Also, sometimes an EDL the PIX department works better with one tool than another. If I don’t get the result I am expecting, I try another tool and see if it is better or worse.
If you use more than one, please explain why and what are the reasons for choosing each of them?
KD: I’ve also used Titan to conform location audio, Ediload and Virtual Katy to reconform sessions.
RC: We tried the older version of Ediload before settling on Conformalizer but, since we need to be able to task assistants to conforming, Ediload was a bridge too far for multiple junior people (and senior, people for that matter) to learn adequately & safely without requiring significant supervision.
Does one work better with what you are sent from a particular NLE/client?
GK: No, not for me.
RC: Not that I have noticed. The issue more seems to be the quality of the NLE output, e.g. Premiere Pro vs Media Composer, which versions, operator proficiency (usually assistant picture editors).
KP: With the release of Matchbox, it has taken front and center for this task. I really like that it works with AAFs (at least from Media Composer) and an FCP XML from Premiere, which makes it an easier ask from editorial. Getting a proper EDL or Change List seems to often be an uphill battle.
Why do you choose to use that particular reconforming software?
GK: The post house where I first used re-conforming software had Conformalizer. Consequently, that was what I learned and so stuck with that until Matchbox was released.
KD: Not that I’ve noticed but 90% of my work comes from Media Composer
RC: Conformalizer (now Matchbox) has/had a variety of ways to 'skin the cat' & get to the desired result.
Can you describe your reconforming workflows?
GK: Until VERY recently, this used to have the potential to be painful, because a lot of editors and/or post houses don't really understand what audio is needed from an EDL. So more than 50% of the time, the EDL I got to reconform a session had to be adjusted in one way or another. Things like BLK clips deleted, original edit clips deleted, duplicates of tracks deleted etc and sometimes the EDL just bore no relation to what was happening!!)
BUT now with Matchbox, it's abilities are so advanced that you can re-conform with just and old and new picture file (no EDL required). To be fair, Conformalizer also did this, but you were restricted to a QuickTime, which the client would sometimes not send. In addition, Matchbox has improved exponentially with its video matching algorithms.
So I ask production for an EDL made from the original (pre-cut) sequence WITH the original clips and 10-hour constant clip (a re-played back in picture will be perfect) Also a new AAF with any original (pre-cut) audio guides/stems as well as an AAF of ONLY additional material. Matchbox can then take all of this and make a re-cut far less stressful than it used to be!
KD: I take the EDL from the NLE to create change list
RC: This depends entirely on the scope of the re-conform. Some re-conforms might be simple enough to do ‘by hand’, that is, simply cutting and changing in Pro Tools. However, whatever the re-conform methodology, preparation prior to turnover to the sound department is the most important step. It is also the step that Sound has the least control over (i.e. no control over at all) but it is also the step that is most fraught with the potential for mistakes.
Change lists or EDL’s seem to be a mysterious creature for (especially younger) video editors & assistant editors these days. This is a problem because, even if I’m doing a conform 'by hand’ in Pro Tools, I want to see a list of everything that’s changed. But we refuse to re-conform without at least a paper change list.
The scope of the conform is determined so that we can decide on a software-tools-vs-‘manual’ re-conform. Usually, we can determine the scope by looking at the change list (see Item 1 above).
If the re-conform is determined to be done by software instead of by hand, then we need a change list EDL from the picture editorial department. If they don’t have one or for some reason cannot provide one, then the Sound Department can generate one, provided we have access to the original EDL and the new one. From these, we create a difference EDL that Conformalizer or Matchbox can use as a change list EDL.
The scope of the conform will tell us the extent of creative work (editorial, mixing) that needs to be re-done. We prefer that the original sound editors/mixers be on the re-conform if at all possible so that no 're-learning’ of the project/episode is required.
The conform is executed either by hand or using Conformalizer/Matchbox.
Once the re-conform has been executed (by whichever method), new audio material - if any - is imported via supplied AAF from picture editorial and incorporated into the session (more on this later).
A sound editor will comb through all of the changed edits and any newly provided material and perform any smoothing that might be required. A sound editor will also add new SFX or subtract any now-superfluous SFX as required, and do the same for Music & SFX.
A junior re-recording mixer - or the original re-recording mixer (whoever is available according to scheduling) - will address all new or changed areas and pre dub as required.
The (hopefully, if available) original show re-recording mixer will mix the new material so that it matches the pre-existing material.
Depending on the show’s supervisory workflow, the new or changed sections may be reviewed by director/producer/showrunner, but usually not, especially now with COVID restrictions, etc. We may provide a two-channel “Courtesy Cut” of the two-channel mix (or downmix from a higher-order channel format) so that show executives can review before we cut the printmaster.
We address any last notes from Production.
If the show had not already been print mastered, it is printmastered now, with all appropriate stems and channel configurations. If the show had already been printmastered - and, in some cases, already approved and delivered (more on this later), then we decide whether to re-printmaster the entire show of just punch-in on the pre-existing printmaster. We have an internal formula for this, calculated to take into account show length, the number of punch-ins required, the aggregate length of all punches combined according to overall show length, the number of stems (and which stems) we’re punching into, etc. For example, if it’s a 22 minute show (a “network half-hour” in the U.S.) and there are more than, say, seven punch points, which affect more than six minutes of material, we may simply re-printmaster the entire show. Every punch will need to be reviewed on multiple channel configurations and multiple stems, so this is taken into account by the re-recording mixer and a judgement made.
KP: When picture changes happen, I always request a new set of deliverables (Quicktime REF, OMF/AAF and an EDL or XML). Before importing any of the new material, I create a group with all the tracks I will want to conform (mainly for if I will be doing a hand-conform). I ALWAYS save the project before I dig in - usually v2 CONFORMING.
I then import the new QT/REF and label them both with the version in the track name. I then import the new OMF/AAF.
Now, if I am going to use Matchbox or EdiLoad, I let it do its thing. Once the conform is done (either manually or assisted, I make sure I am watching the new QT and un-mute the NEW guide audio and hard-pan it to the left speaker. I then (when time allows) watch down the show to make sure I didn't miss anything.
How do you make sure you have made all the necessary changes?
GK: I mix it! So I know that it's all ok.
KD: Check each cut. Conformalizer places a Marker at each cut which is extremely helpful.
RC: There’s no way other than reviewing all changes ‘manually’, that is, reviewing each affected track & edit point for accuracy and then smoothing over what needs to be smoothed over. The problem is that, once an issue is found, a culprit needs to be identified. Is it an issue from the newly provided AAF? Is it ‘pilot error’? Did the video technician simply output the wrong NLE timeline (this happens A LOT)? Is it an import or data error caused by Pro Tools or an export or data error caused by the NLE in question? AAFs behave differently depending on the NLE in question as well as NLE versions, etc. (as previously described).
KP: You have to be diligent about checking a re-conform. Even the best tools will sometimes miss a few things. Personally, after a conform, I start by checking all of the edits. Once I finish conforming, I will typically watch down the show with the new guide track panned hard left. If I hear a clear difference between the center and left channels, it will clue me into something being off.
Do you have any guidance documents you provide editors for what you require from them to achieve a pain-free reconform?
GK: I've found sending instructions to be in-effective and as I work for the same clients a lot they now seem to have worked out a way that works for both of us. So no - I don't send anything. If it's a new client who is having trouble I tend to phone them up and talk them through it.
KD: I’ve never needed one as editors I work with are professionals.
KP: Pain free - don’t change picture, ha! With the release of Matchbox, this has become a lot easier. An AAF from Media Composer or a FCP XML from Premiere. See my Delivery spec sheet, item 3 from each NLE.
If so would you be prepared to share them with the Pro Tools Expert community?
GK: I've not used this yet (it's so new) but I may send them this Letter to The Editor courtesy of The Cargo Cult.
KD: There are editor guides available from the Conformalizer website.
KP: See my Delivery Spec Sheet, item 3 from each NLE. I also get into the habit of sharing The Cargo Cult’s “Letter to the Editor,” which is a great guide that covers all NLEs:
Anything else on reconforming that you would like to share on reconforming?
GK: When it comes to non-technical clients (maybe the producer etc) they seem to get the idea that a re-conform takes all of 5 minutes. If I'm talking to them I'll gently let them know that this isn't going to be the case. I find that re-conforms that are re-versions generally get under-booked so if there's one episode I'll take the hit, but if it's a series, I do one episode and let production know what it really took before starting the others.
With regard to Multi-Channel vs Stereo, 5.1 can take way more time than 2.0 because generally (for reality TV and documentaries) there's not too much crazy panning around in 2.0, but in 5.1 (for me anyway) there is. So every cut in 2.0 is generally fine to fix but in 5.1 the panning jumps around like crazy, and over dozens and dozens of individual tracks that's a lot to fix.
I recently did a series in 5.1 with LOTS of panning and tracks that got re-versioned and the episode with the least cuts had 211 !!! - EVERY-BLOODY-CUT had to be fixed in terms of edit AND panning. Took ages, but the client thought that all I had to do was press a magic button and it would take me 30 minutes! erm, nope.
KD: Matchbox looks like the tool we’ve all been wishing for.
RC: It’s fashionable these days for audio post-production people to complain about the lack of picture lock. However, the extent of the situation never ceases to amaze me. The absence of picture lock has been creeping in for decades, and there was a point where we could anticipate that the lower-end a given project - so-called “Indy” films, or ‘B/C’ television - would come back over and over with ever-more minor picture editorial changes. This is no longer the case, as we all know (and I know that I’m preaching to the converted here).
However, I must relate an experience I’ve had with a major network that has made me rethink the whole issue. I came up starting in the mid-1980s (’84 to be exact). Picture lock was a thing and a sacred thing at that. To say that this has changed would be laughably inadequate.
I recently sound-supervised and mixed on a reality show (“lightly scripted” in the newer industry parlance) with a considerable number of half-hour (22 minute) episodes. We had already mixed 16 episodes, 14 of which, had been approved & delivered, and the first 10 had already aired. It was at this point that the network (bless them) called for recuts on all but five episodes. They cut the two-minute opening - heretofore identical for all episodes - down to 55 seconds - but now with each opening unique to its episode. They completely recut Act 4 (the last 3-4 minutes of each episode) for all episodes, and made miscellaneous smaller changes to one of the other three acts in the episodes.
And they called this a “re-conform.” After 10 episodes had already aired.
What we received in terms of new materials was:
A new AAF for the opening sequence;
A new AAF for the new Act 4 (from a different picture editor than had cut the new opening);
A new picture file;
A short change list for the few new edits (if any) elsewhere in the show. In other words, for each 22 minute episode, they had changed 5-6 minutes - so, between 25% and 33% of every episode was either changed or new.
So, is this a re-conform? Is it a whole new show? Are they paying for a re-edit or a remix or both? A whole new set of deliverables? (It’s all of the above, but they didn’t want to hear that, of course, because that sounds expensive LOL). Network & producers seemed to believe that sound should just follow the new picture edits, throw in the new material and that would be it. The depth of their misunderstanding, or misapprehension, is shocking to me.
Our challenge was to go through the first few recut episodes to make the determination as to whether to keep as much of our original edit & mix work for the opening and Act 4 or to just start from scratch. In the end, we started from scratch for the opening and Act 4, primarily because those changed sections included new SFX and Music. Acts one, two and three just needed to be moved earlier on the timeline. So it was a matter of adding the new picture, doing the conform ‘by hand’, deleting the original opening and Act 4, then importing the new AAFs, then finally recutting and remixing the new or changed 25%-33% of the episode.
In conclusion: Picture lock? There’s no such thing anymore, we all have known this for a long while now. But the extent of the issue has clearly gotten out of hand.
KP: I feel it is important to have multiple tricks up your sleeve as a dialogue editor or supervisor. I use a combo of Matchbox, EdiLoad, Kraken and when needed, manually comparing OMFs or Guide tracks.
Podcast Extra Interview With Mike Wabro On Conforming & Re-conforming
We also have a podcast interview in which Mike Thornton and Mike Wabro discuss the issue of conforming and reconforming. We cover the following…
What is an EDL
The history of conforming
How do OMFs and AAFs relate to the conform workflow
What is the difference between conforming and re-conforming
Using Sounds In Sync EdiLoad
In Conclusion
It’s a shame that ‘Picture Lock’ is a thing of the past, but realistically it is not going to come back and so tools to help us not lose the valuable work we have done on a project when the picture edit changes are a necessary part of the audio post-production toolkit. For most of our Expert panel, it would seem that Matchbox from The Cargo Cult is very much the new tool to beat when it comes to re-conforming.