In fact, it was Leva’s “Star Wars” project that served as both catalyst and guinea pig for Digital Service Station. “It was the exact job that got me decided to push through our new model,” says Curren, “and a perfect example of the problems many editors have.”

Leva completed offline editing on Final Cut Pro, then brought his work to Alpha Dogs for online, including up-res (transfer to higher-resolution video), graphics and color correction.

Curren explains the snags they hit. “The tapes were stored on inexpensive FireWire drives,” he says, “and we were re-digitizing them at high resolution. But we kept having problems with the images lining up — the timecodes were off by a few frames. We had to go through every tape to make the shots match the offline.”

The process, notes Curren, was tedious — and unnecessary. “It was ridiculous that we had to manually slide all those shots back in, to get them in sync,” he sighs. “What a waste of time. I mean, you’re using software on computers. It’s supposed to be accurate!”

The Quest for Frame-Accuracy

Eager to improve his workflow, Curren did some homework. “I researched the whole process of digitizing over FireWire,” he says, “and I found that while it’s efficient for most uses, for professionals at the highest level it is not the most frame-accurate way to digitize. For the typical homemade wedding DVD it may not matter that you have a few timecode inconsistencies. But with pro-level online editing that’s destined for high-res video or film, it had better be right.”

“We’re aiming to be the Kinko’s of digitizing. After they’ve done offline editing, they can bring their tapes back for online. We make sure everything matches.”

Curren explains how the inconsistencies crop up. “Some of it is because each manufacturer implements FireWire a little differently. And there may even be variations between products — such as cameras — from the same manufacturer.” Too, he says, the way FireWire must prioritize packets of video, audio and timecode information so they can share a single wire means all three don’t always track exactly right.

“In the traditional linear world,” Curren adds, “all those bugs were worked out a long time ago. We used the RS 4:2:2 standard for converting video and audio and timecode, and it’s a locked, age-old standard for machine control. When you had that and a high-end deck, your frame accuracy was guaranteed. We just took it for granted that everything would match.”

The Kinko’s of Digitizing

“With the availability of affordable software like Final Cut Pro,” explains Curren, “more and more independent editors and small producers — like Gary Leva — can afford to set up their own shops.”

His goal is to provide them with the rock-solid reliability of the old machine standard. “We want to bring the playing field back to what we’re used to, so that when you go to higher resolution the work you did offline matches the online version.”

Editors can accomplish the higher-end transfers themselves, of course, if they have the right equipment. But, says Curren, “each show they work on may require a different format — beta, Digibeta, SD, HD, Panasonic. And each of these requires its own deck, which can cost from $10,000 to $100,000 plus the deck link cards. So small shops can’t possibly afford to own every platform.

“And even if they do have some decks and cards, not all editors have the technical skills to be sure it will come out perfect. So we thought, how do editors get their tapes into their editing system?”

Curren’s solution was to establish the one-stop service to capture clients’ tapes to Final Cut Pro (or another program) for editing. “We hand them the drive with the data all ready to go and they can just start cutting,” he says.

“We’re aiming to be the Kinko’s of digitizing. Then, after they’ve done their offline editing, they can bring their tapes back to us for online. We make sure everything matches and they get peace of mind knowing it’s done right.”

A Changing Environment

Curren notes that his company is responding to a changing film editing environment. First, more editors started turning to Final Cut Pro. “Two years ago,” he says, “Avid was the only kid in town. The attitude was, ‘Of course we use Avid — they do it right.’ But now the thrust is definitely towards Final Cut Pro.”

He continues, “We started looking at Final Cut because so many of our clients were using it. I’m seeing the swing in that direction all around town. And if you’re doing your offline editing in Final Cut, it just makes sense to online in Final Cut too. That’s why we’re getting so many Final Cut projects now. That’s where the buzz is.”