Timeline Analog 3. John Buck

online editing proved to be an asset. Confident that there as a digital solution to the UI, the two men believed that video cards and frame stores could dispense with the need for a keyboard and timecode to guide edit decisions. Schuler recalls:

       After the session we both became excited about this totally new approach to designing a video editing system, that was less a keyboard directed machine controller more graphical user friendly editing station adapted to the editor’s needs. The problem with existing editing systems was that the designers kept accommodating the existing technologies and their method was to make systems that made it easier for editors to access the technology without asking the question.

      Is this the best way to use technology to assist the editor or would we better off, starting again?We wanted to radically shift the perspective from concentration on the machine activity and final Assembly quality, to the aesthetic and practical requirements of the editing process itself and have the editing system compile all of the necessary Edit Decision List (EDL) or film cut list information for a semi automated final Assembly process for any media.

      The two men astutely realised that although videotape was replacing film in television production, it had tactile shortcomings. The editor could not 'see' the material he or she was editing unless they had electronic equipment, whereas their flatbed counterparts could feel and see film through their gloved hands. This they contended had 'dampened in some respects the creative talents of the director'.

      Added to this fact was that editorial companies needed to employ non-editing personnel such as technicians or engineers to handle the workflow of video editing. Barker and Schuler contended later in their patents, that this inability to "react to the temporal nature of the media" was another hurdle to overcome.

      They believed the new picture processor device could lessen the reliance on intermediate personnel, speed up the process and solve the time-space problem inherent in video editing. The two men sketched out a plan for the project which included of the following:

      Ability to accept video, film, audio, timecode and film frame information for editing and output.

      Secure “picture labels” or frame images for the beginning and end of all clips.

      Provide multiple storage locations (bins) for organizing clips in logical groups for rapid random access retrieval in any order during the editing session.

      Provision for a scrolling display of multiple image pairs representing beginning and end timecode locations (time code display could be turned on or off) any group of clips or any edited sequence of clips synchronous with or independent from audio.

      Instant preview of any selected clip or selected sequence of clips.

      Insertion of wipes, dissolves, fades or cuts of any length at any transition.

      Complete freedom to change, rearrange and instantly view the result.

      Create a clean EDL or Film Frame Cut List for final semi-automated Assembly when the editing session is finished.

      Barker and Schuler knew that if these criteria could be implemented in the product they could revolutionize the industry. Their electronic editing system was to have the ability to change editorial decisions instantly, use pictures rather than time code as the cue for decisions and allow the editor to instantly view his/her decisions in real time. No more re-recording, dubbing, or losing generational picture quality.

      Despite the richness of the idea, Barker was worried.

       First, I suspected that Ralph Guggenheim’s team was already trying to solve the same problem. Second, if we wanted to continue this project, it would require further seed money to allow us to flesh out and test our product design concepts as well as develop a business plan so that we could acquire major funding to finance the team and resources to develop, build and market the product. It was winter and I had run out of heating oil from lack of funds.

      Bob Doris was now General Manager of the Computer Division at Lucasfilm:

       Greber and Faxon were charged with running Lucasfilm, not just the Computer Division which accounted for around 10% of the employees when there were no films in production and in single digits when films were staffed up.The other point worth noting that nobody in management was a technologist and nobody working on the projects had a grounding in business.

       It was an interesting recipe! and in the early days a lot of fun and very interesting and I guess fascinating to see where we were headed. I was naive enough to think it was possible! My arrival was met with different levels of enthusiasm around the group!. But in general Ed Catmull and all of the leadership group was quite happy to have me around and seemed to get happier as I understood them.

       Because I had been told “don’t ruffle feathers, keep them excited, keep them developing great stuff”.

      INCOTERM

      Ron Barker’s quest for seed money lead to many dead end interviews with potential 'angels' before he stumbled upon the Boston based scientist and engineer Jean Tariot. Tariot had recently sold Incoterm, the computer company he had started with Maurice Upton.

       Jean Tariot was in the middle of a holiday in France when his name was suggested to us, so we had to wait patiently until he returned to pitch the system but it was worth it. He loved the idea so he contributed $60,000 for 20% of the company. Tariot not only put in money but with his technology experience he told us what was missing from our business plans and financial forecasting. And cleaned up my act for me!

      Schuler recalls:

       He was intrigued enough with our concept to provide the initial funding of $60k, that we needed. He also became the chairman of our board and was primarily responsible for securing the full funding that allowed us to bring our concept to fruition.

      Tariot introduced Barker to William (Bill) Field from Prudential Insurance Company of America who had previously bankrolled Tariot’s Incoterm. Field invited Ron Barker to pitch the idea to him.

       I told Bill Field that for $1m, I would prove the system worked and get ten initial orders within 12 months of us starting. After a one hour pitch he said: "I will take all but not less than half". He invested and promised us another $1.5m if we hit the target.

      The new company to build a next generation editing device was formed.

      The Video Composition Corporation (VCC) received its first round of funding in mid-November 1982. Ron Barker recalls the enormity of the task:

       We had $1m and a goal to make a working prototype and close ten sales in 12 months. That was the trigger for more funds to build a new visual editing system. Before there was the Mac, before DOS and certainly way before affordable hard drives. I asked Chet if he could get us a deal on a Masscomp computer because of his association with them and we would use that to create an editing simulator.

      Barker and Schuler then settled on a plan of action. It was a list that dominated their lives for the next year, laid out in point form about what their editing system (previous page) should be capable of.

      *Multiple picture frame [image] presentation at all times including past, present and subsequent shot/scene transitions with picture [image] used as the frame label for all decision making.

      *Continuous picture [video sequence] looping for repetitive transition or scene presentation with real-time dynamic control of transition points and form [type] of each transition.

      *Hands-on control wheels that allow all [editing] decisions to be made without moving the hands or looking away from the picture [video sequence] display of the material being composed.

      *Automatic transition, shot, scene and story Assembly with total flexibility to insert, add, or delete material at any time and rapid