Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.

[Chris Harlan] "Frankly, Jeremy, I generally find your tempered assessment of FCP X's virtues far more insightful and useful than PH's. No disrespect to PH; I just think he's gotten himself caught up in a whirlwind as an evangelist/apologist, and it is perhaps difficult for him to get perspective.""

[Jeremy Garchow] "Ha! I'm just a rather blogless dude who edits outside of Hollywood. Don't listen to me!!! ;-D Thank you, though."

I'll second Chris's statement.

I doubt I'd still be following this forum if it weren't for you and your contributions, Jeremy -- so thanks again for sharing your perspective. It is very valuable.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I do see where Philip is coming from, and he took it directly from real working editors talking about their jobs and the newer pressures within. This idea of having less time to do more is not from Philip, but from "the industry". I think he's rather balanced saying that it's not for everyone, but does seem to explain at least some of the FCPX approach."

Unfortunately, I don't think the time pressure the editors at Editors' Lounge discuss in the Vimeo links can be solved only with technology. I'd encourage everyone to actually watch (or listen to) to the video series that PH linked to. I don't think that his pro-FCPX response actually addresses the challenges that the editors raised.

Shooting ratios are up. Schedules are down. This is a terrible combination. Editors are expected to make good stories, but they have less time to review more footage. They are forced into making snap decisions about what shots to use and how to use them.

Sure, being able to skip transcode is good. Being able to tag footage so you could find it later would be good -- if there were time for that in the first place, which there isn't.

As much as I love the skimmer and metadata, even a perfectly implemented NLE will not watch your footage for you in the first place, and that's where the time crunch is hitting.

Another issue that PH seems to think that FCPX solves is that no one knows how to watch a rough cut anyone, so editors have to waste time unnecessarily polishing a work-in-progress. Whatever temp "finishing" (again, I'd call this veneering) work is done in the rough cut will be thrown out when the cut gets to the audio department or the colorist. Every minute that a creative editor spends doing temporary and fake finishing work for the sake of the rough cut is a minute taken away from their actual job, which is building the story. Whether you're on a compressed schedule or not, not letting the creative editor do their job is a real tragedy that reduces the quality of the final product.

I'll spare Bill from having to remind us about how many videos will never see dedicated audio or finishing post. While I don't disagree, I think the same problem exists here, too: if you're on a compressed schedule and you're doing finishing work before the piece is finished, you risk wasting time finishing pieces that will end up on the cutting room floor, and that time might have been better spent actually editing.

Back to this "FCPX is 200% to 400% faster" idea, supported by the notion that you can finish within the context of the edit, even Autodesk only claims that Smoke is 35% faster. They also actually back up the claim with some data [link].

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events