Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE FINAL CUT PRO:HomeFCP ForumFCP XFCPX TechniquesFCP TutorialsFC ServerBasics ForumPodcastFAQ

Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Bill DavisOlympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 12, 2012 at 6:07:29 am

Since so many good editors hang out here, I wanted to mention a post I just put up in Art of the Edit.

I was reading social media and saw two stories that caught my eye about video editing in the Olympics. One taking NBC to task for an edited piece - and another praising an effort from the BBC.

Clearly the NBC thing is something they realized (sadly after the fact) that they should not have released and have since pulled from their sites.

OTOH, the BBC's piece is pretty impressive. (controversial content, but the editing is outstanding, IMO)

This isn't to trash NBC which has done plenty of great editing during the games. It's to note that these stories are out in general circulation and part of the reason they are succeeding or failing is how they were constructed in the edit suite.

I'd be interested in hearing what everyone here thinks.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bernard NewnhamRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 12, 2012 at 9:51:54 am

I think maybe the first thing anyone is going to ask is - please link to the edits.

B


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Paul DickinRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 12, 2012 at 10:33:56 am

Hi

Here's Bill's links:
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/27/860446

The BBC item is a cut-down rework of an excellent Channel 4 TV one hour documentary analysis of the subject, dealing with the subject in some scientific depth, presented by Michael Johnson (200m gold at Atlanta in 1996). I speculate that Johnson brought the subject to the notice of senior BBC editoral staff covering the Olympics.

Johnson was in the presentation studio when the BBC aired this item - his comment was that although 90-something percent of the population of Jamaica carry the 'sprint' gene, 8% of the human race in general also have the gene, so, for those 8%, 'nurture' (ie training) could produce a sprint performance comparable to descendants of the slave trade.

Johnson has been one of the lead in-vision commentators during the Athletics coverage - I speculate the VO of this cut-down was modeled on the delivery of Michael's original reading, he being otherwise occupied with his in-vision stuff.

Here's what the original sounded like ;-)








Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 12, 2012 at 10:50:54 am

That NBC piece is unbelievable, surely it was a "private" edit that somehow got shown?

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bernard NewnhamRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 12, 2012 at 5:15:04 pm

Looked like a lot of shots of women athletes to me, pulled together from the OBS pool footage. I think if someone had set out to shoot pervy stuff they could have done a lot better than that. In fact, just wandering near the various venues in the London parks the other day I could have done much better than that.

Of course, I didn't stand a chance of getting an actual ticket to the women's beach volleyball, as it was one of the most popular on the games. Can't think why.

As for the "does Usain Bolt have sprint genes" film - well made stuff asking a perfectly sensible question.

I didn't find either film especially emotionally charged, but I live near London, and maybe we just think differently. London is one of the most culturally and racially diverse cities in the world, and the women in the parks in summer don't necessarily wear a lot. AND you can get a good meal from anywhere in the world just by walking down the street.

Bernie


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 12, 2012 at 7:40:27 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "I didn't find either film especially emotionally charged, "

Just for the record, I posted this primarily in "Art of the Edit" because that's where I sometimes interact with relatively young editors who are interested in exploring what differentiates between "competent editing" and "excellent editing" - so this wasn't ever mean as a commentary on anything but how two different editors approached their work and how one "cut" resulted in a lot of negative commentary - and the other - quite a bit or praise.

The subject matters addressed will obviously cause many to look at content over craft. But if you can get past that - the skill with which the different editing jobs were done is pretty clear, to my eye at least.

To now learn that the BBC effort was a re-edit of a longer program is even (to my thinking at least) even more impressive - following the idea that it's often (but not always) more difficult to express complex ideas briefly.

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 12, 2012 at 7:57:21 pm

The BBC just broadcast an AWESOME film just before the closing ceremony, I'll post a link when I can

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Michael SandersRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 12, 2012 at 9:29:08 pm

Weird that the BBC showed a cut down of a C4 doc that only aired about a month ago...

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 12, 2012 at 10:49:15 pm

[Michael Sanders] "Weird that the BBC showed a cut down of a C4 doc that only aired about a month ago..."

Why?

They had potential massive new interest in a current-event related topic - but not the luxury of a huge block of time in which to show the entire original.

So they needed to EDIT it.

And brought professional editing skills to the table to enable just that.

Isn't that essentially the soul of our entire discipline?

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Michael SandersRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 12, 2012 at 10:58:48 pm

Its just a bit strange Bill that's why.

Over here (i.e. in the UK) unless its news material it's very rare to get material originally shown on one of the commercial channels rebroadcast on the BBC. There's the 90's news access agreement but this was outside that. Interestingly C4 only have the rights to show it for 30 days on 4OD (their on demand site) and no secondary broadcast rights.

Sorry, just pondering really. As I say not normal for the UK.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 13, 2012 at 3:46:27 pm

[Bill Davis] "Clearly the NBC thing is something they realized (sadly after the fact) that they should not have released and have since pulled from their sites."

You can see what the Bodies in Motion could have been from a couple of shots - like the group of hurdlers clearing the bar. Unfortunately it fell into the hands of a horny post adolescent with an ass crack fetish - why not just cut it to "You can Leave You Hat On" and be done with it.

Cutting images to music is the easiest type of cutting there is - if the pix are interesting and the music is good, even Randy Ubillos can come up with something interesting. It was actually quite an achievement to come up with something so dull and shoddy.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Bobby MoscaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 14, 2012 at 4:00:53 am

I have to agree with Herb. There's nothing special about NBCs T&A clip. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it. I loved it!! (I had to explain on FB to a few friends that elite athletes are extremely attractive. Elite athletes in slow motion is a gift from God.) But... I think any of us could have put together a much better montage, regardless of how you define 'better'.

The BBC clips are good. I'm more impressed with Michael Johnson's VO than anything, though. Very well done.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Aindreas GallagherRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 14, 2012 at 9:41:57 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Cutting images to music is the easiest type of cutting there is"

amen, and for my sins, when not scripting promos, or doing something more useful, I do raaather a lot of that for peeps. it feels nakedly simple.

here's venue cut for the Olympics at the mall - most of the other cuts were chasing the races themselves, which is peculiarly nerve-wracking - you can't let your editing slip more than 15-20 minutes behind realtime because the highlights have to go out straight after the medal ceremony. this one largely got cut late evening prior and between 6-9 am before the mens marathon as a wrap up before the final event. insane amount of footage to trawl through in the time mind you. (also we had oodles of intermittent dirty graphics feed) annd I totally messed up the shot interplay timing before the race kick off. drives me nuts now. also there were vehement baby directives. which I'm fine with in retrospect.







http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 14, 2012 at 10:25:24 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "insane amount of footage to trawl through in the time mind you. (also we had oodles of intermittent dirty graphics feed)"

The skimmer, favorites, and keyword ranges might have been nice to have...

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 14, 2012 at 10:36:45 pm

The skimmer is simply the fastest way to get through lots of footage on any NLE that exists today. It's my favourite feature in FCPX

The hover scrub in PPro CS6 doesn't come close.

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 14, 2012 at 10:57:39 pm

[Steve Connor] "The skimmer is simply the fastest way to get through lots of footage on any NLE that exists today. It's my favourite feature in FCPX"

I don't ordinarily have to go searching thru tons of un-scripted shots so excuse my ignorance but what's the big deal with skimming? Select all your shots and throw it on a timeline - takes 5 seconds. Save the timeline and duplicate it - takes 5 seconds. Now run the mouse up and down the timeline as fast as you want and look at the viewer. Mark away, cut away, do what you want - what does the skimmer have that I've been missing all these years?

I've never said to myself while editing - gee I wish there was a way to go faster when I'm looking thru my clips. There are many features I have wished for, "un-lift" being the most prominent, but never once have I ever felt that I couldn't view my clips fast enough. Often I haven't been able to make smart decisions fast enough, if at all, but simple viewing never slowed me down.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 14, 2012 at 11:26:59 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I've never said to myself while editing - gee I wish there was a way to go faster when I'm looking thru my clips. There are many features I have wished for, "un-lift" being the most prominent, but never once have I ever felt that I couldn't view my clips fast enough. Often I haven't been able to make smart decisions fast enough, if at all, but simple viewing never slowed me down.
"


Yeah. I'd like to know, too. I get that's its nice to have something like the skimmer in your bin/clip area, but I find timeline skimming quite satisfying. Let's forget about one experience being a timeline and one not, what makes the skimming tool superior to skimming in the timeline? This is a serious question, btw--not rhetorical. I'd really like to know why.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 14, 2012 at 11:46:11 pm

me too. Isn't the point that you can simply term a sequence a skimmable selects area - as you lift the selects to v2? I rather love nuking the V1 carcass at the end. although collapse all gaps would be a great feature request, if the software wasn't eol.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:08:31 am

Yes of course it's lovely to have your selects in a timeline and that's still how I work in FCPX, but in my experience the skimmer gets me those selects quicker, especially on the long form projects I do. it's when you inevitably have to go back to rushes that it saves me a lot of time.

Of course I'm just saying it's faster based on my experience using the software for the last year, my method of working before FCPX may not have been as efficient as some of you, so it might just be helping to make up for my poor workflow

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:24:48 am

[Steve Connor] "it's when you inevitably have to go back to rushes that it saves me a lot of time."

That's why I said to copy the assembly timeline and do your work in the copy. The original master assembly timeline is always there for when you want to go back to view all your material. This was not a FCP7 workflow, this is how I worked in *edit as well.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:33:11 am

steve baby, I barely have a workflow, or an editors union card. I was supposed to be a graphic designer of some description.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:08:09 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "steve baby, I barely have a workflow, or an editors union card. I was supposed to be a graphic designer of some description."

and I'm an Editor who ends up doing graphic design, I think it might work better your way round!

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:28:18 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "collapse all gaps would be a great feature request, if the software wasn't eol."

Indeed, I would gladly trade collapse all gaps plus "unlift" for the magnetic timeline and the skimmer - and if I Knew X better I could probably throw in some other features as well.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:43:45 am

I'm going to get yelled at, but so be it.

Here's the difference. Presuming that you didn't have to render anything first (not EVER required in X but still so sometimes in Legacy)

In Legacy, the only place you can "skim" stuff is in a timeline. So you have to build a new project and populate it's timeline as step one. . So you do. Then you "skim" and mark in's and outs or make your actual cuts - however you like.

THEN when you're ready to edit that stuff, you have to make any cuts you didn't at first, and delete the clips you don't want. This leaves a timeline with HOLES. So you have to go back and delete the gaps.

Then you have a rough cut.

It's a fine process and it works great.

But not compared to X.

In X you skim in the Event Browser. You don't need to "Cut" anything at all. You just mark in's and outs the same as X, (or you can use the Range tool to select them in a single stroke - and tag them. You can do this by omission (mark rejected) or by inclusion (mark Favorite) as you like.

Then when you show favorites (if you've marked that) you just drag those clips to a new timeline and you're done. You've pre-edited your selects without every having to razor blade or "delete" anything.

It removes an entire necessary step - gap selection and deletion.

Finally, (and IMO, this is a big deal) the next time you go to USE those selects, all your prior decisions are there waiting for you. So you don't have to close whatever you're doing and open your old project and "skim through" any junk to find the decisions you've already made. You've ALREADY done that and X has saved all those decisions and is making them available to you for other projects whenever you need them.

Sorry, but this is faster and more convenient if you need to work on multiple projects. If all you EVER do is work one project at a time - and you NEVER want to go grab a clip from an old project and use it in a new one. It's only a moderate time saver. But it's a timesaver none the less. But if you decide to change how you think about edit decision storage and USE the new capability to start to build libraries of opens, clips, titles, sounds or whatever, every time you work in the EB you're automatically building a library of decisions that you can grab and use from that point on.

So X gets BETTER the more you use it. Because it's storing all your old work and making it available for new projects.

That's a big deal

In hindsight, I didn't realize how useful a place like the Event Browser would be when I didn't have it. Now, the basic concept - do useful editing work once and the program stores all those decisions in a place ready for me to re-use that work - is a BETTER system than I had in Legacy.

My 2 cents.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1


Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 1:58:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'm going to get yelled at, but so be it."

No yelling Bill, just a few points.

[Bill Davis] "In Legacy, the only place you can "skim" stuff is in a timeline."

And in the viewer window if you grab the CTI, which means you can take any clip in the browser, double click it into the viewer and skim away, setting in and out points and markers to your hearts content. Admittedly, skimming is easier than grabbing the CTI, but not much easier.

[Bill Davis] "So you have to build a new project and populate it's timeline as step one. . So you do. Then you "skim" and mark in's and outs or make your actual cuts - however you like.
THEN when you're ready to edit that stuff, you have to make any cuts you didn't at first, and delete the clips you don't want. This leaves a timeline with HOLES. So you have to go back and delete the gaps. "


That's one way. How about this. You populate the master timeline - 5 seconds. You copy the timeline - 5 seconds. Now in this second timeline you set your first in-point at the beginning and skim along till you find something you like. Now set your outpoint and ripple delete, getting rid of what you don't want. Keep skimming till you get to the end of the clip you like, set your next in point and continue. No holes, no gaps, by the time you have skimmed and marked your selects the rough cut is there and ready to go. Now I would still love to have Aindreas's "delete all gaps command" which would allow either way of working, but this works pretty well for me.

[Bill Davis] "In X you skim in the Event Browser. You don't need to "Cut" anything at all. You just mark in's and outs the same as X, (or you can use the Range tool to select them in a single stroke - and tag them. You can do this by omission (mark rejected) or by inclusion (mark Favorite) as you like.

Then when you show favorites (if you've marked that) you just drag those clips to a new timeline and you're done. You've pre-edited your selects without every having to razor blade or "delete" anything.

It removes an entire necessary step - gap selection and deletion."


I don't see the difference between marking an in-and-out or cutting an in-and-out or selecting a range - the time consuming part is watching the material and deciding where the beginning and end of useful info is. As I've already demonstrated you can avoid gap deletion in Legend if you want to. Furthermore I personally like to have the material laid out consecutively left to right, as in a timeline - probably habit from my old days cutting film - I find the idea of searching and jumping between picons in a browser very disjointed. But that's just personal preference.

[Bill Davis] "Finally, (and IMO, this is a big deal) the next time you go to USE those selects, all your prior decisions are there waiting for you. So you don't have to close whatever you're doing and open your old project and "skim through" any junk to find the decisions you've already made. You've ALREADY done that and X has saved all those decisions and is making them available to you for other projects whenever you need them."

This is a good point although it has nothing whatever to do with skimming. It can be a strength of X that you have all your material loaded at one time. Those same decisions are saved in Legend, or Avid or any other NLE but you have to open the project they were cut in. Of course this strength doesn't help if you have multiple competing clients, where you are using one of the many techniques discussed here of hiding assets when you don't want Coke to see that Pepsi was there yesterday. So if you don't have multiple competing clients and you have figured out a proper labeling methodology to know where all your pertinent data is I agree this is very valuable. It is also totally off subject, which was Steve Connor's statement that "The skimmer is simply the fastest way to get through lots of footage on any NLE that exists today."

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/40252

The subject was skimming specifically, not X as a asset manager. On that subject I have nothing to say, having no experience to go on. Nowadays I only intrude when people make unsubstantiated grandiose claims that can't be backed up.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:30:33 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Furthermore I personally like to have the material laid out consecutively left to right, as in a timeline - probably habit from my old days cutting film - I find the idea of searching and jumping between picons in a browser very disjointed. But that's just personal preference."

You are not locked to viewing clips as picons. Have you seen the browser's filmstrip view? It's both spatial and visual.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:34:28 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Have you seen the browser's filmstrip view? It's both spatial and visual."

when you skim to the end of clip 1 does it automatically take you to clip 2?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:45:43 pm

[Herb Sevush] "when you skim to the end of clip 1 does it automatically take you to clip 2?"

If you turn off grouping in the browser, yes; the filmstrips will be placed back to back and you can skim across them as if they were a single unit. They will still be separate clips and you can't define a range across them.

However, you could select multiple clips, compound them (all in the browser alone), and then skim and edit from it as a literal single clip (while retaining the ability to open and edit the compound's timeline).

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:54:03 pm

Walter, the compound clip thingy sounds like it would work for me. But this is all pretty much off the original point of this sub-thread, which was discussing the Steve Connor claim that:

"The skimmer is simply the fastest way to get through lots of footage on any NLE that exists today."

I've asked for backup on that claim and I don't think from what I've read that it is justified. I hear you when you say the skimmer is an excellent feature, I don't doubt that if I tried it I would come to love it, I just don't think it justifies the claim that it is the fastest way to get thru lots of footage. I guess someone will have to set up a logging test between various apps to prove that point.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:04:17 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I've asked for backup on that claim and I don't think from what I've read that it is justified."


Herb,


You didn't see the chart.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/40043#40069


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:32:18 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "You didn't see the chart."

Ah yes, the chart. Now I understand. Apparently it is faster. My bad.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:40:06 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Ah yes, the chart. Now I understand. Apparently it is faster. My bad.
"


I have taken Herbs comments into account and I have updated the chart



Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:58:58 pm

[Steve Connor] "I have taken Herbs comments into account and I have updated the chart"

It just keeps getting better and better, and by better, I mean more accurate.

Good show. Submit it to Google for further data analysis.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:06:31 pm

It should be stated that "in your opinion, or your experience, or from your point of view, etc ... no Cheetah's were harmed" before I would approve this revision.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:10:55 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I've asked for backup on that claim and I don't think from what I've read that it is justified. I hear you when you say the skimmer is an excellent feature, I don't doubt that if I tried it I would come to love it, I just don't think it justifies the claim that it is the fastest way to get thru lots of footage. I guess someone will have to set up a logging test between various apps to prove that point."

I can skim through every single frame of every single clip in my event without loading the clips into a viewer or using a keyboard modifier, how is there actually a faster way to look through footage?

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:18:54 pm

[Steve Connor] "I can skim through every single frame of every single clip in my event without loading the clips into a viewer or using a keyboard modifier, how is there actually a faster way to look through footage?"

Don't project your claims on to me, I never said there was a faster way, I merely said that others were equally as fast. Since it takes hours, if not days to go thru "tons of clips" and it takes about 5 seconds to put them into a timeline before viewing, the claim that X "is simply" the fastest way to go thru tons of footage based on the negation of 5 seconds over the work of days is absurd. If that's it's only advantage, then there is no advantage.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:34:40 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I never said there was a faster way, I merely said that others were equally as fast. Since it takes hours, if not days to go thru "tons of clips" and it takes about 5 seconds to put them into a timeline before viewing, the claim that X "is simply" the fastest way to go thru tons of footage based on the negation of 5 seconds over the work of days is absurd. If that's it's only advantage, then there is no advantage."

From my perspective, the advantage of the skimmer is not in the mechanics of preparing selects; it's in shuttling through your selects while you're working, looking for that specific moment that you remember seeing in the footage.

Maybe you don't need the reminder, but when I was doing creative editorial every day, I was constantly scrubbing footage in my selects to jog my memory of what was available to me. I couldn't keep all of the clips in my head to know precisely where the shot I wanted was in my project without those mini-reviews along the way. This is where I see the skimmer really shining.

It wouldn't be helpful to me for my work now (finishing edits cut elsewhere or assembling animation/mograph edits), but I can see how this feature would have worked well for me a few years back.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:01:43 pm

[Walter Soyka] "From my perspective, the advantage of the skimmer is not in the mechanics of preparing selects; it's in shuttling through your selects while you're working, looking for that specific moment that you remember seeing in the footage."

This entire sub thread is based on Steve's assertion about X's superiority in preparing selects.

Walter I believe you when you say that the skimmer gives better feedback when searching thru material - I don't understand it, but I figure it's something I will have to try for myself to get. And I'm also quite interested in a lot of what Jeremy has to say about the many interesting attributes of X when it comes to searching for clips. If I ever try to work with X I will be quite disappointed if he hasn't written a tutorial by that time.

For me X will get a thorough look at when they come up with a time-code sync indicator that is in some way similar to Legend. This is now the last deal breaker for me and keeps me from evaluating PPro more thoroughly as well.

However it still irks me when people make unsubstantiated absolutest statements, whether it was Jerry Hoffman last week or Steve today.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:14:11 pm

[Herb Sevush] "However it still irks me"

Sometimes it's fun to be irksome

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:55:56 pm

It's fun for sure.

What I find amusing is that generally, the people who "push back" against X being faster - are those who don't operate it regularly.

Everyone I know who's a big X fan now - at least here - have used Legacy for a long time as well. So they have a basis to compare.

Those who are still pushing back against it - appear to be those who haven't gone through the learning curve as thoroughly.

Everyone knows I'm just a dumb a zealot. But taking me off the field. How do you cope with the fact that, the guys who are popping up singing X's praises now, are increasingly long time editors with lots of comparative experience.

Essentially, if you're trying to decide how good competing brands of cars are - don't you give slightly more weight to the opinions of those who have driven BOTH?

Just sayin'

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:02:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "
Essentially, if you're trying to decide how good competing brands of cars are - don't you give slightly more weight to the opinions of those who have driven BOTH?"


Bill,

Do you know of good comparisons between X, PPro, and Avid?

Did you do your comparison before deciding?

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:35:48 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Bill,

Do you know of good comparisons between X, PPro, and Avid?

Did you do your comparison before deciding?

Franz."


As to the first, no, I do not.

As I've long said here, I was perfectly happy with FCP Legacy so I used exclusively from April of 1999 when I bought it a week after it was introduced at NAB - until I switched to X. So my entire experience is comparing X to Legacy - which I used consistently on literally hundreds of paid videos over the past 10 years.

Others have to compare X to Avid or PPro - I simply have absolutely no expertise in them.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:06:23 pm

[Bill Davis] "Essentially, if you're trying to decide how good competing brands of cars are - don't you give slightly more weight to the opinions of those who have driven BOTH? "

The problem with that argument is that if you think something sucks your not going to try it for long enough to satisfy your definition of competency. There are many qualified editors who have tried X and think it's shit. Your argument is that they haven't tried it enough. Their argument is that shit is shit.

I'm the most neutral observer you can find. I've never tried X and openly admit I have no working knowledge of it. I merely ask that if someone makes extravagant claims that they back it up with some specific info. Walter and Jeremy have done that in a way that makes me more interested in exploring X when it's ready for my workflow. That all I ask, if your going to make a claim, explain the reasoning.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Bill DavisRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:38:13 pm

[Herb Sevush] "That all I ask, if your going to make a claim, explain the reasoning."

That is absolutely and totally reasonable.

I make the claim that X is a faster editing program than Legacy.

The reasoning is that I've personally edited hundreds of programs, long form, short form, commercials et al - many on deadline - in Legacy for more than 10 years. Now that I've learned X, I can get more work done much faster.

That's it in a nutshell.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 7:37:47 pm

[Bill Davis] "I make the claim that X is a faster editing program than Legacy."

This sentence is ludicrous as written.

I assure you if X were faster than Legacy for my workflow I would use X. Not only is it not faster for me, it's barely capable of functioning at all for me. I still do tape output, I occasionally still do tape input. All my material is organized by time code, I need to see source time code at every moment as I work - where's my time code sync indicator to keep my multi-clips in sync once I move the various elements around.

I almost never use anything other than ProRes and therefore don't care about X's ability to handle mixed codecs. My material is organized and named as we shoot in such a manner that I know precisely whats on a clip just by looking at the clip name - I don't need most of your data handling. I could go on and on about all the nifty things that X does that I don't need, and about some of the basic stuff that X doesn't do that I do need. How would X be faster for me? And if it's not faster for me how can you claim that "X is a faster editing program than Legacy" without qualify that statement.

[Bill Davis] The reasoning is that I've personally edited hundreds of programs, long form, short form, commercials et al - many on deadline - in Legacy for more than 10 years. Now that I've learned X, I can get more work done much faster.

That's it in a nutshell."


That's fine as far as it goes. For you X is faster than Legend. But that doesn't mean it would be faster for another editor and their workflow. With me for instance the lack of a time code sync indicator would slow me down beyond belief. So objectively there's no way one can make the statement "my NLE (put name here) is simply faster than any other NLE" without having tested out every possible workflow and we both know you have not bothered doing that.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 11:18:30 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Bill Davis] "I make the claim that X is a faster editing program than Legacy."

This sentence is ludicrous as written.
"


How would you know?

Your own post immediately above had this line...

"I'm the most neutral observer you can find. I've never tried X and openly admit I have no working knowledge of it."

So doesn't that make you singularly unqualified to argue the point since you don't have the actual experience to compare them?

I do. I have. And I stand by my contention. Anyone here is welcome to go down the same road I did. Take the time to learn X properly. Or simply ask the folks here who have.

There are more and more every day. Are you hearing "Heck, I took six months working with it regularly until I know how the darn thing really works - and in the end decided it was crap?"

But funny how I haven't heard that chorus of voices yet. Even tho there are probably a couple of million editors bashing around in X day by day.

What you're hearing is that even those for whom it's workflow isn't a perfect match, they're using it when they can because they can see it's value for a lot of tasks.

By your standard we should have heard from a litany of pros of all stripes who put it through serious paces and have come back to say that the whole experience was just a big waste of time.

But that's kinda NOT what's happening, is it? The more time people spend learning it, the more positive they seem to be about using it.

Imagine that...

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:02:08 am

[Bill Davis] "How would you know? "

I know because as I just detailed in the previous post there is no possible way X could be faster for any editor that needs both tape output and the ability to see time code sync indicators. Since it lacks both of those features completely it has zero, no, nada, null chance of being faster than Legend in my workflow. If it isn't faster in every regular workflow than by definition it can't be claimed as being "faster" without the qualification of "in such and such a workflow."

This is pretty basic reasoning here Bill. I agree that it's faster in your workflow, it might be faster in many workflows, it's possible, although I doubt it highly, that it is faster in most workflows, but it definitely ain't faster in all workflows. And since it isn't faster in all workflows than making the unqualified statement "X is faster than Legacy" is pure unsubstantiated BS.

What I've also said, but your too defensive to get it, is that no software that I'm aware of can lay the claim to being "Faster" than any other unless you specify the exact workflow. I'm not calling out X on this, I'm calling out the idea of anyone labeling any NLE software as generically and absolutely "The Fastest."

What's wrong with being happy to say it's faster than FCP7 for me, or just that it's lightning fast. Why are you so invested in being "the fastest?" Someone with a psychological bent might be using phrases like "overcompensating" - but I won't.

[Bill Davis] "Are you hearing "Heck, I took six months working with it regularly until I know how the darn thing really works - and in the end decided it was crap?""

If it's so fast than how come Jeremy ain't using it? How come Walter is using PPro? David Lawrence doesn't use it regularly, is it because he likes to edit slowly? Has Oliver Peters moved his business over to X?

I can't think of any professorial editor who would struggle with a new program for 6 weeks, let alone 6 months unless he had no other options, and there are plenty of other options. But since ease of use is one of X's calling cards this shouldn't be necessary.

[Bill Davis] "By your standard we should have heard from a litany of pros of all stripes who put it through serious paces and have come back to say that the whole experience was just a big waste of time. But that's kinda NOT what's happening, is it? "

Yes, there are legions of editors who have tried X and then moved on. Some remarking they'll come back for a look when it matures, others saying that it would never work for them. They don't tend to hang out on this forum, but I've just described the views of the overwhelming number of editors I have heard from on this subject, admittedly a narrow sample.

Did they give it a serious enough try - well who are you to be the judge of that; do they have to come up to the Bill Davis standard or can they just decide for themselves?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 17, 2012 at 2:55:56 am

[Herb Sevush] "I know because as I just detailed in the previous post there is no possible way X could be faster for any editor that needs both tape output and the ability to see time code sync indicators. Since it lacks both of those features completely it has zero, no, nada, null chance of being faster than Legend in my workflow. If it isn't faster in every regular workflow than by definition it can't be claimed as being "faster" without the qualification of "in such and such a workflow.""

Ok. Now I get it.

Guy A. "That Lamborgini over there. It's not faster than the Rolls. "
Guy B. "Huh?"
Guy A. "Really, i tested it myself and it's no faster."
Guy B. "But I watched you do the test. You never drove over 30 mph - and only in a straight line - and you made 15 stops between the starting line and the finish line - and you delivered MAIL at each stop and some of those mail deliveries took more time when you were driving the Lambo compared to the Bentley!!!"
Guy A. "Well, that's my "workflow" and the Bentley was faster."
Guy B. (shakes his head and walks away.)


[Herb Sevush] "Why are you so invested in being "the fastest?" Someone with a psychological bent might be using phrases like "overcompensating" - but I won't. "

I'll see your "overcompensation" and raise you an "anxiety disorder" - seems to me that some here just can't deal with the fact that there's a new tool to deal with the fact that the editing industry is changing away from some of the kinds of traditional workflows you're invested in - and new ones are appearing that are better suited for the kind of work that the market seems to increasingly value.

(I guess we agree on one thing ... there's nothing more fun than engaging in "psychological analysis done by abjectly unqualified guys like us, huh!)


[Herb Sevush] "If it's so fast than how come Jeremy ain't using it? How come Walter is using PPro? David Lawrence doesn't use it regularly, is it because he likes to edit slowly? Has Oliver Peters moved his business over to X?
"


Real answer? OK. They don't use it because it doesn't currently fit what they need. BUT each of them is keeping an extremely close eye on it aren't they?. Investing HUGE amounts of time looking at it, discussing it here, and debating it's strengths and weaknesses. Only D. Lawrence, AFAIK has picked an alternative solution and has largely stopped exploring X. But even HE keeps an eye over here and pops up to comment. Why, I wonder? The truth is that every single one of editors you mention, are keeping an EAGLE eye on it - which includes regularly using and exploring it. And the rest of YOU guys - even the ones who keep trashing it - STILL come back here nearly daily. Why? If their examinations had uncovered it as "useless" wouldn't they all have just moved on? Wouldn't YOU have?

And yet here everyone is. Including you. Why do you think that is if X isn't worthy of professional editing notice?

(want to go on, but I'm on deadline... drat)

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 17, 2012 at 4:18:10 am

[Bill Davis] "Real answer? OK. They don't use it because it doesn't currently fit what they need."

The basic definition of not only ain't it faster, I can't even use it.

[Bill Davis] "Why do you think that is if X isn't worthy of professional editing notice?"

Do you understand that the statement "you can't substantiate a claim to being faster" does not inevitably lead to"it's not worthy of professional editing notice"? Apparently not.

[Bill Davis] "new ones (editing tools)are appearing that are better suited for the kind of work that the market seems to increasingly value."

My market doesn't increasingly value the kind of work that you are so proud of talking about, my market is broadcast TV, and as I turn the channels I haven't noticed any of them going dark yet.

[Bill Davis] "And the rest of YOU guys - even the ones who keep trashing it - STILL come back here nearly daily. Why?"

I need the eggs.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 20, 2012 at 5:14:19 pm

I know we have sang Kumbaya and all, but I did want to revisit this for a moment.

[Bill Davis] " Are you hearing "Heck, I took six months working with it regularly until I know how the darn thing really works - and in the end decided it was crap?""

Brooks Tomlinson
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/39665

Neil Goodman
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/40440

Not trying to be petty about this, but here are 2 cases in the last 3 weeks. Neither one says X is crap, nobody is saying it's unprofessional, nobody is saying anyone who uses it is an idiot, but after giving it a serious look neither one is using it. So yes there are editors who have taken a serious look and said "it's not for me."

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:18:36 pm

[Bill Davis] "Essentially, if you're trying to decide how good competing brands of cars are - don't you give slightly more weight to the opinions of those who have driven BOTH?
"


Clearly not

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:20:19 pm

[Herb Sevush] ""The skimmer is simply the fastest way to get through lots of footage on any NLE that exists today."

I've asked for backup on that claim and I don't think from what I've read that it is justified. I hear you when you say the skimmer is an excellent feature, I don't doubt that if I tried it I would come to love it, I just don't think it justifies the claim that it is the fastest way to get thru lots of footage. I guess someone will have to set up a logging test between various apps to prove that point."


Fair. I like numbers, too, and I've given Mr. Hodgetts significant grief about substantiating his 400% claim -- but realistically, unless Apple commissions one, no one will do a study to back up Steve's tongue-in-cheek chart. Just an hour or two with the FCPX demo will let you see how the skimmer works.

Consider a couple points:
  • FCPX performs better. I can skim a clip in FCPX more smoothly (read: with more visual feedback) than I can mouse-playhead-shuttle the same clip on the same machine in FCP7.
  • FCPX eliminates clicks versus FCP7.


Whether you're a Frederick Winslow Taylor and Frank Gilbreth fan or not, time and motion study demonstrably improved productivity, and FCPX's small improvements to commonly-performed functions should result in overall time savings.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:29:31 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Consider a couple points:
FCPX performs better. I can skim a clip in FCPX more smoothly (read: with more visual feedback) than I can mouse-playhead-shuttle the same clip on the same machine in FCP7.
FCPX eliminates clicks versus FCP7.
"


Amongst other things it also eliminates the tedious business of gap deletion when using the 'throw it all in a timeline" model.

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:46:58 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Whether you're a Frederick Winslow Taylor and Frank Gilbreth fan or not, time and motion study demonstrably improved productivity, and FCPX's small improvements to commonly-performed functions should result in overall time savings."

The difference is that editing is not an assembly line process, where physical activities are reproduced over and over again at very quick intervals. Under assembly line conditions, these small improvements do add up to something significant. But in editing most of the time spent "goign thru tons of footage" is spent watching the footage - quickly where it's obviously NG, but at near real time when you're evaluating. The percentage of time saving, if at all, by adding a click here or there is often beneath effective notice in these type of situations. Any system that can smoothly show you the material at high speed and then immediately slow down to near real time speed will work just about as well as another. If you tell me that one system will allow me to evaluate the material at 10x speed, then now you've got something. If you show me a system that doesn't require you to mark in and outs but can read your thoughts, then now you've got something. Otherwise the statement that one system "is simply" the fastest seems specious.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:35:14 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The difference is that editing is not an assembly line process, where physical activities are reproduced over and over again at very quick intervals. The percentage of time saving, if at all, by adding a click here or there is often beneath effective notice in these type of situations. Any system that can smoothly show you the material at high speed and then immediately slow down to near real time speed will work just about as well as another."

Search for footage (forget metadata for now, let's call this high-speed shuttling).

Evaluate source footage (we found something while shuttling, let's jog and make sure it's what we want).

Reduce source footage to selection for edit.

Optionally evaluate record footage.

Cut.

Optionally review cut in context (maybe NLEs need preview buttons).

Optionally trim or rearrange edits.

These are the mechanics of editing (to say nothing of actually structuring the narrative), and they are repeated over and over. I absolutely think there are opportunities for small improvements in these tasks to compound.

The difference of a the time it takes to click a mouse here or there is not as large as the difference gained by the skimmer's smoother, more fluid operation or its ability to be used anywhere in the application without any switch in context.

Now I do agree with you that I can't say what (if any) the time savings are. I haven't measured, so I don't know -- maybe the skimmer's time savings aren't significant. Maybe they're negligible, or maybe they're even negative. Even if that's the case, though, then its frustration savings must be high to have so many convinced that it feels so much faster.



[Herb Sevush] "This entire sub thread is based on Steve's assertion about X's superiority in preparing selects. "

I read it differently:

[Steve Connor] "The skimmer is simply the fastest way to get through lots of footage on any NLE that exists today. It's my favourite feature in FCPX"


For me, dealing with a lot of footage is not done once selects are made (maybe I'm not selective enough). It continues through the edit through constant re-review of selects, and that's where I think the skimmer pays dividends through the whole edit.



[Herb Sevush] "However it still irks me when people make unsubstantiated absolutest statements, whether it was Jerry Hoffman last week or Steve today."

Fair -- but I wouldn't compare Steve's assertion to Jerry's. Steve's claim is task-specific and falsifiable; Jerry's claim was practically unlimited in scope and false on its face.

But let's broaden the conversation back up. People using both FCPX and Pr often make the claim that their new NLE is faster than FCP7. I can't think of a good way to measure that without relying on someone's experience and perception, since every editor is different, every project is different, and no one person can meaningfully repeat the same project on two systems.

How can we legitimately talk about speed?

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:45:14 pm

[Walter Soyka] "How can we legitimately talk about speed?"

It's hard to measure.

I have found that the people that have really dug in to X and like it, then go back to FCP7 say things like 'it feels like a step backwards. Things just go faster in X'.

I don't think that a person can compare the two until they have really really tried FCPX. They, of course, have to like how FCPX works and see it as a strength. If a person doesn't like FCPX's methods, of course it's not going to be faster as it doesn't work for them.

I wouldn't be trying FCPX if I didn't see it's strengths as an advantage to my particular way of working.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:54:06 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I read it differently:"

I guess we should leave it to Steve to clarify what he meant.

[Walter Soyka] "How can we legitimately talk about speed?"

Speed in editing can mean many things, some of them measurable - latency when using the keyboard, speed of rendering, speed of importing codecs, time to open complex projects. For instance many speak of Edius as being the fastest editor out there, and then talk about most of the functions just mentioned as reasons.

When talking about more complex editing operations speed often has to do with UI functions - layout and efficiency - for instance PPro just got "faster" by simplifying it's UI. It also has to do with capabilities - if you need to export to an external program to get something done than an editor that can handle that internally will probably be faster.

But beyond that I don't think speed is a measurable difference between NLE's. Much of what speed is thought to be has to do with workflow considerations and operator preferences. For any given editor my guess is that different NLEs would be faster for different jobs and workflows. To claim that Avid or Legend or X is "faster" overall is nonsensical.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:37:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "To claim that Avid or Legend or X is "faster" overall is nonsensical."

Agreed! The use for a whole NLE is so broad that there is no way to meaningfully compare speed of one to another in the general case.

But for specific tasks, I think we can show that a specific NLEs may have demonstrable advantages. After all, don't we choose our NLEs by identifying the biggest advantages and smallest disadvantages for the set of tasks in our own workflows?

I think Steve's claim is dancing on the line in between these. A broad reading makes it a general claim. A narrow reading makes it a specific claim.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:00:39 pm

[Walter Soyka] "But for specific tasks, I think we can show that a specific NLEs may have demonstrable advantages."

Absolutely. But the tasks and workflow have to be specific to be meaningful. To "Get thru", later redefined as to "view and evaluate" is a little too broad for my tastes.

In the specific case of the skimmer one problem is that I can't compare it myself and have to go on the word of others. The other problem, as I said before, is that I never had a problem with the way other NLE's timeline viewers worked so I have a hard time imagining how much better the skimmer can be. But you have piqued my interest in finding out.

No matter how good the skimmer is I'd still trade it in for an "un-lift" function.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:00:24 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Search ... Evaluate ... Reduce ... Cut."

Walter,

I think part of the issue is that the process is quite varied. What you've described strikes me more as "clip-based" approach. I wouldn't describe my process that way. Something like "Screen & Select, Assemble, Structure" might be closer but I'd have to give it more thought.

[Walter Soyka] "How can we legitimately talk about speed?"

... echoes by Herb and myself below. Speed means many things in terms of NLE.


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:22:29 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I think part of the issue is that the process is quite varied. What you've described strikes me more as "clip-based" approach. I wouldn't describe my process that way. Something like "Screen & Select, Assemble, Structure" might be closer but I'd have to give it more thought."

Agreed that there are different processes, and the flow I laid out as written is biased toward assembly, so please allow me to take a step back.

I think that underlying editorial mechanics are fundamentally the same, no matter what the process may be: reviewing footage in isolation, making new edits, reviewing footage in the context of an edit or series of edits, and modifying existing edits. Different processes may order or prioritize these mechanics differently, but I don't think you can edit without reviewing and cutting.

The skimmer is purely mechanical; it doesn't impose a particular editorial philosophy like I've argued the magnetic timeline does. I think its benefits are visible across different processes, since it comes into play every time review occurs.

I think that Steve's claim rests on two assumptions: that constant footage and edit review is fundamental to editorial, and that the skimmer offers improvements over other tools for review.

Do you disagree with the logic (perhaps I've left something out) or the assumptions (perhaps you think the skimmer is overrated)?

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:39:50 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Do you disagree with the logic (perhaps I've left something out) or the assumptions (perhaps you think the skimmer is overrated)?"

Walter,

I haven't used the skimmer, so I can't rate it. I'm very sceptical of grandiose claims though. In the short forays into PPro that I've done, I don't use hover scrub and don't really anticipate using it (though I understand it is more limited than skimming in ways you've outlined).

[Walter Soyka] "... reviewing footage in isolation, making new edits, reviewing footage in the context of an edit or series of edits, and modifying existing edits."

I'd say the first step is more "evaluating" where you say "reviewing". I don't really look at things "in isolation" - they're always in context. But I think that's the crux - there are very different approaches to making that evaluation or selection process. If you're going through 10hrs of footage in 3hrs, that's entirely different from 3 months of assembling 100 hours of footage. It's a difference of approach, not just quantity.

I also make a distinction between "reviewing" (by which I mean screening, picture and sound, in real time) and maybe "searching" which is maybe where skimming comes in handy. It's an important distinction to me when it comes to this statement:

[Walter Soyka] "... the skimmer offers improvements over other tools for review."

I suppose part of the issue is how easy it is to easily maintain uniform "realtime" playback while skimming.


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:55:43 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'd say the first step is more "evaluating" where you say "reviewing". I don't really look at things "in isolation" - they're always in context. But I think that's the crux - there are very different approaches to making that evaluation or selection process. If you're going through 10hrs of footage in 3hrs, that's entirely different from 3 months of assembling 100 hours of footage. It's a difference of approach, not just quantity. I also make a distinction between "reviewing" (by which I mean screening, picture and sound, in real time) and maybe "searching" which is maybe where skimming comes in handy. "

Got it. I think we have largely have a difference in terminology.

Let's describe it functionally: the skimmer facilities all non-realtime assessment of time-based media.

I think that the ability for an editor to step out of time when reviewing footage, either watching it more slowly or more quickly, offers benefits to the editor, no matter what your process, for visually searching and critically evaluating media and edits.

If you only ever watch footage in real time, the skimmer offers no benefit -- but you are probably already wasting a lot of time rewatching footage and trimming, evaluating, and retrimming edits.

The more you jog or shuttle through media, and the more often you switch back and forth among sources for non-realtime assessment, the more benefit the skimmer offers.


[Franz Bieberkopf] "I suppose part of the issue is how easy it is to easily maintain uniform "realtime" playback while skimming."

See my definition above -- this is not what the skimmer is for. You can just hit the spacebar for play while skimming, and realtime playback will begin from the last skimmed frame. JL however you like, then K/Space to resume skimming.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:17:43 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The more you jog or shuttle through media, and the more often you switch back and forth among sources for non-realtime assessment, the more benefit the skimmer offers."

Walter,

I think this corroborates one of the distinctions I was trying to make. Sequence based editing (where all or most of your work is done in one sequence at a time) is quite different from clip based editing (which might not be a good name for it).

[Walter Soyka] "you are probably already wasting a lot of time rewatching footage and trimming, evaluating, and retrimming edits."

Well, there'll always be people who think I'm wasting time editing ... but the word that gets said to my face is "fast".


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:38:47 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Well, there'll always be people who think I'm wasting time editing ... but the word that gets said to my face is "fast"."

I'm not sure where our disconnect here is. I'm not saying that refining edits in real time is wasteful; on the contrary, it's necessary.

I am asking you to imagine the waste if you could ONLY move in real time.

I say this to highlight the importance of non-realtime interaction -- jog/shuttle or timeline scrub. FCPX has all of these, and it improves on them by adding the skimmer. With the skimmer, FCPX does everything that FCP7 did, but it does it with greater responsiveness and less penalty for context switch.

I concede that different editors doing different work may value this feature more or less highly, but are you arguing that non-realtime interaction is flat out worthless in some cases?

Let's go back to the original scenario: you have 3 hours to make a highlight reel of 10 hours of footage. What's your approach?

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:49:08 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Let's go back to the original scenario: you have 3 hours to make a highlight reel of 10 hours of footage. What's your approach?"

Walter,

My consistent strategy here has been not to get hired to make highlight reels. I leave that for professionals. So far, I have found this the fastest approach.

[Walter Soyka] "I say this to highlight the importance of non-realtime interaction -- jog/shuttle or timeline scrub. FCPX has all of these, and it improves on them by adding the skimmer. With the skimmer, FCPX does everything that FCP7 did, but it does it with greater responsiveness and less penalty for context switch.

I concede that different editors doing different work may value this feature more or less highly, but are you arguing that non-realtime interaction is flat out worthless in some cases?"


Understood. I'm not at all suggesting non-realtime interaction is useless. I don't really think of it as "review" though (at least not most of the time). Again I would make a distinction between search-type interactions (which are a kind of review) and screening (which I suppose is also a kind of review) - though you can call them both "review" they are quite different.

Also I think most of the discussion has been about skimmer use outside the timeline.

You can count my vote for greater responsiveness.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:45:46 pm

[Walter Soyka] "How can we legitimately talk about speed?"

We probably can't because we can't control for variables.

If the editor using both simply has more hours in - or better muscle memory for Editor X, he or she may be faster at one than the other all other things being absolutely equal.

So again, I think it comes down to listening to what a wide spectrum of voices say and trying to assess how it might or might not work for you.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:35:31 pm

[Herb Sevush] " Furthermore I personally like to have the material laid out consecutively left to right, as in a timeline - probably habit from my old days cutting film ..."

Herb,


One of my (many) realizations over the past year in this forum has been realizing the difference between what I call "sequence-based" editing practice versus what I call call "clip-based" editing practice.

Those names may not be the best way of delineating them, but I think you understand what I mean.

I am very much a sequence-based editor and FCPX looks to me designed around clip-based editing. (Not to say it can't be used as a sequence-based editor, just that it was designed around a different practice.)


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:51:23 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I am very much a sequence-based editor and FCPX looks to me designed around clip-based editing. (Not to say it can't be used as a sequence-based editor, just that it was designed around a different practice.)"

Yes, it's designed differently. Isn't that what the backlash is about?

Call it what you want, but it's semantics. A sequence is a container of a bunch of clips in a specified order. When you nest a sequence in a sequence it becomes a clip, so can't we agree that a rose it still a rose by any other name?

I am a "sequence based" editor in FCP7 because you almost have to be. There's really no way to sort a mass of selects with the FCP7 bin structure, so really I have no other choice but to lay it all out in a sequence if I want to see things put together rather than view them clip by clip in the viewer by double clicking each clip in succession.

That's not the case in FCPX, but you do have to take some time and use FCPX's tools and not sit there wondering why it doesn't work like FCP7's bin structure.

Also, when you start to combine Event side Compounds with the Project below, you get some very cool ways to view material in context of the greater edit. Then if you start to really use favorites, and then sort the event by favorites, you have a skimmable run down of all of your selects, without a sequence, but of course, you could open any clip at any time in it's own sequence is that's what makes the most sense to you. At any time, you can get a birds eye view of every single piece of media in your Event without having to double click and view anything. Simply single click on the Event, sort by all clips, and there they all are, skimmable from front to back. Also, you can toggle the granularity with the keyword collections you create, or smart collections you create, or sorting by different categories.

You simply cannot do this in FCP7 without stringing everything out in a sequence and then double clicking that sequence or moving back to that tab, then finding what you want, copy, move back to the other tab, paste, rinse repeat.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:59:43 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, it's designed differently. Isn't that what the backlash is about?"

Jeremy,

Was there "backlash" in my post?

I was trying to articulate an underlying design approach - quite beyond semantics. Are you suggesting there is no difference, or that my characterization was wrong? Your post seems to confirm that FCPX is designed around what I'm calling "clip-based" editing. Or I'm misinterpreting your post.

[Jeremy Garchow] "There's really no way to sort a mass of selects with the FCP7 bin structure ..."

I could introduce you to Avid and FCP editors who "sort a mass of selects" in bins every day. I don't work that way, though.

[Jeremy Garchow] "You simply cannot do this in FCP7 without stringing everything out in a sequence and then double clicking that sequence or moving back to that tab, then finding what you want, copy, move back to the other tab, paste, rinse repeat"

I'm not sure what you're doing here, but this isn't the way I work. But if it works for you ...

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:57:21 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Was there "backlash" in my post?"

I'm talking about the general disdain for those who feel betrayed starting on June 21, 2011. You know, the backlash of fcpx's design choices that have been the foundation of this forum.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I was trying to articulate an underlying design approach - quite beyond semantics. Are you suggesting there is no difference, or that my characterization was wrong? Your post seems to confirm that FCPX is designed around what I'm calling "clip-based" editing. Or I'm misinterpreting your post."

I'm not saying you're wrong. There is a difference in how it looks and operates, but if we break it down to what it is, making selects and arraging them in order for viewing, FCPX does the same thing, you just don't HAVE to use a sequence to string a large amount of selects together, although you can.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I could introduce you to Avid and FCP editors who "sort a mass of selects" in bins every day."

Oh yeah? And how would you do that and view them from the bin? You can't, you have to double click each clip in the viewer and watch them separately, or lay them all in a sequence and watch them as a string out. I'm talking FCP here, Avid has different methodologies.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I don't work that way, though."

And if you have been following closely, a lot of FCP editors make selects sequences. I feel this is not by mistake, it's because it's really how FCP7 works the best. I am sure you will give me shit about it, but I would go so far as to say that really, it's how it was designed, perhaps more accurately, it's how to do what you need to do within the limits of the FPC7 bin structure design. The only way to get a birds eye view of all of your selects in one playable selection is to string them out in a sequence. Are we not in agreement here?

FCPX offers more ways, mostly through skimming, which is what this subthread is about. This stemmed from going through 10 hours of footage with 3 hours to edit from 6-9AM after who knows how little sleep, direction, and a wad of general charsima.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[Jeremy Garchow] "You simply cannot do this in FCP7 without stringing everything out in a sequence and then double clicking that sequence or moving back to that tab, then finding what you want, copy, move back to the other tab, paste, rinse repeat"

I'm not sure what you're doing here, but this isn't the way I work. But if it works for you ...

"


You yourself said that you're a sequence editor. Do you not string out selects on a sequence? if not I am misunderstanding this:

[Franz Bieberkopf] "One of my (many) realizations over the past year in this forum has been realizing the difference between what I call "sequence-based" editing practice versus what I call call "clip-based" editing practice.

Those names may not be the best way of delineating them, but I think you understand what I mean.

I am very much a sequence-based editor and FCPX looks to me designed around clip-based editing. (Not to say it can't be used as a sequence-based editor, just that it was designed around a different practice.)"


What I am saying above is that I use a sequence to make selects, then I have an "edit" sequence, and I copy and paste from my selects "sequences" to the "edit" sequence. Are you saying you don't work that way or that it doesn't work for some reason? If you don't, then what do you mean by a sequence editor?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:15:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "... you just don't HAVE to use a sequence to string a large amount of selects together ..."

[Jeremy Garchow] "... or lay them all in a sequence and watch them as a string out."

[Jeremy Garchow] "... all of your selects in one playable selection is to string them out in a sequence."

Jeremy,

The difference here being that, as far as I can tell, what I'm calling "clip based" editors don't want "one playable selection". They seem to use clips, subclips, and sometimes sequences in bins to organize. I don't work that way so I can't say much about it. I've seen it a lot, though never really discussed in detail their practices.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I copy and paste from my selects "sequences" to the "edit" sequence."

While I do use copy and paste, it really isn't the main tool. Generally I'm reducing from a raw sequence to selects, and the selects (duplicated) form the basis of the assembly (meaning a duplicate sequence). While this may involve copying and pasting all material from a few selects sequences to begin an assembly sequence (ie 3 or 4 select sequences for the basis of one assembly), generally all work is done within one sequence. I'm not really moving around tabs or double clicking a lot once I've started. It sounds like you move between sequences a lot, thus more tab clicking and double-clicking, as well as more copy and paste operations.


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:22:45 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Generally I'm reducing from a raw sequence to selects, and the selects (duplicated) form the basis of the assembly (meaning a duplicate sequence). While this may involve copying and pasting all material from a few selects sequences to begin an assembly sequence (ie 3 or 4 select sequences for the basis of one assembly), generally all work is done within one sequence. I'm not really moving around tabs or double clicking a lot once I've started. "

That is exactly the way I work as well. The multiple timelines are a history of the process, but I'm generally staying within the timeline I'm working on when actually cutting. Master assembly, refine, duplicate, assembly 2, refine duplicate, rough 3 refine duplicate - till your done. Occasionally I go back to an earlier timeline, and it's a good habit to review the master assembly before you finalize the job, but mostly it's like whittling away to reveal the final sequence.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 8:46:54 pm

me too, this be the way I go at it - short form easy peasy stuff in my case, but thats how I do it.

I think I find a task modality in it that I like. I enter that sequence and whack down all the rushes for a set reason, and i treat it differently than I would a master edit sequence. Its a particular place - I'll often copy and paste repeats of the final music track under all the rushes to get a feel for how lift sections play with the track - its an assembly area.

The ability to skim within the horizontally constrained UI space of the event browser (with filmstrip cascading down vertically) I find fundamentally less satisfying. the mental operation is different, I don't find I'm in the right place. the lozenge version up top in list view would have been completely unusable with the long record slugs of activity I was dealing with.

more than anything else I don't have the ability to keyboard moment to moment zoom in, and by increments, investigate the shot moment, quickly playing little loop repeats on a section to see whats what.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:34:03 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "While I do use copy and paste, it really isn't the main tool. Generally I'm reducing from a raw sequence to selects, and the selects (duplicated) form the basis of the assembly (meaning a duplicate sequence). While this may involve copying and pasting all material from a few selects sequences to begin an assembly sequence (ie 3 or 4 select sequences for the basis of one assembly), generally all work is done within one sequence. I'm not really moving around tabs or double clicking a lot once I've started. It sounds like you move between sequences a lot, thus more tab clicking and double-clicking, as well as more copy and paste operations."

I see. Yes, we work differently as our projects are probably different.

I am a stickler for organization. We share projects between multiple users and the best way to do this is to stay very organized. There's nothing worse than receiving someone else's project and you can't find anything due to shotty organization.

When I have projects with lots of footage, I make bins of selects. Then, I usually make a sequence for each bin and string out all of those clips for that bin. I then copy and paste from the selects sequences to the main "edit" sequence which will eventually become the finished sequence. Depending on the project, this means I can have a lot of sequences open at any given time.

FCPX does this for me with much less clicking, with greater speed, and I don't have to constantly switch back and forth between sequences.

That's why I like it, and why I like skimming. It is actually helpful and a step forward to how I was already using FCP7. I can then combine all of this with FCPX's other organization methods (smart collections, keywords, et al) and it's very tidy, very fast, and also very organized.

Now, let's say that I can't quite remember where I put something, or can't remember what I tagged it.

I can select the Event and simply skim every last bit of media that is in the Event from top to bottom, extremely quickly and easily without having to double click multiple clips, without having to search multiple sequences. I simply skim.

To me, it is the best of both worlds. It allows for accurate searching, and it also allows for visual footage discovery without the database feel.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:51:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "... I make bins of selects. Then, I usually make a sequence for each bin and string out all of those clips for that bin. I then copy and paste from the selects sequences to the main "edit" sequence which will eventually become the finished sequence. Depending on the project, this means I can have a lot of sequences open at any given time."

Jeremy,

I'm going to add to my already tenuous categories, and call this "hybrid".

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCPX does this for me with much less clicking, with greater speed, and I don't have to constantly switch back and forth between sequences. ... To me, it is the best of both worlds. It allows for accurate searching, and it also allows for visual footage discovery without the database feel."

I find these kinds of posts much more interesting and constructive than claims of "fastest NLE".

First, because I'm interested to know how other people work.

Second, because I'm not sure when "fast" became the primary criterion for NLEs. Generally when software is described as fast, people are referring to a specific task, or a specific process which is taxing on the hardware. "Fast" can mean responsive (in terms of UI), efficient in terms of processing (or rendering), conducive to organization etc. When you get to the more workflow or process based assessments however, you're into pretty specific (and often divergent and subjective) needs depending on the kinds of production and editing involved.

"Flexible" is another way of assessing NLEs.

Meeting the needs of a specific workflow is another.

Subjective appeal is another.

Steve Connor may have more charts for those (though he does seem restricted to FCP7 and FCPX).

I'm trying to imagine a conversation between an editor and a filmmaker where the editor boasts of his or her "faster" NLE; I can't imagine doing this myself.


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:57:23 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'm trying to imagine a conversation between an editor and a filmmaker where the editor boasts of his or her "faster" NLE"

In a newsroom setting it happens all the time, on a feature film, never.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:59:36 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] " find these kinds of posts much more interesting and constructive than claims of "fastest NLE".
"


I believe my subjective claim was

"The skimmer is simply the fastest way to get through lots of footage on any NLE that exists today"

I didn't say that FCPX is the fastest NLE that exists today.


Although it is :) (add pinch of salt)

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1


Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:02:51 pm

[Steve Connor] "... get through..."


... meaning?

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:07:47 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[Steve Connor] "... get through..."


... meaning?"


View, evaluate etc

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:10:21 pm

Steve,

"The skimmer is simply the fastest way to view and evaluate (etc.) lots of footage on any NLE that exists today"

So that's your claim? You can view and evaluate footage faster.

I'm with Herb. Colour me sceptical.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


David LawrenceRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 7:50:30 pm

Interesting thread.

The skimmer is an awesome tool for quickly going thru tons of visuals. Great for finding B-roll.

For interviews, I don't see any significant value. If you have hours of interview, at some point someone has to listen to them. Maybe up to doublespeed, but you still need to hear what's being said. I don't see how the skimmer helps with this in any meaningful way. A talking head looks like the same talking head no matter what's being said. Sometimes there are no shortcuts to playback. Just saying.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 7:52:11 pm

[David Lawrence] "For interviews, I don't see any significant value. If you have hours of interview, at some point someone has to listen to them. Maybe up to doublespeed, but you still need to hear what's being said. I don't see how the skimmer helps with this in any meaningful way. A talking head looks like the same talking head no matter what's being said. Sometimes there are no shortcuts to playback. Just saying."

You are correct, in this context the skimmer is no advantage at all

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 8:00:25 pm

[Steve Connor] "You are correct, in this context the skimmer is no advantage at all"

Thanks Steve :)

But for visuals, I totally agree it rocks. And yep, better than PrP6 hover scrub.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:17:09 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I find these kinds of posts much more interesting and constructive than claims of "fastest NLE"."

I think "fast" is very hard to define as it means different things to different people, you are absolutely right.

I find the recent barefeats benchmarks to be some of the most confusing lists to date. It doesn't add up and frankly It's not the kind of speed I necessarily need. If I was rendering 5k 3D, I know what I would need, it's easy to pick the newest, fastest, most plentifully cored/GPUd, expensive processor from a list and say, "Load it up gobs of RAM and ship me that one".

CS6 is much faster, processing wise, than FCP7 in my trials, but there are other things, organization being one of them, that feel much slower. Can I measure that speed? i don't know, and I'm not sure if it matters on a benchmark. If it breaks my creativity, it's slower, even if it's technically moving faster. It's not the fault of Pr CS6, it's probably that I want it to do things that it doesn't do currently.

Fast, to me, is being able quickly tag/rename/organize large selections of footage so I can get to editing quickly.

Fast to me is being able to try all kinds of creative decisions without having to pick apart autoselects and track assignments and clip collisions. I dealt with it in FCP7 and I know my way around very well, but that doesn't mean it's the best design. It doesn't mean that FCPX is better either, but it is different and does address some of the shortcomings of FCP7 (and of course, there are many shortcomings in X). I like being able to rough in things with minimal hurt to the "edit" timeline and refine, refine, refine as I go. I find the grouping and connections in X allow a lot of exploring with minimal hurt. Ironically, refining is currently more challenging and it mostly has to do with audio capabilities for me.

Like you and Herb (and probably many editors), I start very broad.

Fast, to me, is organization of creativity, and X is looking very good to me from that stand point. It needs a bit of mechanics refinement and some technical features, no doubt about that, but I personally like where it's starting from, but I'm sure my needs are different from everyone else.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:20:10 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " but I'm sure my needs are different from everyone else."

The one thing you can count on is that every editor's needs are different from everyone else.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:42:49 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " If it breaks my creativity, it's slower, even if it's technically moving faster."


That's the end of the thread, don't you think?

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:00:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If it breaks my creativity, it's slower, even if it's technically moving faster."

[Franz Bieberkopf] "That's the end of the thread, don't you think?"

FCPX or Not threads are never ended; they are only abandoned.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:19:45 pm

Forum name-change: The Neverending Thread?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 6:09:00 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "That's the end of the thread, don't you think?"

Goonies never say die


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:47:27 pm

[Herb Sevush] "which was Steve Connor's statement that "The skimmer is simply the fastest way to get through lots of footage on any NLE that exists today."

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/40252

The subject was skimming specifically, not X as a asset manager. On that subject I have nothing to say, having no experience to go on. Nowadays I only intrude when people make unsubstantiated grandiose claims that can't be backed up."


The claim is based on my 20 years of experience in editing as well as my year of actually editing on FCPX.

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:06:28 pm

[Steve Connor] "The claim is based on my 20 years of experience in editing as well as my year of actually editing on FCPX."

Well Steve I'm not doubting your experience, talent or veracity and if you had labeled your statement in the subjective as in "in my opinion, in my experience, from what I've seen ..." I wouldn't have posted at all. Instead you chose to go the absolutest way - amplified by the phrase "is simply" - which implies an authority that neither you nor I posses. So while I'm somewhat cowed by your 20 years of experience, my 35 years will ask again how exactly is skimming a timeline in any other NLE slower than using a skimmer in X when it comes down to going thru tons of footage.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:49:57 am

[Chris Harlan] "I get that's its nice to have something like the skimmer in your bin/clip area, but I find timeline skimming quite satisfying. Let's forget about one experience being a timeline and one not, what makes the skimming tool superior to skimming in the timeline? This is a serious question, btw--not rhetorical. I'd really like to know why."

I know -- it sounds like holding down the mouse button and dragging the mouse wouldn't be all that different -- but I had no idea how well FCP7 doesn't skim until I got the hang of the skimmer in FCPX. It really does feel vastly more fluid, and as I adjusted, I was surprised what a difference not having to hold the mouse button made.

For me, this is an issue of credit where it's due. The skimmer is the coolest feature I never knew I needed.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 1:06:02 am

[Walter Soyka] "For me, this is an issue of credit where it's due. The skimmer is the coolest feature I never knew I needed."

While that may indeed be true I think I'd rather have features I know I needed before I got to features I didn't know I needed.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 1:20:46 am

[Herb Sevush] "While that may indeed be true I think I'd rather have features I know I needed before I got to features I didn't know I needed."

Well, sure -- but the skimmer is part of what makes FCPX good at what it's good at, right?

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 1:21:46 am

[Walter Soyka] "The skimmer is the coolest feature I never knew I needed."

And the way it is applied across the entire application is nice as well.

You can skim Event based compound clips that can be user created selects timelines if you'd like (or whatever you want them to be) without having to hit another tab, open your selects sequence to copy/paste to other sequence, or any other interface click fests, you can simply hover and drag over it to view with your edit timeline below, and you can even add to the timeline with a simple keystroke.

You can skim specific clips in the Project if you have Clip Skimming enabled on which can help to discern what it is you are looking at in composites, an instant solo if you will, or grab tc from a specific clip in a stack of clips.

You can skim separate audio tracks in the inspector to help decide what you need.

You can skim to preview transition/effects in the effects browser without the need of applying the effect and adjusting the effect, and deleting the effect, and finding the next effect, simply skim to get a little preview

You can skim Projects in the Projects browser to look for specifics in other Projects.

You can skim the preview in the Share window to triple check that you have exactly what you need without having to go back to the Project Browser.

You can also use the Skimmer as a place marker and decide if you are going to move to this skimmed place or stick with the CTI.

And, of course as was mentioned, you can blast through an inordinate amount of footage in an Event very quickly with no timelines, tagging by a variety of methods which then allow you to sort the Event by your selects permanently or temporarily, but obviously that feature is for non professional ninnies like me. I'm comfortable in my ninnyness.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Chris HarlanRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 3:23:08 am

[Walter Soyka] "I know -- it sounds like holding down the mouse button and dragging the mouse wouldn't be all that different -- but I had no idea how well FCP7 doesn't skim until I got the hang of the skimmer in FCPX. It really does feel vastly more fluid, and as I adjusted, I was surprised what a difference not having to hold the mouse button made.

For me, this is an issue of credit where it's due. The skimmer is the coolest feature I never knew I needed.
"


How well does it work on large files? I tried to play with it on a 45 min. clip back when it first came out, and it seemed real mousey, like I was speeding through to much at a little flick of the wrist. Was this just me? Or is it harder to use on very long clips?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:28:49 pm

[Chris Harlan] "How well does it work on large files? I tried to play with it on a 45 min. clip back when it first came out, and it seemed real mousey, like I was speeding through to much at a little flick of the wrist. Was this just me? Or is it harder to use on very long clips?"

Are you talking about skimming in the browser now?

With FCP7, dragging the playhead through the viewer locks the speed to the horizontal width of the viewer. You can only adjust this scale by adjusting the size of the viewer itself.

With FCPX, skimming speed is locked to the width of the the clip in the browser, and the timescale of the clips as filmstrips is adjustable. I think you have more control here with FCPX than with FCP7.

It may not make up for FCPX's other UI sins (like the current lack of a viewer or truly customizable interface), but the skimmer itself is a big improvement for shuttling through footage over FCP7.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:32:22 pm

[Chris Harlan] "How well does it work on large files? I tried to play with it on a 45 min. clip back when it first came out, and it seemed real mousey, like I was speeding through to much at a little flick of the wrist. Was this just me? Or is it harder to use on very long clips?"

You can adjust the zoom level in filmstrip view. It's just like any other NLE in that regard. The length of the clip effects the throw of your mouse in the same amount of screen real estate. A 45 minute clip will have a lot more frames to cover than a 30 second clip when you have

[________________________]

that much space for both of them.

Command Plus and Minus will adjust the zoom level in the Event Browser as well as the timeline, or use the zoom tool "z" in the timeline, like the days of yore.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:47:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can adjust the zoom level in filmstrip view. It's just like any other NLE in that regard."

Sorry. My fault. I wasn't clear.

I, of course, get the zooming in. What I should have said was this:

When I put a whole show into a timeline, and make the entire show visible within the time line, and then skim across I find that I get a fairly good sampling of what is there, without going frame by frame. It seems to sample every ten or twenty or even thirty frames, depending on how fast I'm moving across it. Then, when in the ballpark, I zoom in and get frame accuracy. I can do this in MC and Pr, as well. (In fact, its one of the areas where MC excels because it has the source timeline) This is what I'm trying to compare my experience to.

I'm in a place, right now, where I can't just pop X open and check it out, so I'm asking this and the above question from memory--always a dangerous adventure--and, I'm genuinely asking, not making a comparison. I abandoned X, at the time, for very different reasons, so I never really worked out my fumbling with the skimmer on very long clips.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 5:30:00 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Sorry. My fault. I wasn't clear."

i think I get what you're saying.

You also don't have to use the skimmer for this, you can simply shut it off and click and drag the CTI like any NLE.

What I do find is that I often hit play while skimming to immediately slow it down if I know I am getting close to what I need.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

alban eggerRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 8:43:43 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I don't ordinarily have to go searching thru tons of un-scripted shots so excuse my ignorance but what's the big deal with skimming? Select all your shots and throw it on a timeline - takes 5 seconds. Save the timeline and duplicate it - takes 5 seconds"

Oh boy...you haven´t used it, have you?
To compare FCPX skimming to timeline dragging?

Now let´s assume that would be as fast and convenient, what if you need lots of In-Out that you want to use later and you might also want to "keyword / subclip" a bunch of the clips? You can mark parts of your timeline, but you can also set markers in a skimmable event. It is hard to explain, but is simply a very different way of working than anything FCP7 offers in any way.

If you don´t have unscripted stuff, you might not mind. But even then...maybe the director wants some B-Cut out of 14 takes........



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 9:17:41 pm

[alban egger] "Oh boy...you haven´t used it, have you?"

Nope, never opened it up. It hasn't ever matched my workflow yet.

[alban egger] " what if you need lots of In-Out that you want to use later and you might also want to "keyword / subclip" a bunch of the clips?"

What are the in-outs there for? To mark pieces of clips for further use? Well the I guess you haven't read all of this thread so I'll quote myself from earlier

Populate a master timeline - 5 seconds. Copy the timeline - 5 seconds. Now in this second timeline you set your first in-point at the beginning and skim along till you find something you like. Now set your outpoint and ripple delete, getting rid of what you don't want. Keep skimming till you get to the end of the clip you like, set your next in point and continue. No holes, no gaps, by the time you have skimmed and marked your selects the rough cut is there and ready to go.

Why would I want to "keyword" a clip in Legend?


[alban egger] "It is hard to explain, but is simply a very different way of working than anything FCP7 offers in any way."

I don't doubt you here at all, but different is not necessarily better and better for you might not be better for me. Since people like Walter, Jeremy and David Lawrenece say that the skimmer is a great tool I believe them and I'll definitely poke around with it when X becomes suitable to my workflow. But I still don't see how this will be the end all and be all of my editing experience. As I've said ad nauseum, viewing large amounts of material quickly and easily has never been a problem for me in any NLE I ever worked with - EMC, *edit, PPro or Legend - and I have a long list of things I want improved in my editing workflow before I ever get around to improving
the skimmer.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 10:12:34 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I don't doubt you here at all, but different is not necessarily better and better for you might not be better for me. "

I think this has been my key takeaway about FCPX from the past year. FCPX has some very powerful and appealing tools and features. But if they don't fit your editorial and workflow requirements, then the drawbacks from all the things missing far outweigh any benefits. On the other hand, for those who can take advantage of FCPX's new methods. the benefits seem huge.

"Fastest" and "best" are entirely subjective.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 10:20:26 pm

This is the thread about medal rankings for competitive NLEs isn't it?

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


alban eggerRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 5:04:29 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "This is the thread about medal rankings for competitive NLEs isn't it?"

Tis whole part of the cow is about this golden medal, which belongs to FCPX....uhm...maybe MC...uhm...or should it go to PP.....uhm.....you know what: let´s give it to FCP7, because the others are 64-bit doped.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

alban eggerRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 5:02:45 am

[Herb Sevush] "Why would I want to "keyword" a clip in Legend?

As I've said ad nauseum, viewing large amounts of material quickly and easily has never been a problem for me in any NLE I ever worked with - EMC, *edit, PPro or Legend


"keywording" is done in Legacy all the time: subclips, adding notes, making bins. All these tools in Legacy are "keywording".

And for me going through large amounts of footage by double clicking every single file has always been a problem. Skimming is just so much more convenient you only realize its benefit once you worked with it and then stepped back to another NLE.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 1:04:20 pm

[alban egger] "And for me going through large amounts of footage by double clicking every single file has always been a problem. "

Then why do it? Throw all your clips on a timeline and skim, or drag, away to your hearts content.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Paul DickinRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 1:52:31 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Then why do it?"
Hi
Because viewing disparate clips in a timeline disassociates them from their binning and browser-column information - which are easily searchable in the browser, much less easily in a sequence.

As a film editor big rolls got broken up into labelled clips in bins. To have to join them back up at random into a long roll to view on the steenbeck was counter-productive. Everything had to be broken back up into the bins again to proceed with the editing process.

Instead the bins were placed near a bench with a handcranked viewer to work on in/out points and to get an assembly. Only when assembled into meaningful sections was the steenbeck's viewing process valuable.

In NLE terms the same applies in the sort of stuff I edit, and making random 'select' timelines for viewing is very inefficient. In fact I always regarded it it a sign that the editor wasn't really cut out to be an editor if he spent all his time 'viewing' at the steenbeck ;-)

The art of editing in film and paper-offline linear tape days devolved around the ability of the editor to 'memorise' the initial impact of the first viewing of the footage, and thereafter working from the 'metadata' notes to build the final edited end-product.

Having to disassociate the clips from their metadata - restricting accompanying clip-info to what is accessible when you have it in a random-select timeline - seems to me to be very very counter-productive.

I just don't have the powers of memory to be able to recall everything in a long 'selects' timeline days/weeks later as the edit proceeds. (So I never do it).

The browser and bin structure is where I want to go to find and quickly view stuff as I need it.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 3:42:17 pm

Paul -

Your's is a lovely description of feature film editing and why upright Moviola's lasted so long in the feature business. Who needs a Steenbeck when you have multiple assistants ready and able to make your cuts and string shots together using rewinds and a moviescope. Having grown up in the 16mm doc and industrial world the flatbed was at the heart of our technique and after the initial breakdown of film rolls into selects the bins were mostly used to keep track of trims. I sometimes had more shots hanging around my neck and shoulders then I had hanging on a pin. While you may turn up your nose at my technique I can assure you that you wouldn't have lasted a week at my job with yours.

This thread was not about cutting features. It was about how you go about "geting thru" tons of footage in a short time. I believe the original description was getting thru 10 hours of footage in a 3 hour time frame. If you need to see your metadata as you cut, you are correct that searching thru bins is the way to go, and here is a place where X seems to shine. For those of us whose memories are a little clearer, where the initial impact of the first viewing of the camera panning thru the crowd isn't quite so important, the organization of multiple selected timeline "reels" seems to do the trick.

Furthermore the analogy to film breaks down quickly. The downside of making select reels in film was that it slowed down your flexability. If a shot is hanging in a bin you can reach for it at any moment, for any sequence you are working on - once it's committed to a reel, it's inefficient to get at. With NLE's this problem is moot - throw a shot in one reel, then you can throw it in another reel just as quickly. There is no reason in modern editing NOT to have your shots in select reels. You want to see the metadata within your tineline - turn your timeline into a bin - Ctrl A, drag to bin, done 5 seconds or less. I find searching individual clips in a bin to be disjointed, you obviously don't. I see it as personal preference, you seem to see it as right way / wrong way.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Paul DickinRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 7:44:05 pm

Hi
It may have sounded like feature editing but I only ever edited documentaries for BBC TV etc, From 1965- to the last film project in 1988. I will stand or fall by the BBC's reputation ;-)

I tend to regard it as 'wrong' in FCP Legacy if you break tidy Media Management, and multiple clip instance in the browser risks breaking subsequent MM - and definitely breaks it if you drag clip instances between projects, as they become orphans. Extra care is needed to avoid problems down the line.

Still I made good money clearing up other people's FCP project spaghetti when it wouldn't export LOL. I don;t remember their commissioning producers being very happy with their workflow 'preference'....


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 8:28:53 pm

[Paul Dickin] "It may have sounded like feature editing but I only ever edited documentaries for BBC TV etc, From 1965- to the last film project in 1988. I will stand or fall by the BBC's reputation ;-)"

Oh, well, you cut for the BBC, geez if I had only known, I guess I should be honored, cause you know over here in NYC we didn't know anything and wow to talk to someone who actually knows how to use rewinds and sync blocks and everything ...

I cut film from '74 to around '80 and by then, other than spots, most everything was video post, even the stuff being shot on film. There are as many good ways to work as there are good editors, if you like to work in bins then more power to you.

I have never had an instance where multiple copies of a clip in a browser caused me any trouble. Then again I don't ever use the FCP Media Mangler because I think it's sh*t and I have enough storage that I don't need to.

I have no idea why you brought up the subject of dragging a clip between projects since it has nothing to do with using bins or timelines to organize and view your media, but if it's an independent sub-clip you are right it can cause it to become orphaned - there are times when I've done it expressly for that purpose. On the other hand, if you know what your doing, you can drag timelines and/or bins between projects as much as you want without causing problems.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 9:50:41 pm

[Paul Dickin] "viewing disparate clips in a timeline disassociates them from their binning and browser-column information "


stupid question - if you were instead attempting to hastily interrogate a large volume of footage, of similar character, with a horrible awareness that you were going to, no matter what, miss some critically good stuff, would you rather set about making a controlled selects reel environment, or would you instead rather skim through the film strips in the constrained real estate of the events browser in FCPX?

I find I like that the selects reel is a declared space, that runs the width of the monitor, that has a memory (in that I am creating spatial edits within surrounding footage, and I get to duplicate the sequence before I savage it down to my selects?)

I have, regrettably, no position on the editorial style within full blown narrative documentary, because I have done it, like, you know, twice. (although storyville, ... said the doco director to me, did say they rather liked the 8 minute cut pitch for a documentary that never ever, ever, ever ever got commissioned. ;)

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 14, 2012 at 10:44:10 pm

between 6 and 9 am? with 10 hours of footage? I'm making favourites and ranges now? with what? friday's pot roast? my bare hands?
give me nicely arranged spatial bins on a second monitor and a viewer thank you.

(or as herb points out, and as, to be more honest, I did, bung the lot on a timeline and start making a selects reel as fast as fingers will allow. sequence timeline is the best skimmer I know - zoom for skimmer sensitivity)

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Trevor AsquerthianRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 14, 2012 at 11:08:20 pm

Interesting title... was there any Olympic editing at all done on FCP-X?

I suspect there was a fair amount done on FCP7, but all I saw was Avid v6...



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 14, 2012 at 11:41:36 pm

all the serious to god real editing stuff bill cites was BBC avid gandalfs - all the sports pres location specific stuff was FCP7 - about twenty or thirty bods (by the facebook group) operating under LOCOG - FCP7 on lion. graphics via pixelmator (shockingly respectable photo editor that)

no fpcx afaik.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Trevor AsquerthianRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:43:47 pm

Be interesting to see how long FCP7 kicks along with zero development.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:47:06 pm

[Trevor Asquerthian] "Be interesting to see how long FCP7 kicks along with zero development."

I think it will be like Avid. There are the stories of people still using Avid on OS9/G4s.

Why? Because it still works and is stable.

FCP7 will have some of that, too.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

TImothy AuldRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 15, 2012 at 11:52:06 pm

Still works and still stable is a good argument but I don't know if I agree with the concept that FCP was ever stable (maybe reliable is a better word.) I went to FCP (legacy, or legend as some folks now call it) like pretty much everyone else because of cost. Also when FCP came out it appealed to a lot of pissed off Avid editors. But I never forgot that Avid beat FCP all to hell with regard to media management. I can and always have been able drag anything, anywhere in Avid without fear of screwing something up. Try gathering up all your sequences in FCP 7 and putting them in a folder. It's been a problem for years and one that Apple never addressed in any significant way. Not to mention the fact that on long form projects I must keep creating new projects lest they get large and corrupted. Kind of like the FCP X file bloat problem which, as far as I know, has yet to be dealt with. I have always liked Mac as a platform but after more than a year I am not feeling the love from Apple as far as broadcast and film workflows go. I guess we shall see.

Tim


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Tim WilsonRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 3:29:43 pm

It feels bizarrely off-topic to return to the theme of the Olympics, but I came across this and thought of you guys: What if all sports were shot like beach volleyball


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Aindreas GallagherRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 9:31:06 pm

I'm thinking a surprisingly long time.

I found out yesterday that Turner in London turned over its FCP suites to PPRO 6 apparently - or at least the ones on EMEA stuff - bar that not a single post house or shop has budged yet that I know of, including stuff like UNIT. I just got to quiz a guy way more informed than me. there are simply an insane number of FCP editors in london. And facilities with investments in it.

I still think its going to be tippy toe to premiere, because avid has cost implications, and there is, so far, a weird halt where so many people are FCP, and so many facilities and design houses have the hardware and workflow based entirely around a file system management organised around FCP being transparent in the file system.

I think its the folder structure more than anything. footage element and project accessibility, numbered below client number code folder naming populates near all london that has based itself on FCP. any change to that amounts re-laying continental rail tracks for some organisations.

again premiere has the best shot at allowing the continuance of that client/spot architecture. FCP's file source finder transparency got leveraged into an almost accounting level organisation for many places - including per project default folder structure that was copied and pasted before new project start. because FCP was finder naked - anyone could access the VO, the track, the graphics, the offline, the compressed output, the final master, simply by going to the folder that is always named the same, and always contains those elements. Avid will simply never work in all these scenarios because the internal bucket will never expose these assets for the assistant producer, or art director who needs to pull that track, or view that offline. I kind of think this point gets overlooked. the internal structure of FCP was a publicly available resource, within the finder, for multiple parties in a given organisation.

everyone always said that FCP was finder messy - but the source material transparency in the finder is a big thing in a well organised scenario.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 10:10:57 pm

And the Legend of FCP Legend continues....


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 10:24:46 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "And the Legend of FCP Legend continues...."

Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 10:48:03 pm

Aye. The Boss.

[Herb Sevush] "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse?"

My archive of FCP7 projects surely feels like the truth.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 16, 2012 at 10:29:38 pm

no seriously jeremy - I do actually think a structured exposed finder backend for third parties outside the editor is a thing, if a hack - you guys probably have a default folder asset system right? if you were trucking FCP? It just comes up so often?

say when you want to check assets for a previous project or whatever - specifically within GFX renders, scripts, PSDs, audio tracks, clean plates that fcp sent, dated draft edits to get a notion, VO for the most recent, FC server didn't even do some of this stuff as well I think.

maybe I'm stupid on this, but it was one of the things where FCP was an almost accidentally brilliant opposite of a hermetic editing system.
Its file system was the file system.

It's not legend, but it's certainly usable working practise?

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 17, 2012 at 2:33:33 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "no seriously jeremy - I do actually think a structured exposed finder backend for third parties outside the editor is a thing, if a hack - you guys probably have a default folder asset system right? if you were trucking FCP? It just comes up so often? "

I guess I see it differently.

As an anecdote, FCPX offers similar functionality, but in many ways it is "better", or should I say, will be better, at least in my silly opinion. Of course, the jury is still out on the reliability of FCPX for some people, but you can import folders as Keyword collections similar to importing a folder as a bin in FCP Legend. We won't even get in to the useful and user selectable symbolic link method that FCPX employs, and also some pretty decent, albeit rudimentary media management options that are already better than FCP7s Media Manager in some ways.

Anyway, yes, we employ a loose organizational structure. It could vary from project to project (hence the term "loose" as it changes because our projects are shot on a wide variety of media), and it takes human interaction and thought, especially when it comes time to ingest, and then archive. P2 is handled differently than R3D which is handled differently than AVCHD which is handled differently then DSLR which is handled differently than Arri Alexa which is handled differently than tape which is handled differently than user created animations/gfx. All of those format require different hand holding, XML jockeying at points, differing interfaces, and various states of native support in FCP7 which means tracking multiple versions of offline files, color corrected files, RAW files, camera original, and proxies. All of those have differing camera metadata varieties too, and none of them sync or match, mostly because they vary wildly in implementation, and in the case of RAW workflows, the metadata controls much more than some fancy logging varietals.

In short, it's a f*cking mess if you aren't really careful or have some semblance of a workflow setup.

What I think is a strength of FCP7 is that even though it took longer, it often forces you to organize while transcoding/ingest as you have to transcode most materials first before you can even view them in FCP or the Finder. But of course, you have to actually take the time to do this organizing. And it does take time as FCP7 doesn't have a really great way of selecting, say, 150 clips and renaming all of them in succession once they are tucked away in their dutifully organized bins**.

If you capture from tape and are a kind and caring person and actually give a crap about the welfare of the work/life balance of the people sitting around you, you will diligently log and capture a tape and make sure you catch any tc breaks, rather than rip in a whole tape and hope for the best on a recapture.

In an earlier post, I said the selects reels were just about the "only" if not "best" way to have easy access to a load of related material to quickly buzz through if you need to, and this was partly because that's how FCP7 works. If there was a way to achieve this easily in the Browser, we would probably do it in the Browser, alas, it's not available, so making selects sequences is what a lot of editors that I know, and surprisingly it seems, many editors on the cow do as well. At least, that's what it I have picked up at the cow after reading zillions of posts from fellow professionals.

So, your example of "the finder is the organization" is, I feel, another example of how FCP7 works the best, but it's not necessarily by design. It's that easy. I don't know if it was intentional, or if it's just the way it shook out after people learned FCP7. Avid certainly employs another method (let's not forget, Avid is always touted for having rock solid media management), Adobe, another method still (shotty media management), Autodesk Smoke yet another (also good media management).

With todays tapeless formats, and tomorrows tapeless formats, and the elusive Cloud that is coming to hang over all of our heads, the Finder as file organizer is about to get blown to bits in a shower of fireworks. Someday relatively soon, there won't even be a Finder.

I don't know if you use Google Apps at all, but if you want to see a potential cloud future and what autosave is SUPPOSED to be like, and what true and direct collaboration on one singular "document" is MIGHT work, have a look at Google Apps, and then multiply the bandwidth it takes to run it by 1000x, and you will see the future of editing, not only that, but of computing in general. It will take a while, but it will get there.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "say when you want to check assets for a previous project or whatever - specifically within GFX renders, scripts, PSDs, audio tracks, clean plates that fcp sent, dated draft edits to get a notion, VO for the most recent, FC server didn't even do some of this stuff as well I think."

At this point, and I'm sure everyone does this but we have to be very careful on naming the containers our VO/GFX/Plates/all the things you mention. We have to make folders. Sometimes they are dated folders, sometimes, we simply version files (v1 or v158). Mostly, though, we use the FCP project as it is the most concise, and we can go to the "final" timeline and see exactly what was used as sometimes v154 was what made it in the show when the latest v158 didn't, because the Finder won't tell us that but the FCP database will. Even if the footage is offline, it doesn't matter, we can still see what was used.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It's not legend, but it's certainly usable working practise?"

The Legend of FCP Legend.

In my mind it is a bit of legend that FCP is good at this sort of thing (really it is the humans that have to be mindful and good at it), and it will also turn in to a tale of FCP Legend that FCP actually had decent media handling and management.

Jeremy



**Sidenote, to Paul Dickin, it's great trying to keep that "first impression" viewing in your film analogy, but I have projects that have been going on for 1.5 years, and our client seems to work in fits and starts. We will work like mad for a week or so, then sit for two months, work for two weeks then sit for three moths. After those long sit and wait times, I have worked on countless other projects and slogged through many many other files and frames. My first impression is gone, I need extremely thorough organization, and I also a need a way to quickly look at footage. The timeline selects reels have been invaluable in that project. Perhaps I'm not a worthy editor because I can't hang on to the nuance of every frame from 1.5 years ago, but it seems to work. If all I was doing was working on one movie, and all of the footage was already shot by the time I started editing, you method makes a lot of sense.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 21, 2012 at 6:55:40 pm

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to scare you away with that long post, Aindreas.

I understand, it was long and boring.

However, I will keep that theme going.

Here's a post about what I DO like about FCPX's management. It needs work, it needs refinement, but if I can step away for a second, look at the big picture and the big ideas, keep in mind that this won't get real good until about v2.5, they aren't so bad, and actually, these ideas are decently good. I do think it's important, whether we like it or not, as we are well on the way to a data driven architecture, and so far, FCPX is leading the charge at least in what would be my limited view. I personally like it as I will find it useful for our business. Others, I'm sure, won't find it useful as they have no use for it, or disagree with the methods.

FCPX is almost making drive location irrelevant, and when I say this, I have had the luxury to look at what a "San Location" is. Basically, you tell FCPX where the database is, and FCPX handles the rest. This means you can mount multiple databases and whatever drive level and store them where you want. It also means that I don't have to relink anything, I simply mount the database from within FCPX, and FCPX takes care of the rest. I can store the media separate from the database if I want to, or I can bring it in to the database location. To move an entire edit to a new location, we can use the FCPX application (and not track down something in the Finder with all of it's disparate parts), if someone wants to look at what I've done, I dismount, the other persons remounts, and off they go. If I want to move this to another drive, I send it over to a drive in a "Final Cut Events" folder, and that person opens FCPX. There's no relinking, there's no "Where are my files???", there's no confusion. For collaborative and sharing workflows, or moving edits to other machines/drives, FCPX is getting there, and is "better" than other options in my opinion.

In the Project LIbrary, I can make multiple folders. When I make multiple folders, that structure is mirrored in the Final Cut Projects folder, making tracking the organization easy for archive/relocation. Here's pics:

Project Library:


fcxp_projectlibrary.png

Finder:



finder.png

If I change any of the Folder names in FCPX, they are changed in the Finder, I don't have to touch anything.

You can also part out different sections. Need to send a few files? Make a new Event, copy the files in to it from your current Event, and send that folder that's in your Finder that's named after the Event. Alternatively, you can take a Project (or timeline, or cut, whatever you want to call it) and send it to another drive using a command to 'send only the used (but not trimmed) clips'. This will create a new and separate Event and Project on the destination drive in tidy little self contained packets. You carry that drive to another machine, or ship it to a colleague, or bring it to a finishing studio, plug it in, and launch FCPX. Again, no relinking, no fuss, no warnings about missing media, it just shows up in the application.

All of this represents good thinking to me. It is not oversight.

Yes, timeline mechanics needs work, yes, there's some real live performance issues, yes, FCPX needs time to mature, yes, Apple blew up the exalted FCP7 foundation, but they have also created something brand new in the process, and the start of this style of media management is pretty decent and useful. Media management, in my opinion, is the hardest to get change and get right. Our editing lives in terms of the sheer amount of differing tapeless standards and formats is not getting any easier. FCPX has a pretty decent backbone already, and I hope that Apple stays focused and makes it even better. Not to mention, you can create proxies and high quality versions of the media at any time and flip a switch to access one or the other and nothing is lost, stolen, or broken along the way.

I've always said that I have been looking for "better" and not necessarily "faster". To me, better actually has a meaning something and if speed comes along as a result, that's great. So far, this database style of thinking seems like it might have a chance of being better, at least for me. Everyone's mileage will certainly vary.


Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

David LawrenceRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 21, 2012 at 8:05:03 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Here's a post about what I DO like about FCPX's management. It needs work, it needs refinement, but if I can step away for a second, look at the big picture and the big ideas, keep in mind that this won't get real good until about v2.5, they aren't so bad, and actually, these ideas are decently good. "

Great post Jeremy, thank you.

FCPX has so many good ideas. Especially in media management and organization. I wish the "Anchored Timeline" paradigm wasn't a deal-killer for me but unless and until it gets much better, I have to pass.

Maybe by v2.5...

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
by on Aug 21, 2012 at 10:29:56 pm

[David Lawrence] "Great post Jeremy, thank you."

No, thank you! I wrote in a hurry and left the building, sorry for the messy writing.

[David Lawrence] " I wish the "Anchored Timeline" paradigm wasn't a deal-killer for me but unless and until it gets much better, I have to pass. "

Certainly the biggest point of contention, and certainly an area that certainly needs the most work.

I'm not against the anchored timeline, it just needs more time and attention.

Yesterday, I was trying to select everything in an audio role. It's possible to do, and actually really awesome as I could manipulate everything in that Role at once in the inspector, but it takes many more steps than seems necessary to get there.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]