FORUMS: list search recent posts

Smarter and Faster

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Smarter and Faster
on May 2, 2018 at 1:03:31 pm

Steve Martin's Working Smarter and Faster presentation from NAB







- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 2, 2018 at 9:12:00 pm

Steves typical excellent work.

For editors not accustomed to in the FCP X editorial scheme, this will be a nice window into why editors new to X get so frustrated when it doesn't work like they expect an NLE to operate.

The timeline assembly logic is there - but it's often simply not the timeline assembly logic they are accustomed to.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 3, 2018 at 3:32:27 pm

Just watched it yesterday and excellent work as always. The timeline is by far the biggest challenge when coming over from a traditional NLE with tracks like FCP Dinosaur, I mean old school.


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 3, 2018 at 7:35:27 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on May 3, 2018 at 7:38:55 pm

Steve is a brilliant educator (and a lovely guy!) and he's at the top of his game again here.

However, one thing struck me about this presentation.

While he does a good job of explaining the wrinkles of editing in FCP X, he doesn't actually make the case for editing "faster".

What he does show is that you need to understand the ways in which FCP X is different in order not to stumble over it - and actually make things slower! But that's not really the same thing at all.

For example, the one frame gap clip to make sure you don't lose your music when you delete your first clip is actually a workaround that tries to fool the default behaviour of the timeline - this is not a problem you face in conventional NLEs, it's just one of the things you have to live with in FCP X. But it's not a "feature" to get excited about - its a limitation that you have to know about!

Similarly with the tilde key thing for over-riding clip connections when slipping - in a conventional NLE this is not something you have to worry about so you can hardly claim it as a plus point that makes FCP X "faster".

And the technique of editing with gap clips is well explained, but I have never found this to be much of a timesaver - and it's mostly not unique to FCP X to be able to edit using gaps. You have to use gaps clips in FCP X because you're missing other ways of doing the same thing. That's not a bonus.

The roles bussing thing is actually a very poor workaround for what track based NLEs do much better. It would be a great deal less problematic if they could find a way to do away with the necessity of compounding in order to access this functionality, but it still wouldn't be as versatile as traditional bussing.

I think a lot of people think of the peculiarities of FCP X as special features to get excited about, when the reality is that they're just different solutions to problems that other NLEs approach in other ways. You might personally prefer them, but they're often not objectively "better".

So what Steve is really showing here is how to edit smarter and faster with FCP X and avoid it slowing you down. What he's not really showing is that FCP X is a faster way of working. That's not to say that the case can't be made, but it isn't being made in this video.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 3, 2018 at 8:33:44 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "For example, the one frame gap clip to make sure you don't lose your music when you delete your first clip is actually a workaround that tries to fool the default behaviour of the timeline - this is not a problem you face in conventional NLEs, it's just one of the things you have to live with in FCP X. But it's not a "feature" to get excited about - its a limitation that you have to know about!"

He didn't really have to make that one frame gap clip though. He could have held down the tilde key while hitting delete or if he wanted to keep the position, then just be in the position tool and then do the same thing. Either way that music would stay : )


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 3, 2018 at 8:54:40 pm

[Tony West] "He didn't really have to make that one frame gap clip though. He could have held down the tilde key while hitting delete or if he wanted to keep the position, then just be in the position tool and then do the same thing. Either way that music would stay : )"

No, indeed. You're absolutely right.*

But that doesn't change anything about the point I was making which was that he's not showing how FCP X is "Smarter and Faster", he's only showing how you don't have to let it slow you down unnecessarily.

That's not at all the same thing.

* Every NLE has workarounds that you need to just accept.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:10:21 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "But that doesn't change anything about the point I was making which was that he's not showing how FCP X is "Smarter and Faster", he's only showing how you don't have to let it slow you down unnecessarily."

I think Steve was demonstrating the less common (but not uncommon) needs.

IF (big IF) your workflow involves moving lots of "layers" (tracks) around and dealing with things like clip collisions, MOST OF THE TIME, FCPX is faster. BUT (big BUT) you still need to know how to keep things in place sometimes.

Of course if your work involves keeping everything else in place when you move a clip then FCPX will involve extra steps to make things "independent" (not connected).

I think the fundamental design of the FCPX is that lassoing multiple clips and avoiding collision was common and slowing down the creative process by the mechanical process of working with those issues.

Of course if you already grok the magnetic trackless timeline you can still trip over yourself if you don't remember how to keep things in place, use connected storylines, know how to move the connection point, etc. when you need to. This is what I think he's addressing.



Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:30:08 am

[Craig Seeman] "IF (big IF) your workflow involves moving lots of "layers" (tracks) around and dealing with things like clip collisions, MOST OF THE TIME, FCPX is faster. BUT (big BUT) you still need to know how to keep things in place sometimes."

Its very rare that Im taking a huge chunk of an edit and moving it to later or earlier in the piece. Its mostly extracting a chunk - but filling in that chunk with new material that fills the same amount of time.

And time is everything for me as except for a theatrical trailer - I have to hit exact times, so I'm putting my end card right up to the time I want to hit, and that end card never ever moves while I'm editing. I also have a tendency to make sure my ending will work as intended and then work backwards filling in the rest of the piece. In this situation I have to do alot more work in X, than I would in a traditional NLE.

Where i really find X to be faster is spotting and breaking down footage. Actual timeline editing is about the same in any NLE.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:43:41 am

No argument from me on that. As to whether FCPX timeline is faster or not really depends on the kind of work you do. If you're predominantly fighting magnetism and tracklessness it'll be slower. If they way you work really takes advantage of magnetism, connected clip and connected storylines (I like to call them virtual tracks personally) then you'll find FCPX faster.

My NLE work predates Avid (using CMX 6000) and started on Avid in its infancy (1989 or so) and, for me the FCPX timeline is a dream come true... even though I had to cringe a bit at what it was missing for some time. Obviously this speaks to how (and maybe what) I edit.



Return to posts index


Tony West
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 3:57:28 am

[Neil Goodman] "Its very rare that Im taking a huge chunk of an edit and moving it to later or earlier in the piece. "

You are not making the argument that X isn't faster moving huge sections, you are just saying YOU don't do it very often.

For folks that do it often, that's huge.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:46:20 pm

[Tony West] "You are not making the argument that X isn't faster moving huge sections, you are just saying YOU don't do it very often.

For folks that do it often, that's huge.
"


exactly - not part of my usual process but yes super beneficial for those that do.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:52:53 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "he's only showing how you don't have to let it slow you down unnecessarily."

I just don't think this is that hard to understand. In travel (and indeed light passing through multiple mediums) a straight line is not the fastest route. The fastest route is to travel on a highway that may take you slightly out of your way. But because you've gone faster for that portion of the trip it outweighs the slower last portion of the trip.

And I'm not even conceding that these techniques are that slow. My guess is the difference between this and typical NLE timeline editing is pretty small.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 2:10:03 pm

It seems to me that what gets lost in these "speed" arguments is the prep that goes into the demo, which has wow'ed folks.

In order to move around big chunks in X with a lot of connected clips, you first have to adjust where the clips are actually connected, otherwise they won't travel along correctly. This stage is usually skipped in the demo, because it was prepped beforehand. As a result, the process looks faster than it actually is.

I would argue that to do the equivalent function in a track-based NLE takes more keystrokes, but isn't inherently slower. I'm not accounting for which one a given editor might perceive as more "fun". Just that on face value, the end result will be about the same from start to finish.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 2:50:55 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I'm not accounting for which one a given editor might perceive as more "fun""

mmm "snarky" :)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 3:33:49 pm

[Steve Connor] "mmm "snarky" :)"

Not snarky. Just a wink!

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 3:36:51 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Not snarky. Just a wink!"

Ha! Don't mind me, I'm just blasting out a few posts as I'm in danger of losing my number 37 spot in the COW "Hall of Fame"


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 6:35:56 pm

I thought the “top posters” thing had long since been retired? Where is it now?

Anyway, the reason I’ve talked so much about speed goes back to my very first major editorial experience in X.

I’ve posted about it here before.

The live on-site corporate conference edit i’d done for many years.

Each year (for the last half dozen years) it had taken me 10 days to complete and the last 2 were the typical editing “death march” with little sleep to have a 10-20 minute “best of conference” edit to show at the closing meeting.

After my commitment to X, I was seriously in “heart attack” mode on day 5! I didn’t have a single asset on ANY timeline - and was convinced I was going to spectacularly FAIL and lose one of my linchpin clients.

But on Day 7 by noon, I had 90% of the cut in showable form - and a Browser full of pre-trimmed options - and was calmly waiting for fresh content options to arrive.

I got two FULL nights of sleep before the showing for the first time EVER - and that was when I started describing X as SUPER FAST way to edit.

Over the minths past that, I kept seeing the same thing over and over and over.

My “time to completion” on work types I had years of experience with were dropping.

I had more time for pondering and time to let things “sit” more so I could come back to them with fresh eyes.

And even more palpable - when clients asked for changes to existing X work - it was HUGELY easier to erevise them - provided I had made the correct “managed verses referenced” choices and had stored and backed up my original construction assets sensibly.

A video done and billed in 5-7 days that would have tsken 10 before?

That’s pretty much my definition of “faster” in this context.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 7:17:18 pm

[Bill Davis] "That’s pretty much my definition of “faster” in this context."

In most ways that one can think of, all NLEs are very closely matched in terms of their overall speed, with small benefits in one area offset with small annoyances in another.

However today I had to do one of my least favourite editing tasks, in a screaming hurry as always at this time of the year, and given this week's revival of the "FCP X is unquestionably faster" meme, I was revelling in the fact that I was working not in FCP X but in Premiere.

Because it was a task that related to timecode.

I have had to do this same thing many times before in FCP X and each time I was minded to stick a hot pin in my eye to remind myself what lesser suffering felt like.

I would trade the marginal conveniences of FCP X any day in order to access the superior timecode handling of Premiere or Media Composer ... for this particular recurring task.

When you need a specific tool, you need that specific tool and workarounds just don't cut it.

Not all editors have the same requirements so can we just cut a bit of slack to those whose needs are not fully met by FCP X in every situation?

As I have to keep repeating whenever I say anything slightly disobliging about FCP X, I enjoy and admire many things about it. Just not everything.

(Catch an FCP X enthusiast adding a similar rider when they are discussing another NLE!)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index


Michael Hancock
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 7:36:31 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "When you need a specific tool, you need that specific tool and workarounds just don't cut it."

Exactly.

Just today, in another forum, I saw that an editor was handed a script built from sound bites, but with no timecode or clip names to reference them. Because they were cutting on Avid and had Phrasefind, what looked to be a laborious multi-hour slogfest took about 20 minutes to rough out. They couldn't have done that in any other NLE. That was the right tool for the job.

I had a job a few years ago that was going to be 100% green screen with tons of graphics and compositing that were all going to be done in AE. I chose to cut it in Premiere. When I handed my project off to the mograph artist they literally copied and pasted my timeline from Premiere to AE, and they had my entire edit ready to go in seconds. I can't think of any other NLE that would have been as fast and seamless going from NLE to After Effects.

The hardest part isn't learning to use software for a job - it's learning which software to use for a job.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 8:29:34 pm

[Michael Hancock] "The hardest part isn't learning to use software for a job - it's learning which software to use for a job."

One of the most sensible things that's been said on this forum in many a long year.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 5, 2018 at 9:09:41 am

[Michael Hancock] "
The hardest part isn't learning to use software for a job - it's learning which software to use for a job."


Utterly right, that’s it, pack up the forum we’re all done here. We have the correct answer!


Return to posts index


Brett Sherman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 5, 2018 at 1:53:59 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "As I have to keep repeating whenever I say anything slightly disobliging about FCP X, I enjoy and admire many things about it. Just not everything."

The problem is you are misrepresenting what the presentation is about. I didn't watch the entire thing, but I didn't see at any point where Steve said FCP X was faster than other editing programs. He's presenting how to work faster IN FCP X. Why is that a problem? I'm sure there are tons of videos out there about working faster in Premiere. You don't see FCP X users running around discounting those.

You're trying to make a straw man argument here. I don't think there's anyone that thinks FCP X is faster for all workflows.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 5, 2018 at 4:25:00 pm

[Brett Sherman] "He's presenting how to work faster IN FCP X. "

I just said that, but thanks for the paraphrase.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 16, 2018 at 12:04:19 pm

You're right you did say that. But your argument against this video is that he should have made a different video than the one he intended to make. That's a weird argument. Sort of like going to an action film and complaining that what you really wanted was a rom-com.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 7:27:24 pm

[Bill Davis] "I thought the “top posters” thing had long since been retired? Where is it now? "

It's still there, just hidden so we don't get motivated to post for the "wrong" reasons I guess.
https://forums.creativecow.net/hof.php



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 7:54:38 pm

[Bill Davis] "Each year (for the last half dozen years) it had taken me 10 days to complete and the last 2 were the typical editing “death march” with little sleep to have a 10-20 minute “best of conference” edit to show at the closing meeting."

I realize that my opinion of X differs from yours much of the time ☺ However, in this scenario, given the choice, I would go for X each and every time, as well. And have done so a number of times. On-site conference edits can be a beast and X on a fast MacBook Pro (or other advanced Mac) is pretty hard to top for this sort of turnaround. It really feels to me to be the type of work Apple developers had in mind when designing the app.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 3:14:23 pm

[Oliver Peters] "In order to move around big chunks in X with a lot of connected clips, you first have to adjust where the clips are actually connected, otherwise they won't travel along correctly."

Not necessarily. Just depends on what you are trying to do in the timeline. I move chunks all the time without adjusting where clips are connected.

Not to mention that when you get there stuff moves out of the way.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 3:29:41 pm

[Tony West] "Not to mention that when you get there stuff moves out of the way."

Well, in my experience with X, the requirement to constantly update the timeline display status means doing this with a large timeline is a real performance drag. For me anyway, it takes any join away in using X. As such, I find it faster to simply copy/delete and paste/insert, like I would do in Premiere. The clean-up is trivial in either app.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 3:58:31 pm

[Oliver Peters] " with a large timeline is a real performance drag."

Hum. I never see that drag when I watch folks on these demo videos. If you get a chance to interview Thomas Carter, maybe ask him why his performance is zippy and yours is not. Ask what he's doing differently than you.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 4:24:41 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on May 4, 2018 at 4:29:22 pm

[Tony West] "If you get a chance to interview Thomas Carter, maybe ask him why his performance is zippy and yours is not."

I've spoken with Thomas. He works on short form with low-res media using fast, local SSD media drives. That's when FCPX excels.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/a-conversation-with-thomas-gr...

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 6:48:13 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on May 4, 2018 at 6:52:51 pm

Sure Tom works on short form, but Mads and Ryan at Metronome don’t.
Nor Chuck Braverman in LA. Nor a boatload of the LumaFirge clients all around the wotlrld.

There are clearly shops, TV stations and documentarians doing nothing BUT long form - and none of them that I chat with grouse about being unable to work efficiently.

So the question Maybe becomes what is your shop doing that is preventing you from achieving the same thing?

It might be useful to note that there are many, many posts about how solutions like Premiere and X are different in how they process files and the type of network topology they prefer. So it might be that if your system is “optimixmzed” for one - it will have lagging issues with the other - if you try to switch back and forth.

I know little to nothing about multi-seat shops - but I know and regularly talk with lots of folks who do - and all they tend to chat about is how to achieve increasingly complex workflows - because they are extremely happy with what they are already doing.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 7:05:24 pm

[Bill Davis] "Sure Tom works on short form, but Mads and Ryan at Metronome don’t.
Nor Chuck Braverman in LA. Nor a boatload of the LumaFirge clients all around the wotlrld"


But you really don't know if they are seeing a lag when dragging a clump of media from one end of a 90 minute timeline to the other. Nor what their tolerance for "lag" might be. Or do you?

[Bill Davis] "It might be useful to note that there are many, many posts about how solutions like Premiere and X are different in how they process files and the type of network topology they prefer. So it might be that if your system is “optimixmzed” for one - it will have lagging issues with the other - if you try to switch back and forth."

I'm not even talking about network. For me it's there on local storage on every machine I've ever used X on - once you are there with large timelines. My tolerance is ZERO - plain and simple. On a standard shared network (QNAP in our case), FCPX is completely unusable when I start to work with very high-res files (4K and larger). Shorter form, running on a Promise RAID, like butter.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 10:20:04 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Or do you?"

I’d ask them, but Metronome is in the middle of a facilities move and huge expansion right now.

The guys keep posting photos of stacks and stacks of new iMac and iMac Pro boxes as they build things out.

And I know they are simultaneously getting ready to launch a 24 camera reality show - so I don’t want to ping them at the moment. They look pretty busy!

But when things settle down, I’d be happy to ask.

And I suspect as complex as this new show they are mounting appears - it will likely end up on FCP.Co as a case study maybe next year.

I’ve got to believe tho, with the huge cast and crew involved, they’d be pretty intolerant if their systems beachballing as much as you are experiencing.

On a project of that scope - the budget burn rate is likely darn high. And time is still money.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 10:49:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "And I suspect as complex as this new show they are mounting appears - it will likely end up on FCP.Co as a case study maybe next year. "

Staying on point - since I was talking about lag in dragging clips around on the timeline...

All I know is that if I have several primary clips with connected clips as a compete chunk at the end of a 60+ minute timeline, and I want to move that somewhere towards the front - and it has to pass a bunch of other clips with their own connected clips along the way - then it's easier to copy/delete and then paste/insert, than it is to drag that whole stretch. At that point the differences between doing this in FCPX versus Premiere or Avid is trivial. Dragging is relatively easy if I'm simply swapping around the order of soundbites with minimal connected B-roll.

In addition, I'm well aware that Lumaforge is better suited than other NAS systems for FCPX. But then OpenDrives is also better suited for Premiere. Just depends on what one can afford. But I highly doubt that if anyone is working with native RED or 4K ProRes files on a network, that the performance will be the same as on local storage. Now, if you have a bunch of C100 HD files, it's likely a different story.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 6, 2018 at 3:52:38 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I've spoken with Thomas. He works on short form with low-res media using fast, local SSD media drives. That's when FCPX excels."

Well you might have to use low-res media also like him if your system is not handling the material.

I don't have any lag when swapping shots with 4k material in an 60 min timeline (without low-res mat) at all. People who are interested can just test it with their own system and material to see how it works for them. It's pretty easy to test that.

The cut and paste method you mentioned seems to defeat the purpose of the connected clips. You would have to lasso all the elements to do that instead of just dragging the primary clip.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 6, 2018 at 7:26:54 pm

[Tony West] "I don't have any lag when swapping shots with 4k material in an 60 min timeline (without low-res mat) at all."

It could well be a factor of codecs, etc. Or just own's own tolerance.

[Tony West] "The cut and paste method you mentioned seems to defeat the purpose of the connected clips. You would have to lasso all the elements to do that instead of just dragging the primary clip."

Yes. So? When I move a piece, it's usually a segment, so in FCPX that would be several primary clips and their associated connected clips, not just one. I have to lasso them anyway. Therefore, I don't see a huge distinction in the method, having done it both ways.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 7, 2018 at 1:16:30 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[Tony West] "The cut and paste method you mentioned seems to defeat the purpose of the connected clips. You would have to lasso all the elements to do that instead of just dragging the primary clip."

Yes. So?"


So, your way is less efficient than how I wold do it.

First, if you are going to use that method you have to make sure that you lasso all of the elements that you want to past. If you don't, whatever you miss won't be there when you paste. I'm only worried about the primary clip or clips.

[Oliver Peters] " When I move a piece, it's usually a segment, so in FCPX that would be several primary clips and their associated connected clips,"

If I'm moving a segment I still only lasso the primary clips (which is less lassoing than your example.)

If you have over 10 elements connected to a primary like Carter, it's a lot more work trying to reach vertically down to lasso all of those clips. (That's why I imagine you don't see him doing it that way often)

Your way is 1. Lasso more (than I would) 2. Cut 3. move the playhead down the timeline to where you want it to be. 4. select that spot 5. Paste

My way is 1. Lasso less 2. drag everything to the spot.

There are often multiple ways of doing the same thing. I often see people doing things in X that I would never do. If you are working like that I can see why you don't feel it's any more efficient. I wouldn't either if I did it that way.

Also, the point isn't can you move chunks in X more efficiently than me (doesn't look like you can) but rather can you move the same chunks in a track-base time as efficiently. You would have to make your own version of the carter video to prove it.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 7, 2018 at 2:13:52 pm

[Tony West] "So, your way is less efficient than how I wold do it."

As I have said before, my way most likely involves more keystrokes, but total time would be about the same. Especially when the move is complex. Simply swapping around soundbites with a few B-Roll shots is relatively easy and fast in any NLE, but of course, X has the edge in that simple scenario. Remember, too, that in most complex scenarios, B-roll shots and connected audio, like music and SFX, aren't always connected to the primary clips that you wish to move. Many often prelap the cut to the primary. Therefore, you also have to factor in the need to move the connection point in X before doing any dragging.

[Tony West] "There are often multiple ways of doing the same thing. I often see people doing things in X that I would never do. If you are working like that I can see why you don't feel it's any more efficient. I wouldn't either if I did it that way."

To each his/her own. Don't assume that I haven't done it the other way, as well. I've only been cutting on X since day 1. And for a time exclusively in X. I just find that in the long run - for me at least - dragging is the least efficient and least accurate way to work.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 3:15:29 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I would argue that to do the equivalent function in a track-based NLE takes more keystrokes, but isn't inherently slower."

It always surprises me to hear people make such a big deal out of this.

Did they really have so much difficulty doing this in other NLEs? How did they ever get anything done?

It makes you wonder whether they had in fact mastered all the different ways of achieving this result in those other NLEs (to borrow an argument that FCP X enthusiasts are fond of employing when championing its way of doing things).

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 3:33:07 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "It makes you wonder whether they had in fact mastered all the different ways of achieving this result in those other NLEs (to borrow an argument that FCP X enthusiasts are fond of employing when championing its way of doing things).
"


No, we were all dummies who were just waiting for the magnetic timeline so we could work as fast as the clever Editors!

Seriously though I've always found this function of the magnetic timeline to be more convenient than offering any real increase in speed, for me it takes a little less "think" time than a traditional tracked NLE.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 3:43:41 pm

[Steve Connor] "Seriously though I've always found this function of the magnetic timeline to be more convenient than offering any real increase in speed, for me it takes a little less "think" time than a traditional tracked NLE."

When you put it as reasonably as that, it's hard to disagree.

But if everyone around here was reasonable, this place would have closed long ago ...

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 6, 2018 at 3:55:50 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Oliver Peters] "I would argue that to do the equivalent function in a track-based NLE takes more keystrokes, but isn't inherently slower."

It always surprises me to hear people make such a big deal out of this.

Did they really have so much difficulty doing this in other NLEs? How did they ever get anything done?"


You are actually calling Oliver out in this statement as not knowing what he is doing in tracks (since you use "his" statement ). I don't think you meant to do that.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 3, 2018 at 8:59:51 pm

Cue Bill's FCPX glorifying rebuttal in 3,2,1...

One aspect that doesn't get mentioned in all of this nonsense about why FCPX lacks real traction after seven years is that basic human nature is fighting against it.

Most people want the path of least resistance. When prompted with the option of learning a whole new approach to editing I'm going to guess that 9 out of 10 folks will pass.

I learned it out of necessity to take a FCPX gig and had the gig not come along there's little chance that I would've taken the time to learn it.

Life is busy. Work schedules are demanding and so voluntarily taking even more time away from those activities that people actually like to do is not exactly a great selling point even if it's heavily advertised to speed up your workflow.

Another thing that did get mentioned in the other thread is the perception that the software is a cheap pile of garbage that's on the same level as imovie. This of course isn't the case but whenever I bring up the subject of FCPX with other editors, that's the response that I get.

The "cheap" moniker that's been attached to the product also seems to be a limiting factor in it's overall adoption.

Windows 10 Pro
i7-5820k CPU
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970
Blackmagic Decklink 4k Mini Monitor
Adobe CC 2018
Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0
Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280
Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 3, 2018 at 9:08:38 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on May 3, 2018 at 9:12:09 pm

[greg janza] "Most people want the path of least resistance. When prompted with the option of learning a whole new approach to editing I'm going to guess that 9 out of 10 folks will pass."

I think you have allowed Bill to mess with your head here.* FCP X is really, really, really not difficult to master - and master in depth.

The editors I know (most of them) are very clever people and have no difficulty accommodating themselves to new ways of working. (Maybe that's not the case in other territories but it's certainly true here.) You just have to convince them that the change is worth the effort ... and more importantly the disruption, given that their workflows are dependent on a large number of interactions with other workflows and other applications.

If you can make an adequate case - and bear in mind that they are a very discriminating bunch - then they're perfectly happy to embrace any change you throw at them.

* It's an essential component of the FCP X mythology that you have to be a Zen Master with many years of training to appreciate its complexities, to which the answer is: "Pull the other one."

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 3, 2018 at 9:31:16 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I think you have allowed Bill to mess with your head here.* FCP X is really, really, really not difficult to master - and master in depth."

Sorry Simon, I didn't mean to add to the mythology of FCPX.

You are correct that it's easy to pick up and that many editors are highly adaptable to it. I learned it quickly as well.

Windows 10 Pro
i7-5820k CPU
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970
Blackmagic Decklink 4k Mini Monitor
Adobe CC 2018
Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0
Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280
Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 3, 2018 at 9:36:30 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on May 3, 2018 at 9:39:22 pm

[greg janza] "You are correct that it's easy to pick up and that many editors are highly adaptable to it. I learned it quickly as well."

I learned it before it was even released commercially.

Because, as soon as I saw the sneak peek, I went and got iMovie and familiarised myself with the fundamental paradigms.

I know that is going to sound provocative but it's true and it was extremely useful.

I could actually work fluently with FCP X from Day One for that simple reason.

Contrary to received opinion, FCP X is conceived from the ground up to be extremely easy to use. It's bizarre to see claims that it's complicated and difficult and deep.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 3, 2018 at 10:08:32 pm

I just really want to edit slower to be honest - all this fast fast fast stuff - I'm over here like my client gave 5 days to cut this trailer, I'm going to take all 5 days. Your not getting a cut from me early that's for sure. If I have extra time - I experiment and come up with alts which are always appreciated by the client and my creative directors.

When approached with extreme turnarounds - I buckle down and get it done but I've never once thought to myself - I wish I can edit faster. Faster exports, faster renders ( I don't remember the last time I had to render anything except an audio effect) - sure bring it on but creative decisions take the time there going to take regardless of the tool IMO.

In my world turnarounds are for the most part standard. Every place Ive worked at gives me 1-2 weeks for a trailer, 1-2 days for a :30 spot, 3 days for a :60 etc. Its generally known by the clients that good creative takes time.

I tell my fiends it takes me 2 days to cut a :30 and they all think the same thing - that's alot of time to cut :30 seconds of video but there are also unaware of the complexity a modern piece of marketing can contain. The music bed/edits alone could take half a day and another half a day doing sound design.

Steve's presentation was well done and informative for people new to X but I feel like someone's been giving this demo once every couple months for the last few years.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:30:17 am

[Neil Goodman] "Steve's presentation was well done and informative for people new to X but I feel like someone's been giving this demo once every couple months for the last few years."

Perhaps that's indicative to how many new people need to hear it.

Another way to look at it, since these are less commonly used functions for some FCPX editors they can easily be forgotten so the reminders help.

Consider that an Avid editor can have as much as 28 years experience on Avid and many have more 7 years experience. Premiere in it's Pro incarnation about 15 years (give or take). Final Cut Pro (legacy) about 11 years and users stayed with it beyond that.

On the other hand FCPX is 7 years at most for those who were their from the beginning. So there are many FCPX editors who's ability to recall some of these may not be up to the level of the more experienced editors on other NLEs.

To put it another way, there may be many more Avid users and even Premiere Pro and FCP Legacy users who have important less common functions seared into their brains than FCPX editors and this point. These "reminders" from Steve are still useful to an FCPX editors whereas a similar dive into Avid would be unnecessary for a bigger plurality of Avid editors.


It's not so much that it's just for people new to FCPX but more FCPX don't have such things burned into them like Avid, etc editors.



Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:42:08 am

[Craig Seeman] "It's not so much that it's just for people new to FCPX but more FCPX don't have such things burned into them like Avid, etc editors.
"


makes perfect sense to me from that view.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:57:08 am

[Neil Goodman] "makes perfect sense to me from that view."

In fact, from my personal perspective, despite having used FCPX from its beginning, I still have less years experience as an FCPX editor then as a linear editor or as an Avid editor or as an FCP legacy editor.



Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:44:13 pm

[Neil Goodman] "I just really want to edit slower to be honest - all this fast fast fast stuff - I'm over here like my client gave 5 days to cut this trailer, I'm going to take all 5 days. Your not getting a cut from me early that's for sure. If I have extra time - I experiment and come up with alts which are always appreciated by the client and my creative directors. "

And then there are those of us whose edit sessions are measured in hours, not days. And working through hours of footage to do it. It's those scenarios that FCP X really shines. I'd also say it shines in large documentaries with tons of footage.

It also sounds like your clientele is not very price sensitive. Which is great for you. But I'd say pretty rare.

It really sort of proves my theory that the Hollywood world is sort of unique in the video world. Time and price are not as critical in project prioritization. I work in social media where time is the most critical factor. Pristine quality, meaning that extra last 5% improvement, is really largely inconsequential.

Different jobs. Different tools.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:52:33 pm

[Brett Sherman] "It also sounds like your clientele is not very price sensitive. Which is great for you. But I'd say pretty rare.
"


As far as I know they pay the agency a flat fee for the first 5 versions, and then anything after that is extra. The budgets might be bigger than some other stuff for sure but even big clients are looking to save $ wherever they can, you wont believe how many times I have to replace music and sfx once a client gets the cue sheets. In general though there are willing to pay good money because they know there are going to get something cool but deadlines are pretty aggressive.

Its not easy to do a Trailer in 5 days. It really isnt - especially if your cutting from dailies.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 1:04:18 pm

[Brett Sherman] "It really sort of proves my theory that the Hollywood world is sort of unique in the video world."

Well, Alot of these shows and movies have marketing budgets that range from the tens of thousands all the way up to tens of millions and beyond. So yea theres alot of money at play.

I mean when I client does a trailer or tv spots - they are usually paying multiple agencies to work on the same piece of content and they only pick one. Everyone gets paid though. So yea they have money to burn obviously.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 2:15:46 am

[greg janza] "The "cheap" moniker that's been attached to the product also seems to be a limiting factor in it's overall adoption."

No need to address anything here, except to note that anyone who feels X is “too cheap” to be any good, must therefore find Resolve Basic “worthless?”

Oh dear.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 4:02:42 am

[Bill Davis] "No need to address anything here, except to note that anyone who feels X is “too cheap” to be any good, must therefore find Resolve Basic “worthless?”"

Didn't Resolve used to cost $250,000 or thereabouts? People are probably still mentally depreciating it... ;-)


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 6:06:25 am

[Bill Davis] "No need to address anything here, except to note that anyone who feels X is “too cheap” to be any good, must therefore find Resolve Basic “worthless?”"

No, because it already achieved a high level of brand recognition before the price cuts. Same reason Shake, Fusion, MC, PS, Teranex, etc., aren't seen as 'cheap' tools even though they're all more affordable now than ever.

On a more general level though, I think the software price race to the bottom is bad for the industry (and thus bad for end users) long term. It devalues the products and leaves software-only makers with no choice but to go subscription, freemium, ad-supported, etc., because there's no way to compete with companies like Apple or BM literally giving away software for free.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 12:52:17 pm

So you would blamed FCP legacy for its $1000 price point because Avid was tens of thousands of dollars or would you blame Media 100 because it was thousands compared to Avid's tens of thousands of dollars?

Or do you blame that digital video because it was significantly cheaper than 35mm film (or even 16mm film for news and indies)?

Or perhaps CMX was the problem?

I think the lower prices created more jobs and, apparently software only companies are still finding viable business models.



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 4:08:10 pm

[Craig Seeman] "So you would blamed FCP legacy for its $1000 price point because Avid was tens of thousands of dollars or would you blame Media 100 because it was thousands compared to Avid's tens of thousands of dollars?

Or do you blame that digital video because it was significantly cheaper than 35mm film (or even 16mm film for news and indies)?"

I think the lower prices created more jobs and, apparently software only companies are still finding viable business models."


There's healthy competition and there's unhealthy competition and I think the current state of competition in the creative professional software space (and in software in general) is headed down the unhealthy road (which will be to the detriment of end users/consumers in the long run). There's a big difference between charging $1000 plus a few hundred every couple years for upgrades and charging $299 once, or nothing at all, and leveraging 1st party vender lock-in based hardware sales to make up for it.

Yes, software only companies are still finding viable business models, but they are getting demonized for it even though it's a required reaction to changes in the marketplace (such as those caused by companies like BM and Apple). To the point of everyone that hates Adobe's business model makes, yes at some moment in time it's not going to make sense to pay for an ongoing subscription when you can get something like FCP X or Resolve for peanuts (and I wouldn't be surprised to see BM eventually drop the price of Resolve to be cheaper than FCP X). So what's Adobe's play then?

Let's say they take a page out of BM's book and buy AJA and Tangent. Adobe becomes a hardware company that sells the entire Adobe software suite for $250 (and gives a away a free version that just has a few high end features missing). Tangent panels now only work with Adobe software and if you need any sort of video I/O you can only use AJA products. Both BM's and Adobe's support of their hardware with third party software is spotty best because they'd rather you use Resolve or PPro respectively.

So now, as consumers, we are stuck having to choose between purposefully incompatible ecosystems again even though one of the best things about the desktop NLE revolution was that these arbitrary hardware barriers were broken down allowing us to easily, and affordably, pick and choose the best tools for each situation. And what about smaller competitors like Pixelmator or Affinity? When the entire Adobe suite is only $250 (or free) for life I'm sure demand for up and coming competitors like those will contract significantly.

As consumers/end users we end up with fewer options and no real incentive for new competitors to enter the fray. That doesn't strike me as a good thing, but maybe that's just the inevitable conclusion to a maturing industry in this day and age?

For simplicity's sake I left Avid out of the discussion, but I think at this point Avid is the least likely to be pushing market trends/change/disruption compared to Adobe, Apple and BM.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 4:40:17 pm

It certainly will be interesting if Adobe gets into hardware.
Otherwise one has to consider that somehow Pixelmator and Affinity are surviving with really low buy prices.
Perhaps smaller companies will still do OK and it's relative behemoths like Adobe that are having issues.
In fact Adobe had issues with the buy now upgrade and pay model which is why they switched.
Pixelmator's solution was a new version called Pro requiring a new buy.
Maign KeyFlowPro also was to release a new version requiring a new buy.
It really looks like software that doesn't go subscription will dispense with upgrades but go to low buy and buy again model.
Others will be buy but require support renewals to keep getting upgrades.
I really don't see this heading to fewer choices so much as new business models.
The buy once own forever is being done by (some) hardware companies. That's not shutting out other companies, with other business models though because each model affords a low entry price. That'll be the common denominator.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 6:53:22 pm

[Craig Seeman] "but go to low buy and buy again model"

Developers have told me directly that this is a paradigm they are pushed into by the App Store rules. You can't develop indefinitely, otherwise you lose money. So the effect is that a given application is targeted to only get a few years of ongoing development. The feature set is finite and locked. Once that point is reached, further development ceases, except for bug fixes and OS compatibility. New development effort then shifts to the new product.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Smarter and Faster
on May 4, 2018 at 4:42:42 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "and I wouldn't be surprised to see BM eventually drop the price of Resolve to be cheaper than FCP X"

Aren't we there already? They are both $300, but with Resolve Studio you also get the equivalent of Motion and Logic (sort of) tossed in. Plus, the standard version is free and does nearly everything you'd want to do up to UHD frame sizes.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2018 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]