FORUMS: list search recent posts

LACPUG - Randy Ubillos

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 6, 2018 at 5:25:19 pm

Learning about the beginnings

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/2095-randy-ubillos-back-to-the-beg...

YouTube Pt 1






YouTube Pt 2






- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 6, 2018 at 6:35:31 pm

Now you can see why it was such a fun event to attend.

Knowing the past, typically helps understand the present - and maybe even a bit about the future.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 7, 2018 at 1:50:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "Knowing the past, typically helps understand the present - and maybe even a bit about the future."

Yes, realizing that one of the key designers of NLEs had zero knowledge of film editing techniques and needs, and almost as little understanding of previous video editing workflows, does explain an awful lot.

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


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 7, 2018 at 2:22:10 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Jul 7, 2018 at 4:55:52 pm

[Herb Sevush] "does explain an awful lot."

It would be easy to chime in with agreement; however, I think that criticism is a bit unfair. After all, most previous NLEs and linear systems were developed by very sharp engineers from non-film backgrounds. Adrian Ettlinger, Larry Seehorn, Bill Werner and Eric Peters, for example. Of course, the last two (Avid) did bring in experienced editors very early on in the process.

And remember that Randy also developed Aperture from scratch, yet was only an amateur photographer.

Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 7, 2018 at 4:47:25 pm

Dave Bargen, key designer for CMX, ISC and GVG linear edit systems was a radar engineer in Colorado. He made this stuff up. Film editors did not like it. And so, a young generation of video editors in the late 70's and 80's took over.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 7, 2018 at 8:30:52 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Yes, realizing that one of the key designers of NLEs had zero knowledge of film editing techniques and needs, and almost as little understanding of previous video editing workflows, does explain an awful lot."


Yup..

I feel a new t-shirt coming...

It's all been downhill since we retired the Carbon Arc!

Oh well.

All I know is that I spent last week re-purposing client video design templates for IGTV. (Instagram TV)

Wide, Tall, or Square. I'm prepping to deliver anything.
It's a go where the eyeballs are going world.

Some battles are worth hanging around to fight, but sometimes the war simply moves on without you.

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


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 8, 2018 at 4:18:54 pm

[Bill Davis] "It's all been downhill since we retired the Carbon Arc! "

Nothing I said indicated a desire to return to the past.

I believe every industry has built up wisdom over the (often) hundreds of years of it's existence and the neglect to use and incorporate that knowledge by software designers stepping into uncharted waters is a shameful waste. This goes on in every field - my wife is a nurse and the software they use to chart their patient's care is criminal in the way it forces nurses to work - bad for the nurses, bad for the insurance companies, worse for the patients.

I don't think it too much to ask that an NLE designer actually know something about the "E" part of that word, something beyond what you could learn in the AV squad at High School. As Oliver pointed out, Randy was hardly unique in his ignorance, I was pointing him out because he was the subject of the interview.

[Bill Davis] "All I know is that I spent last week re-purposing client video design templates for IGTV."

I realize that you live in the best of all possible worlds, but did it ever occur to you that it could be better still?

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


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 8, 2018 at 4:56:35 pm

Herb writes -
realize that you live in the best of all possible worlds, but did it ever occur to you that it could be better still

and the fan boys reply - "yes, only if Apple releases it !".
I remember when Jim Janard was active on the http://www.red.com user forum. And all the RED fan boys would only comment "way to go Jim - can't wait" - no opinion, no question, just could not wait to hand over their money. I think Mr. Janard got discouraged when pro users got active on the forums and started making negative comments. And when I hear that "this" forum is hostile to FCP X (how dare you, you professionals !) - I think of what else is there - http://www.fcp.co ? I saw a great article from Michael Kammes on building a Hackintosh on that site, with assorted comments, but my favorite comment was "you know, this is an Apple FCP X site, and we should only be discussing Apple products" (or something like that). You think my way - or it's the highway ! Gee, isn't that identical to the way religion works ?

ooh - I found the exact comment from the "non hostile" FCP X forum (a reply to the "rude" person that dared to question anything ) -

"While I can appreciate your comments, I don't know if you are aware but this is a site dedicated to FCPX and Apple Pro Video apps, and therefore Mac users. There are great apps in our industry for all operation systems as they all help us make our best work. I'm glad you are doing well with your setup."


Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 5:25:39 pm

[Bob Zelin] "and the fan boys reply - "yes, only if Apple releases it !". "

Just for reference, not everyone that uses FCP X feels that way. At all.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 8, 2018 at 6:42:59 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Nothing I said indicated a desire to return to the past. "

Uh, your post self-described as being about “film editing techniques”.

Films are lovely. Films are wonderful. But Films also are the past.. Film is precisely what was traditionally designed to roll in front of the spark in the gap between carbon rods.

I know what you meant. And I know you likely haven't touched actual “film” in years, but it still clearly informs how you think. You think in “movies” or in “TV” And that’s fine.

It’s also probably why you pushed back about Mr. Ubillos’s suitability as an industry innovator. Turns out he wasn’t attempting to invent the future folks like YOU wanted, as much as he was interested in inventing one that would work better for editors who needed to do things OTHER than one huge major centralized effort over many, many months.

But just like his very first effort - that simple DV tool to help with Supermac card sales that became Premiere - it turns out what he was interested in doing, a LOT of people (millions and millions, actually) were extremely interested in buying into.

Including legions of folk doing exactly those “films” and TV shows that occupy your time.

So like it or not - his thinking was the major “pivot point” that, over time, largely moved the industry from Steenbecks to Laptops - and ushered individually produced video toward becoming the Lingua Franca of the modern world.

If someone more like you had had sway in all those meetings over the years where Mr. Ubillos did - it would likely be a very different industry today.

We’ll never know.

We both do know, however, that every “film” or TV show produced - there are probably a thousand money making paid productions that are “not film.”

That you still think nearly exclusively about our industry in film centric modes terms is just fine.

But others don’t.

This forum should be for them - just as much as it’s for you - if it’s to remain relevant going forward.

My 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 8, 2018 at 7:32:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "Films are lovely. Films are wonderful. But Films also are the past.. "

Well...

It's films that gave us 24fps, rightly or wrongly. And try as the industry might, the majority of people still seem to prefer that visual experience. Understanding film technology helps engineers to add that (and other technologies) to the video feature set.

It's also film that brought us log-encoding methods, which are so important to the future of HDR.

So let's be careful about what we consider "the past".

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 12:42:03 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It's films that gave us 24fps, rightly or wrongly. And try as the industry might, the majority of people still seem to prefer that visual experience. Understanding film technology helps engineers to add that (and other technologies) to the video feature set."

Yes the difference between 24 fps and 60 fps gives a different aesthetic. But what about 30 fps? I actually think this example says something different. I doubt the end viewer could even perceive the difference between 24 and 30 fps. So then the question becomes "why do films continue to be shot in 24 fps?" The number one reason is inertia. Whole workflows have been developed for 24fps. To change to 30 fps would be costly for little to no gain. The second, much lesser reason, is that 24 fps has become synonymous with quality because film was superior to video for many decades. Including when many of those who work in the field started out.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 1:12:41 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Yes the difference between 24 fps and 60 fps gives a different aesthetic. But what about 30 fps? I actually think this example says something different. I doubt the end viewer could even perceive the difference between 24 and 30 fps."

I think it's a complex answer. Originally the industry options were 60 interlaced fields versus 24 whole frames (50 and 25 in PAL countries). As we shifted to HD, then 24, 25, 30, 50, or 60 progressive (whole) frames became technologically possible in cameras and to be passed through post. Likewise, we shifted to flat panel displays instead of CRTs. Panels are inherently progressive.

Today it's common to finish and deliver in one of these 5 rates - mostly progressive. However, for reasons of file size and bandwidth, it's generally 24, 25, or 30. On most displays, you probably won't see much difference between them, so 24 (or 25) becomes an optimal rate, because it offers the best compressed video quality, as there are fewer frames to compress in the stream.

[Brett Sherman] "So then the question becomes "why do films continue to be shot in 24 fps?" The number one reason is inertia."

In part. Peter Jackson's attempt (among others) has largely been deemed unsuccessful when it comes to viewer reaction, not to mention less commercial success. Same with efforts like ShowScan. Then there are issues like VFX. If 50% of the shots in your film have some type of VFX, then it's a lot less time-consuming and less costly to process at 24fps than at 48fps (or higher).

People who like the god-awful, high-frame-rate modes (like 120fps) in their flat panel displays, can simply turn that on and get a convincing result, without any extra effort on the production/post/delivery side. Thus the *best* of both worlds.

[Brett Sherman] "24 fps has become synonymous with quality because film was superior to video for many decades"

Well, true. But, there are also visual differences like motion blur, which lend to something that is subliminally perceived as more "imaginary" than as "reality".

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 2:11:21 pm

[Oliver Peters] " But, there are also visual differences like motion blur, which lend to something that is subliminally perceived as more "imaginary" than as "reality"."

Any discussion of frame rates becomes very complicated, very quickly, especially if an historical understanding is missing.

If motion blur is so important then why not 22 frames or 20, why the magical "24", when it is not tied to anything inherent in the human perceiving mechanism or in something as basic as the local AC current, which is where we get the video standard of 30fps (and, as a kludge, 29.97) and the Brits get 25.

Silent films had standardized on 18 fps for almost 10 years, with no complaints about flickering artifacts, before sound came in and required 24 fps to create a usable audio playback mechanism, so there is no reason, except for the happenstance of history, to stick with 24 now. If it's motion blur you want and also the desire to save on transmission bandwidth, then let's go back to 18fps now that audio playback is no longer an issue. 24 is 24 because of the technological limitations of a century ago, there is nothing inherently special about it, it is the "imperial vs metric" conflict of the motion picture world.

For myself, I work in Broadcast and see no reason to shoot in 24, rather than the 30(29.97) my work is transmitted at. If I were releasing in Theatrical I would work in 24 for the same reason. I doubt many viewers can tell the difference, I know there is no objective reason to choose one over the other as "better" in all contexts.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 4:49:13 pm

[Oliver Peters] "So let's be careful about what we consider "the past"."

The utility, the aesthetic, the magic of film is certainly not past. Just the production process. A handful of directors will still plow those fields for all the reasons in my first sentence ... and more.

But the capture of moving imagery for the billion communications purposes it's useful in - has simply moved past film.

Everyone knows that.

And its disingenuous to argue otherwise.

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


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 5:04:09 pm

[Bill Davis] "The utility, the aesthetic, the magic of film is certainly not past. Just the production process."

I'm talking about the process and the technology, not the actual handling of film. And that is still very valid. You know, things like syncing double-system sound. So we aren't talking about physical film, per se.

[Bill Davis] "But the capture of moving imagery for the billion communications purposes it's useful in - has simply moved past film. "

Hmm... Not so sure about that. Why do you think Filmic Pro exists for iPad/iPhone? My main concern is for professional users. 24p is very much alive there. In fact, the corporate & commercial projects that I work on - which are almost totally non-broadcast - are almost all shot at 23.976, with the occasional 29.97 mixed in.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 6:28:21 pm

[Oliver Peters] "In fact, the corporate & commercial projects that I work on - which are almost totally non-broadcast - are almost all shot at 23.976, with the occasional 29.97 mixed in.
"


Nobody's arguing that the cadence issues that the jamming of color under the luma sampling that moved 24 to 23.976, or 30 to 29.97 for broadcast aren't still real and necessary for some practitioners as we drift away from the old systems.

Just that nobody needs to run chemically treated celluloid through a camera any longer as a part of that. Not unless they're doing it for what's basically become a niche aesthetic reason.

And since that is no longer necessary - the NLE that's overly constructed around those principals - is a NLE that is looking backwards, not forwards.

Accommodate those who want that? Totally fine. But holding to the idea that the lions share of the work continuing forward will NEED that - is nuts. The weight of the industry is just NOT headed in that direction.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 6:41:15 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Jul 9, 2018 at 6:57:05 pm

[Bill Davis] "Nobody's arguing that the cadence issues that the jamming of color under the luma sampling that moved 24 to 23.976, or 30 to 29.97 for broadcast aren't still real and necessary for some practitioners as we drift away from the old systems"

Huh? I don't think you are understanding this very well. I wasn't talking about incremental frame rates. Rather the aesthetic preferences for film-like frame rates. Heck, it could 24.0 or even even be 25fps for that matter.

[Bill Davis] "Just that nobody needs to run chemically treated celluloid through a camera any longer as a part of that. Not unless they're doing it for what's basically become a niche aesthetic reason."

No one ever stated that except for you. You seem very hung-up on film as a medium and that's not what was being discussed. The film processes encompass many techniques and methods that are completely independent of celluloid. It's those processes and methods that all NLEs must still embrace to be valid for entertainment content on the web, theatrical, direct, etc.

[Bill Davis] "But holding to the idea that the lions share of the work continuing forward will NEED that - is nuts. The weight of the industry is just NOT headed in that direction."

So taking this argument to its logical extreme, then a "forward-leaning" NLE should NOT include any of these features, because they are "old" - and BTW - largely derived from film workflows:

- Support for any frame rates under 50fps
- Support for any frame size under 4K
- Support for any horizontal, rectangular image format
- Log encoding
- Double-system sound sync
- The ability to export split-track audio (stems)
- A "magnetic" timeline

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 11, 2018 at 3:46:02 am

Look, Oliver, Herb posted these words...

"Yes, realizing that one of the key designers of NLEs had zero knowledge of film editing techniques and needs..."

I responded with a comment ABOUT THAT. Period.

The implication was clear. The REASON X got so "screwed up" is because it was designed by someone who didn't really understand the game he was trying to play.

The mistake, IMO, was thinking that the game you expected to be played, was the game that would be the most important going forward.

Apparently, there are a whole lot more of us around the planet who feel that Mr. Ubillos not only "got it" - but was in a position to see things on the horizon that the rest of us were missing along the way. The rise of file based workflows. The explosion of content creation. The need for more efficient tools, and much, much more.

So here we are.

You can persist in a traditional path as Herb's has elected - constantly looking for tools that work largely as you're expecting. Or you can bet that on a different path, basically, that the best tools on the path in front of you - will be designed and evolve differently than those behind you.

Each editor makes that call.

And so it goes.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 11, 2018 at 12:32:53 pm

[Bill Davis] "The implication was clear. The REASON X got so "screwed up" is because it was designed by someone who didn't really understand the game he was trying to play. "

The posted interview had nothing to do with FCPX, it was about Randy's work with FCP legacy. My comments were about Randy's design choices for legacy. I have assumed that Randy had much more exposure to the editing world by the time he designed X, and his choices at that point were made with intent more than ignorance.

(I was going to say "made with arrogance more than ignorance", but I don't know the man at all and that would be unfair, all though more stylish.)

[Bill Davis] "Apparently, there are a whole lot more of us around the planet who feel that Mr. Ubillos not only "got it" - but was in a position to see things on the horizon that the rest of us were missing along the way. The rise of file based workflows. The explosion of content creation. The need for more efficient tools, and much, much more."

Good lord, if you only had any knowledge of what is going on in the world of NLE's you would realize that everyone was aware of these things.

Randy/Apple made a new NLE that you describe at the same time as "so easy anyone can learn it" and so complex that anyone who hasn't learned it already will be lagging behind those of you who have plumbed it's mysteries from the beginning.

FCPX emphasizes certain things that make it perfect for certain workflows, nod to Charlie Austin here, but at the cost of de-emphasizing others -- and this is true of all tools, digital and analog. It suits your workflow - we all get it, congratulations. But it hasn't changed the world of editing - not one PC knockoff, not any significant impact on the design of other Mac NLE's - and as a believer in free market forces I have to ask why? Why, after 7 years, if this revolutionary product has made editing so time efficient has no one else tried to make a buck off these concepts? I'm not talking about editors here, I'm talking about those who make their tools.

Premiere Pro (not the original Randy/Premiere) is a direct knock off of FCP Legacy. Why? Because Adobe wanted to make money. Where are the companies trying to make money off of X?

[Bill Davis] "You can persist in a traditional path as Herb's has elected - constantly looking for tools that work largely as you're expecting."

No Bill, I'm not only looking for tools that work as I expect, I'm constantly amazed at the range of tools I am finding, but I am looking for tools that fit the work I do. You are the most narrow focused, blinkered horse in this stable, and that's fine, your doing well with it, but it is irksome to listen to you go on about other people's direction of vision when you can't even turn your head.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 11, 2018 at 7:22:07 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jul 11, 2018 at 7:37:44 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Randy/Apple made a new NLE that you describe at the same time as "so easy anyone can learn it" and so complex that anyone who hasn't learned it already will be lagging behind those of you who have plumbed it's mysteries from the beginning."

I have never said anything even remotely like this. You're projecting.

[Herb Sevush] "But it hasn't changed the world of editing - not one PC knockoff, not any significant impact on the design of other Mac NLE's - and as a believer in free market forces I have to ask why?"

Poppycock. Unless, or course, you believe that Premiere suddenly adopting it's proxy workflow and enabling "hover scrub" et al - had nothing to do with X. Is that your position?

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


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 11, 2018 at 8:46:40 pm

[Bill Davis] "I have never said anything even remotely like this."

Which part have you never said anything remotely like - that it's easy to learn, or that it's hard to master? Since you've repeatedly said both, even though they directly contradict each other, I need to know which one you never said, or is it that you've never said either?

[Bill Davis] " Unless, or course, you believe that Premiere suddenly adopting it's proxy workflow and enabling "hover scrub" et al - had nothing to do with X. Is that your position?"

Proxy workflows go back at least 10 years before X was invented, by multiple NLEs, back when disk space was very limited, but of course you wouldn't know anything about that because you don't know anything about the history of NLE's.

Hover Scrub was being developed before X was released, which is why it came out so soon after, there wasn't enough time to copy it.

And I would definitely like to hear more about your "et al" since I don't think there is any "al" for you to name.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 11, 2018 at 9:05:00 pm

[Herb Sevush] "And I would definitely like to hear more about your "et al" since I don't think there is any "al" for you to name.
"


You know something. Never mind.

It wasn't me that decided the petty backhanded slap at Mr. Ubillos was necessary.

That was you.

And the last thing I need to do is spend my time defending him.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 11, 2018 at 8:20:41 pm

[Herb Sevush] "not any significant impact on the design of other Mac NLE's "

Resolve

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 11, 2018 at 8:48:30 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Resolve"

I'm not doubting you but asking in all earnestness - can you elaborate?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 11, 2018 at 10:02:40 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jul 11, 2018 at 10:26:50 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I'm not doubting you but asking in all earnestness - can you elaborate?"

Mostly the UI, but also some under the hood stuff, which is why it works so well with FCPXML. My understanding is they worked with Apple on a number of things early on. But... things like clip Fade handles, animation graphs that expand from clips, browser clip skimming, the Inspector functionality... the layout of the app actually, lots of stuff. To me, it's the closest track based NLE to X, and that's by design.

Pr has also borrowed/bolted on a bunch inspired by X. Search Bins, hover scrub, proxies, Essential Graphics and Sound, to name the most obvious.

Whatever. I'm over the fanboy crap honestly, most of these Cow threads just leave me shaking my head now. I use Pr as much as X and know it just as well. And I do mess with Resolve, and still open MC now and again just to make sure I remember how it works. lol I do have a strong preference though, I like the NLE that makes my job easier. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 11, 2018 at 11:10:57 pm

Charlie -

Thanks for the reply. I've downloaded Resolve but haven't really played with it much, now you've inspired me a bit.

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


Return to posts index


Scott Witthaus
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 12, 2018 at 3:45:21 pm

[Charlie Austin] "[Herb Sevush] "not any significant impact on the design of other Mac NLE's ""

Project Rush?

Scott Witthaus
Visual Storyteller - FCPX, Premiere
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 12, 2018 at 5:08:13 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Project Rush?"

You might think so, but not as far as I can see. Rush has tracks, non magnetic, no keywords, is part camera app, stores everything to the cloud automatically and then uses pre-made AE templates if you want to fancy things up graphically. Nothing X about it that I can see from the demo's.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 11:22:49 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It's films that gave us 24fps, rightly or wrongly."

Yes, but only after they added sound. I'm sure we can all agree that everything went downhill after the change from 18fps. :)


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 8, 2018 at 8:11:02 pm

[Bill Davis] "Films are lovely. Films are wonderful. But Films also are the past.. Film is precisely what was traditionally designed to roll in front of the spark in the gap between carbon rods.

I know what you meant. And I know you likely haven't touched actual “film” in years, but it still clearly informs how you think. You think in “movies” or in “TV” And that’s fine. "


There is a difference between studying the past and wanting to go back there. I read a lot about ancient history because I find many relevant things to learn about the rise and fall of civilizations, but I have no desire to live in any time but now.

I read and study about the beginnings of "moving pictures" because there is much to learn that is applicable to the work I do; but I have no desire to work on a Kem again, no desire to work in an on-line CMX room again, no desire to cut with edit* again.

New techniques, in all fields, are based on the tradition's of the past. To be ignorant of them is nothing to be proud of.

I would recommend Isaac Asimov's "Twilight" to understand the repercussions of forgetting history, but books are old, Asimov is dead and forgotten, and what could he have to say to you anyway? Instead I'll hit you with something even older:

"If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development."
Aristotle

[Bill Davis] "So like it or not - his thinking was the major “pivot point” that, over time, largely moved the industry from Steenbecks to Laptops - and ushered individually produced video toward becoming the Lingua Franca of the modern world."

True, and I wish his thinking was more informed; he's a very smart guy, he would have used that knowledge to everyone's advantage.

[Bill Davis] "This forum should be for them - just as much as it’s for you - if it’s to remain relevant going forward. "

This forum is for everybody but trolls.

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


Return to posts index

Don Walker
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 8, 2018 at 9:14:30 pm

[Herb Sevush] "no desire to work in an on-line CMX room again,"

I don't know about that. CMX Omni, with 2 D-2 machines, 3 Sony 1", and 1 Beta SP. Ampex Century 330, 2 channels of Kaliedescope, and don't forget the Abekas A-62, and A-42, all in one suite...... I could go back for one day. I think it would be fun......

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 10, 2018 at 6:58:55 am

[Don Walker] "I could go back for one day. I think it would be fun......"

I have very fond memories of my hybrid Analog Digital room. I had three BVW-75s, connected via component to a digital switcher. GVG-1000, 1 Channel of Kaleidoscope, Leitch 2-Ch still store and a Quanta Delta. Everything digital, apart from the tape decks. The editor was a GVG-251. I don't want to go back, but yes, a trip down memory lane might be nice.... As long as there isn't someone taking note that I don't remember the K-Scope menu tree. (Remember the big poster of the menus?)

I might do better with an Abekas A53-D. It was all Noun - Verb. I would have a better chance there. ☺

Fun note, at NAB I met a guy, close to my age, who worked on the Grass Kaleidoscope team in the late 1980s. He's now building playout servers. Nice to shake the hand of someone who worked on one of my favorite digital video devices.


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 6:42:30 am

[Herb Sevush] "I don't think it too much to ask that an NLE designer actually know something about the "E" part of that word, something beyond what you could learn in the AV squad at High School. As Oliver pointed out, Randy was hardly unique in his ignorance, I was pointing him out because he was the subject of the interview. "

I'm very glad he was "ignorant" otherwise he might have created just another version of Avid.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 8:16:13 am

It could have been so different. In 1986 I was invited to a meeting with the original Fairlight CMI team. They had invited a bunch of people in sound post to meet an discuss their project to create the Fairlight MFX which was designed as one of the first DAWs targeting film & TV post production, not music creation. They showed screen layouts and I asked why the tracks were horizontal not vertical like a dubbing chart. The purpose of course of a dubbing chart was the tracks correlated to channel strips on the mixer.

I envisaged a system where the computer tracklay would also replace the need to have dubbing charts with a fixed head position and scrolling tracks. The software team had started in England and was using the idea of musical notation with horizontal orientation so that's why they had the track layout horizontal. If I had been able to influence Fairlight to display vertically then the look of DAWs and likely NLEs might be very different as the Fairlight MFX preceded Avid by a few years.

I can see arguments for and against prior knowledge of how systems had evolved to work. By ignoring a lot of efficiencies and language, worked out over many years obvious things like track orientation were re-invented and possibly to their ongoing detriment. Conversely some of the detritus failed to be incorporated and that's a plus for sure.

On the topic of Randy, I listened to both videos and it was great info to hear. One thing really struck me was that he was the only software engineer who did demos. My experience with dSP and Fairlight development was that many of the software team were highly experienced sound editors and could both code and demo effectively. I think that any software team that can't actually edit with the software well enough to demo it is strange.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 12:20:33 pm

[Michael Gissing] " think that any software team that can't actually edit with the software well enough to demo it is strange"

I don't think it's a matter of can't. There have been and still are a number of accomplished past editors/filmmakers on the FCP/FCPX team. It's more a matter of how Apple likes to do things.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 12:27:16 pm

[Steve Connor] "I'm very glad he was "ignorant" otherwise he might have created just another version of Avid."

First, I don't want my comments to be construed as pointing to any sort of ignorance. Merely that a lot of very sharp developers did not come from a film background. Sharp engineers/developers can survey existing technologies and come up with something new and unique.

Second, I think it's important to note that once exposed to some of the aspects of film and film editors, Randy seems to have absorbed a lot. I would suggest that the editing paradigm of FCPX is a lot closer to a Steenbeck or a Moviola, than is that of FCP or other "traditional" 2-up/track-based NLEs. Those are more similar to 2-VTR linear systems.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 2:20:14 pm

[Steve Connor] "I'm very glad he was "ignorant" otherwise he might have created just another version of Avid."

First, let me be clear that I was talking about his work on what eventually became Final Cut 1-5, which is what the interview was about.

On that point I have a few responses to your comments.

First, do you think Avid is such a pinnacle of design that it would be the only direction someone with an editing background could come up with? That's quite a compliment to Avid.

Second, what makes you think Final Cut Pro 1 is anything other than "just another version of Avid?"

Finally, personally, I will always prefer decisions made from a position of knowledge to those made from a position of ignorance.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 11:16:04 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Yes, realizing that one of the key designers of NLEs had zero knowledge of film editing techniques and needs, and almost as little understanding of previous video editing workflows, does explain an awful lot."

How much knowledge of film editing even existed when the Movieola was released?


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 9, 2018 at 11:26:38 pm

[Scott Thomas] "How much knowledge of film editing even existed when the Movieola was released?"

The Moviola was invented in 1924, so lets say around 20-25 years. Why?

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


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 10, 2018 at 12:30:16 am

[Herb Sevush] "The Moviola was invented in 1924, so lets say around 20-25 years. Why?"

Because editing wasn't the reason it was created. It evolved into that roll.
The Avid Media Composer wasn't originally developed for film.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 10, 2018 at 12:22:56 pm

[Scott Thomas] "Because editing wasn't the reason it was created. It evolved into that roll."

Evolved is the wrong word. It was originally a small film projector that wasn't selling, an editor asked if it could be converted into an editor's viewer, and viola, the Moviola.

As for Avid, no it wasn't originally designed for film work, but what does that have to do with anything, I'm missing the point of your statements.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 10, 2018 at 3:45:16 pm

[Herb Sevush] "and viola, the Moviola."

Have I been saying Moviola incorrectly this whole time?

On no, that would be Movoila, not Moviola.

At any rate, I see what you were trying to do here. Well played, sir.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: LACPUG - Randy Ubillos
on Jul 11, 2018 at 3:51:05 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "On no, that would be Movoila, not Moviola. "

Hey, wait...

I wonder if a pronunciation corruption of THAT was where the term "walla" came from to denote environmental audio beds?

Mov-walla?
Mo-walla?

Think about it.

🤨

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


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Lightworks
on Jul 12, 2018 at 9:56:52 pm

Lightworks (maybe 20 years old) is said to have the closest workflow of traditional film editors on moviolas and similar but apart from Martin Scorsese no one is talking about it.

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 12, 2018 at 11:18:49 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "Lightworks (maybe 20 years old) is said to have the closest workflow of traditional film editors on moviolas and similar"

I dunno, mostly works like any other modern NLE with tracks. The UI now is way better since the single window redesign. Previously it was like MC, i.e. lot's of disconnected windows. Some people like the ability to make a mess, er.. organize their windows, not me. ☺



-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 13, 2018 at 12:25:34 am

[Charlie Austin] "I dunno, mostly works like any other modern NLE with tracks."

As you say, it's been redesigned. In fact, it's been redesigned several times over its lifetime.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 12, 2018 at 11:54:27 pm

I know that this will be incredibly disrespectful of lots of famous editors - but famous Lightworks Editors
that include
Thema Schoonmaker
Tariq Anwar
Henry Stein
Jill Bilcock
Scott Hill -

they probably couldn't edit on AVID to save their lives, not to even speak of FCP 7, FCP X, Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas, and Davinci Resolve. You know what this means ? This means that they were "creative editors" that learned film, and could not be bothered learning anything new, and they stuck with what they know. If they were young, they would never be hired today. Just like most of the famous DP's that refused to learn RED, Arri, and Sony 4K workflows (nothing can replace 35mm Panavision and Arri).

This is no different than idiots my age that say "the Beatles were the best band ever". Exactly what are you going to do with a Rickenbacker 12 string and a Vox amplifier today ?

The world moves on. You keep up, or you die off.

Bob Zelin (62 years old, and still learning most of you young good for nothings !)

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 13, 2018 at 12:49:30 pm

It's interesting to look at the history of Lightworks. They actually started out as the preferred film editing NLE before Avid started to dominate. Hence the very film-like hardware controller. It's hard to find any images of the original UI, but the first version was built on top of DOS, IIRC. So the Lightworks team had to create their own GUI, with a bit of the whimsical flare. Hence the shark icon instead of the more common trash can. Here is some background:

https://editstock.com/blogs/all/10988125-lightworks-user-guide-buried-in-19...

https://library.creativecow.net/battistella_david/lightworks/1

Note the sort of 3D design to the window modules, like the timeline, in the first linked post. And as we now see, that approach has largely been homogenized into a standard track/2-up style UI. Yet another example of a different approach to a UI that ultimately failed in the pro user sphere.

Even today, though, Lightworks offers some unique features. I'm not sure if it's still in the current version, but a couple of NABs ago, Lightworks (under EditShare's ownership) introduced what is still the only collaborative method where two editors can SIMULTANEOUSLY work within the SAME timeline. When Editor A makes a change to the timeline, Editor B will see his timeline get updated after a refresh. No cloud service required. Magnetism across time and space!



- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 14, 2018 at 8:43:41 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Jul 14, 2018 at 9:05:23 pm

Yes, God but I adored the Lightworks system? The shark to nuke stuff, doors, the attic, that incredible controller. It was way more serious, but it was almost as idiosyncratic as Kais power tools?

Our place donkeys years ago had two lightworks out back in a jumbo portacabin. I was in awe of it. It cut together some weekly shows, but mostly it was cutting promos, which was insane in retrospect, so then they decided to plump for a Media 100 844X (ha ha) inside in the main promos edit suite with all the bells and whistles, which crashed and burned whenever it did, and then everyone realised that the graphics department had had the right idea ages back with macs and FCP (we had an ice board for AE).

I took the piss out of Ubillos from the cheap seats over X, but editing advancement turning into a software engineer's disinterested analysis of the then editing practise feels a tad inevitable. CAD software isn't much informed by a T-square. Or desktop publishing by hot letterpress. Or typography by letraset and french curves.

I just disagree with near every decision he arrived at with FCPX. jk lol.

Edit - or actually I'd make another point - he said his first experience, which was common, was tape to tape editing. There's a pretty strong argument that the most prevalent, widely experienced consumer editing seen now is in snapchat and instagram stories - which is extremely brute force editing - almost enforcing old physical stop start limitations. There's an argument that Ubillos paternally dumbed down his interpretation of full bore editing for no particularly good reason.
.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967
producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 15, 2018 at 6:47:23 pm

[Oliver Peters] "where two editors can SIMULTANEOUSLY work within the SAME timeline."

I’m sorry, but this is a horrifying workflow, IMHO. Who the hell would EVER want that? Maybe I should just consider myself lucky never having had to work in a multi-editor workflow. I mean, outside of broadcast, where does this exist (not counting asst. editor tasks)?

Scott Witthaus
Visual Storyteller - FCPX, Premiere
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 16, 2018 at 1:38:42 am

[Scott Witthaus] "[Oliver Peters] "where two editors can SIMULTANEOUSLY work within the SAME timeline."

I’m sorry, but this is a horrifying workflow, IMHO. Who the hell would EVER want that? Maybe I should just consider myself lucky never having had to work in a multi-editor workflow. I mean, outside of broadcast, where does this exist (not counting asst. editor tasks)?
"


It happens in films and in trailers\ promo where people are cutting with offline/proxy material.

Someone would be able to simultaneously overcut clean dialogue in your offline while you updated notes in a different part of the cut, etc. Just one example as alot of times I have to do rough cuts with auio that contains music and sfx under the dialougue i want to use.

Hell, tommorow - since a client is asking for too many revisions to something that cant be handled in a sane workday by one person - two of us have to tag team it - we'll split it down the middle, why does . that sound so far fetched?


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 16, 2018 at 4:02:46 am

[Scott Witthaus] "I mean, outside of broadcast, where does this exist (not counting asst. editor tasks)?"

Not to state the obvious, but anywhere where there are multiple editors working off of shared storage you have opportunities for collaborative workflows to be beneficial. 😉

I've probably split the last 18yrs fairly evenly between broadcast and new/streaming media and broadcast-style workflows certainly include larger new media facilities/divisions. The same types of problems need to be solved and the biggest differences are typically budgets and delivering to streaming/hosting services instead of cable/sat/OTA. I think multi-editor situations will only grow as falling prices and improving tech continue to make collaborative workflows more affordable and more approachable.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 16, 2018 at 6:18:40 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "[Oliver Peters] "where two editors can SIMULTANEOUSLY work within the SAME timeline."

I’m sorry, but this is a horrifying workflow, IMHO. Who the hell would EVER want that? Maybe I should just consider myself lucky never having had to work in a multi-editor workflow."


ANYONE working on a reality TV show needs this. Most people working on TV docs that have a short delivery time so we need more than one editor needs this. Not sure why you are lucky not to...It's a godsend to many of us who have a LOT of footage to deal with, and short deadlines (talking tens of thousands of hours of dailies). There are many many legit reasons for needing this from reality to doc to news broadcast to sports to....

[Scott Witthaus] "I mean, outside of broadcast, where does this exist (not counting asst. editor tasks)?"

Oh...NOT broadcast? OK...when I started out in corporate, we had Media 100...we didn't use Avid because, well, too expensive, quality wasn't as good (Media 100 had GREAT online quality). But there were many times when two editors on the same project would have been helpful. Cutting corporate getaways where there were meetings coupled with activities where we filmed and cut a "THIS WAS YOUR WEEK" to present on the final day. Two editors on those and had to join the exports and have duplicates of all the media on two sets of drives (back in 1996). I did many corporate jobs where two of us being able to access the same project and media would have been great.

And other types of events like red carpet shows (sorry, broadcast, I know)...multiple editors are needed on the same project.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 16, 2018 at 9:51:36 pm

[Shane Ross] "ANYONE working on a reality TV show needs this. Most people working on TV docs that have a short delivery time so we need more than one editor needs this...It's a godsend to many of us who have a LOT of footage to deal with, and short deadlines (talking tens of thousands of hours of dailies)...."

Scott may have been thinking exclusively about multiple editors working on the same timeline vs the FCPX approach where much of the work is of an organizational nature in the Event Browser before reaching the timeline. From that perspective, having collaborative features only used by multiple lead editors in the timeline phase of post production could seem a niche application.

If the material is properly prepped by the AE or team of AEs, the lead editor can work much faster, and in fact this AE/LE labor split is virtually required for a high-shooting-ratio production. In my experience working on large documentaries, I'd estimate the overall labor hour investment is probably split 3:1 in favor of the DIT and AE teams vs the lead editor. If you include color and audio finishing, it might be 5:1. So the timeline editing phase (while crucial) is only one stage of post production. The more labor-intensive organizational phase could also benefit if FCPX had better multi-user collaborative features.

Ideally these features would be designed for both decoupled geographically decentralized collaboration and for co-located LAN-connected collaboration. In the FCPX user profile, it's probably more common for a few decentralized people to be working collaboratively than they be co-located with a gigabit or 10-gig NAS.

If the NLE (inc'l maybe Lightworks) has limited organizational tools except for the timeline, of course editors will think in terms of organizing huge globs of material on a bunch of timelines. Hence when considering multi-editor collaboration, often only multi-user timeline features get discussed.

I don't know what granularity Lightworks' collaborative timeline allows, but NLEs that support this typically have a fairly primitive bin-locking or timeline-locking feature. Even this should ideally include NLE features to reflect who has what resource locked and maybe an in-app chat feature, otherwise you constantly must call the other parties to coordinate. As locking becomes finer grained, this improves concurrency but increases complexity to implement and test.

The problem is such features essentially constitute a distributed database, and that's very difficult to achieve with extreme reliability -- especially without a server. The locking or concurrency control system must be rock-solid, else data will be lost or corrupted. This includes proper handling of many different cases: deadlock, livelock, atomicity violations, rollback, lost or stalled connections, etc. These happen under the covers, even if users don't perceive it.

There's a compelling need for improved multi-editor collaborative features in the FCPX Event Browser, not just in the timeline phase of editing. However I understand why Apple may not think the development and testing burden of this would benefit a large % of the user base. OTOH I wonder what % of the user base uses 360 VR editing, yet Apple developed that.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 16, 2018 at 10:55:51 pm

The original idea behind this thread was about non editors making editing systems.
Yet Lightworks was designed by editors for editors and yet it lost to systems made mostly by programmers like Ubillos.
Any theory to explain this?

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 17, 2018 at 1:23:14 am

[Joe Marler] "Scott may have been thinking exclusively about multiple editors working on the same timeline vs the FCPX approach where much of the work is of an organizational nature in the Event Browser before reaching the timeline. From that perspective, having collaborative features only used by multiple lead editors in the timeline phase of post production could seem a niche application."

Not sure about that, because I think only Resolve allows multiple editors to work on the same TIMELINE at the same time..allowing you to update it as you go...so someone can make an edit change WHILE it's being graded. Avid can't do that...Avid allows multiple editors to access the same project file...but the bins that contain the cuts, once opened by someone, another person cannot then make changes to that cut in that bin. They can see it, but not make any changes (they can, but it's complicated...they can't save those changes unless they save it as a different bin).

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2018 at 7:39:17 pm

Whenever I read about this type of "collaborative" approach, it brings to mind the literary hoax of the late 60s where a group of famous journalists decided to do a "collaborative work" to create a steamy potboiler (almost pornagrahpic) novel.

"Naked Came the Stranger by Penelope Ashe" - was the result. (Wikipedia will know more.)

IIRC, each participant would write ONE chapter with the presumption that at the end of things, they'd have a nice novel to sell.

Needless to say, the result was widely regarded as a total mess.

Creativity by committee is a kinda difficult bar to clear, IMO.

Sure ASSEMBLY by committee is easy as pie. So if that's the goal - there should be clear sailing ahead. But that kinda pushes editors into a roles as assembly line players, more than as discrete storytellers.

Which might or might not where a particular editor wants to go.

Interesting discussion, anyway.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2018 at 7:58:00 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Jul 31, 2018 at 8:18:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "Sure ASSEMBLY by committee is easy as pie. So if that's the goal - there should be clear sailing ahead. But that kinda pushes editors into a roles as assembly line players, more than as discrete storytellers.
Which might or might not where a particular editor wants to go"


Sometimes it's an absolute necessity. Especially when deadlines are involved. Many projects have parts that work in parallel paths and meet at the end. This includes the edit.

Remember, in this scenario, you aren't starting from scratch. You are working with footage and most likely a script. Take a look at how many films and TV shows have multiple editors. Sometimes one editor handles all the action scenes and another the dialogue and exposition. Or an editor does the cutting and the assistant handles temp sound design and temp music placement.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2018 at 1:57:54 am
Last Edited By Michael Gissing on Aug 1, 2018 at 2:10:57 am

Sound post is a classic example of a collective group working towards an end goal. Foley is a whole department. Dialog editors don't do sfx typically. Specialists do music compose, record and edit while the rest of the sound team are doing their bits. Great sound tracks are collaborations and rather than diffuse the product the many eyes and ears and creative experiences are often greater than the sum of the parts.

The same can happen with software and hardware development. This idea that committees can't create is fostered by lone wolf operators or ego driven people. Strong vision is great from people like an Elon Musk or Steve Jobs. But make no mistake, the history of human technology development is the story of collaboration.

This explains it really well

https://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2018 at 11:42:52 am

[Michael Gissing] " This idea that committees can't create is fostered by lone wolf operators or ego driven people. Strong vision is great from people like an Elon Musk or Steve Jobs. But make no mistake, the history of human technology development is the story of collaboration."

A director friend of mine was fond of saying "film is team art".

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2018 at 4:43:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "Creativity by committee is a kinda difficult bar to clear, IMO.

Sure ASSEMBLY by committee is easy as pie. So if that's the goal - there should be clear sailing ahead. But that kinda pushes editors into a roles as assembly line players, more than as discrete storytellers.

Which might or might not where a particular editor wants to go.

Interesting discussion, anyway."



I don't think creativity by committee is determined by the number of editors working on a project though. It's determined by the number of people in charge of the direction of the project. For example, six VPs weighing in on a corporate video being cut by one editor is creativity by committee where as six editors collaboratively executing the vision of a single director is not.

IMO editors have never been, nor will they ever be, discrete storytellers because they rely on another people to write, shoot and/or direct in order to create the material before it ever reaches the editor. Collaboration is inherent to the art and the craft.

With regards to assembling vs creativity... I think that depends on the project. I've certainly worked solo on projects that were mind numbing, paint-by-numbers gigs that were basically an assembly line of one, and, on the other hand, I've been part of creatively challenging and rewarding work on multi-editor projects where five people might have been involved in editing a single episode of a show (six if you count the story producer).

There is certainly something nice about being the solo editor on a project and 'owning' the whole thing, but on the other hand being part of a team (especially as a freelancer that will change gigs many times a year) means you are regularly exposed to new people, new points of view, new ways to tackle problems, new styles of editing... it's a great way to stay fresh and not get trapped in old habits or ruts.


Return to posts index

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