FORUMS: list search recent posts

X Sports

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
tony west
X Sports
on Oct 23, 2011 at 4:13:50 pm

Just wanted to add a different perspective that I have not seen represented here. Major League Sports.

I'm a freelancer that started off in network news but most of my work these days comes from doing NFL, MLB, Hockey and the rest.

I can tell you first hand that when you see the opens that were built in the remote trucks, that stuff is all FCP or EVS (a system we use for replays)

FCP has long been the standard in sports.

The first time I saw a mac pro it was at an NFL game. I had not long owned my G5 and thought that the guy had one in the truck. He told me in a snarky way "that's a mac pro, they
don't make the g5 anymore"

And if you have been watching the post season baseball this year..........yes FCP X

To keep it real, some guys hated it at first. They loved their 7 but after they started to work with X and
began to see what it could do, things have changed.

I knew when I first started working with X it would take over certain markets.
One I figured would be sports. There are many reason but the speed and the way you can call any player up by name I knew would be key. No time wasted looking for a certain player making a certain play for the open. Just type it in.

If you are not into sports that's cool, but sports is big money, and it brings in big viewers.

We have some of the best editors in the country.

They don't have to use X for the World Series, they could still use 7 if they wanted.

You wouldn't know the difference when you watched.

That's the thing, when you watch something on TV, most of the time you have no idea what they cut it on (unless they use a generic bkgd or trans). All that matters at the end of the day is what it looks like on air.

When you watch the open and you say "dang that looks good"..........THAT'S PRO and that's all that matters when they are paying you, is can you get what they want on that screen.
They don't want to be bothered with how you got it up there, they just want it up there.

You can work on Avid, FCP or whatever but if you f-up the sound you won't be working the next event.

Some wonder if X will be around in the future. When everyone is sitting around the
TV watching it on the Super Bowl, I kind of think it will be.



BTW, I have really enjoyed reading the post form folks. I had never posted before, just read : )

Tony West
Videographer Editor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: X Sports
on Oct 23, 2011 at 5:30:59 pm

Perhaps certain particular trees are beginning to emerge from the larger murky forest?

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: X Sports
on Oct 23, 2011 at 5:37:33 pm

A buddy of mine runs a live sports event production company. Fcpx would be pretty ideal.

Needs video out, though.


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: X Sports
on Oct 23, 2011 at 6:04:57 pm

"Needs video out, though"

That would help, but the EVS can be set up to take in .MOV files so that's the option we use.

I would bet any money that whatever is missing in X, a third party group is working on right now.

That's how you get paid in this country, find a need and fill it.



Tony West


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: X Sports
on Oct 23, 2011 at 6:10:09 pm

Yes' they use EVS sometimes too.

They would still need it, if only to go to scopes, other devices that aren't file based, etc.

As far as third party, I'm fine with it. Some people are wary of it, it seems.


Return to posts index

Nelson Goforth
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 5:30:15 pm

With broadcast materials is there really a need to go out to broadcast monitors, scopes, etc? I mean, with all of the attention to the picture at the time of capture isn't that taken care of before it gets into the editing software? This is by way of curiosity - I come from single camera shooting (with no engineers) and the recorded picture is not polished and ready for air, so the monitors are needed.

Nelson Goforth


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 5:56:06 pm

[Nelson Goforth] "With broadcast materials is there really a need to go out to broadcast monitors, scopes, etc? "

Yes!

[Nelson Goforth] "I come from single camera shooting (with no engineers) and the recorded picture is not polished and ready for air, so the monitors are needed."

Of course. This has been discussed for months. We don't much about what's coming, but we do know that pro monitoring is coming, albeit from 3rd party vendors like AJA, BlackMagic, and Matrox.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Nelson Goforth
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 6:08:29 pm

David, Thanks for the reply.

I understand about the monitoring issues for FCX. I'd just noted in one early post in the thread that the concern was that, with FCX, there was no way to go out to monitors and scopes.

My question was, since the picture from the broadcast cameras is already tightly controlled by engineers, can't the image be trusted through the edit without the need for further critical monitoring? Of course I guess that lots of stuff is being added and manipulated in the edit... and engineers are not people to be going on 'trust'.

Nelson


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 6:38:48 pm

[Nelson Goforth] "since the picture from the broadcast cameras is already tightly controlled by engineers, can't the image be trusted through the edit without the need for further critical monitoring?"

Well, typically even the best footage is shot flat in order to provide the most dynamic range for manipulating images in post. But, beyond that Nelson is the need to be able to monitor fields-related issues, motion artifacts, etc., which always crop up during up and down-conversions, and when mixing SD and HD material. Fields are not properly displayed on computer monitors, and it's not at all uncommon for unwary or new editors to cut entire projects using nothing but their built-in laptop monitor or on a tower with their computer monitor, only to find at the very conclusion of editing that they have an entire hodge podge of problems with fields, interlace lines, and motion artifacts.

I could go on and on... There are a litany of problems that improper monitoring will hide from the editor.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index


Nelson Goforth
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 7:03:28 pm

Thanks again. The difference between computer monitors and broadcast is the initial reason I bought a Panasonic LH-1710 - clients on set wanted to see an accurate color rendering for material I was processing from our Red camera. We already had one to be the output of the camera, but I got another to monitor the Red Rocket card as I was doing a 'one-light' correction on set. The computer monitor looked good, but when seen on a broadcast monitor (at the same settings) had a washed-out, low-gamma appearance - so had to step up and get the Panasonic.

Nelson

Red Camera Rental & Indy Features, Denver Colorado.
rockymountain4k.com * 303.506.2456


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: X Sports
on Oct 23, 2011 at 6:20:50 pm

[tony west] "Some wonder if X will be around in the future. When everyone is sitting around the
TV watching it on the Super Bowl, I kind of think it will be.
"


Tony,

Having at one time been an editor of sports opens myself, that often had to go up to "the bird" within seconds of a big play, there's no doubt about it, FCPX is vastly superior to FCP 7 for creating short, template-based opens and highlight reels that need to go on-air almost instantly. In fact, I wish I'd had X when I was at Fox Sports.

However, while your sports scenario is in fact one of those that happens to be absolutely ideal for X, it doesn't change or negate the fact that X is not at all ideal for many users and for many other types of editing. Your endorsement is terrific and 100% valid, but it's not living proof or the last word that X is perfectly wonderful; it just shows that it is great for some, which is exactly what even X's harshest critics have been saying all along.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: X Sports
on Oct 23, 2011 at 8:03:02 pm

You are right about that David.

There are going to be many who go a different way than X for many valid reasons.

The early debate on this product was that it couldn't be used in high end broadcast or feature work.

I just wanted to let people know that it is being used in ways that they might not be aware of.

There are many people who are trying to decide if this is right for them and I would like to give them as much info as possible to help them decide.

There are so many ways to get paid in video these days it's hard to keep track.

Web based video, corporate video, independent film projects you name it.

I'm pretty sure this product is going to fill many gaps.

When we started David there weren't this many paths, but now...........it's just different.

Tony West


Return to posts index


Neil Patience
Re: X Sports
on Oct 23, 2011 at 7:23:08 pm

Just to add a different perspective to Tonys experience.

I edit sports in the UK very regularly. For terrestrial broadcasters like BBC and ITV, for sports like soccer, cricket, boxing, golf, the recent Commonwealth Games, the current Rugby World Cup.
I also regularly work for a company that provides soccer coverage to over 100 countries 5 days a week as far apart as Singapore and Canada.

Broadly tapeless editing (until it comes to archive for which there is still a massive library held on tapes.)

Without exception they use Avid, with Interplay and Unity linked to EVS and IP Director. For us FCP is far from the standard in that particular environment.

I do use FCP 7 on a weekly soccer show that is essentially cutting highlights, short packages of 2 or 3 mins. Clips are sent from IP director to FCP edited and then sent to EVS. It generally performs very well and is a pretty stable combination passing files back and forth.

Certainly in that scenario FCPX could be used quite well, however the current lack of any kind of meaningful monitoring rules it out.

best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: X Sports
on Oct 23, 2011 at 8:14:49 pm

I don't work outside the States in sports so I will take your word on that side of the lake.
My focus was here and Fox Sports and TBS.


"Certainly in that scenario FCPX could be used quite well, however the current lack of any kind of meaningful monitoring rules it out."

The point is, it's not being ruled out. We are using it now. It's not a question of rather it can be used,
it IS being used.

If you watch the WS tonight you will see it.

Tony West


Return to posts index

Neil Patience
Re: X Sports
on Oct 23, 2011 at 9:31:04 pm

Hi Tony

From hanging around the Cow for a while I certainly get the impression that FCP has a much larger following in the US compared to the UK in broadcast TV station environments. So its not that surprising that some US broadcasters are already testing the water with X.

My post was of course in the context of what I find working in the UK.

That's not to say we don't use FCP7 in broadcast here, we do and very successfully, it just Avid is the majority player in that particular area.

In my experience broadcasters especially are wary about jumping in with any new software, Avid, FCP or whatever really due to the potential of bugs causing failure.
They tend to run test rigs and let a few releases pass under the bridge before adopting it at all.
Despite increasing tapeless workflows the whole infrastructure is built around SDI video, monitors, scopes, video distribution etc etc with a fair amount of tape compatibility still needed especially on the archive side.

So I was a bit surprised to see you are in there already running FCPX this early in it development in that particular environment, not doubting you for one moment though, you are clearly braver than we are.

best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 23, 2011 at 10:11:19 pm

[Neil Patience] "I was a bit surprised to see you are in there already running FCPX this early in it development in that particular environment, not doubting you for one moment though, you are clearly braver than we are.
"


You know Neil, I'm frankly not surprised, and I also think that Tony may have hit upon upon something here, in the sense that FCPX might make a terrific "news editor." In fact, I'm wondering if it shouldn't have been called Final Cut News Editor 1.

The bottom line is, in a fast-paced environment like Tony's, or in a newsroom, speed really is a huge part of the job. Ingesting quickly, chucking clips and highlights into pre-designated holes or drop zones, and spitting the work out ASAP, is just what the doctor ordered. So, it doesn't seem that odd to me that long-term testing before jumping on X in a situation like this isn't perhaps quite as necessary as it might be if your app has to be more "fully integrated" into a complete production environment.

And, since building reusable graphics packages and templates is also a big part of that job, maybe that's why the new Motion was designed primarily as a template builder for use inside X.

So, maybe X really is best considered as app for short form, news, and sports?

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Neil Patience
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 23, 2011 at 10:40:13 pm

Hi David,

What you say makes a lot of sense. I perhaps slightly misunderstood the environment Tony was working in.

I suppose the problem is we all see the usefulness or not of FCPX or anything else for that matter in relation to the diverse environments we all work in.
For most of the places I work X is pretty much useless as it stands but of course that does not hold true for others.

I see the value of being able to quickly use pre-formed templates, drop zones etc for that kind of formula. FCPX is fast and the clever integration of Motion does seem to lend itself well to that work.

Perhaps this is indeed where it will find its first niche.

best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 1:19:47 am

[Neil Patience] "For most of the places I work X is pretty much useless as it stands but of course that does not hold true for others."

Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me either, at least not in its present state.

[Neil Patience] "I suppose the problem is we all see the usefulness or not of FCPX or anything else for that matter in relation to the diverse environments we all work in."

I certainly agree with that. The biggest problem we typically have here is simply that some users who do find it useful can't seem to tolerate the fact that it doesn't work for everyone.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index


Rafael Amador
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 1:44:41 am

This is the kind of jobs I expected FCPX shines.
I would have jumped on FCPX is I was making news or sports.
[tony west] "You wouldn't know the difference when you watched."
Shouldn't be no difference whatever the NLE.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 10:29:07 am

David, once again you nailed it!
When I saw X I thought back to my days in the late 80's when we used to only have machine to machine cuts only edits in the field remote trucks for ABC and NBC Nightly news.

I'm talking Network, before all the cable news 24 madness set in, when 6:00 ruled.

I remember when you could first do a dissolve in the field and we were jumping around dancing because we could do a DISSOLVE.

We would have killed for the power of something like X back then. Fast forward to today and X is looked at as a toy or kind of mocked a little.

My, my, my have things changed : ) the leaps and bounds of technology are kind of taken for granted
these days, but that's cool, it just makes me smile a little when I think back.

But YES David it has news written all over it in my mind.

News breaks, and you are on the scene shooting and then cutting and ready before the uplink drives up.

And Neil, I would like them to be even faster. I was telling them years ago to get
all their crap off of tape and on to a server. All clips should be named by what they are so when
an editor comes in they just type a player's name in.

I'm impatient, I HATE waiting to find shots. I want to spend my time in the creative process, not looking
for stuff or waiting on rendering.

In all the Fox Sports affiliates they are sitting on piles of tape.

One day they will stop making the machines and then what will they play their stuff on?

It's kind of funny for me because I was thinking of this way of working before X even came out.

X kind of turns the edit into google. That's how you find what you want on the net right? You type it and it's there.

Type the player's name (get all clips on that player in a second) narrow to defensive plays or offensive plays, postseason play or whatever, but get the stuff FAST.

That way of working might not be for some, it' s just how I want to do it. Everyone has their own way
of working. Down to the way people customize their keyboards.

Apple did what I was talking about years ago. I wish I had done it first : )

Tony West


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 3:01:37 pm

[tony west] "David, once again you nailed it!"

That's great to hear Tony, thanks "muchly."

This is really encouraging. You've really helped me to develop a better understanding of FCPX and it's best potential. I have a better idea of why it doesn't work for me, but I also have a better idea of why it might be cool for others.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 5:55:53 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "This is really encouraging. You've really helped me to develop a better understanding of FCPX and it's best potential. I have a better idea of why it doesn't work for me, but I also have a better idea of why it might be cool for others."

Apparently, it works OK for music videos, too. Might not be your favorite music, but this video looks pretty good. Graded in FCPX, composited in After Effects:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/5088

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 6:10:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Apparently, it works OK for music videos, too. Might not be your favorite music, but this video looks pretty good. Graded in FCPX, composited in After Effects:"

I'm perfectly willing to revise my previous philosophy to acknowledge that X is "okay" for some who work primarily in "short-form." However, I ain't going one iota beyond that in its present state.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 6:15:59 pm

Do you think it has it been out long enough to accurately judge it for "long form"?


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 6:35:36 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Do you think it has it been out long enough to accurately judge it for "long form"?"

Yes, I do Jeremy.

In it's present state, I think the detriments of X far outweigh its benefits in all but short-form editing. The absence of professional monitoring alone makes it pretty tough to use for anything that needs a proper QC before going to broadcast, and it's less than seamless ability to move projects to other facilities and between apps just compounds the problems as I see it.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 8:03:56 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "The absence of professional monitoring alone makes it pretty tough to use for anything that needs a proper QC before going to broadcast"

Which, according to Apple, will be available in the next release.

[David Roth Weiss] "nd it's less than seamless ability to move projects to other facilities and between apps just compounds the problems as I see it."

Absolutely. FCPXML is still in it's infancy and needs more time. For sure. But that doesn't mean I can't edit a long form program with it. I'm talking just the edit, not interchange.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 8:14:59 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Absolutely. FCPXML is still in it's infancy and needs more time. For sure. But that doesn't mean I can't edit a long form program with it. I'm talking just the edit, not interchange."

I see the interchange as being absolutely essential to the edit. I have always advised my clients and fellow Cow members to have a complete workflow starting from the end and working backwards, and X doesn't allow for that, at least not now. So, honestly, I wouldn't cut a long-form piece on X nor would allow a client to head down that path.

Plus, there are simply too many obstacles X places in the path of creativity at this point. Storytelling, at least the stuff I work on, is tough enough as it is with adding additional hurdles to the process.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Final Cut News Editor 1???
on Oct 24, 2011 at 9:01:40 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "I see the interchange as being absolutely essential to the edit. I have always advised my clients and fellow Cow members to have a complete workflow starting for the end and working backwards, and X doesn't allow for that, at least not now. So, honestly, I wouldn't cut a long-form piece on X nor would allow a client to head down that path. "

I hear you. It can get to Resolve, though! Soon, I'm sure it will be able to get to much more. The next release will tell us if indeed it's worth sticking around for (meaning they show enough proof on concept that they are in fact thinking and working on an interchange language) or if it's going to be another hobby.


Return to posts index

James Mortner
Re: X Sports
on Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:55 am

Interesting thought, thanks for posting


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: X Sports
on Oct 24, 2011 at 11:55:06 am

I totally agree that X is very effective for news and sports. The Motion integration is great.
I do get my (private) DSLR and GoPro stuff done with a snip of the fingers.

The things I do earn money with are quite often either impossible or time consuming. Take P2 or the old Alexa stuff I got. Take the BWAV I got. Where is the file based editing and the metadata?
Take the subtitling (or titling) things where a lot of people rely on me.
This is all gone.

I can find a lot of arguments for trackless editing, I can find as same as lot for track based editing. Would be fine to have the choice.

Also would be fine if X wouldn't switch the tool once you went to another app.
Could be great if you would be able to easily reconnect clips.
Would be great if XML would make sense and not all title formatting is lost
And so on ...

But I agree for sport/news/short spots it(FCPX) makes sense.

Andreas

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools


Return to posts index

Don Walker
Re: X Sports
on Oct 24, 2011 at 3:57:59 pm

Newtek already as Airplay available on their latest versions of Tricaster, and though that's not broadcast sports, I am sure there are more than a couple of news remote trucks switching with Tricasters. I assume the next version of ipad, will be optimized for FCPX, making it entirely possible that a news package could be edited, on an ipad, and then go straight to air, without any intermediate infrastructure between ipad and switcher. Come to think of it somebody could shoot and edit and playback to air now.... on their iphone and imovie.

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: X Sports
on Oct 25, 2011 at 6:10:41 pm

Hey Tony,
I am a sports-producer myself and totally agree. It is so much advanced to FCP7 it is not even funny and it will be perfect in the sportsworld or any world that needs fast turnarounds.

I have to disagree that the editors "loved" FCP7 in their trucks. FCP was in there because it was much cheaper than AVID. I have been around them and they all (like me) always found FCP to be a lame duck, but the cost-speed relation made it the choice of producers. After all the editors made it happen always.....nobody asked if another App would have been faster/easier, especially if that other App demanded higher costs in personal and hardware.

Without external connections FCPX is useless; I have one box equipped with FCP7 and Matrox┬┤ gear just for Live output and Live recording. Once AJA/BlackMagic/Matrox comes out with a HD-SDI solution there will be tons of sales for them and FCPX. I am wondering if they right now talk to each other to come out simulatanuos, because whoever is second is losing big time in that market.

As you say, 3rd party will evolve FCPX. Not Apple. And I am OK with that. Some will need OMF out, some will need live-connectors......the modular set-up of FCPX will allow us to build the boxes that work for our workflow.



Return to posts index

Matt Tureck
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 3:32:28 pm

Has anyone saying that X would be good for news actually used it for news?
Because I've been trying..and failing.
Here's my current workflow for a basic news story.

1)Take the reporter track and put it into Audio 1
2)Insert sounds bites
3)Cover black holes with video/audio
4)Play out (not export)finished story split track, with reporter track on audio 1, and all other audio mixed to audio 2.

Keep in mind we shoot and edit in dual channel mono.

So, let's picture doing this in X.
The reporter audio becomes the primary storyline, all b-roll has to be edited as connected clips or as a secondary storyline, which can cause complications.
Lack of dual mono workflow means I have to go into every clip in the inspector and choose which track to use, instead of just assigning it once or twice on the patch panel.
No way to play out in dual mono...again, I could go into each clip and pan left or right, but that would take lots of time.
And I'm leaving out the obvious stuff...lack of tape support, no broadcast monitoring, etc.
Keep in mind I've just started playing with it...I'd live to hear suggestions on improving my workflow.

Matt Tureck
Editor
CBS Evening News


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 3:39:41 pm

[Matt Tureck] "Lack of dual mono workflow means I have to go into every clip in the inspector and choose which track to use, instead of just assigning it once or twice on the patch panel."

Not true. You can select all clips in the browser and choose dual mono from the audio section of the inspector.

Then using Roles, you can export dual mono.

If you want to make it really easy, after your edit is complete (or at any point really), you can use "Detach Audio" and then assign the roles, then export a multitrack QT using Roles.

Picture to help you visualize it (this was from another post, so you would simply select mono from the drop down on the right side):



Jeremy


Return to posts index

Matt Tureck
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 3:45:22 pm

Ah, but you're assuming we use a vaguely modern workflow. :)
I don't need to export in dual mono, (although it's good to know, thanks for the post)I need it to play out through a mixer and up to satellite in dual mono...and that's what I can't figure out.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 3:48:08 pm

[Matt Tureck] "I don't need to export in dual mono, (although it's good to know, thanks for the post)I need it to play out through a mixer and up to satellite in dual mono...and that's what I can't figure out."

FCPX doesn't have broadcast out yet but has been announced for the next release. You'd have to export, and then use separate play out software for the time being. AJA VTR Exchange is free for AJA users, Matrox and Blackmagic also have free software to do what you need.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Matt Tureck
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 3:53:39 pm

Yup, but I'd still have to export first, which slows things down.
That export time may be the difference in whether my story makes it on air, or misses the deadline.
That's my big problem with X for news use. Yes, there are workarounds to most of my issues, but they all add a step...and in a business where speed is so important, I need a workflow (like 7) that doesn't add those extra steps.
Not trying to be contrary here...I really want to be able to use X. Lots of features will make my life much easier, and if they add a better dual mono workflow, it'll go a long way.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: X Sports
on Oct 26, 2011 at 4:05:32 pm

[Matt Tureck] "Not trying to be contrary here...I really want to be able to use X. Lots of features will make my life much easier, and if they add a better dual mono workflow, it'll go a long way."

Since FCPX is so much faster at editing, it will save you time for the export. ;)

They have a dual mono workflow, they just don't have live video/audio out, but it has been announced by Apple. For now, you must join the ranks of all of us that are waiting for an update. In the meantime, we learn.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]