FORUMS: list search recent posts

Today's experiment.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
Today's experiment.
on Oct 24, 2011 at 11:32:38 pm

In a previous post, I alluded to a project I had earlier today that I thought would represent a somewhat new type of challenge for me. So I thought I'd report back for any who are interested.

I seem to keep coming back to touting the "agility" I see in X, so this past Thursday, when I had a small project pop up I decided to put my money where my virtual mouth has been.

I got a lead into a quasi-governmental initiative that is connected to economic development in my region. They work with the largest companies and the "movers and shakers" around. So even tho the job itself was quite small, I saw it as a way to make some connections, meet some new people, and spread some seeds that might bloom into future work.

The job was one of those typical "we have something we shot and the presenter wants a copy" things. Trivial as to creativity or impact, but a toe in is a toe in, so I decided to see if I could leverage FCP X's strengths into something that might have a chance to impress a new client even a little bit.

So I went to their 25th floor offices today to "pick up" their DVCAM master. Then took it down to a table in the ground floor coffee shop, near an electrical outlet, pulled out my laptop, X, and my formerly "gathering dust" DSR-20 (which looks like a dinosaur in modern terms!). digitized the tape, slapped a pre-built short open and close on it. And transcoded and uploaded the result to the relevant website - and returned the DVCAM master to them - all in about 40 minutes.

To say the client was surprised to see me back that soon would be a bit of an understatement - and she looked thoughtful when I mentioned that "since I don't really use tape any more, I wanted to get this digitized and back to you ASAP." Then when I was able to call her a while later and let her know that I was emailing a link to the footage so that she could forward it to her principal, she seemed very pleased.

Yeah, I could have done that iMovie or other software too. But the point for me was that if instead of this simple "dry run" task, the client had asked me to sit with one of the executives, or in a conference room with their creative team, or in their marketing department - working on deadline, FCP-X would have been ready and willing with every tool I would have needed to do a basic "ready to deliver" edit. No, it's not a fully realized "movie" editor. But for the kind of basic corporate information video that likely drives hundreds of millions of dollars in video production invoices each year, it's sweet.

And with the new database stuff, what I can see is that each time I return to do a gig for a client like this, I would increasingly have ALL their projects, all their keywords, all their graphics and all their footage at my fingertips with nothing more than a plugged in drive and on my laptop. So starting it in X is something I see as an increasingly "incremental" approach to building my editing base around the new meta-data approach.

This is totally different from my wall of 300+ DVCAM tapes and bank of fixed hard drives in my studio where no project shared anything with any other. It's a "virtualization" of my entire business model where I'm likely to be increasingly "un-teathered" from a particular location and can do my work wherever and whenever I need to do it. Perhaps if I'm the guy who's laptop and hard drive has all their digital assets ready to go - then I become a wee bit more valuable than some other guy off the street.

In sum, what FCP-X has started to change for me is not so much how I edit - but how I *think* about editing. I'm starting to see it as something I don't necessarily do in my studio - but rather a thing I do wherever and whenever it makes sense to do it.

And that's a pretty big "dawning difference" for me.

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

Michael Hancock
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 24, 2011 at 11:45:06 pm

That's awesome that you were able to turn the project around so quickly. Nothing like surprising a client in a good way!

Now if I can play devil's advocate here - what did FCPX give you, in this instance, that another NLE couldn't? Namely Premiere and Avid since they seem to be the two main choices for people evaluating their options. This job sounds like it could have been accomplished just as easily in any of the major NLEs.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 12:32:00 am

Michael,

Three things the way I see it.

First, I'd never used it's deck control utility - so that was new to me. (and yes, I realize that other programs do the same, but it was NOT proven to me that X would be useful in "deck control" situations until I experienced it. I'd previously thought of it exclusively as a "file based" system.

Second, I don't know Premier or Avid well enough to evaluate whether they also "build databases" around clips like I've recently experienced in X. In my years of FCP-Legacy use, I've come to view "projects" as stand alone entities. I haven't seen the ability to search across and around collections of information about global assets. Perhaps these abilities are in the other software, but they are new to me.

Finally, my entire orientation has always been that I would a significant penalty in performance for using anything less than the newest, largest, and fastest system that I can afford. I've suffered years of dropped frames, hiccups, momentary freezes and crashes in working with edit systems that were less than "hot-rodded" with maxed out specs. In fact, my FCP Legacy thinking was always "It would be much better if I could only run this on better hardware." That has involved not just the base processor(s), but RAM, HD arrays, and add-on cards. The performance I'm seeing from my i7 laptop with a single Firewire 400 drive has been very reassuring to me with regards to FCP-X.

Again, perhaps Premier and/or Avid are doing the same and will run on a simple notebook just like X does on mine. But it's counter-intuitive to my traditional thinking. I would have NEVER attempted to run a job like the one I described on such basic hardware in the past. (And to be frank, the reason I set up my "experiment" taking the footage down to the coffee shop was so I'd be insulated from the client in case something went wrong.

If I keep getting these kind of results, I'll start telling clients "just give me a few minutes at a desk or in the board room and I can get this done for you.

I'm not there mentally quite yet.

But I'm getting there.

I'm not here saying FCP-X is superior to anything else. I'm here relating what I'm experiencing in day to day, average editing tasks. I think it's important because many people reading these threads have probably gotten the impression that since it doesn't do something that the high-end "disappointed" crowd is upset about, they might extrapolate that to thinking it doesn't do solid BASIC editing well.

And that's simply not the case in my experience.

For what it's worth.

"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


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 24, 2011 at 11:45:10 pm

Bill,

From your description, it seems like the work you did could have been done with a number of different pieces of software - it speaks to the utility of many off-the-shelf solutions today.

However, this bit catches my eye:

[Bill Davis] "And with the new database stuff, what I can see is that each time I return to do a gig for a client like this, I would increasingly have ALL their projects, all their keywords, all their graphics and all their footage at my fingertips with nothing more than a plugged in drive and on my laptop. So starting it in X is something I see as an increasingly "incremental" approach to building my editing base around the new meta-data approach."

You seem to value building a library of projects and media for use in future.

You may want to examine the record that various companies have in terms of how they value past projects and past formats.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Gav Bott
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 12:06:37 am

To me it reads as though Bill see's X as something that can live on a small system whereas FCP could only live on a workstation - FCP on a book is very old news. Other software even more so.

People have been running around doing small edit job on laptops for ages - in studio mattes & cuts, cutting in client office - all no problem.

This kind of agility isn't anything to do with the new software.

The Brit in Brisbane
The Pomme in Production - Brisbane Australia.


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 1:19:22 am

Not sure where you're going with this? What did X do to facilitate this job?
I couda' done this on a MBP with FCS2, and not been out 300 bucks for the privilege of being an Apple beta tester.
Maybe I missed something.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 1:28:46 am

At the very least FCPX showed no overt disadvantage for this kind of job.
In addition Bill pointed out the potential long term advantage in organizing client material, he sees.

BTW I've had a couple of jobs that seem to be similar to Bill's. In one case, after a failed camera recording during a shot I was handed an H.264 .mp4 archive of a live stream, the only existing copy. The turnaround was so short that I disabled background rendering and edited the H.264 file natively, exported ProRes and encoded again (yuck, I know) for FTP delivery in just a couple of hours. The client was a bit surprised I was able to deliver (to another country) the same night. Sure maybe Premiere Pro might have been able to do the same thing but certainly FCPX was capable and delivered without any disability.



Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 3:49:55 am

TLDR: guy captures tape and exports into a quicktime movie, hails FCPX a success.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 8:07:36 am

Pardon me, Daniel, but that's PRECISELY what it was. A success. I never said it was a superior success to that which could be achieved with any other NLE, only that at the very least, I and others here are finding FCP-X not to be a "lesser" editing tool for general purpose use.

With what's been posted here pretty relentlessly, some readers wouldn't be blamed for having developed the VERY FALSE impression that it's an incompetent, buggy, POS.

Not everyone will appreciate or perhaps ever need it's signature ease of search, sort and recall underpinnings. But for those who might, knowing its as solid a basic cutting tool as anything else out there - and that it even has some intriguing basic tools for titling, motion graphics integration, audio, color correction and encoding/delivery are a part of the knowledge puzzle.

No, it won't be ideal for everyone. But as a tool that's priced more aggressively then it's competition, and that represents a significant departure from what has come before it, those who might want to give it a whirl deserve a better overview of it from actual working users than "but software x already does that too."

In point of fact, where's the problem of knowing that X might share a few more capabilities with the other "best in class" packages in this version than in the old one?

Is that anything but helpful?

The attitudes of some here just really confuse me. It's like Apple offended you personally with this product and you won't be satisfied until you get some revenge by trashing it to all who will listen.

It's a 300 buck software package for heavens sake. Not the harbingel of the apocalypse.

Use it or don't.

You want to explain how NLE B, or C allows even greater efficiency than X on a laptop, THAT would be interesting to me and others as well, I'm pretty sure. What configs are you running to do your field cuts? How do you do encodes, exports and deliver client dubs outside the Apple ecosystem.

Enquiring minds want to know.

"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


Daniel Frome
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 5:57:20 pm

Sorry Bill, I was actually replying to Scott's comment, since he "didn't know where you were going with this?" I was merely answering him back with an equally sarcastic remark. On the reply-tree it seems I hit the proper reply button, but apologies for being crass nonetheless.

But, on the topic of your reply..

[Bill Davis] "You want to explain how NLE B, or C allows even greater efficiency than X on a laptop, THAT would be interesting to me and others as well, I'm pretty sure. What configs are you running to do your field cuts? How do you do encodes, exports and deliver client dubs outside the Apple ecosystem.

Enquiring minds want to know."


Considering the simple task of this example... They all do it at about the same efficiency imho. Shane Ross summed this up pretty nicely a few posts down. I'd say Premiere Pro CS5.5 would be the fastest (but with a CUDA GPU). FCPX is probably a solid 2nd place, followed by Media Composer 5.5, and then FCP7 (since FCP7 is slow at rendering alpha channel materials, I would guesstimate it comes in last place). (But no, I am seriously not interested in actually putting this to the test -- feel free to completely disregard my opinion.)

If I could just make a general statement: I frequent this forum a fair amount and have not really seen such blatant bashing as you claim, but I suppose it could be insinuated. Personally I don't hold much of an opinion about FCPX, other than the fact that I know it can't be used for my day job (television editor). It's not that FCPX sucks at editing - it just can't do the collaborative work that my studio requires.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 1:44:56 am

Thanks for sharing, Bill. I agree with you that this is one of FCPX's greatest strengths.

FCPX's Event Browser is a DAM (digital asset manager), built right into the NLE. I think that FCPX will do for asset management what Color did for grading: increase awareness of -- and access to -- a feature that was once limited to high-end workflows.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 5:30:03 am

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX's Event Browser is a DAM (digital asset manager), built right into the NLE. I think that FCPX will do for asset management what Color did for grading: increase awareness of -- and access to -- a feature that was once limited to high-end workflows."

Great way to put it Walter.
I'd add that unlike Color, (that wasn't Apple's and was old code) this isn't the end but the beginning.
I think it's obvious that there are solid pillars under the structure.


Return to posts index


Mark Morache
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 7:31:11 am

[Bill Davis] "if instead of this simple "dry run" task, the client had asked me to sit with one of the executives, or in a conference room with their creative team, or in their marketing department - working on deadline, FCP-X would have been ready and willing with every tool I would have needed to do a basic "ready to deliver" edit."

This is the crux of the matter. Can we be professional and still use X in public? It's one thing to wrestle with it in our dark edit closets, but to go out where people can see us. Horrors.

I have been using X to edit broadcast tv stories for our show, and frequently, I'll camp out on a sofa in our office space, with my project on a orange-bumpered Lacie firewire drive and edit away. My co-workers seem impressed with not just the outcome, which I could achieve on a number of different NLEs, but when I show them how FCX works, and how snappy the interface it, and all the cool tools it has, they are all appropriately impressed.

That is until I start getting the beachball from some unknown analysis happening under the hood, or I tell them the extra work I need to do to get my stem tracks out.

The moral of Bill's story I believe is that there's enough in this app right now, to make it a welcome tool in our kit. It's working right now, and it's only going to get better.

I just wish it would happen faster.

I had a fun job recently at an auction, where a camera gathered interviews with people as they arrived, they passed the cards to me to ingest on my MBP. I cut 6 or 7 good comments together with a pre-built open that I made in Motion, and quickly added lower thirds using a motion template I built based on the artwork from the fundraiser's invitation. To top it off, the windows computer they were using for the powerpoint was sketchy playing back my mp4s, so I played it live out of my laptop right onto the screen for all the well-dressed attendees. We did three different videos during the first hour of the program, and everyone was impressed, and we all got paid.

This was FCP7, but I could have done this in FCX if I had it then.

It's a $300 application with a lot of power and innovation. I'm looking forward to watching it mature.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Tom Prigge
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 1:49:34 pm

I don’t really have a dog in the Legacy vs X brouhaha. I used FCP at a TV station I once worked at, and now use Premiere Pro. My interest in the postings since X’s release have more to do with how X will fundamentally change the video business. Not high end Hollywood stuff, but the bread and butter corporate and local work done in flyover country. And I think Bill Davis’ post about his quick turnaround is a harbinger of what is going to happen to this segment of the industry.

Do you remember when there were print shops galore everywhere? Along came desktop publishing, which got easier and cheaper as the years passed. Who needed a print shop to design, lay out, and print low end flyers, business cards, or the like, when a secretary with MS Publisher or some other low cost software could do it?

So, a client sees you in his boardroom cut something together quickly and asks what software you’re using. It won’t take clients long to realize that for $300 they can have the same software. And after all, the software does all the work, right? The IT guy now becomes the video guy. Or that twenty-something kid just hired in accounting can do it. He’s posted a lot of stuff to YouTube, so he knows what he is doing.

And you can’t beat the cost. Per hour charges in different locales vary of course, but how quickly will a company get back their money on an investment in $300 software? Quickly. There are, of course, inexpensive NLEs, many in the Windows world. But what the wide world perceives as professionals do not use them for paying work. And those other NLEs don’t have the Apple cachet.

So, to pretend I’m Alvin Toffler, I see X as the first step in depleting the ranks of those who make a living making video. Cameras keep getting cheaper and cheaper and now the NLE has caught up with them. Desktop publishing put a lot of print shops out of business. Desktop video—CHEAP desktop video—will do the same thing to our business.

As Dennis Miller says, of course, I could be wrong.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:24:01 am

Yeah, but while the wide adoption of the typewriter certainly fostered an era where a lot more people could TYPE, only a small fraction of them actually became successful professional writers.

Same same.

"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


Tom Prigge
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 26, 2011 at 4:47:21 pm

Actually, I think a better analogy would be did the typewriter make more people literate. Not sure if that is true or not. For the purposes of the point I was making, try this: The advent of computers and word processors created more people who could type. Back in the day, a corner office executive couldn't use a typewriter. Today, everyone, including the corner office executive, can type. Some even type their own letters, or at least, their own e-mails.

Perhaps these exec's letters and e-mails are not as professionally formatted and checked for grammar, etc. as in previous generations, but they're good enough and the process is much faster. When it comes to video, for some--not all--clients good enough is, well, good enough. Cheaper too. I just believe that that attitude, along with inexpensive tools, will eventually force a lot of video pros to find other work. What can we do to make sure we continue in this business? Well, that's up for discussion. Which is why I brought it up. I think it's something that needs to be discussed and addressed.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 26, 2011 at 10:00:51 pm

Tom,

I don't disagree with you at all.

In fact, I've long felt that with the "democratization" (whatever that actually means!) of video editing tools and techniques, the ONLY thing that will separate practitioners are the skills outside mere "operation."

Thankfully, making a quality video is a dauntingly complex task. That's why the typical Sundance Festival - after announcing they would accept "digital" film submissions - was generating something on the order of 10,000 yearly entries even a decade ago, of which only a tiny fraction were typically worthy of real notice.

Tools are one thing. Talent another. And if Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" perspective is to be believed, none of the above will make much of a decisive difference if you don't have the proper skills during the brief window when the market values those skills over others.

The work we lose to the camcorder kids wasn't real work in any lasting sense. It's just supply-side realities in a world where mechanisms keep cropping up to make large supplies of cheap stuff ever present. That makes quality more difficult to spot. And cheap will win in the short term when that's the prevailing necessity. But over time, quality has it's place. Thus it has ever been.

"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

Shane Ross
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 2:28:46 pm

[Bill Davis] " digitized the tape, slapped a pre-built short open and close on it. And transcoded and uploaded the result to the relevant website - and returned the DVCAM master to them - all in about 40 minutes."

And you can't do this with any other NLE in the same amount of time? THAT impressed the client? Wow...

I can do that in Avid...which I have on my laptop. That captures tape from firewire. Includes Sorenson Squeeze for encoding, or directly from Avid

I can do that in FCP 7...which I have on my laptop, which also captures tape from firewire. Includes Compressor..

I can do that in Premiere Pro...which I have on my laptop...blah blah blah. Includes Adobe Encoder...

And in the same amount of time. I mean...you captured, put on a pre built element, and exported a QT file. If that's all you needed to do, ANY NLE would work. Vegas, iMovie, Edius, Speed Razor, Windows Media Maker.

I think you need a better example if you are trying to impress fellow editors, and not clients who don't have a clue about video.

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 2:52:25 pm

Shane you miss the point entirely. It's not about FCPX being better. It's simply a capable choice. Nice that you've put FCPX within the same capabilities as the other NLEs. FCPX shows no disadvantage for this kind of job.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 2:57:26 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Shane you miss the point entirely. It's not about FCPX being better. It's simply a capable choice. Nice that you've put FCPX within the same capabilities as the other NLEs. FCPX shows no disadvantage for this kind of job."

Bill could have done this same job 11 years ago on a PowerBook G3 with FCP 1. That's setting the bar for success pretty low after more than a decade of advances in computing and video technologies.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 3:09:26 pm

Many people seem to believe FCPX isn't as capable though. It may not be superior but it works in certain professional environments meeting certain professional needs.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 4:35:44 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Many people seem to believe FCPX isn't as capable though. It may not be superior but it works in certain professional environments meeting certain professional needs.
"


Craig, I really don't know of anyone who is making the claim that FCP X can't preform the most basic editorial functions (other than those that we all agree it specifically can't, like broadcast monitoring and output to tape).


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 5:19:45 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Shane you miss the point entirely. It's not about FCPX being better. It's simply a capable choice. "

No, I don't. Who didn't think that FCX couldn't do somthing this simple? Who? Raise your hand. Who didn't think FCX couldn't capture a DV tape...add a clip to that...and export for the web? I think we all thought that's EXACTLY what it could do. As you see, we all agree on that point.

Now, throw it at higher end professional workflows. THEN come and brag. Like Mark Morache here showing us what he did for a Seattle news magazine. That was a bragging point. The guy saying that it works great for sports video, major league sports. THAT'S a bragging point.

Throw this on a multicamera sitcom...or reality show where you have tons of elements to deal with. A documentary with 8 different footage/format types. Surf video for BluRay distribution. THEN come and brag.

[Craig Seeman] "FCPX shows no disadvantage for this kind of job."

Nor would iMovie, Windows Movie Maker...

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 4:30:56 pm

[Shane Ross] "If that's all you needed to do, ANY NLE would work. Vegas, iMovie, Edius, Speed Razor, Windows Media Maker. "

Speed Razor! There's something you don't hear much about anymore. I spent something like three-four years on that, a decade ago. Amazing back then. Had to help somebody out with it about three years back, and I was freaked by how kludgy and cumbersome it was to use. Of course it was on some ancient dual pentium, but wow--times had changed. That's what makes me laugh about the "FCP X is in its infancy just like FCP was a decade ago, so give it time to grow and it will be just as multifaceted as FCP is now, but with God-like power." Its like somehow a decade of NLE development doesn't matter, and because it is new its okay for it to not include features that even Speed Razor had.


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 5:03:18 pm

Speed Razor...
Coupled with a Targa it rendered video to sequential TGAs, BMPs, etc.
Then you could just take those directly to After Effects on another box.
Or to any other effect oriented software.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 5:32:44 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "Speed Razor...
Coupled with a Targa it rendered video to sequential TGAs, BMPs, etc.
Then you could just take those directly to After Effects on another box.
Or to any other effect oriented software."


At the time, it blew my mind for what it let me do. Also, broadcast video! Before that, it had been all EDLs and offline/online for me. It was really remarkable, back then. I had one of those Digisuite cards, but I also worked on a Targa station and a--oh, I can't remember it--the card that saved video in the variety of still formats. Dang. I can't remember the name. I think it was the first, or nearly first, broadcast card.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 5:36:05 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Dang. I can't remember the name. I think it was the first, or nearly first, broadcast card."

The DPS Perception PVR! All I had to do was hit "post" to remember it.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 5:56:49 pm

[Chris Harlan] "The DPS Perception PVR!"

Another cracker! I was so excited when I started using this :-)

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 6:55:07 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Chris Harlan] "The DPS Perception PVR!"

Another cracker! I was so excited when I started using this :-)
"


This is what the revolution was. And it was more than a decade ago. It still continues. On my laptop. On broadcast files I send from home to London. On newer, better tools with each iteration. What I can do with Adobe, Avid, FCS, is truly amazing.

Despite all of the hyperbole being exhausted on FCP X, I don't see it at all as revolutionary. I think it has some potential uses. I think it offers some respite and insight to newbies. I think it has a few interesting ideas. But, in many ways, I see it as a step or two backwards. I see it as dramatically limiting choices rather than expanding them. PVR was part of a true revolution, one that we are still reaping. To say that FCP X offers anything near as dramatic is just gas.


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 5:58:37 pm

Yes, it was the DPS Perception, indeed.
Very good in animation for broadcast work.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 6:27:32 pm

Yeah, but ALL of those other editing solutions largely FAILED in the long run to gain market traction. (Apologies to anyone who might still be cutting on a Speed Razor system, it's just not on my radar too much these days.)

Apple succeeded wildly with FCP in spite of it's initial limitations, precisely because they saw where the majority of the market was going and developed solid tools that appealed to the widest range of editors. Not EXCLUSIVELY Hollywood. But boardroom, classroom, converted bedroom, and eventually, coffee shop laptop editors as well.

My little experiment was exclusively to see how FCP-X fit into that kind of new workspace and whether deploying that workflow could help me get mindshare with a new client as a vendor who's responsive and conversant with the latest technology. And I'm happy with the results. I never said it was the ONLY or even the BEST solution for that. Merely that it's a viable one. And that means that someone who wants to learn it, explore the data structure with an eye on learning where it might evolve and prosper, can see it as a reasonable alternative. Nothing more than that.

IMO, we stand on the threshold of a working environment that I think is being deconstructed into a more mobile, more distributed model. That's a small but significant "part" of where Thunderbolt and solid state will likely fit in. (Part of my experiment that I didn't mention is that I left my laptop processing the export files on the passenger seat while I drove home. Worked like a champ. And reinforced my overall thesis that editing is something that doesn't NECESSARILY have to happen at a desk in a studio anymore.

I may be wrong and in 15 years everyone who's working in dedicated editing suite (or even like me in a purpose converted hay barn!) will STILL be working in the same space doing their editing tasks precisely like they do them today.

But I just don't think that's the way things will go.

We'll see.

"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: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 6:31:10 pm

Wait, I thought FCPX didn't work with video tape?

;-D


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 6:36:52 pm

Please, search-bots in the vast web-crawling universe - index this stuff, fast.

Sooner or later we have to start getting accurate information out into the ether rather than merely pent up angst!

"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

Rafael Amador
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 6:37:09 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Many people seem to believe FCPX isn't as capable though."
That makes no sense Craig.
Anybody that has tried FCPX knows that can do those tasks quite fast, but this has already been highlighted in the previous thread of FCPX FOR NEWS AND SPORTS.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Gav Bott
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 25, 2011 at 11:36:06 pm

"IMO, we stand on the threshold of a working environment that I think is being deconstructed into a more mobile, more distributed model."

This already happened. 5 years ago.

For some of us at least.

The Brit in Brisbane
The Pomme in Production - Brisbane Australia.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:02:36 am

Great, Gav,

I'd be interested in hearing your experiences in moving away from the " studio" approach and into actual "end to end" production using exclusively Mobil tools.

It's something I'm increasingly contemplating. What editing software are you running? What hardware are you running it on? What's your field storage, mastering and archiving look like?

I would assume that 5 years ago, you were doing stuff like client dubs on DVD, but are now delivering mostly digitally?

If so, how do you distribute long form review materials like field tapes? Here in the US, there's often a premium on digital uploading of files larger than 2gigs. How are you handling that in a mobile workflow?

Honestly interested.

"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

Gav Bott
Re: Today's experiment.
on Oct 28, 2011 at 2:02:35 am

Hi Bill,

Am software/hardware agnostic. In terms of being mobile I don't think it matters at all – don’t feel the need to run top end hardware to be able to be mobile (always nice, budget dependant as always) – cut the cloth, make it fit and all that. FCP, ADOBE, VEGAS - Vegas is so light, for some jobs on a laptop it really is a no-brainer for us.

Good laptop of whatever your preferred reliable flavour, the best studio cans you can afford, a couple of external 1 terra drives, and the lightest software set you can use to get the job done. Card recording makes this easy, P2, DSLR’s, whatever – loading onto the system as they fill up & are swapped out, during lunch, etc. Archiving (not “real” archiving of course) to externals while shooting more etc.

All the mobile work we do is based on still having “a home” to return to or send things to/from - for heavy lifting and storage. So not “end to end” in the truest sense, and we still do lots of non-mobile work as well, so it’s some jobs, some of the time – but bringing elements of the studio out on the road is the norm.

Does everything get done this way? No, but lots of projects can get the majority of the decision making and grunt work pushed through out of the studio. To be honest I pretty much assume if I think about it for a bit - just about anything (audio is often the exception) can come out of the studio for us - not all things are equal for everyone of course.

Started with FCP on books, bringing the edit to clients/execs for reviews and rapid small changes. Now it's checking chroma matts in the studio and editing on the fly post shoot for script editing and structure – and as you found, delivering low complexity finished jobs very rapidly, on site. Web distributed presenter piece or similar? Don’t even think about needing a studio.

As far as delivery goes - show it on screen right there, get the OK and then go back to base to finish off. Delivering large files isn’t something we’ve solved (mobile uploads are painful so far), unless on site and can deliver a drive or DVD burn. Returning to base to create deliverables is just fine - having a still space to review and finish off is perfect for that stage of the job.

The Brit in Brisbane
The Pomme in Production - Brisbane Australia.


Return to posts index

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