FORUMS: list search recent posts

Walter Murch won't use FCX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Shane Ross
Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:10:12 pm

Here's a great blog post about the talk Mr. Murch gave at the Boston Supermeet. Great stuff.

http://www.chris-portal.com/2011/10/28/walter-murch-at-the-boston-supermeet...

At the end he touched upon FCX...

"He quickly looked at it, and said he couldn’t use it, wondering where the “Pro” had gone."

And...

"Walter explained to Apple that FCPX “did not play well with others”. The lack of tracks was another killer for him. "

The lack of tracks is so big it's mind boggling that they are gone. That killed it for me too.

The fact that he won't be using it is no surprise to me. I doubt many, if any, feature editors will use this. But that isn't the target market anyway...

Shane

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:35:07 pm

One of the main reasons he moved to, and liked FCP was the fact that he could have up to 99 audio tracks, because he is, after all, and audio mixer. And Avid is still limited to 16 channels of audio playback. So FCP was really a godsend. I know that I have worked on projects with up to 48 audio tracks.

Shane

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


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:42:52 pm

Got to sell those ProTools boxes. Just adds to the cost of Avid. I can see him trying Premiere for his next show.

Despite announcement of new version coming soon, Avid looks to be in trouble with large layoffs. Could be down to Premiere and Lightworks for the feature market, unless Apple does a major ramp up, but I'm not seeing it coming soon enough. Adobe looks like the big winner in the pro market space.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:33:02 pm

[Tom Wolsky] " Avid looks to be in trouble with large layoffs."

Got a link for that news? I didn't hear anything about this. I know they are doing well with people switching, taking advantage of the special pricing. Selling software to people who normally wouldn't get it.

Shane

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:46:29 pm

I can answer my own question...

http://www.protoolerblog.com/2011/10/27/avid-lets-200-people-go/

Damn...200 people. Shoot...

Shane

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 6:42:25 pm

... to continue with the off-topic.

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2011/10/27/avid-announces-restructuring-lays-off-...
(... a different David Weiss, I assume?)


This article has a bit more detail and context - including a bit on the recent Pro Tools update.

Franz.


Return to posts index


Tim Vaughan
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:44:19 pm

The lack of tracks is absolutely mind-blowing. That is the number one reason I won't even look at it as a viable editing option any longer. One of my clients requested 7 different versions of one timeline, then all 8 of those translated in to 2 different languages with subtitles. So in all, I had 24 different movies. I suppose if one had to do that the "Great Apple Gadget Co." way, it would be one long "story" LOL. It is an absolute joke of a professional software application.
But perhaps I should be thanking the "Great Apple Gadget Co."; because without their absolute removal of the "pro", I probably would not of looked at Premiere. The integration between Pr and AE is absolutely stunning, and I can't believe how much disk space I'm saving without having to render out FX plates for finalization within the editor. Not to mention how fast Media Encoder is... No, I do not work for Adobe--but I'l thrilled with what they've actually been doing.

But that's just my opinion...
Tim

Tim
Apple XRAID, XServe, MacPro, Macbook Pro, XSAN, FCP Studio (7), AVID Media Composer
Apple Monitors, Flanders Scientific Broadcast, Panasonic AG-AF100
Adobe Production Premium, Maxon Cinema 4d
Beer fridge fully loaded.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 9:38:36 pm

[Tim Vaughan] "One of my clients requested 7 different versions of one timeline, then all 8 of those translated in to 2 different languages with subtitles. So in all, I had 24 different movies. I suppose if one had to do that the "Great Apple Gadget Co." way, it would be one long "story" LOL. It is an absolute joke of a professional software application."

I don´t know if you tried FCPX, but if not I suggest you look at the tools "compound clip", "audition", "replace-edit" and "roles/sub-roles".
These tools might help handling your project with 24 versions much faster and easier than in FCP7.
Which ones you use depends on your project (is multilingual only different VO and titles or is it also combining different actors speaking various languages). Both ways can easily be handled in FCPX. The only feature missing is color-coding clips to different languages (at least in 10.0.1 it´s not possible to have all chinese clips and titles in green and all spanish in yellow, for example).

I have been part of a project with 12 languages (main language english, but also versions in 11 other languages where the german speaking people speak german in their version, the rest sticks to English. Then the same for spanish, italian, turkish etc. )
It was done in AVID (project was last year). Once FCPX came out I thought about this workflow and FCPX would be better IMO. So don´t underestimate it, only because it does things different.



Return to posts index

shawn Bockoven
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:45:28 pm

Spoke at a college in Sacramento last Wednesday. FCPX is part of their curriculum, the students love the software and they will definitely be using X. These students have no NLE baggage ... Does Walter's opinion matter to this demographic? None of those students know about the COW, the bickering and the heartbreak and probably don’t care. We are using X to put out more product than ever. I don’t have the answers. Conundrum comes to mind.


Return to posts index


Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:54:17 pm

It's a strange situation. Taught a class at Maine Media Workshop using FCPX for still photographers wanting to do video. About a third of the class had used FCP before, the others were new to editing. Those without any prior reference were amazed at what you could do. A couple had used iMovie and were loving it, the natural upgrade path. Those with legacy backgrounds were frustrated no doubt, but they got the work done quickly enough and on time.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

Martin Curtis
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 10:50:41 pm

[Tom Wolsky] "A couple had used iMovie and were loving it, the natural upgrade path. Those with legacy backgrounds were frustrated"
This mirrors my experience with iMovies 1 to 8. I could not use iMovie 8 (the "different" one) and so threw myself into FCP (which was a life-changer), while I read of kids who had no previous iMovie experience who would just jump right in to the new one with no preconceptions and no problems.

Perhaps Walter Murch was able to use FCP Classic so easily because its metaphors mirrored the film world so well, whereas the new one breaks all that.


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 12:02:16 am

Actually the metaphor of video timelines does not mirror film. I worked in film. Oddly FCPX with its magnetic timeline and spacing mirrors film editing more closely than the video based paradigm used in legacy versions.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index


Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 2:31:24 am

Actually the metaphor of video timelines does not mirror film. I worked in film. Oddly FCPX with its magnetic timeline and spacing mirrors film editing more closely than the video based paradigm used in legacy versions.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 5:35:55 am

[Tom Wolsky] "Oddly FCPX with its magnetic timeline and spacing mirrors film editing more closely than the video based paradigm used in legacy versions."

Please Tom, can you provide us with some details? Other than the similarity to inserting "fill" when cutting mag track, how else does X mirror film editing? What else are you referring to?

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

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 7:21:23 am

A single monitor. Most film on Moviola and Steenbeck was cut on a single video display. Dual monitors are really a development of video tape production. Holding up two pieces of film for match framing an edit is comparable to the two up display in FCP. In film audio was connected, either as part of the film or rolled together with the film. They behaved as part of the film or as connected clips very similar to the way audio is connected to specific clips in FCP. There is much in compound clips that parallel the way sections of film were assembled and grouped together in reels that were handled and mixed as units. I'm sure there are other resemblances but those come to mind. Together with layered behavior those are significant similarities. The whole idea of tracks with free-floating content is a creation of digital editing and has no comparable basis in film. Much of the NLE timeline and editing behavior and paradigm draws more on videotape antecedents than film.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index


Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Nov 7, 2011 at 3:21:19 am

Actually Tom, I believe the track/timeline is a metaphor for running a series of tracks -- film and magnetic -- through a synchonizer block (and a Moviescope viewer). Even when an editor would cut on an upright Moviola, an assistant would be at the bench, pulling multiple video and audio tracks in sync from left to right, the footage representing time in the way we now look at timecode. He/she would move clips in and out of sync (by inserting filler, a metaphor some like in the way magnetic timeline works BTW) and basically assemble the multi-track movie according to directions from the editor.

I said this many months ago: the legacy NLEs are all a crazy mixed metaphor, taking the best interface elements from older technologies: the Source/Record monitors are from tape editing. The Timeline is from film. And the Browsers and Bins are a combination of physical film organization and the Mac/Windows Finder/Desktop.

Doug D


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 3:59:51 pm

[shawn Bockoven] " These students have no NLE baggage ..."

Shawn,

It's more accurate to say they have no experience or expectations.

Reducing an editor's experience and knowledge to nothing more than "baggage" is a bit emotional, wouldn't you say?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:32:20 pm

[shawn Bockoven] "FCPX is part of their curriculum, the students love the software and they will definitely be using X. These students have no NLE baggage ... Does Walter's opinion matter to this demographic?"

Depends. Do they want to edit feature films? Broadcast TV shows? Narrative, large format docs? Then they'd better learn the proper tools for it. FCX won't be used for 99% of this work. There might be the odd rebels out there, but most will be cut with Avid, some on Legacy FCP, some moving to Premiere. And if they learn the iMovie/FCX way of editing, then try to get work on these shows (starting as assistants, or Post PAs), they will be utterly lost, and need to start over. They might not even get the job (as assistants) if they only NLE they know is FCX. They won't have a clue about how to do anything required for the job. The could start as Post PAs though...and then take classes on using the NLE the business they are in requires, or learn on the job.

Walter Murch's opinion matters. It was because of him that a LOT of people moved to FCP. And really, most of them NOT cutting features. But a lot of people do. And when they hear that someone high in the business uses certain software to cut a feature, they are like "wow, I need that software too!"

But, if they are into the web video demographic, or going into wedding video, certain corporate video markets...yeah...FCX will be great for them.

Shane

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:00:53 pm

it doesn't actually say whether they even replied to his letter. From the way it reads in the piece you wonder if they didn't just ignore it.

Apple really are on a very high horse lately.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:04:50 pm

If the article doesn't say, why would you make such a supposition?

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 4:08:55 pm

because its pretty plain that while he relates sending the letter.. if he had gotten any kind of reply, you'd think he would mention it? Also, at the end, his "do they love us anymore?" bit - doesn't that sound like a man in the dark? One of the greatest living editors, who currently relies on FCP: does that sound like they communicated anything to him?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 5:05:30 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "One of the greatest living editors, who currently relies on FCP: does that sound like they communicated anything to him?"

They don't care about his demographic anymore...that is clear. I do wonder what, if anything, they said. When I wrote I got little more than "give us time, wait and see..."

Shane

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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 5:15:36 pm

[Shane Ross] "When I wrote I got little more than "give us time, wait and see...""

But, we're in a business that requires delivery "yesterday." And, we've already been waiting on Apple to deliver for over four years.

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

Mark Dobson
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 5:34:11 pm

David,

What exactly are you waiting for?

FCPX was launched 4 months ago. It is what it is.

Whilst in time it will meet more peoples professional needs I can't ever see Walter Murch stacking 24 tracks of video in it.

It's clearly designed for a new editing paradigm. Not one based on the traditions of celluloid film editing.

The message is really clear. If people want to edit on a system that is similar to FCP7 they need to shift platforms.

Time will tell whether Apple are right in severing their links with what can now be seen as traditional NLE.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 7:16:54 pm

[Mark Dobson] "What exactly are you waiting for?"

It was Apple who wrote and told Shane to wait, not I. So, exactly why you've chosen to project that onto me is unclear, especially as I've made it quite clear that I'm already moving over into the Avid camp and will be ready to rumble whenever my clients deem the time is right.

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

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 5:44:33 pm

Sounds more too me like they did reply, but he didn't like what they said. You can make whatever suppositions you want based on your view of Apple.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 5:50:21 pm

aha! *wags finger wildly*

so now we're both drawing inferences....


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 6:14:48 pm

I've been as vocal as most of the critics about the issues with FCP X, but I don't count it out. I suspect someone in the feature film world is probably going to try it and like it. If that's the case, opinions may change. Ironically, Walter Murch has been using a FileMaker Pro database of his own design for quite a few pictures, so in some ways, the relational database style of FCP X organization might actually play well with that approach.

Remember that going from MC to FCP was relatively easy because the design was very similar, so it was a very natural transition for Walter during "Cold Mountain". OTOH he never gravitated to Lightworks, which uses a far different UI. More so then than now. FCP X is a completely different UI and means relearning everything you knew about working with editing software. It might simply be too much of a leap.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 6:42:27 pm

Oliver, I agree with much of what you say, but I'll note that the Filemaker Pro that Walter grew to know and love started out as a "flat file" system - and only build in quasi-relational capabilities as it progressed.

What I see in X is a much more traditional relational database structure, and as such, it actually capable of more complexity (and therefore might be somewhat harder to grasp) than what FM-Pro presented.

What I see in X is actually hides much of the power of the underlying database, but I expect that that's precisely where much of the development work in the future will center. We're learning the baby steps of key wording and metadata tagging in the current build. There's no telling what kind of DB hooks the industry will come up with in the future, once you have a fully fleshed out program where all the digital data, video, audio, titles, pictures, (and even groupings of the same), can be manipulated in relation to anything else.

Combine that with a world where data "hooks to", is accessible by, and can be sorted, found and consumed by anyone anywhere via the web, and the possibilities are pretty profound for the long range.

At least in my view.

Mr. Murch, as well as all the rest of us except the very youngest are from a world where this stuff wasn't possible. In the new Google/Apple-ish world, it's the future. Whether we like it or not.

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

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 6:16:56 pm

Walter Murch edits MOVIES.

Most people don't edit movies. OR TV shows, for that matter.

Most people edit to communicate. A significant portion of them edit to communicate for others for money. Of that sub-group, Movies and traditional TV are a further sub-group. The larger play is increasingly "direct to an audience" via the web. If one can't see that tectonic shift, it's because you're not looking.

I noted here in another thread months ago, the story of a young intern in that works on the same local TV show that my wife appears on. That bright, attractive young talented girl had NO interest in working on TV. She had secured a primo entry job in the web world. And viewed broadcast as "old school." She might have been interested in working on a "movie" - but knowing how painfully slow that process is when done properly, I suspect she might have been bored to death with that kind of career.

That's where we're going. And X is being designed for her world. Period. If you keep trying to shoehorn it into a world of feature films and national TV production environments, (outside data heavy tasks like the Sports stuff discussed earlier where data access agility is the driving force) then you're missing the larger view of what's happening out there.

Initiatives like VIMEO PRO and the "branded channel" model that Google is clearly building with the YouTube channel ecostructure revamp is where the eyeballs are migrating.

"Content" will NOT mean the same thing in the future that it does right now.

That's my bet, anyway.

"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: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 6:35:51 pm

[Bill Davis] "Most people don't edit movies."

Bill, I am not sure what distinction you are making here between movies and movies, but the rest of your post is more to the point:

[Bill Davis] "The larger play is increasingly "direct to an audience" via the web." etc.

I think it's generally accepted that FCPX is aimed at this market - it's clearly a consumer product and I don't think you're going to find an argument in this forum on that point.

The debate here seems to be why Apple chose to label it as "Pro".

Franz.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 6:46:40 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "it's clearly a consumer product and I don't think you're going to find an argument in this forum on that point."

I for one don't buy into that argument. We and Apple may have a different definition of "pro". Clearly Apple thinks they have designed a starting point for a completely new approach to editing that is functional for professional editors. Whether we accept that or not is something else. Right now, FCP X is cumbersome to use in certain advanced workflows, but quite frankly I think it's even more cumbersome to use for the direct-to-web producers. I think it is actually closer to pro than consumer/web/amateur, which is why these discussions become so fractured. It's evolving and so will editors' approaches to it.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 6:46:55 pm

The main issue is that they catered to a certain market in a big big way. Then, without any warning, dropped us. Changed the app to something we cannot use without saying, "we decided the best course of action was to pursue this form of editing and delivery."

Although them inviting Walter Murch to the pre-screening with all the rest seems odd. Did they think that he'd love it and be able to use it? Did they REALLY think that? Did they remove all these pro features, redesign things in a way that makes it useless for many of the pros that they invited, and think that we'd somehow LIKE it?

I find that odd. Did they think that Walter Murch would still be able to use it on feature films? Really?

Shane

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 7:00:49 pm

Yes Shane,

They did EXACTLY that.

Now the big question is WHY. And the scary answer is that they saw that what you and I used to do (build large, expensive, top quality content that is expensive, rare and therefore must attract a major audience to succeed) is NOT necessarily the same thing the market will want done in the future. In the future, the market may be more suited to smaller, more targeted, "micro-info blurbs" that people can seek out, access, and consume more rapidly and with less time and attention cost than the big, monolithic "PROGRAM" of the past.

There already were good programs to do the "BIG JOB" work.

But nothing really great to do the videos that the market will increasingly want in the future.

Big programs will still happen, but for every one of those, it's quite likely that there will be a hundred or a thousand smaller information videos that drive even better economic results in more situations and to more people.

This change isn't all just about FCP. It's about editing itself and where it's going overall.

Interesting times.

"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

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 7:13:27 pm

[Bill Davis] "They did EXACTLY that"

I think you are putting entirely too much faith into a "grand plan". I don't think that's the case with Apple. If there were, you wouldn't be hearing all these rumors about an Apple TV system. That would clearly be targeted at fairly standard "big programs". Granted, the delivery may be over the web, but the trend is away from small web content to moving real, long-form news and dramatic production to the web. The Internet replaces TV networks, but the production and post paradigms don't change much. At least that's my forecast.

I think Apple looked at the mish-mash of what had evolved with the ownership of the Studio apps and FC Server and decided to start over, combine and simplify. They started from a clean slate without any real adherence to the past nor to any targeted distribution plan down the road.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 8:37:58 pm

Far from it, Oliver.

I not only don't rely on such a "Grand Plan" vision to make X relevant, I think the very LACK of one is critical to it's long term success.

In my view, they're building an agile tool based on what's currently possible. And they know perfectly well that the market will adapt that tool into what the market needs and wants.

A database is not designed to be a particular type of thing. It's designed to be a thing that you use to make different kinds of other things with - to solve many different kind of problems in many, many different ways.

That post from the guy at FOX sports is precisely on point. It indicated they were using it as a "player video search" tool. The program presented a new capability (robust relational search within a clip-file based video storage system) and they immediately saw that they could leverage that capability into a tool to meet their specific need to assemble player-keyed videos rapidly.

It all comes back to my initial complaint about this thread from the beginning. It was initially stuck on what the program is NOT - and only recently turning it's attention to what the program IS (and of course what it might become.

I accept that the jury is out. But we are starting to see how X is making a few folks with solid professional needs view things in some different contexts. And I think that's very healthy for the industry.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 8:49:32 pm

[Bill Davis] "But we are starting to see how X is making a few folks with solid professional needs view things in some different contexts. And I think that's very healthy for the industry"

Agreed.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 6:45:10 am

[Oliver Peters] "I think you are putting entirely too much faith into a "grand plan". I don't think that's the case with Apple. If there were, you wouldn't be hearing all these rumors about an Apple TV system. That would clearly be targeted at fairly standard "big programs". Granted, the delivery may be over the web, but the trend is away from small web content to moving real, long-form news and dramatic production to the web. The Internet replaces TV networks, but the production and post paradigms don't change much. At least that's my forecast."

Just as Cable impacted the big three networks and the locals, over time, market share erodes. The "big shows of today" aren't quite as big as the big shows of the 50's (market share). Programing diversifies and shares fragment. As thing move to the internet we're seeing a move a way from 30 and 60 minute time slots since things move to On Demand vs. scheduled and sequenced broadcast day.

In another odd way, we may be moving back to the days of cinema before TV. You'd go to a movie and see shorts, cartoons, news, a feature. Programing on the internet may range in duration now, like they did then.

Tangentially I think we're going to see an increase in "live" programing as well. I think this will hit news first as immediacy will gain value relative to the "package."

Advertising itself is diversifying as video marketing goes well beyond the limits of the 30 seconds spot. Ironically some of the viral marketing videos today are boarding on the old method of "sponsored" shows (entertainment built around product or service offered).

Cinema didn't go away, the networks didn't go away, but both the market and diversity of content and the PROFESSIONAL means of delivery are expanding.

It'll be interesting to see where AppleTV is going. I wouldn't doubt it'll be a bit more that a TV with cable and iTunes access with a nifty interface. If that is what it is, it may fail. I see boxes like Roku who's content sources is far more diverse being the way forward.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 6:51:15 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[Bill Davis] "Most people don't edit movies."

Bill, I am not sure what distinction you are making here between movies and movies, but the rest of your post is more to the point:

[Bill Davis] "The larger play is increasingly "direct to an audience" via the web." etc.

I think it's generally accepted that FCPX is aimed at this market - it's clearly a consumer product and I don't think you're going to find an argument in this forum on that point.

The debate here seems to be why Apple chose to label it as "Pro".

Franz."


Franz,

The distinction is between MOVIES - a traditional thing watched in a destination theater and then sold as a discrete unit thereafter via DVD or download. And web-based content like informational programs you might consume via YouTube, VIMEO or the like.

In broad terms, it's PULL verses PUSH content. (In the sense that Hollywood and the networks used to have to PUSH their content out in the marketplace for consumption. Today, the world is moving rapidly toward PULL consumption.

That's the world I think FCP-X is heading towards. Judging it totally agains prior programs designed to be excellent at creating PUSH content misses both what it is, and where it fits into the new way things are evolving.

Hope that helps explain what I'm thinking.

"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

Walter Soyka
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 6:55:43 pm

[Bill Davis] "In broad terms, it's PULL verses PUSH content. (In the sense that Hollywood and the networks used to have to PUSH their content out in the marketplace for consumption. Today, the world is moving rapidly toward PULL consumption.

That's the world I think FCP-X is heading towards. Judging it totally agains prior programs designed to be excellent at creating PUSH content misses both what it is, and where it fits into the new way things are evolving."


Does the change in distribution and consumption patterns require a change in production? What do you think the differences between PUSH editorial and PULL editorial are, and how does NLE design meet one or the other?

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

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 7:07:08 pm

Walter,

I think the question is whether PULL remains at some arbitrary "program" level as is currently. Or whether Apple sees a future where PULL takes place INSIDE a broader content management system where the program creator can step in, adapt and change elements, and the links to the outside can remain accessible to the audience that you're serving.

Why else build a editing program with so much database stuff INSIDE?

In a world of search, allowing the option for customers to go into your own purpose managed and structured system to access content is pretty powerful. And I think that's part of the long-term X plan.

"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

Walter Soyka
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 7:46:22 pm

[Bill Davis] "I think the question is whether PULL remains at some arbitrary "program" level as is currently. Or whether Apple sees a future where PULL takes place INSIDE a broader content management system where the program creator can step in, adapt and change elements, and the links to the outside can remain accessible to the audience that you're serving. Why else build a editing program with so much database stuff INSIDE?"

While I agree that expanding the database underpinnings of an NLE could enable this workflow, I'm not sure that we should assume this is the intended direction for FCPX.

I think that a DAM (digital asset management system) that's bottled inside an NLE is there for the editor. Shooting ratios are skyrocketing, post schedules are getting tighter, and the editor is caught in the middle. Editors need tools to help them sift through the mountains of video data that they manage. The Event Browser serves that purpose nicely.

Suggesting that an NLE with a DAM built in will somehow enable brave new media consumption doesn't track for me. You can feed edited program segments into a content management system for on-demand consumption today.

A good content management system should be able to deal with other kinds of non-video media, well outside of an NLE's usefulness. The NLE should participate in the larger content management system -- not contain it. It should draw clips from and contribute sequences to it.

Specifically in the FCPX implementation, to enable the sorts of database-driven workflows you're talking about, I think the Project Library and Event Library would have to be merged, boatloads of metadata added to projects, and the whole database exposed for interchange. I think that if your vision for FCPX (which is very interesting!) were really Apple's long range goal, we would have seen a very different initial design in many of the parts we have.

Apple bought a wonderful DAM called artbox from Proximity, which they sold as Final Cut Server for a little more than three years. Since FCSvr worked outside the NLE and was built for customized integration into arbitrary workflows, I think it was actually much closer to your vision of the future than FCPX is -- but now it's gone.

Asset management aside, I'm still very curious on why you think editorial itself must change to accommodate a different distribution ideology. Unless you redefine the atom of consumption as something other than an edited program, you still need an editor to do some "PUSH" editorial before the consumers go "PULL" the pieces they want.

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

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 10:27:20 pm

Walter,
[Walter Soyka] "I think that a DAM (digital asset management system) that's bottled inside an NLE is there for the editor. "

Of course, Walter, but the funny thing about databases is that while you may build it for some internal purpose, once it gets created, it's much MUCH easier to build some hooks into it so that it can be accessed OUTSIDE the internal structure of the existing database.

That's the whole point of being "relational" after all.

I think a HUGE clue is right in the design of the FCP-X Project Library.

It's already a very useful "world view" level that gives one a clear view of the current state of all the included "content" visually. You can not only PLAY, but scrub through dozens of "timelines", see if it's been recently updated, and what is and isn't available for use.

Currently, you could argue that distribution and consumption is done as a separate set of processes after the editor decides that the project is "complete." And that there's little linkage between the editing stage and the consumption stage. X seems to be poised to break some of that down.

All it would require is a way to "publish" one's Project Library. Then suddenly, you have the core of a very agile, very accessible, very updatable CMS ready to go.

"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: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 7:14:39 pm

[Bill Davis] "In broad terms, it's PULL verses PUSH content. (In the sense that Hollywood and the networks used to have to PUSH their content out in the marketplace for consumption. Today, the world is moving rapidly toward PULL consumption."

I'll second the question; I agree that distribution methods are changing, I'm not sure that this changes editing per se.

I suppose you can argue that editing software that is quicker and cheaper serves this market, but I'm not sure how FCPX makes an exclusive claim on either of those qualities.

Youtube also seems to be the domain of largely unedited videos (or editing of the absolute rudimentary variety). Further, it is also the domain of very polished, big budget media "pushes". So to me I don't get a clear picture of how that distribution model (which encompasses many production models) impacts on editing needs (except, again, that for most people the cheapest, fastest way will be the winner).

But I consider them all "movies". They are still images and sounds put together in time. I'm not sure a distinction needs to be made unless you want to talk about them in terms of revenue models.

As for "content" - I've always regarded that as a term invented by accountants and distributors, but that's another post altogether ...

Franz.


Return to posts index

Paul Harrison
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 7:48:38 pm

The new pull distribution model is about ubiquitous consumption of moving images, and immediate consumer feedback. A publisher posts a movie on YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook, or Twitter and immediately and continuously knows how many viewers he/she has. And gets critical review as well. Tomorrow, the publisher can post new content that reacts to the critique and popularity. (e.g., look at CollegeHumor. New movies daily.) Think like local tv news channels in competition. The creative/editorial question now is how to provide compelling, exciting movies faster that are reactive to demand and micro-targetted to audience.

In the Walter Murch past, the creative/editorial question was how to provide compelling, exciting movies that would appeal to a movie or dvd buying audience a year or more in the future. Big plans, big risks, big costs, mass appeal.

It makes sense to ask whether editorial tools need a different feature set for an instantaneous, networked world.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 7:58:34 pm

[Paul Harrison] "The new pull distribution model is about ubiquitous consumption of moving images, and immediate consumer feedback... The creative/editorial question now is how to provide compelling, exciting movies faster that are reactive to demand and micro-targetted to audience."

The need for speed is not new -- though I'd agree the need for volume is.

However, speed and volume are only the same problem if you lack human resources.

Another solution to the problem of volume is an improved collaborative toolset, so perhaps Media Composer on Unity is the better solution here?

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

tony west
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 4:09:16 pm

Bill, I think another element is being overlooked here.

There is a new ability to make a small budget documentary these days and to me FCP X fits right into that.

Look at a film like Gasland (that's a great and important film) a film like that with a small budget because of it's tone might have trouble getting funding.

Did you see that film? Look at the type of low end cameras he used to shoot it. UNHEARD OF years ago.
Oscar nominated now. Because in the end it's about can you tell a story.

That's the type of film that will play right into the hands of FCP X.

Yeah, some big studio might not want to cut Spiderman 8 (or whatever) today on X but thank God that's not the only type of film being made these days.

(Nothing against those films, it's just cool to have options)

Another element that seem to be overlooked is shooting.

The landscape has changed with all these cheap HD cameras.

I'm seeing more and more people at big events shooting interviews with the 7D. Everyone records their audio separate then syncs it up in post.

Again, right into the hands of FCP X with its audio wave sync function.

It's a faster easier way to cut that type of footage and they (Apple) know that's where a lot of new stuff is going.

It's almost like the forum could be broken into two parts. Feature film, and everything else.

At some point a person will hold an Oscar over their head with X.

Then I will say "I called it" : )

Tony West


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 7:11:18 pm

While most news I have seen on the Murch/FCPX matter, no one mentions this little blurb that was in the linked blog:

"While Walter is encouraged by the updated FCPX version last month, he hasn’t used it on any real work yet, so he is cautiously optimistic"

Hmm. I guess people hear what they want to hear as everyone else is reporting that Murch won't use it.

It sounds to me like he look at it, said "There's no audio tracks! What am I to do?" and moved on, and then actually liked to hear about XML in the next release, and the access to projects on a SAN has been solved, too. Coming from an award winning sound design perspective, perhaps it's understandable, but doesn't tell the whole story, really. Maybe he just can't use it today. Also understandable.

His Filemaker Pro database is interesting as well. I wonder what he thought of the timeline index, or I wonder what he would think of using compound clips in the browser for further organization and assemblies.

I think what has become more clear over reading all of the posts here, is that FCPX takes much longer than a cursory glance to begin to be understood. It is also the most talked about part of his presentation. I would be fasciated to hear the whole thing, especially his thoughts on the end of film.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 8:02:38 pm

Interestingly some audio people are liking the way audio behaves, independently, yet easily grouped into compound clips for mixing.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 8:07:27 pm

[Tom Wolsky] "Interestingly some audio people are liking the way audio behaves, independently, yet easily grouped into compound clips for mixing."

Yep, which is why a cursory glance won't give you all the info one might need, in my personal opinion.

The only real thing mentioned in the article that he reacted negatively to was interchange and lack of SAN support. It did say he looked at it in June.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 8:29:22 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "The only real thing mentioned in the article that he reacted negatively to was interchange and lack of SAN support. It did say he looked at it in June."

There was also this:
"The lack of tracks was another killer for him. While he doesn’t really need to work with 50 tracks, he does need to leverage the ability to selectively raise or lower the levels very specifically."

Did you look at his timeline for Hemingway & Gellhorn?
His Final Cut Pro project consisted of 22 video tracks and 50 audio tracks, combining sound elements ranging from 8 tracks of dialogue, to 24 tracks of mono and stereo sound effects with and without low frequency enhancements (LFE)!!
So messy! We can't have that! Who could possibly understand it? And everyone knows FCP7's audio tools are way too lousy to do any serious mixing and sound design.

I doubt WM will have any interest in FCPX unless it seriously changes. But he did have some thoughts on where to go. No surprises here:
If you didn’t use FCP, where would you go? “I’ve used Avid in the past, so I know it well. There are some very good things that Avid has, but I’m also curious about Premiere since I’m interested in technology.”


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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 8:56:33 pm

[David Lawrence] "There was also this:
"The lack of tracks was another killer for him. While he doesn’t really need to work with 50 tracks, he does need to leverage the ability to selectively raise or lower the levels very specifically."
"


Which doesn't make sense. It's like the claim that's been said that FCPX can't edit video and audio or add text. It's just plain false.

[David Lawrence] "Did you look at his timeline for Hemingway & Gellhorn?
His Final Cut Pro project consisted of 22 video tracks and 50 audio tracks, combining sound elements ranging from 8 tracks of dialogue, to 24 tracks of mono and stereo sound effects with and without low frequency enhancements (LFE)!!"


I did. The thing that struck me was all the empty space. You can see he used disabled tracks as an organizer. FCPX just works differently. I wonder if a really good assistant showed him some of the different ways of utilizing FCPX, I wonder he would think. He said he likes technology. He obviously needs organization, so much so, FCP7 wasn't good enough to give him the "at a glance" overview he needed.

I think he also bounces out to DAWs quite often. This is certainly a show stopper for him at the moment, I'm sure. I seem to remember the Apple promo materials showing him working in STP which might have been marketing, or maybe it was real (I'm sure final audio post wasn't done in STP), I wonder what he would think of the built in Logic effects.

[David Lawrence] "So messy! We can't have that! Who could possibly understand it? And everyone knows FCP7's audio tools are way too lousy to do any serious mixing and sound design."

In all honesty, no one would have just by looking at the timeline. It wasn't until the huge labels came up that it made sense. Looks like he needed a third party app (shudder!) in Filemaker Pro as a database manger to keep it all straight.

[David Lawrence] "I doubt WM will have any interest in FCPX unless it seriously changes. But he did have some thoughts on where to go."

Of course, I would seriously beg to differ. :)


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
on Oct 29, 2011 at 12:02:23 am

sorry my connections wigging out. First snow storm.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 12:05:39 am

[Jeremy Garchow] " (I'm sure final audio post wasn't done in STP), I wonder what he would think of the built in Logic effects.
"


I'm sure it wasn't either. I've never considered STP to be a serious mastering tool. I can't imagine how he wouldn't be impressed with Logic being in X...it brings the sonic quality of Logic.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 12:08:21 am

[Jim Giberti] "I can't imagine how he wouldn't be impressed with Logic being in X...it brings the sonic quality of Logic."

Right in the FCPX timeline as well.*

And now that Autoduck is free.....!

http://www.automaticduck.com/products/download/index.html

*(I don't know what a timeliness well is, but sound fun and dangerous all at the same time)


Return to posts index

peter dunphy
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 1:16:51 pm

I want to move to FCPX. I plan to, and I'm loving hearing how the Logic sound editing capabilities are up to scratch. A video tutorial showcasing the latest audio discoveries and a video 'how to' (buses and submixes within FCPX) would be amazing if that's possible for Creative Cow to rustle up? Once I'm totally convinced by the audio capabilities, I'm making the leap from Final Cut Studio to FCPX.

Jim, your thread about the audio capabilities for FCPX has given me great hope.

Peter Dunphy

2 x 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 8 GB 1066 MHz DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4870, ATTO ExpressSAS R380, Sonnet D800 Raid 5


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 6:10:51 pm

[peter dunphy] "Jim, your thread about the audio capabilities for FCPX has given me great hope.
"


There is hope Peter. A few days more of experimenting with things and it's still looking good. Have you spent anytime in X yet? I'd be glad to answer any questions with what I'm doing so far.l


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 28, 2011 at 11:55:35 pm

[David Lawrence] "And everyone knows FCP7's audio tools are way too lousy to do any serious mixing and sound design."

I think you can do sound design in FCP7, but it's not very easy nor does it have any serious sound design tools at the level of DP MasterWorks or Logic stuff, so I've always done our post there.

It's the ability to now sculpt audio with the high end Logic tools in X and to apply them to individual clips, quickly selectable groups and Master buss that makes finishing audio the real deal.

It needs a ton of refinement, but it can already do what you can't do in 7 in my experience.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 12:44:27 am

You guys crack me up. Like WM would actually mix a movie in any NLE, STP or Logic. As re-recording mixer he strictly works on Pro Tools. As such, in his recent films that's typically a 2-man operation using an Avid Icon control surface. This FCP timeline layout you see is strictly a temp mix for screening purposes. Like all good film editors, he's trying to flesh out as full of a sound track as he can for the director or anyone else who screens the film. If he's working with broadcast wave files from the location mixer, that's going to be 8 or more tracks per take. If you have overlapping dialogue edits, 16 or more tracks are going to be tied up checkerboarding these tracks. His use of STP has been very limited. Mainly to clean up location mics for the temp tracks. Nothing permanent and not for mixing. This all has to go via OMF to the audio editors.

As far as the FMP database, this is a freeform database he has evolved over numerous films and it replaces hand written notes and tracks absolutely everything about each take. This is made available to his team on a network, I believe so anyone can cross-reference it. It has to stay independent of the NLE because it has to be available at any location he may be. It has also transcended various NLE changes.

It should be noted, that although Murch is an A-list Oscar winner, he still can't always dictate the system he will use. Like most of us freelancers, often others make that decision. When he took on "Wolfman" the project had already been started on Media Composer and so he continued on the same system.

I think it's incredibly presumptuous to suggest that a good assistant could show him how to use FCP X to his advantage. Most films have a very unique workflow. In WM's case he has had very savvy assistants, which is how he ended up on FCP in the first place. As such he and his team have taken on more than the usual film editors. For instance on "Youth Without Youth" and I believe "Tetro" as well, his assistants tackled some of the set extensions in Shake and also conformed the files into DPX sequences for the final DI. That's something most creative film editorial teams would never touch.

I think the reason there's a big surprise about how this was handled is that he has had over the years regular meetings with the ProApps boys to offer suggestions for FCP improvements. If they took the time to have these meetings, then why ignore the input?

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 2:52:25 am

[Oliver Peters] "You guys crack me up. Like WM would actually mix a movie in any NLE, STP or Logic. As re-recording mixer he strictly works on Pro Tools."


It's good you're entertained Oliver. It's interesting that you think that he wouldn't mix a film in Logic though. Because he works in Pro Tools doesn't mean that it's superior. I'm sure he's like every other creative pro - he uses what's he's most comfortable using out of a range of quality tools.

I've had all three in my studios and much prefer Digital Performer 7 to Pro Tools, as do many pro engineers and producers at the highest level.

I did make the point that I don't consider either FCP 7 or STP to be a real tool for audio post, but Logic?
Of course it is, and it's why you can do a really good job sculpting audio in X.

Of course not for a major or even minor film release but for TV spots, for instance, absolutely.

It's been long established at this point that FCP X is not ready for the upper end of the editing industry, but to deny it's unique capabilities (like finishing audio better than any NLE I know) is selling it short.

The real point is that the vast majority of people on the Cow, who edit in any version of FCP or any NLE, will never handle the audio at the level of Mr. Murch.

Like the vast majority of FCP editors have learned to do their own grading, so could they do their own in-house audio post if they learn the chops, and now X will let them.

I'm talking the great unwashed masses...and I suppose I'm one of them.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 11:59:56 am

[Jim Giberti] "It's good you're entertained Oliver. It's interesting that you think that he wouldn't mix a film in Logic though. Because he works in Pro Tools doesn't mean that it's superior. I'm sure he's like every other creative pro - he uses what's he's most comfortable using out of a range of quality tools."

I wasn't commenting on the quality of the tool. I know several mixers who have moved from Pro Tools to Logic and like it. However, feature film and episodic TV production is a team effort and for the most part the audio editors and mixers use Pro Tools or Fairlight. You have to be compatible. Plus, the re-recording mix is going to be done at a studio dubbing stage or maybe a place like Skywalker. That stage is going to be equipped with Pro Tools for last minute editorial changes as well as integration with large control surfaces, external audio processing equipment and video slave control.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 1:35:03 am

You guys are funny. Like WM would actually mix a movie in any NLE, STP or Logic. As re-recording mixer he strictly works on Pro Tools. As such, in his recent films that's typically a 2-man operation using an Avid Icon control surface. This FCP timeline layout you see is strictly a temp mix for screening purposes. Like all good film editors, he's trying to flesh out as full of a sound track as he can for the director or anyone else who screens the film. If he's working with broadcast wave files from the location mixer, that's going to be 8 or more tracks per take. If you have overlapping dialogue edits, 16 or more tracks are going to be tied up checkerboarding these tracks. His use of STP has been very limited. Mainly to clean up location mics for the temp tracks. Nothing permanent and not for mixing. This all has to go via OMF to the audio editors.

As far as the FMP database, this is a freeform database he has evolved over numerous films and it replaces hand written notes and tracks absolutely everything about each take. This is made available to his team on a network, I believe so anyone can cross-reference it. It has to stay independent of the NLE because it has to be available at any location he may be. It has also transcended various NLE changes.

It should be noted, that although Murch is an A-list Oscar winner, he still can't always dictate the system he will use. Like most of us freelancers, often others make that decision. When he took on "Wolfman" the project had already been started on Media Composer and so he continued on the same system.

I think it's incredibly presumptuous to suggest that a good assistant could show him how to use FCP X to his advantage. Most films have a very unique workflow. In WM's case he has had very savvy assistants, which is how he ended up on FCP in the first place. As such he and his team have taken on more than the usual film editors. For instance on "Youth Without Youth" and I believe "Tetro" as well, his assistants tackled some of the set extensions in Shake and also conformed the files into DPX sequences for the final DI. That's something most creative film editorial teams would never touch.

I think the reason there's a big surprise about how this was handled is that he has had over the years regular meetings with the ProApps boys to offer suggestions of improvements. If they take the time to have these meetings, then why ignore the input?

FWIW - to my knowledge, none of the other prominent FCP film editors are ready to jump on the FCP X bandwagon either at this time.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 2:24:03 am

So, I presume. So you know Mr Murch?

And if his assistants got him to FCP, then couldn't one of those savvy one's get to him to take a good look at FCPX?

It takes more than a "quick" look.

The app is 4 months old, doesn't have video out, and just got free OMF out this evening.

Of course people should tread lightly.

And as far as audio mix, he can get a lot done for rough cuts at a better quality in X than in 7, that's all I'm saying. I know that STP is not going to be the final out. I don't edit features, but I'm not a foo'.

I would just be curious to see what he thought is all, and yeah, that's presuming something, I guess.

Glad we at least made you laugh.

Hey, have you checked out the Pomfort Alexa Log-C transform plug?


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 5:12:19 am

My problem with FCPX is not about tracks, but about playing complex sequences being able to SEE what doesn't work and have it ready to fix it with a click of the mouse.
Showing every single element that runs below the play head and a second window are fundamental.

[Bill Davis] "Most people don't edit movies. OR TV shows, for that matter.

Most people edit to communicate. "

That makes no much sense.
Video is video whatever you want to use it it for.
A video editor, and so his tools, must be market agnostic.
My tools can't not restrict my markets or my "field of action".
I can have a tool for editing video, another for Color Grading and another for Audio finishing, but I can't think of trying to mastering a complex NLE just for "communication" and another one for everything else.
If Apple had in mind a restricted use/market should have changed the name of the application.

And again, FCP shortcomings doesn't make a great application of FCPX. The few things that really shine in FCPX should have been in FCP.8. FCP shortcomings are but Apple fault.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 12:25:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " So you know Mr Murch?"

I wouldn't say I know him well, but I have interviewed both Murch and his associate editor on many films (Sean Cullen) for three different articles. So a total of several hours of conversation about the films, editing styles and philosophy, etc. Also a lot of this SM seems to echo his NAB SM presentation of several years ago. There he went into heavy detail about the post on "Youth Without Youth". I think Rick Young's site has the video presentation. It's at least an hour or more long and well worth the time to watch it.

[Jeremy Garchow] "And if his assistants got him to FCP, then couldn't one of those savvy one's get to him to take a good look at FCPX?"

Maybe they don't like it either. Remember, there are other major issues with FCP X, like the unified viewer, versus source/record windows. Watch "The Cutting Edge" DVD and there's a section in it where Murch goes through a cut in "Cold Mountain" that deals with eye-line matching.

[Jeremy Garchow] "And as far as audio mix, he can get a lot done for rough cuts at a better quality in X than in 7,"

Although I'm intrigued by Jim's workflow description, I would disagree. Working in compound clips makes things quite cumbersome. You'll note the size of the real estate that timeline took up. One of the problems with FCP X is the rigid window layout. If you needed to spread out a timeline across the full monitor, you can't. Let's take something easy, like 24 tracks of audio all stacked. If I want to see them in a single timeline and not 3 compound clips of 8 tracks each, FCP X forces a lot of scrolling in a very small window area. Very limiting.

I haven't tried the Pomfort plug-in yet, but one of my clients has it installed, so I should get to play with it in the coming week.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Juan Morales
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 2:41:48 pm

Found a short video of Walter Murch talking about FCPX during last week's Boston Supermeet op YouTube. Here it is:







Return to posts index

Ken Zukin
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55:04 pm

If you watch Murch's presentation here (12 minutes), his reaction to "X" mirrors the rest of us -- confused by Apple's new trajectory, cautiously optimistic, hopeful but realistic, and at the end of the day, wondering if this new software will work for him.

Illuminating -- thanks Juan, for posting this.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 5:36:41 pm

Juan, Thanks.


... an essential addition to this post.

I want to know what he said in the part that is edited out in the middle!

Funny his choice of words when he talks about Apple attempting to "rebuild a professional ecosystem". Like after an earthquake.

Also funny where he compares Apple to the Soviet government. Iron curtain indeed!


Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 6:11:01 pm

Awesome. Thanks, Juan!

He definitely said way more than "I'm not going to use it".

Grain of salt, folks.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 6:28:51 pm

The last lines are great. Sums up the whole thing since April.


"Do they love us? No. They like us. And SAY they love us."


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 9:37:45 pm

Thanks for the response, Oliver. I'll check out those references.

It was interesting to hear what Murch's biggest gripes were after watching the video. The top two are already "fixed", number three is announced for the next update, and then he went on to describe Roles, which he didn't seem to like or dislike.

I did look at Murch's timeline and as I mentioned, the first thing I saw was all the empty space. Some of those tracks are pretty sparse, and even Murch himself said he could probably get rid of about half of them.

While I too am intrigued with Jim's workflow, I think it breaks the magnetic timeline in dramatic fashion (no offense, Jim. I enjoyed your post). Visual organization is still needed for audio tracks. Compounds are a way, but I feel they aren't "THE" way. Putting them all in a secondary is not the way, either, that's where things get broken fast.

In another post, I talked about how much can be done in such little space with FCPX. I know, people are opposed to the "rigid" interface. The idea of compound clips, I think is a step in the right direction. They way to use them in the browser relives the clutter of timeline selects reels. We just need more control of them in Projects. We talked about the clips being "a drawer" that we could open and adjust content in context, and then close it back up. That would be pretty ideal rather than breaking apart, adjusting, selecting, and compounding. It would also allow all the advantages of the magnetic and trackless timeline. That means that all of Murch's sections could be combined in to about 7 "clips" or however many sections he had. He could work on what he wants, adjust it, then put it all away.

At any rate, I'd be curious to hear what he says after he actually uses it.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 12:16:51 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It was interesting to hear what Murch's biggest gripes were after watching the video. The top two are already "fixed", number three is announced for the next update, and then he went on to describe Roles, which he didn't seem to like or dislike."

It sounded like he hasn't had time to actually work with it directly -- that he was responding to the deal-breaking interchange issues that are slowing being addressed.

Naturally, I'm most curious to hear what he'll have to say about the magnetic timeline after he actually gets his hands on it. That will be fascinating.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I did look at Murch's timeline and as I mentioned, the first thing I saw was all the empty space. Some of those tracks are pretty sparse, and even Murch himself said he could probably get rid of about half of them."

Keep in mind that all that empty space is actually information. When you're using space as an organizing tool, the negative space is just as important as the where the clips are in showing patterns and flow. Even though he said he could consolidate, I find it interesting that he hadn't.

BTW, I thought his use of skinny muted audio tracks as group separators was brilliant! I'm gonna start doing that now anytime I get over 5 or 6 tracks.

[Jeremy Garchow] "While I too am intrigued with Jim's workflow, I think it breaks the magnetic timeline in dramatic fashion (no offense, Jim. I enjoyed your post). Visual organization is still needed for audio tracks. Compounds are a way, but I feel they aren't "THE" way. Putting them all in a secondary is not the way, either, that's where things get broken fast."

Yep, it's interesting but still another workaround. Ball's in Apple's court to show us a better way.

[Jeremy Garchow] "We talked about the clips being "a drawer" that we could open and adjust content in context, and then close it back up. That would be pretty ideal rather than breaking apart, adjusting, selecting, and compounding. It would also allow all the advantages of the magnetic and trackless timeline. That means that all of Murch's sections could be combined in to about 7 "clips" or however many sections he had. He could work on what he wants, adjust it, then put it all away. "

This would be great, but I still think the biggest architectural constraint is the single primary storyline.

When you look at WM's timeline, do you see anything that looks like "primary" and "secondary" content?
I don't. What I see looks like a musical score. Everything look primary in terms of time, irregardless of narrative. I'm sure you could map his timeline into FCPX after the fact, but I have a hard time imagining FCPX's single primary is robust enough to compete with the flexibility of multiple open tracks during the editorial process.

WM's timeline screenshot really shows how reductive Apple's thinking is with their new timeline paradigm. I look forward to seeing how they will support his level of editorial complexity.

[Jeremy Garchow] "At any rate, I'd be curious to hear what he says after he actually uses it."

Yes!

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 2:09:24 pm

[David Lawrence] "Keep in mind that all that empty space is actually information. When you're using space as an organizing tool, the negative space is just as important as the where the clips are in showing patterns and flow. Even though he said he could consolidate, I find it interesting that he hadn't."

I completely understand and I get it. That doesn't mean that there's not a better way, or maybe just a different way. Having a two hour timeline with 50 tracks, and 10 of those tracks have but a few elements in them seems a bit inefficient, but may e that's just me. The timeline seems over complicated, and perhaps doesn't need to be. Perhaps, with Roles, you can get the exports you need without having to segregate everything

There's no question that audio organization needs a bit of help in FCPX.

[David Lawrence] "This would be great, but I still think the biggest architectural constraint is the single primary storyline.

When you look at WM's timeline, do you see anything that looks like "primary" and "secondary" content?
I don't. What I see looks like a musical score. Everything look primary in terms of time, irregardless of narrative. I'm sure you could map his timeline into FCPX after the fact, but I have a hard time imagining FCPX's single primary is robust enough to compete with the flexibility of multiple open tracks during the editorial process.

WM's timeline screenshot really shows how reductive Apple's thinking is with their new timeline paradigm. I look forward to seeing how they will support his level of editorial complexity."


Hard to tell from a fuzzy screengrab, but take a really good look at that timeline. I see a bunch if clips, and a bunch of cuts, it's nothing really complex in terms of composites/layers, The Federline timeline was more complex in its compositing nature. Perhaps those clips are all stacked on different tracks because he needs to export those tracks separately for whatever reason. I think Roles would allow all this separation to be consolidated and allow you to work more with less space.

Do you think he works that way because he wants to, or because the FCP7 interface dictates he has to? If you need to export separate tracks, there's no other way to do it but to put everything on its own track. X solves that with Roles.

I'm telling you, a really good assistant, one that embraces the organizational structure of X could make a strong case. To me, it is obvious his mind his open. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 2:15:54 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Do you think he works that way because he wants to, or because the FCP7 interface dictates he has to? If you need to export separate tracks, there's no other way to do it but to put everything on its own track. X solves that with Roles."

The main reason he has for grouping his tracks the way he does is that (as he explained) he likes to "live mix" the different stems (dialogue, effects, music) through a basic desk. You can't yet do this sort of output routing with FCPX - even with Roles. Maybe that will arrive in later incarnations of the Roles idea ...

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 3:48:51 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "The main reason he has for grouping his tracks the way he does is that (as he explained) he likes to "live mix" the different stems (dialogue, effects, music) through a basic desk. You can't yet do this sort of output routing with FCPX - even with Roles. Maybe that will arrive in later incarnations of the Roles idea ..."

Sorry, should have been more specific. Yes, you point out the audio capabilities, I was talking about video at that point. If he needed to export audio, he could do that through OMF if he didn't need stems. I was specifically talking about video track exprt there, sorry.

Look at the video tracks, there's no reason why those couldn't be more consolidated if following the export structure of roles.

Audio still needs to be more connected through metadata for proper bussing. Hopefully, when we get video out, some of these will get further addressed. We will need a way to get audio out to specific channels. Roles will get us there, I think.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 7:01:26 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Hard to tell from a fuzzy screengrab, but take a really good look at that timeline. I see a bunch if clips, and a bunch of cuts, it's nothing really complex in terms of composites/layers, The Federline timeline was more complex in its compositing nature. Perhaps those clips are all stacked on different tracks because he needs to export those tracks separately for whatever reason. I think Roles would allow all this separation to be consolidated and allow you to work more with less space."

Maybe it's not just about compositing, maybe he's using tracks for entirely different editorial purposes. Maybe he assigns tracks to characters or has some other organizational scheme in place. That's the beauty of the open timeline and tracks. You can use them any way you like. They're totally flexible.

I guess I don't understand why you would want to consolidate this. I don't see any benefit. WM isn't cutting on a laptop -- no doubt he's working with the biggest screens he can get his hands on with one dedicated to the timeline. If you have the screen real estate and you're working spatially, why not take up as much space as you need? What's the downside?

[Jeremy Garchow] "Do you think he works that way because he wants to, or because the FCP7 interface dictates he has to?"

I think he works the way he wants and the reason he likes FCP7 is because the FCP7 interface allows him to. I remember reading somewhere that the fact that FCP allows 99 audio and 99 video tracks was a big deal for him and helped win him over to FCP.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm telling you, a really good assistant, one that embraces the organizational structure of X could make a strong case. To me, it is obvious his mind his open. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation."

Seriously? I'd love to have a hit of whatever you're smoking ;)

I'm really looking forward to hearing him talk about the magnetic timeline after he actually trys it, hands-on. I don't get the impression he's gotten that deep into it. I wonder how he'll respond to how it feels and behaves. Do you think he knows it's ripple only? I wonder what he'll think about that. Especially given his background in sound. Or the way it rearranges clip layer order (possibly changing the edit) on its own to avoid collisions. Because clip collisions and the unbearable difficulty of managing tracks are surely at the top of his list of problems with FCP7, right?

I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation too! ;)

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:26:37 am

David, I know you like to mention it a lot but the FCPX timeline is NOT ripple only!

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 1:05:54 pm

No more than the FCP7 timeline is lift only.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 7:49:51 pm

[Steve Connor] "David, I know you like to mention it a lot but the FCPX timeline is NOT ripple only!"

[Tom Wolsky] "No more than the FCP7 timeline is lift only."


Steve and Tom --

Here again is my video that proves it is. The position tool does not turn off ripple. In fact, there's currently a very destructive design flaw that verifies this when the position tool is used on gaps. Watch the behavior carefully:





I started a long topic explaining my reasoning here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/17555

Bottom line - the position tool does not turn off ripple. Storylines are ripple only. Connected clips must be attached to the ripple-only primary.

I welcome you to demonstrate why I'm wrong with your own video examples.

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


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:27:34 pm

If I understand your premise you want to slide the gap and the connected video and audio. Select the gap and nudge it, comma or period, Shift-comma or period, or type in a plus or miss value.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 1:37:19 am

[Tom Wolsky] "If I understand your premise you want to slide the gap and the connected video and audio. Select the gap and nudge it, comma or period, Shift-comma or period, or type in a plus or miss value."

That's correct, however I want to overwrite in the primary in the direction I'm dragging, and not affect the trim of the clip I'm moving away from.

You're method partially works, but is limited in that you can't nudge beyond the length of the clip you're nudging into, and the clip you're nudging away from is extended by the length of the nudge.

Basically, I just want the position tool to behave consistently when used on gaps. It should leave a gap behind as the gap is being moved. It does not. And because of this design error, as you can see, clips ripple underneath it. That's because storylines are ripple-only and gaps are the only way to space clips apart.

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


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 1:55:05 am

Put another gap after the one in the timeline. Nudge it as you like. The position tool is not necessary. If you move it numerically it will wipe out the shot you're moving across.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 1:13:24 pm

[David Lawrence] "Maybe it's not just about compositing, maybe he's using tracks for entirely different editorial purposes. Maybe he assigns tracks to characters or has some other organizational scheme in place. That's the beauty of the open timeline and tracks. You can use them any way you like. They're totally flexible."

Yes, that's what I mentioned. Different track, different reason. Character would be a good one, too.

Of course, I see it differently David. With FCP7, there is no other way. In order to keep track of the information, you MUST organize your timeline like this, you have to create all those tracks. You are locked on to a certain way of doing things, which is to fragment everything in to oblivion. Imagine moving that timeline around, perhaos you had to trim a certain area, and in order to do so, you had to select 50 cut points. To me, it seems a little unnecessary, but maybe that's what people enjoy about editing.

You see it as open, I might see it as unnecessary. Since FCP7 is still a database (let's no forget that) the only way you can really keep track of things is through methods such as Murch's timeline as FCP7s database was not very user controllable. Admittedly, I do some of the same things, just on a much smaller scale. Personally, I'm OK with giving a new method a shot. I'm all right with letting the software allowing me to assign organizational methods. Yes. X still needs some work in this area.

[David Lawrence] "I guess I don't understand why you would want to consolidate this. I don't see any benefit. WM isn't cutting on a laptop -- no doubt he's working with the biggest screens he can get his hands on with one dedicated to the timeline. If you have the screen real estate and you're working spatially, why not take up as much space as you need? What's the downside?"

I guess it's all in how a person looks at it. My FCPX machine has a 30" monitor. I arrange my timeline so I can see everything. I simply don't need as much space, but I still use two monitors. I'm sure he works that way because he has to. There's no other way. At least no other way that makes sense. You say Fcp7 allows it, I say FCP7 mandates it, but really we are both saying the same thing, it's how FCP7 works. X works differently.

Anyway, if you're in the states, good morning and happy Monday everyone. If you're across the ponds, hope your Monday is wrapping up nicely.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 4:17:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " I'm sure he works that way because he has to. There's no other way. At least no other way that makes sense. You say Fcp7 allows it, I say FCP7 mandates it ..."

Jeremy,

This is demonstrably not true.

Take a poll of this forum and you will find people use FCP in a variety of ways to organize themselves and their projects.

Discussion here has included at least two models: "bin oriented" and "timeline oriented" and I would wager that these aren't even two extremes on a continuum, just two methods amongst many.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:10:25 pm

Thanks for the response, Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Take a poll of this forum and you will find people use FCP in a variety of ways to organize themselves and their projects."

I am specifically talking about Murch's timeline here with a bunch of specualtion, not the greater project organization of which we have no info for Murch.

I am talking specifically about the number of tracks. Here's the posts I am talking about:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/19243

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/19268

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:22:45 pm

Jeremy,

While I think the "greater project organization" is an important, related discussion, even just limiting ourselves to the timeline I think you'll find people use it in different ways. I think you're statement "There is no other way." is simply false if you look at the way different editors organize themselves.

Incidentally, if you are interested, WM has written and talked in some detail about his method and organization (no need for you to speculate). Recommended as a point of reference.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:53:26 pm

I know different people work differently Franz. I'm not saying that FCP7 allows you to work one way and not another, but there is a construct and a method, and it's not simply a free-for-all that some might claim it to be. I think this is important to keep talking about as I think it gets forgotten. FCP7 lends itself to certain types of organization and for us long time FCP users, it is now changing if we want to use any other program.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "While I think the "greater project organization" is an important, related discussion, even just limiting ourselves to the timeline I think you'll find people use it in different ways. I think you're statement "There is no other way." is simply false if you look at the way different editors organize themselves."

Again, I am specifically talking about Murch's timeline in this example, as it's what this post is about. If you want to talk about different timelines, let's talk about them, but we need some pictures. David Lawrence and I have gone on and on (and on) about different timelines. Here's one if you'd like to join us:

Opening statement:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/13281

Reply:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/13325#13465
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/13325#13999

Let me try and put it differently. If you had as many elements that are in Murch's timeline, and you need to separately export each track for whatever reason, or if you had to denote all those different sections for whatever reason as we have already mentioned (conform, character, media type, whatever), how would you do it?

Perhaps a better question is, what way does FCP7 lend itself to? If you had to export all the text (or turn off all the text) really the best way to do this is to have all that text on their own separate track(s) that is floating in limbo somewhere in the midst of the 40 tracks. Would you agree? Sure, there's other ways to do it, but why would you? It is obvious from the timeline that staying organized is important to Murch and his team, so they go about it the best way that FCP7 lends itself to, which is to stick all the necessary parts on tons of different tracks and fragment. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is a way that FCP7 seems to dictate that you do things if you want to do things quickly and you know what you're doing. If not, you'd have to go through every single piece of media and turn off all the disparate text clips while sifting through 99 tracks. No one is that crazy, but sure, you could do it. The picture of the timelines tells a lot, don't you think?:

http://www.chris-portal.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SPRMT038.j...

http://www.chris-portal.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SPRMT039.j...

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Incidentally, if you are interested, WM has written and talked in some detail about his method and organization (no need for you to speculate). Recommended as a point of reference."

Thank you.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 6:08:43 pm

Jeremy, thanks. I did follow those previous posts a bit, as well as posting my own response.

I stand by statements, though. The "open timeline" (as David has come to call it) just seems much more flexible. The "auto-managed" timeline of FCPX strikes me as convoluted ... unless you use it within very narrow parameters, in which case it's probably optimal in many respects.

Which leaves the question - are those narrow parameters constricting to me or not?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 6:20:24 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "The "open timeline" (as David has come to call it) just seems much more flexible. "

Perhaps to some. Yes. To others, maybe not. "Seems" is open to interpretation. One thing is clear, FCP7 lends itself to a certain method, no?

[Franz Bieberkopf] "The "auto-managed" timeline of FCPX strikes me as convoluted ... unless you use it within very narrow parameters, in which case it's probably optimal in many respects."

Well, I guess auto-managed would be open to interpretation too (let me please reiterate, FCPX in it's current state needs work in the audio organization dept). What I think happens is that people think FCPXs auto organizes things because it doesn't work like FCP7 does. What I think is that with Roles, you have to think about your organization a bit up front, but also allows reorganization later. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Does that teach good habits or bad habits? I don't know. For me, in practice, it's a good thing. I don't mind it. I think about my edit a bit more, no worries.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Which leaves the question - are those narrow parameters constricting to me or not?"

Yes. This is the essence of the conversation. I am not saying which method is or isn't. I do like what I see in X so I guess I like to talk mention it's strengths rather than it's weaknesses. It takes some getting used to as it differs from how FCP7 works. This is a conversation I like having and I like getting everyone's perspective and try to stay rational. I like what I see, if I didn't I'd tell you.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 6:33:49 pm

I'm not sure if all that visual clutter to express organization is the most efficient way going forward.
Ideally data management should make things easy to find and easy to see (if visual is needed and it's not always the case) and be out of the way otherwise.

I look at Murch's timelines and it's ungainly. It may be the best way to manage things in FCP7 but I wouldn't point to that as an endgame ideal.

While FCPX certainly has a ways to got, it's designed (being designed) as a data management system. Assume it succeeds in doing that, Murch's plethora of tracks would be much more manageable both as data and for visual use.

The question to me is, does one want everything visible all at once all the time? I can't speak for others but for me the answer is decidedly NO.

Jeremy has been pointing to some possible GUI directions. I have to believe Apple is thinking about the visual representation of data that can be exposed or hidden, to be called up as one needs it.

I don't think FCPX should (or would) aspire to look like Murch's tracks. I think this is the very thing Apple is trying to improve upon in FCPX. It's certainly not there yet but this would be FCPX's direction.

That FCP7 timeline is "open" in much the sense I've seen some people's living rooms with shelves upon shelves of books and knickknacks. Lots of "open" but visually distracting. I'd much rather be able to pull the book or knicknack I'd like to toy with easily without having to see a shelf assault . . . to have a more efficient use of visual space than "open" shelves.

I'd much rather have some seamless closets with dispensers so I can say, "show me books on ancient Greek history" or "Let me display the porcelain Disney figurines today." Maybe I'll event want both or any number of variations but I certainly do not find it appealing to have the whole thing "in my face" all the time.



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 7:56:41 pm

[Craig Seeman] "
The question to me is, does one want everything visible all at once all the time? I can't speak for others but for me the answer is decidedly NO."


I know everybody is different but my vote FWIW is that I absolutely insist on having "everything visible all at once all the time".

I used to work quite a bit with AVID DS and the notion of having things hidden away in "containers" was a very serious drawback - for me. There is no question that this way or working significantly slows me down - and contributes an almost intolerable level of frustration, in terms of the way I like to work at least.

Murch's timeline makes complete sense to me precisely because nothing is hidden.

I notice incidentally that he keeps alternative takes/mixes all neatly stacked in place but muted as necessary. This will clearly be a very important aspect of his workflow. Not sure how FCPX would accommodate this as it currently stands - although I suppose a potential future development of Roles could conceivably take care of it at some level but at the expense of some key visual feedback I would have thought.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 8:33:56 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I know everybody is different but my vote FWIW is that I absolutely insist on having "everything visible all at once all the time"."

I think many people may feel that way but there are many others, like myself, who'd like something different. FCPX has the potential to be that option. Ultimately it's probably impossible for any one NLE to be all things to all people, which is why each has their "following."

I'm not sure if FCPX will ever everything visible at once as tracks. It certainly might be there as an index so one can call up an examine targeted relationships visually as one works on those components.

I'd contend there's a serious "diminishing return" on visually usability with everything visible at once in an interface. I know I focus on specific relationships as I work. I can't imagine really being able to process 50 tracks of video and 50 tracks of audio simultaneously although I can imagine someone's brain tuned to pattern recognition might be thrown if the pattern keeps changing through hiding and exposing information.

I think that comes down to how certain people process visual data. Some really depend on pattern recognition whereas others like to see only the information being focused on for the immediate task at hand. In fact, for many, that may be the crux of the track vs trackless issue. The pattern recognition is completely gone in a trackless timeline. It takes a different way of thinking . . . probably a different part of the brain, and that's why the reactions for/against the timeline are so strong. People have been trying to articulate why the do/don't like it as a form/function issue but for many it may well be how their creative brains are wired.



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 9:03:07 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I think that comes down to how certain people process visual data. Some really depend on pattern recognition whereas others like to see only the information being focused on for the immediate task at hand."

I think that's a really interesting way of describing it that really strikes a chord with me - I'm definitely a pattern recognition kind of person in this as in many other regards (I'm addicted to Sudoku, for instance!). As you suggest, a pattern that is subject to relatively unpredictable change can really throw me off.

Allied to this, I think, is whether or not you like a modal workflow that invloves switching to a different view for a different task - and overall again I think I'm against that way of working. I know that one of the things that bugged me the most about Media Composer was the notion of having to enter Segment Mode for an action as basic as moving a clip interactively. To a large extent, I find what you are describing to be a much more "modal" way of working and it doesn't appeal to me personally. I'd sooner have what you refer to as Walter Murch's "visual clutter" - which of course strikes me as the exact opposite!

That said, I don't personally find any of this an unsuperable obstacle - but I can fully understand why it might be for many.

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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 9:30:09 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I think that comes down to how certain people process visual data. Some really depend on pattern recognition whereas others like to see only the information being focused on for the immediate task at hand."

[Simon Ubsdell] "I think that's a really interesting way of describing it that really strikes a chord with me - I'm definitely a pattern recognition kind of person in this as in many other regards... As you suggest, a pattern that is subject to relatively unpredictable change can really throw me off."

Bingo!!! Craig, you've hit upon a very important ingredient in this discussion, which is something David Lawrence and I have discussed together more than once. And, Simon reiterates it well with some additional added insight.

Like it or not, the visual nature of tracked audio provides instant recognition and instant feedback for many who may never be able to get around it. The ultimate success or failure of FCPX may well prove to be dependent on this one aspect of Apple's radical departure from the tracked standard.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:33:38 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Like it or not, the visual nature of tracked audio provides instant recognition and instant feedback for many who may never be able to get around it. The ultimate success or failure of FCPX may well prove to be dependent on this one aspect of Apple's radical departure from the tracked standard."

But up until FCPX that was the only choice. There's the whole other class of people like me who'd rather work the other way. The success of FCPX may well depend on how big that class is of course.

It may well be that Apple felt their market would stagnate being one amongst a full class of choices using a similar approach. They chose the direction to lead that other class. I can only guess that when Apple was "listening" (maybe watching) they were hearing something which motivated them to take this other direction. I'm guessing they saw this as a class with greater growth.

I think some people may need to understand they are one or the other type of information processor and pick the tool that serves them best. It's no more a "right or wrong" than being left handed or right handed. For Apple the consideration is does this class have enough growth potential to increase Mac sales? Time will tell.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 7:09:47 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Like it or not, the visual nature of tracked audio provides instant recognition and instant feedback for many who may never be able to get around it. The ultimate success or failure of FCPX may well prove to be dependent on this one aspect of Apple's radical departure from the tracked standard."

So then the next question that pops up for me is whether in the past, those who succeeded as "editors" were largely those who's brains could be most comfortable in a "linear display of everything" mode - and those who were wired to naturally think differently found editing more frustrating than their "other wired" brethren.

I'm not making ANY value judgements about this. Not trying to shoehorn editors into a box, or even presume that someone "wired for linear display" (if anything even remotely like that exists) might have the same natural affinity to editing akin to how someone who genetically has a large physique and robust musculature might be attracted to sports.

I'm just broadly postulating whether having another approach to editing available might, in the longer run, make it more attractive to those who don't quite so naturally "resonate" with the timeline approach we've had up to now.

Maybe this is totally "over thinking" things and it will turn out that like driving a car, nearly anyone can do it competently regardless of how their brain naturally functions.

And that this will reflect on not only the initial resistance of the "Legacy" trained editors, but eventually lead to their seeing that learning the new process embodied in X is actually no more difficult than learning, perhaps, to move from driving a manual transmission car, to a diesel truck. Most stuff the same, some things like double-clutching different, but on the whole, not as daunting as it looks at first glance up at that big cab - which actually has no more levers and buttons than a Mercades, but many of them DO have different functions and tasks attached.

That would go a tiny way to explain why there was such a large rapid hue and cry about the change to something that is actually such a small part of the entire process of competent digital storytelling.

"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: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Nov 2, 2011 at 8:35:54 pm

Murch's whole speech posted.

Can't wait to check it out:







Jeremy


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 8:35:00 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I know everybody is different but my vote FWIW is that I absolutely insist on having "everything visible all at once all the time"."

I think many people may feel that way but there are many others, like myself, who'd like something different. FCPX has the potential to be that option. Ultimately it's probably impossible for any one NLE to be all things to all people, which is why each has their "following."

I'm not sure if FCPX will ever everything visible at once as tracks. It certainly might be there as an index so one can call up an examine targeted relationships visually as one works on those components.

I'd contend there's a serious "diminishing return" on visually usability with everything visible at once in an interface. I know I focus on specific relationships as I work. I can't imagine really being able to process 50 tracks of video and 50 tracks of audio simultaneously although I can imagine someone's brain tuned to pattern recognition might be thrown if the pattern keeps changing through hiding and exposing information.

In one sense it may be like trying to tell a right handed person that being left handed is better creatively,

I think that comes down to how certain people process visual data. Some really depend on pattern recognition whereas others like to see only the information being focused on for the immediate task at hand. In fact, for many, that may be the crux of the track vs trackless issue. The pattern recognition is completely gone in a trackless timeline. It takes a different way of thinking . . . probably a different part of the brain, and that's why the reactions for/against the timeline are so strong. People have been trying to articulate why the do/don't like it as a form/function issue but for many it may well be how their creative brains are wired.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 9:36:00 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I know I focus on specific relationships as I work. I can't imagine really being able to process 50 tracks of video and 50 tracks of audio simultaneously although I can imagine someone's brain tuned to pattern recognition might be thrown if the pattern keeps changing through hiding and exposing information."

Seems we're talking about different ways to achieve the same thing. I focus on specific relationships as I cut as well. I'm sure everyone does. As a spatially-oriented thinker, the way I achieve this is by quickly and selectively zooming in and out of the timeline sections I'm interested in. The advantage with this method is that I can control the zoom level and always have the full overview and context of my piece instantly available for manipulation in context. I use a 5-button mouse with a couple dedicated keys that make this very fast.

If compound clips opened in context (the drawer-like behavior we discussed), I'd be all over them. Even something like AE's "Shy" layers would be a step in the right direction. But right now, CCs are basically glorified nests which makes them of limited use to me. The fact that the FCPX timeline model pretty much insists that they be used at some point is a big problem for folks like me. I need full control of the edit context as I make editorial decisions. Stepping in and out breaks that.

[Craig Seeman] "I think that comes down to how certain people process visual data. Some really depend on pattern recognition whereas others like to see only the information being focused on for the immediate task at hand. In fact, for many, that may be the crux of the track vs trackless issue. The pattern recognition is completely gone in a trackless timeline. It takes a different way of thinking . . . probably a different part of the brain, and that's why the reactions for/against the timeline are so strong. People have been trying to articulate why the do/don't like it as a form/function issue but for many it may well be how their creative brains are wired."

I completely agree. Well said!

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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:57:40 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " I'm sure he works that way because he has to. There's no other way. At least no other way that makes sense. You say Fcp7 allows it, I say FCP7 mandates it ..."

Jeremy,

I'm not putting you down when I say this, but it's quite clear to me from many of your posts about audio in general, and more specifically about Walter Murch and his techniques, that high-end audio post is not really your forte. And so, you do not give Walter Murch sufficient credit for the incredible sophistication of the techniques he has developed over the years for achieving his sound design.

Going way back to Apocalypse Now, a film edit, he had approximately 125 separate tracks he was working with. I'm sure that seems like overkill to you, because it sounds like overkill to even the most dedicated audio professionals working at the very highest levels. However, Walter Murch has very specific goals that he has determined can only be achieved as precisely as he wants by doing things with techniques he has developed.

What you don't understand is that Walter Murch uses a system of extremely elaborate premixes and EQs on each and every sound effect and/or group of sound effects, which he separates onto separate tracks so they can be bounced to ProTools and tweaked and controlled independently during both the edit and in the final mix.

In addition, his FCP timeline is also setup to facilitate a highly sophisticated 5.1 or possibly 7.1 mix, in such a way that he can also tweak and control his many separate tracks and sound elements in 3D space using additional proprietary techniques that he has devised for that.

The bottom line is, Walter Murch did not have to look at X for more than a few minutes to determine it wouldn't work for him, certainly not without devising an entirely new workflow that he knew may or may not ever be possible in X, but which most certainly isn't possible today, due to the many limitations of X in terms of it's very limited interchange with other track-based apps.

And, I would venture to say that, for you to suggest he should have spent more time with X before arriving at his conclusions, constitutes a lack of understanding and appreciation on your part, not his.

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: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 6:46:00 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Jeremy,

I'm not putting you down when I say this, but it's quite clear to me from many of your posts about audio in general, and more specifically about Walter Murch and his techniques, that high-end audio post is not really your forte. And so, you do not give Walter Murch sufficient credit for the incredible sophistication of the techniques he has developed over the years for achieving his sound design. "


I am not trying to take anything away from Murch. Not at all, I never will and it is not my intention. As I have mentioned (twice now), I was talking about the video tracks, not necessarily the audio tracks. I have mentioned that audio organization needs help in FCPX. Wouldn't you think Murch would agree?

Let's take Murch out of it for a second. I am simply trying to have a conversation about the greater complexities of editing and how they vary from FCP7 to FCPX. I am not a sound designer, I export to OMF to someone who specializes in audio. But my job as an editor is to layout some of those elements, it's part of the gig. And no, I don't edit features, but the very nature of my edits don't stray too far from that timeline, they are just smaller, and dare I say, sometimes they are more complex as we get in to composting and layering. Tom Wolsky and Oliver Peters had a few good posts about what a "power user" is, not that I am one of them. I don't really care, I use the tool to build my timelines, power user or not. I don't work in Hollywood, I live in a fly over state. My importance to the greater movie making society is minimal to non-existent.

[David Roth Weiss] "And, I would venture to say that, for you to suggest he should have spent more time with X before arriving at his conclusions, constitutes a lack of understanding and appreciation on your part, not his."

I will ask you nicely, please don't vilify me. I think I have a decent understanding of this application that I use everyday in order to sustain a living, feature-power-peon-user, or not. FCPX might not ready for Murch, but how do we know? The only evidence I have is from the man himself, from a video of him speaking about it on the world wide web. He said he hasn't used it, and three of the top four things on his list are fixed or are going to be, and yet he remains cautiously optimistic. What else am I supposed to infer from that?

I appreciate Murch and his work, I appreciate all of these conversations, but it is OK for me to criticize and question the motivations behind certain things like "Murch won't use it". It should say "Murch hasn't used it". Big difference, right? Words do matter or am I misunderstanding something here? I have changed the subject of this post, it reads a bit different doesn't it? I am simply speculating using his timeline that he made available as a guide for how FCPX might fit, or perhaps improve, that workflow. That's it. I am not adding or taking away anything from Murch. He hasn't used it so I must give him the benefit of the doubt. It is obvious from the little I saw of that presentation, and knowing what I know from his other publications, he's a smart guy. I think people see FCPX as "dumb", I don't. I wonder what he would think about it if someone gave him a decent tour of it. That's all I'm asking. My inclination as that he would at least be interested in the banter. FCPX is not entirely easy to grasp as it works differently; a little too different for some.

Hopefully, his whole presentation gets posted as it sounded like it was really good.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:38:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I will ask you nicely, please don't vilify me."

I have absolutely no intent whatsoever to vilify you in any way. And, I'm not writing to protect or defend Walter Murch either. It's just that what's been written about his statements regarding FCPX illustrate many of the misunderstandings and quick judgements I often see here, but at higher level.

Mr. Murch is doing things at a level of complexity and sophistication that is mind-blowing, even to many of the most sophisticated audio pros in the world, which makes his example an excellent case in point. I think it can be used to show that deployment of FCPX, for many users, is actually much more black and white, on or off, all in or all out, than you might believe. And, there are not all those many shades of gray and subtleties that you and others seem to believe so strongly. This is about an ongoing "theme" here, which I feel needs to clarified once and for all, lest it continue forever.

I think we all understand that some users are unable to use X at this point in time, because of functionality the app is currently lacking, but more importantly, like it or not, some editors may simply never be able to use FCPX, because of some functionality it may never have.

And, what I'm suggesting to you about Walter Murch is actually true for many other editors as well, which is, it makes little difference how much time they're willing to put in to try to make X work. For many, trying hard has, and may continue to have, absolutely no bearing on the matter whosoever, and to suggest otherwise is just a simplified view of the editing universe.

What I'm saying is that, while it's true that some may be too quick to judge FCPX, and we'd agree that's clearly wrong, so it's also clearly wrong to be too quick to judge those, who like Walter Murch, know in short order that X does not fit into their post-production ecosystem.

As has been said before, you don't have to jump off a bridge to know it's not conducive to long life. And so, whether you're at the very pinnacle of the industry, like Walter Murch, or just a very experienced editor like a David Roth Weiss, a Shane Ross, or a Walter Biscardi, who happen to have a fairly deep understanding of "professional collaborative workflows," putting in lots of time trying to make X work at this point is not going to make it work any better in the ecosystems in which we work.

And finally, until it becomes absolutely clear whether Apple has or has not painted itself into a corner, it should be perfectly understandable that Walter Murch and many others don't have the time or the inclination to put in all the time beta testing that you and others are so willing to devote. Nor should that necessarily disqualify Mr. Murch or anyone else from expressing their opinions, as it's a given for many that FCPX simply does not fit into certain workflows, and that's true whether they've used X a lot or perhaps not at all.

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

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:56:28 pm

I think it's pretty clear that Apple has moved its business to a complete focus on the generalist user. This will allow for some professionals to use their products, perhaps even a great majority of them, but will leave out those who require a high degree of control and power in hardware and software. Apple has given up what it sees as a small portion of a market in the hope of reaching a larger market. I think I said this somewhere in the beginning of your other thread "Is FCPX really worth it?". This application will probably never support the needs of some users, almost certainly it will never support Walter Murch.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 12:16:57 am

[Tom Wolsky] "This application will probably never support the needs of some users, almost certainly it will never support Walter Murch.
"


However, others have criticized Walter Murch for not trying X "enough," as though trying harder would make it work better for him and for all others who haven't put in the requisite amount of time, whatever that may be.

My point is simply that for some workflows, you can try as hard as you want to make it work, but X will still not work. So, for those who work in environments more conducive to X, to think that others are simply "dismissive," is simply far too simplistic.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 12:27:57 am

[David Roth Weiss] "However, others have criticized Walter Murch for not trying X "enough," as though trying harder would make it work better for him and for all others who haven't put in the requisite amount of time, whatever that may be."

I'm not sure if he's really tried it at all. Also it takes a bit more than trying for a few minutes (for most people) to understand how one might organize things. Of course it may still not work for him but without a real run through on how it organizes things it's hard for him to know. It may not be worth his time to do that unless someone can present to him why it may be an advantage, at which point he may then say it's and advantage or not.

Keep in mind he did say he was cautiously optimistic so there must be something he likes about it or, at least, has some belief that Apple will get it to a point that it might work for him.



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 12:49:09 am

[Craig Seeman] "I'm not sure if he's really tried it at all. Also it takes a bit more than trying for a few minutes (for most people) to understand how one might organize things."

The problem I'm speaking about here is the "most people" part you mention above Craig. Walter Murch isn't most people and neither are most of the editors who work in the L.A. ecosystem I work in. For most editors here in L.A. you don't need to spend more than ten minutes on the Internet to know that X is a square peg that won't fit into the round hole of this ecosystem.

So, again I'll say, that you can work at it as hard as you want to, or pray to the edit gods if you will, but that won't make X work within this environment at this time.

And so, criticizing Mr. Murch or anyone else who works in a similar environment/ecosystem, simply because they haven't put in enough time on X is far too simplistic and simply not valid.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 1:15:03 am

[David Roth Weiss] " For most editors here in L.A. you don't need to spend more than ten minutes on the Internet to know that X is a square peg that won't fit into the round hole of this ecosystem. "

The peg is still being shaped. I don't think Murch's cautious optimism is about FCPX in its current state. It's about where it might (and, yes, might not) go.

[David Roth Weiss] "that won't make X work within this environment at this time. "

"this time" being key. I don't know anyone saying it's mature enough at the moment. No one knows for sure if it will in the future but that's "cautious optimism." One has reason to believe it might.

[David Roth Weiss] "And so, criticizing Mr. Murch or anyone else who works in a similar environment/ecosystem, simply because they haven't put in enough time on X is far too simplistic and simply not valid."

I don't think anyone can criticize him for a product he's only had a cursory look at that is only beginning to progress beyond the state that he saw it in.



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 1:30:12 am

[Craig Seeman] "I don't think anyone can criticize him for a product he's only had a cursory look at that is only beginning to progress beyond the state that he saw it in."

Then we agree.

[Craig Seeman] "The peg is still being shaped. I don't think Murch's cautious optimism is about FCPX in its current state. It's about where it might (and, yes, might not) go."

Yes that's absolutely true, but you also have to look at "cautious optimism" as potentially being one of those of those oft used Hollywood euphemisms people here tend to use in place of the words "no" or "never," which people in this town are very reticent to use even when they know better.

[Craig Seeman] ""this time" being key. I don't know anyone saying it's mature enough at the moment. No one knows for sure if it will in the future but that's "cautious optimism." One has reason to believe it might."

I don't disagree with you, but let me refer you back to the answer above...

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: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 12:35:57 am

Well, I guess it's your opinion. I absolutely see shades of grey. You or others might not.


[David Roth Weiss] "What I'm saying is that, while it's true that some may be too quick to judge FCPX, and we'd agree that's clearly wrong, so it's also clearly wrong to be too quick to judge those, who like Walter Murch, know in short order that X does not fit into their post-production ecosystem. "

to be fair, he looked at in March, hasnt looked since as he has been working, and remains cautiously optimistic.
Hey took an inferior version of FCP and made a movie years ago long before FCP was seen as a movie capable NLE. Am I wrong to think that he might not do it again?

Also, I feel need the need to further clarify. I am not saying the work, effort, and skill that goes in to Murch's timeline is not worthy of mind blowing praise. It is.

But when you distill it down to its essence, it's a bunch of cuts with some audio tracks that have been mixed to certain specs. I am talking about what I can see from his timeline that he graciously offered up for us to discuss. This is not to take away from every decision that is put in to all of those cuts and tracks. That's what makes Murch, Murch and sets him apart, and that, I am not denying, is completely worthy of praise. but he hits control-v to make a cut just like we all do, so right there we already more similar than you seem to discount.

Again, Im not questioning his editing, I am questioning the construct. In my opinion, it's a worthy avenue to explore as I think Mr Murch has proven on other films and workflows.

FCPX isn't ready, it tells you that. That's not to say with some effort it won't ever be ready. FCP was also designed for the generalist, and look what it became. It needed a bunch of third party add ons (and in Murch's case, highly tuned and custom workflows) to make it sing. I think this sounds sort of familiar.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 12:58:31 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "to be fair, he looked at in March, hasnt looked since as he has been working, and remains cautiously optimistic."

He doesn't have to look at it Jeremy. It's a given at this point that X doesn't work for him, and he knows that without looking. That's the part you and others seem to not to understand, and it's been that way since June 22nd when Walter Biscardi announced the same thing.

And, the "cautiously optimistic" line you keep using is in the eye of the beholder I guess, because I keep thinking that when he said, the current project may be or may probably be his last film on FCP, I took that to be the more important of his lines.

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: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 3:12:34 am

[David Roth Weiss] "He doesn't have to look at it Jeremy. It's a given at this point that X doesn't work for him, and he knows that without looking. That's the part you and others seem to not to understand, and it's been that way since June 22nd when Walter Biscardi announced the same thing.

And, the "cautiously optimistic" line you keep using is in the eye of the beholder I guess, because I keep thinking that when he said, the current project may be or may probably be his last film on FCP, I took that to be the more important of his lines."


As I said early in the thread, people hear what they want. It's true.

As far as this being his last film on FCP7, yep. It's probably time to move on from that EOL product. No question.

I have no idea if he needs to look or not, I'll leave that to him and his team. If i were on his team, I'd say, "Yo player, have a look at some of this cool stuff. I think it's worth looking at." He seemed to push the limits of fcp before most were willing. What a Hollywood rebel, eh? Remember, back when QuickTime had only two channel audio capture? How could such a limitation allow editing of a feature? I guess the rest is now history. Shades of grey, indeed.

From the Cold Mountain interviews:

"The Workflow

How did you decide to cut “Cold Mountain” with Final Cut Pro?
Starting in March of 2002, Sean Cullen, my assistant, and I went over to DigitalFilm Tree, where Ramy Katrib runs a post and design consulting company that specializes in Final Cut Pro. When we told him that we were interested in using Final Cut on “Cold Mountain,” he was very enthusiastic. But we had questions because it hadn’t yet been used on a project of this scale. We brainstormed together over three days developing the “Cold Mountain” workflow."

--

"Your decision to use Final Cut Pro shocked the industry. Were you nervous about the decision?
Well in a kind of a healthy way, I was. Over the last 30 years or so, it seems to be a pattern with me that I will plunge into a new technology, both for the benefits that it can bring me directly, but also because I’m very interested in systems, and how they work within a creative environment. I was one of the first people in the U.S. to use flatbed editing machines in the late 1960s, after having used the upright Moviola. At the time that was seen as a radical departure."

--

"Are new editors missing anything by learning on non-linear editing systems instead of older systems, or is that older editors waxing nostalgic?
I think there are only two areas where something is missing. When you actually had to make the cut physically on film, you naturally tended to think more about what you were about to do. Which — in the right proportion — is a good thing to do. The cut is a kind of sacramental moment. When I was in grade school they made us write our essays in ink for the same reason. Pencil was too easy to erase.

The other “missing” advantage to linear editing was the natural integration of repeatedly scanning through rolls of film to get to a shot you wanted. Inevitably, before you ever got there, you found something that was better than what you had in mind. With random access, you immediately get what you want. Which may not be what you need."

I would really be curious if someone gave him a good tour.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 3:25:54 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I would really be curious if someone gave him a good tour."

Me too. If I had to bet, I'd wager he'd find the DAM aspects intriguing, and the trackless, ripple-only timeline as Oliver Peters so succinctly put it:

[Oliver Peters] "I think the trackless idea is utterly stupid..."

But who knows?

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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 3:40:49 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "As far as this being his last film on FCP7, yep. It's probably time to move on from that EOL product. No question."

I don't agree with your interpretation Jeremy, not to mention that Mr. Murch went on in the very next line to add that Avid, which he already knows, would likely be what he'd wind up cutting on.

[WalterMurch] "Starting in March of 2002, Sean Cullen, my assistant, and I went over to DigitalFilm Tree, where Ramy Katrib runs a post and design consulting company that specializes in Final Cut Pro. When we told him that we were interested in using Final Cut on “Cold Mountain,” he was very enthusiastic. But we had questions because it hadn’t yet been used on a project of this scale. We brainstormed together over three days developing the “Cold Mountain” workflow.""

For the record, I met with Ramy about two months ago, and we spoke a good bit about X. According to Ramy, DFT is already transitioning over to Avid, if that tells you anything. However, since you brought this up today, I'm going to call Ramy tomorrow to discuss this very topic with him again to see if he knows anything new, and I'll report back. Or, if Ramy is willing, I'll record the conversation I'll make it a podcast. Okay?

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: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 4:00:41 am

[David Roth Weiss] "I don't agree with your interpretation Jeremy, not to mention that Mr. Murch went on in the very next line to add that Avid, which he already knows, would likely be what he'd wind up cutting on."

Huh, that's funny. I read this from the blog which doesn't really say one way or the other (from the Q&A session): "If you didn’t use FCP, where would you go? “I’ve used Avid in the past, so I know it well. There are some very good things that Avid has, but I’m also curious about Premiere since I’m interested in technology.”

[David Roth Weiss] "For the record, I met with Ramy about two months ago, and we spoke a good bit about X. According to Ramy, DFT is already transitioning over to Avid, if that tells you anything. However, since you brought this up today, I'm going to call Ramy tomorrow to discuss this very topic with him again to see if he knows anything new, and I'll report back. Or, if Ramy is willing, I'll record the conversation I'll make it a podcast. Okay?"

I have no authority, but I'd say sure! I'd be curious what DFT would think since SAN support and a new version of XML has been released since the last time you two talked.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 4:10:56 am

[Jeremy Garchow] " since SAN support and a new version of XML has been released since the last time you two talked."

Please clarify "SAN support", because what I see about the update in no way, shape or form qualifies as SAN support. In fact, I asked that question in the FCP X Techniques forum and as yet have no replies. This leads me to believe no one has done it yet.

It's my understanding that currently you can have a single FCP X user deal with one Events and Projects folder on the SAN. It would seem to mean that you can't have multiple editors tie into Xsan or any other SAN network to collaborate on a single project or to bounce around on multiple projects. I get that they could have local Events & Projects folders and access common media from a SAN, but that was possible before the update. It might also work in a volume-based SAN, since each user can only write to their own partition.

If this is incorrect, then I would welcome an in-depth explanation of how it can work, because I have at least one client, where this is a critical ingredient. They are running 4 stations on FibreJet using FC Server and FCP 7.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 4:34:11 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Please clarify "SAN support", because what I see about the update in no way, shape or form qualifies as SAN support. In fact, I asked that question in the FCP X Techniques forum and as yet have no replies. This leads me to believe no one has done it yet."

I've done it with only two machines, as we are still testing FCPX on limited machines, but I'm sure it would work with any and all machines. I didn't see your question over there, sorry.

[Oliver Peters] "It's my understanding that currently you can have a single FCP X user deal with one Events and Projects folder on the SAN. It would seem to mean that you can't have multiple editors tie into Xsan or any other SAN network to collaborate on a single project or to bounce around on multiple projects. I get that they could have local Events & Projects folders and access common media from a SAN, but that was possible before the update. It might also work in a volume-based SAN, since each user can only write to their own partition."

There's a bunch of ways to do it, and I find it rather flexible if you will believe me.

Our SAN is one big 42 TB Volume using metaSAN (storage is Windows server NTFS package from Sonnet called the VFibre). Everyone can read and write to the volume. It connects through Fibre and LAN depending on the machine (desktops are Fibre, iMac and Laptops are LAN). You can add a SAN location to whatever folder you want on the SAN in FCPX, but every computer must be in it's own folder on the root level as FCPX does not allow you to "nest" SAN Locations. This is more than they allow on local drives, so they must be thinking SAN is important, in my opinion.

Form there, you would import footage as references (not copying them to the event) if you wanted to share media, or you can create proxies in every Event very easily for later conform/match back.

If you want to move an Event/Project to another machine, you can have the first machine remove the SAN location, and then have the other machine add that SAN location, or you can use the media manager to dupe it so both people can work on the same Event/Project, but that would be determined by your clients needs. You can later merge events, but I honestly haven't done a whole lot of testing in that arena quite yet. Baby steps. I'm just glad it's working as it didn't at all in FCP 10.0

At this time, you cannot share events or projects, but that's nothing new to FCP (can't have two people on the same Event/Project or load the same SAN location). The media management is actually way easier than in FCP7, even if it doesn't have total handle control quite yet. Custom Motion filters are a bit tricky as they need to be local to every machine. at first it looks liek the media is offline, but it's a different icon with a filter on it.

Does that help? Feel free to ask any question, or you can call me if you want to chat about it. I'd even be willing to test any specific workflow for you, although I have metaSAN and not XSan so ymmv.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 4:59:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Does that help? Feel free to ask any question...."

Thanks. That helps a lot. I'll follow up if it turns out that my client goes in that direction.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 4:21:39 am

[WM] " "If you didn’t use FCP, where would you go? “I’ve used Avid in the past, so I know it well. There are some very good things that Avid has, but I’m also curious about Premiere since I’m interested in technology.”"

Yes, in the essence of speed I attempted to paraphrase and got that one imprecisely, but I think his first thought was Avid.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I have no authority"

That part went over my head... But, I'll see what Ramy has to say and I'll get back to you on it right here. Okay?

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: Walter Murch hasn't used FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 4:38:58 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "But, I'll see what Ramy has to say and I'll get back to you on it right here. Okay?"

Surely.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 10:04:10 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "While I too am intrigued with Jim's workflow, I think it breaks the magnetic timeline in dramatic fashion (no offense, Jim. I enjoyed your post). "

Hey Jeremy, Remember, the idea of using the one frame "anchor" at the top of the Primary doesn't have anything to do with my basic points about mixing and mastering with Compound Clips and Secondaries.

The demagnetizing thing was just a separate idea for anyone who wants to, for instance, glue a music bed as a defacto fixed timeline for editing.

You can use Secondaries and CCs to emulate and give the visual reference of tracks without anchoring them that way.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 3:17:27 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Hey Jeremy, Remember, the idea of using the one frame "anchor" at the top of the Primary doesn't have anything to do with my basic points about mixing and mastering with Compound Clips and Secondaries"

[Jim Giberti] "You can use Secondaries and CCs to emulate and give the visual reference of tracks without anchoring them that way."

Yep, I get it. Compound clips are a way to go, but it still doesn't allow the visual organization of tracks that some of us miss if the underlying clips don't extend the entire length of the timeline. Also, the clips inside the compound will take on the Role of the compound, which could also cause problems for export. You can't assign an effect to a secondary, although that would be kinda cool. Then there's the problem of changes. In your example from the other thread, if a change came to the timing you'd have to move all those SFX back in the secondary by hand as there's no relationship to those SFX and the rest of the timeline anymore. Also, I think this workflow assumes there's going to be a music or any other track that is the entire length of the timeline (or most of the length). That might not be the case for all of us. To be specific, if you look at your screen grab and the timing of "gshairlights" changes, that means the SFX "f16" is now going to be out of sync, as will the rest of the clips in that secondary.

I think your example is really awesome if everything is locked, but that means you can't really give a rough mix until the very very end. I wish my clients understood this, but changes come heavy and fast where I'm from so having everything working cohesively is essential. I think Roles need more visual organization power below the primary storyline as I think that would solve a lot of confusion. Again, in case I missed something, please fill us in as I want this to work as bad as anyone!

Here it is in case anyone missed it:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/18954

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 3:44:18 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can't assign an effect to a secondary, although that would be kinda cool."

For me if you could do more with secondaries, especially assigning effects to them as you can with CCs, it would be a huge improvement..

Most of all I would like to be able to move things in and out of a secondary with ease (as in a Lift from/Overwrite to kind of thing). I think working with secondaries as temporary locations for stuff that - for now - belongs together would solve a lot of problems.

I'd like for example to be able to set up a secondary in such a way that I know that I could drop my dialogues in there and my basic/standard EQ and compression would apply as if I were bussing them.

I agree that CCs have undesirable limitations - not being able to see inside them, and hence edit everything in context, is a big negative for me. I don't want anything hidden away from the main business of the edit. (This is something that used to really bug me when I worked a lot with AVID DS.)

Secondaries on the other hand are much more like "open containers" that you can see inside at a glance, and that you can move stuff in and out of at will whenever you need to adjust the edit and suspend the secondary relationship - then it's as easy as anything to restore the relationship or make a new one.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 6:41:39 pm

Hey Jeremy, this is good because it helps me to test things out and think through more scenarios.

[Jeremy Garchow] "but it still doesn't allow the visual organization of tracks that some of us miss if the underlying clips don't extend the entire length of the timeline. Also, the clips inside the compound will take on the Role of the compound, which could also cause problems for export."

Two thoughts -

It's definitely not a replacement for tracks but a way to use Secondaries w/ CCs to emulate them for visual reference. They can be any length but still provide visual "bins" to edit into that will not be bumped up or down by other clips edits, keeping them easy to see in a complex edit.

I'm not considering Roles in this scenario as they're specifically about exporting stems and I'm looking at this as the way to do audio post within X.



[Jeremy Garchow] "Then there's the problem of changes. In your example from the other thread, if a change came to the timing you'd have to move all those SFX back in the secondary by hand as there's no relationship to those SFX and the rest of the timeline anymore. "

Isn't that the point though, the ability to have those things unmagnetized like in fcp7?

In cases where you want things "affiliated" with the Primary, then you'd either use Q directly or keep those clips as CCs in which case you Command/Shift/G, and all the clips inside return to their clip associations, make your timing shift and hit Option /G.

It's definitely about creatively using CCs and CCs within Secondaries.



[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, I think this workflow assumes there's going to be a music or any other track that is the entire length of the timeline (or most of the length). That might not be the case for all of us. To be specific, if you look at your screen grab and the timing of "gshairlights" changes, that means the SFX "f16" is now going to be out of sync, as will the rest of the clips in that secondary."

I definitely didn't intend for the music bed or any full length clip to be mandatory. It was just the example I showed there. I don't see why any other arrangement wouldn't work. Regarding the SFX, I just dropped those in to show how you can use the Secondary without CCs as a virtual track. If I'm doing any FX in this regard I'm going to want them on an individual "track" connected/locked to their clip AND I want to EQ and add FX to them individually, they don't have any sonic similarity the way that a series of voice clips would obviously.

They can still be gathered and organized into CCs though and then broken up as needed to move anything individually.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think your example is really awesome if everything is locked, but that means you can't really give a rough mix until the very very end. I wish my clients understood this, but changes come heavy and fast where I'm from so having everything working cohesively is essential"


So, I'm not seeing it that way at all...everything locked that is. Just the opposite.
Lock the things you want locked, float the things you don't in moveable Secondaries with or without CCs inside and use CCs to organize connected clips that may need to be quickly opened adjusted.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 9:29:36 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Hey Jeremy, this is good because it helps me to test things out and think through more scenarios."

Beautiful. Glad you are up for it!

[Jim Giberti] "Two thoughts -

It's definitely not a replacement for tracks but a way to use Secondaries w/ CCs to emulate them for visual reference. They can be any length but still provide visual "bins" to edit into that will not be bumped up or down by other clips edits, keeping them easy to see in a complex edit."


Yes, that I understand.

[Jim Giberti] "'m not considering Roles in this scenario as they're specifically about exporting stems and I'm looking at this as the way to do audio post within X."

OK. From this perspective, I can see it. In my opinion Roles are more than stems, rather they are a way of grouping things without a track. Yes, I think your method with a locked edit is totally doable and great.

[Jim Giberti] "Isn't that the point though, the ability to have those things unmagnetized like in fcp7?"

Well, I really think it's timeline specific. For example, in FCP7, even though it wasn't magnetized, I could still do an insert edit in the middle of the timeline and I would ensure that everything to the right of would stay in sync, similarly, I could trim a few things here and there, and with careful consideration, most everything else would move along if that what I needed, or I'd select everything, move it, make the edit, and move it back. This is harder to do in X, actually as the magnetized timeline takes care of all fo that. So, with things in a secondary in X, that relationship is broken except for the clip it's connected to. It's not just demagnetized, it's breaking any relationship at all. FCP7 still maintains a modicum of time relationship if handled properly. Hope that makes sense.

[Jim Giberti] "In cases where you want things "affiliated" with the Primary, then you'd either use Q directly or keep those clips as CCs in which case you Command/Shift/G, and all the clips inside return to their clip associations, make your timing shift and hit Option /G."

Yep, I hear you, but again it assumes you are going to have to have a clip or clips that span the whole timeline. Look here: I can't get the level of organization you are talking about unless I stick the music arbitrarily in the middle of the layers:



[Jim Giberti] "So, I'm not seeing it that way at all...everything locked that is. Just the opposite.
Lock the things you want locked, float the things you don't in moveable Secondaries with or without CCs inside and use CCs to organize connected clips that may need to be quickly opened adjusted."


I hear you, but if everything needs to com put of a secondary in order to keep editing, I lost all the visual info. That's all I'm saying. Thanks for discussing this, it's a good thing.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 9:47:44 pm

Jim, you know what what's interesting? Borrowing from you and Murch's timeline, I was just playing around with using a blank storyline as a separator. See here:



Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 9:50:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "a blank storyline as a separator"

I like it a lot!!!! Nice idea.

But I thought you thought Walter had got it all wrong?!

;-)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 9:57:21 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "But I thought you thought Walter had got it all wrong?!"

Absolutely not. Not my intention to say Walter Murch is wrong. Not at all. He was simply using what the interface lends itself to, which is sperate tracks. And I'll sy it again, for audio, FCPX needs help in the visual organization department.

This goes towards the idea of the "zones" we were talking about. Add dialogue to the dialogue zone, effects to the effects zone, music to the music zone. Using Roles and Subroles could then be parted out for bussing, or effects, or export whatever.

Look what happens when you make an empty secondary a compound. See here:



A kludge, but...

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:09:45 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "This goes towards the idea of the "zones" we were talking about. Add dialogue to the dialogue zone, effects to the effects zone, music to the music zone."

I very much hope Apple will be as creative with the concept of Roles as you have been as your ideas would address many of these issues very well.

I would really like to see your Zones idea implemented in some form, and I certainly hope they are planning on using Roles for bussing. At the moment, Roles very much feel like an idea that's waiting for its time to come.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:03:27 pm

Thanks, Simon. I send ideas to Apple, but who knows....

There's a flaw in this method in that any XML or interchange that's exported will get these empty tracks. Not ideal.

Perhaps some sort of "Page Break" or null object could help keep things separate without getting written in to the language. I don't know. I think Zones would be slick (and easier) and would simply mirror Roles/Subroles.

[Simon Ubsdell] "Roles very much feel like an idea that's waiting for its time to come."

I completely agree. I feel the same way about the timeline index giving "bird's eye view" control of the elements in the timeline.

It's just a hunch, but with multicam coming, I'd suspect that a deeper level of control will be needed; at least I'm hoping it will show up. If not, then I start looking around.

One more thing about Murch. Murch is a steely eyed missle man. I didn't intend to say that Murch was wrong, I hope it didn't come across that way. He is simply using the tools at hand, which like it or not, dictate a certain way of working that we are all used to seeing. To me, it's the FCP7 interface that perhaps is "wrong", or rather it is certainly different in 10.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "To me, it's the FCP7 interface that perhaps is "wrong", or rather it is certainly different in 10."

A UI paradigm that's been proven successful since the invention of the tool over 20 years ago is the "wrong" one? Okaaaaaay... ;)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:33:52 pm

I know, it's crazy, right? Why reinvent the wheel?

But is FCP/tracked methodology analagous the wheel? Is it so perfect that we can't look ahead or for alternatives?

The combustion engine has worked well for a good long time, but don't you think it's time to start looking at alternatives to it to sustain a healthy (and growing!) population?

What will we lose in that process? Also, what will we gain? Is loss is implied during change as well as the gains?

What true alternatives have we had up until now?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 11:50:19 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "But is FCP/tracked methodology analagous the wheel? Is it so perfect that we can't look ahead or for alternatives?

The combustion engine has worked well for a good long time, but don't you think it's time to start looking at alternatives to it to sustain a healthy (and growing!) population?

What will we lose in that process? Also, what will we gain? Is loss is implied during change as well as the gains?

What true alternatives have we had up until now?"


All great and perfectly valid questions. I guess I'm still of the mind that tracks are the wheels of an NLE. I'm openminded about other possibilities, but I have yet to experience any meaningful benefits with FCPX's new timeline model.

Another way of saying it: better = better. Newer or different, not so much. I need proof.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 12:36:46 am

[David Lawrence] "Another way of saying it: better = better. Newer or different, not so much. I need proof."

I couldn't agree more.


Return to posts index

Kim Hill
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 12:21:45 am

"Hmm. I guess people hear what they want to hear as everyone else is reporting that Murch won't use it."

You noticed that too? Strangely enough, only the negative quotes have been getting play, but Murch is actually much more positive about FCPX than the "sky-is-falling" crowd.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 10:50:59 pm

saying that people are coming into the creative arts uninterested in the finest expressions of narrative film drama, narrative television drama, or documentary, or short form spots is lunatic and untrue.

there is no new lumbering class of magnetic timeline afficionados preparing to storm youtube to produce substandard content.

People are by nature ambitious. Ambition in the creative arts means applying your skill at the highest level.

[Bill Davis] "
Most people edit to communicate. A significant portion of them edit to communicate for others for money. Of that sub-group, Movies and traditional TV are a further sub-group. The larger play is increasingly "direct to an audience" via the web. If one can't see that tectonic shift, it's because you're not looking.
"


this statement means nothing, it literally means nothing, the sub group argument makes no sense, the reason why people work years to attain editing skills features nowhere here.

The larger play is increasingly "direct to an audience" via the web.
What larger play? by who? what editors are they employing? are you speaking of production companies? documentary houses? studios? what are you actually talking about? are you speaking about repurposed content via hulu, iplayer, etc? why does this sentence make no sense? it read so emphatically, I was sure it actually meant something.


I noted here in another thread months ago, the story of a young intern in that works on the same local TV show that my wife appears on. That bright, attractive young talented girl had NO interest in working on TV. She had secured a primo entry job in the web world. And viewed broadcast as "old school." She might have been interested in working on a "movie" - but knowing how painfully slow that process is when done properly, I suspect she might have been bored to death with that kind of career.


yes of course, you must be right, she's bored to death of the idea of editing narrative cinematic film, I'm sure we all are. Its such a boring concept.
God but you crack me up.

[Bill Davis] "That's where we're going. And X is being designed for her world. Period. "
there really is nothing like overly emphatic statements and a few caps eh?

[Bill Davis] "Initiatives like VIMEO PRO and the "branded channel" model that Google is clearly building with the YouTube channel ecostructure"

yeah sure, youtube's umpteenth attempt to gain entry to real content delivery, this time with a 100 mill sweetener, and a 5Dmk2, trapcode particular, showcase site like vimeo are indeeeeeed the future of creative content.
Not the studios, production companies, broadcasters, film makers, documentary makers, lighters, gaffers, editors, scriptwriters, colorists, storyboard artists, researchers, ap's, location scouts, audiences, tax payers, cinema goers - no no - it all about a few websites, and some youtube videos.

this all makes glorious sense.

can we not please agree that we are talking about the craft of editing?
bill's supposition that there is a great lumbering ignored underclass moving to vimeo and the financially worthless youtube by an unseen force wielding a magnetic timeline and an akward DAM is lunacy.

this is about the craft of editing. Apple have chosen to wilfully throw a large part of the agreed basis for its operation out the window, right down to matching eye levels with a source monitor - leaving editing practitioners from high to low, to poor murch traumatised.

and even if they were to have succeeeded as bill so gleefully outlines, leaving niche areas of excellence in television, documentary and film to go whistle while bill's glorious FCPX vimeo on a 42" plasma future comes about, (really - think about that proposition) aside - what have they achieved?

they have forcefully bifurcated the very operation of editing itself, creating a totally different nomenclature for casual purpose which then, in effect, locks their new adherents from the ladder of skills attainment to all that old boring highest definition of the craft, a place FCPX is blatantly uninterested in travelling to.

Even if this whole mess they have created works on their terms, Apple will have destroyed the continuous environment of editing by demanding FCPX be something they can sell, for cheap, for profit, to anyone.

Apple's argument is false, mendacious, and will create harm to the basic craft of editing if it comes to pass as they wish it.

As currently envisioned, this application not only may fail - it actually should fail, and needs to fail. comprehensively.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 29, 2011 at 11:37:12 pm

Andy, I respect your opinions. They are always thoughtful and based in a bit of reality through rhetoric. I always enjoy reading your posts and I like a lot of what you have said here. I have a few questions for you.

Do you really think FCPX is going to destroy the craft of editing because it makes some processes easier or different? Will cameras like the Red or even the Alexa which is arguably "easier" to use and certainly "easier" to post than film, going to destroy cinematography?

Murch alluded to it and said that the culture and language of editing is being introduced to a greater audience. He said it was important, not destitute.

In what way do you see FCPX teaching bad habits? Maybe the habits we all have are bad habits? I'm just asking rhetorically, do you think it's OK to explore this new language? Is it about the money?

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Even if this whole mess they have created works on their terms, Apple will have destroyed the continuous environment of editing by demanding FCPX be something they can sell, for cheap, for profit, to anyone."

Maybe the opposite can be said about companies like, Avid. There was a report the other day about the decently steep cost to go from ProTools 9 to ProTools 10 HD, and the users complained, very vocally, on Avid's forums immediately. Won't that cause people to search for something else, that's probably less expensive? What's that going to do to the craft? I'll have to find the article.

Thanks for your time,

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 12:31:10 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "They are always thoughtful and based in a bit of reality through rhetoric."

Well, I do like a bit of reality.
baby, there is nothing quite like the backhanded compliment.

ahem.

i hold my opinions genuinely here. I think the goals of this software are intrinsically invalid.
there are some incredibly interesting tidbits to be had about the war in apple over what this software was meant to be.
the idea that the provision of persistent in out markers for clips being a current on the record "furious debate" in apple (Larry Jordan), I found truly show stopping in terms of their care and duty as editing software providers right?

as an editor jeremy, do you think persistent in out markers for clip items to be an article of debate in your mind? what kind of people do we think are having that argument in apple? who are they? how well versed in editing practise do we think they are? No one in apple coded the FCP we use. It was bought strategically a decade ago. So this is their first bat right? How do we think their effort has gone? they had forced out and fired most of the proapps team a year previous, apparently most of this application was coded by the itunes software team - does that feel appropriate?

the amount of chrome on the editing items themselves - does that feel on the ball? I can't speak fairly until I have my own new system in january, as opposed to my crappy lappie, but I've done thirty item lifts on spanking new software elsewhere and the responsiveness feels very dodgy to me? It feels incredibly gluey to me? How important is that do we think? also the zoom slow down? and why is there an animation there? how did that happen? who thought that animation was appropriate repeatedly in repeated operation in high stress, time intensive editing situations?

apple are on a very high, near messianic horse lately. and the decisions they made about this application they made a very long time ago.

the guy who worked on FCP from 2002- 2008 told us this **months** ago bud.

http://sachin.posterous.com/why-apple-built-final-cut-pro-x

"Apple doesn't care about the pro space "

he goes on with some guff about expanding the editing world, but the point stands that we are not talking about some amorphous software construct, some alteration to the UVW mapping in 3DSmax - we're talking about a hatchet being taken to the basic tentents of editing by software teams who know barely anything about it. Software teams who are on the record from Larry Jordan and others as having totally ignored all feedback.

Jeremy - in MS word terms, as outlined by walter murch, they produced a version of microsoft word that cannot open any previous versions of written documents created in Microsoft word, not a single written word.
and, continuing the thought experiment, given that editing is close to the written word of the moving image, they also killed the only standing version of microsoft word that could support those written words - nevermind the hacks out now - that is what they presented to the world.

let that sink in for a bit.

think about who apple say they are to the creative community, and think about what they did there.

they left any continuance of those written/edited documents entirely up to chance.

Jeremy: in truth, I simply find all this somewhat utterly enraging from a company that so, so so loves to wrap itself in the flag of the band creative.

I just don't know these guys.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 3:41:44 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "i hold my opinions genuinely here. I think the goals of this software are intrinsically invalid.
there are some incredibly interesting tidbits to be had about the war in apple over what this software was meant to be.
the idea that the provision of persistent in out markers for clips being a current on the record "furious debate" in apple (Larry Jordan), I found truly show stopping in terms of their care and duty as editing software providers right?"


I do know you are genuine. It wasn't a backhanded compliment. It was a compliment.

I don't see as show stopping. I see it as a technical hurdle. I thought you might have been on that thread about how fcp7 is constantly caching. Think for a second that evey in and out that you make needs to be coached, now think how dynamic the browser is, persistent in and out points perhaps might represent a system slow down. It's just a theory, I don't really know. Perhaps this is naive of me, but I don't think the furious debate is functional in nature, my guess is it's a technical hurdle. If they could do it and it wouldn't present any system inefficiencies, why wouldn't they do it? Or are you too distrusting of Apple and you think they just don't want to? If you are that skeptical, I'd say you should seriously consider moving to another package and platform all together. At some point, I have to trust that they know more about certain things than I do, and programming the interface is definitely one of those areas.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "what kind of people do we think are having that argument in apple? who are they? how well versed in editing practise do we think they are? No one in apple coded the FCP we use."

I have no idea about any of these questions inckuding who was flet go for what. If we made our decisions on people being let go,, then none fo us would go to Acid as they just laid off 200 people. Its a silly argument, as we dont know what the real motivations are. I don't know the people behind the closed doors, but I will say this. Just because you aren't a great editor does not mean you can't write a great program. I can't really speculate who they are or what their motivation is. I think that FCPX is a complicated undertaking wrapped in perhaps an over simplified presentation. It is not iMovie, it takes more than a few hours to "get it" and it needs some more functionality and finesse. but it's young. It's four months old. Even with Apple's resources it takes time to write this stuff and get it right. In my opinion, it is for this reason they rolling it out as slowly as they are, so that they can QC as they go. As we all know, no matter how much you test, you won't find the true problems until you get it out in the real world. If they would have released all features on day 1, it would be a disaster, even more so than it might be now. You can look at other examples of this. Red, Alexa, AJA, they all release products that are feature incomplete. Apple is no exception.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the amount of chrome on the editing items themselves - does that feel on the ball?"

As opposed to the drab grey of FCP Legacy? Not sure how this is going to destroy the craft of editing as you claimed in your last post. As far as the "gluey" interface, yeah there's some effienicies that need to be and there. To me if feels like it's GPU related. Again, it's new. These things are going to happen. 10.0.1 feels better than 10.0.0. It's a brand new program.

That article you linked to also said this:

"Final Cut Pro 1.0 didn't win over every Avid user, and Final Cut Pro X won't win over every Final Cut Pro user. But they've laid the foundation for something incredible, and I can't wait to see where it goes from here.

Congrats to all my friends on the Final Cut Pro team who shipped this incredible release!"

[Aindreas Gallagher] "we're talking about a hatchet being taken to the basic tentents of editing by software teams who know barely anything about it. Software teams who are on the record from Larry Jordan and others as having totally ignored all feedback."

Andy, I love you buddy, but you didn't annswer any of my questions in the last post, but you seem to have preheated that Apple is destroying something again. How?

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Jeremy - in MS word terms, as outlined by walter murch, they produced a version of microsoft word that cannot open any previous versions of written documents created in Microsoft word, not a single written word.
and, continuing the thought experiment, given that editing is close to the written word of the moving image, they also killed the only standing version of microsoft word that could support those written words - nevermind the hacks out now - that is what they presented to the world.
let that sink in for a bit."


It's at the bottom of the ocean.

This is not an apt analogy. Video editing is not typing. The very underpinnings of computerized video or drastically changing every single day. Last time I checked the English alphabet hasn't added any new letters recently, while there has been a ton of new and complicated video formats added over the last decade. There has also been a dramatic increase in viewing outlets. Now, and certainly in the future, video is data. It is. We will need new and better ways to describe this data, and FCP7 fell way short (as did XML in some ways). Apple decided to not drag that legacy around anymore. It is these legacies that cause massive ineffiencies. Look at Avid, the oldest player on the block, right? They are dragging a massive, massive legacy and it's literally killing them, if you ask me. No offense to Avid employees. New does not always equal better, but what I see in FCPX isn't better because it's new, it's better because it's better. If cutting the legacy was the way to do that, then I guess it's the way it goes. Also, all is not lost. There are already some translators out there, and perhaps more will come, we already know its possible.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Jeremy: in truth, I simply find all this somewhat utterly enraging from a company that so, so so loves to wrap itself in the flag of the band creative.

I just don't know these guys."


How well can you really know a company? Nothing is guaranteed. Any company can kill off any product at any time without asking you first. It's reality. I'm not making excuses for Apple, they could and should have handled the psychology of this whole thing differently, but really, they are just a company like any other. Why so disillusioned all of a sudden? Apple has never been one to let the cat out of the bag.


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 12:38:21 am

As we've seen before in this thread you have a predilection for assumptions. Your assumptions are based on that legacy applications mirror film editing, whereas in fact they do not. They mirror video editing. Your basis of reference is video, FCP's is actually film.

Nobody said anything like your opening sentence, and to somehow infer it from Bill's message is simply crap. Complete and utter bullshit. Copy that 5X5?

No, we're not talking about the craft the of editing. We're talking about tools. This tools works. It may not work for Murch, but it works for a lot of other people. Murch needs to actually try it. I don't believe he has. But even if he does it's not going to work for him because of the way he works. It's going to work for a lot of other people, and it does.

Everything else in your message is crap. The same shit we heard when FCP1 came out.

"they have forcefully bifurcated the very operation of editing itself, creating a totally different nomenclature for casual purpose which then, in effect, locks their new adherents from the ladder of skills attainment to all that old boring highest definition of the craft, a place FCPX is blatantly uninterested in travelling to."

Did you actually read that after you wrote it, or were you too far gone? Yes, that's exactly what FCP1.0 wanted to do and exactly what FCP 10.0 wants to do. The same people who said FCP1 was a piece of shit ended up as its defenders, now spewing shit on FCPX. They are tools. If you can use them to tell your story they are no more or less effective than a guillotine splicer. Complexity does not make it better, which BTW is something Adobe needs to learn.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 12:54:28 am

[Tom Wolsky] "No, we're not talking about the craft the of editing. We're talking about tools. "

of course tom, because they must be entirely different issues . I'll leave it at that anyway.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 2:17:20 am

And you're focused on YOUR tools. You can't get past them to reach the story.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 2:33:33 am

[Tom Wolsky] "And you're focused on YOUR tools. You can't get past them to reach the story."

Actually Tom, I think Andy is talking about the tools, conventions, and language of an entire industry.

When a single company (currently the largest on Earth) tries to summarily dictate change in all those things at a massive scale, I think it's well worth viewing those changes with a critical eye.

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


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 7:30:48 am

About language I could not agree more. Apple started abusing terminology in the very first version of FCP and has been doing it ever since, and continues with that tradition in X.

Not sure if there is anything wrong with changing the tools. Changing the tools might change the way you work, just as moving from a gang sync to a Moviola to a Steenbeck changed how you edited film, so moving from traditional NLEs to FCP will change the way you edit digitally. And as so often happens changing the tools will likely change what they produce. New cameras and lens change the way people shoot and the type of shots people take. Changing the tools in editing will probably have a similar effect.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 2:45:31 am

[Tom Wolsky] "you're focused on YOUR tools."

god, utterly wrong. surely, as with any given craft, are we not only meant to have shared tools, we have to have shared tools?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 10:15:12 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Apple's argument is false, mendacious, and will create harm to the basic craft of editing if it comes to pass as they wish it.

As currently envisioned, this application not only may fail - it actually should fail, and needs to fail. comprehensively."


I know you go for the bombastic Aindreas, but c'mon.

It's not a conspiracy to destroy editing, just a new approach to the concept and a good one in my experience so far.

And regarding existing skills - I wouldn't be flying along in X after two weeks if not for my existing skills from fcp7


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:38:43 pm

Aindreas,

Clearly I annoy you deeply.

I regret that. It's never my intent.

But as much as you rail against my perspective on things, you would do well to examine why it makes you so emotional. If what I was saying was merely dismissible dreck, it shouldn't annoy you so much, should it?

It's just one guys opinions after all. If you're correct and I'm wrong it won't make a bit of difference to your life and career.

However, if I'm even partially correct, it may indicate that theres another viable not so exclusively "only working TOP pros like me have ALL the answers ALL the time" view that could be informative for those who want to carve out a career that doesn't necessarily involve clawing their way to the top of the shrinking pyramid of "massive project" based editorial work.

As I often say. We'll see.

Peace, dude.

"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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 2:12:06 am

Well frankly more ticked off than emotional bill.

I see you're pushing the horizontal clawing around the base of the dreaded pyramid there again.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Walter Murch HASN'T used FCX... hello? :D
on Oct 29, 2011 at 5:21:46 pm

Murch is a genius, but I really couldn't care what software he uses.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch HASN'T used FCX... hello? :D
on Oct 29, 2011 at 5:31:06 pm

[Stuart Short] "Always interesting to see how willing some people are to hate on X and/or Apple without little to no rhyme nor reason. Both quite obviously scare the livin' poo out of a LOT of people here. Bizarre really. Makes you wonder."

Really? Are you applying that to Murch? If so it hardly makes sense. Apple got a lot of mileage out of his using FCP on films, especially when they offered no support during "Cold Mountain". Since then he's had routine contact with them offering suggestions for advancing the application.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Walter Murch HASN'T used FCX... hello? :D
on Oct 29, 2011 at 5:31:38 pm

Stuart,


You're trotting out all the usual dismissive straw man arguments:

- Anyone who isn't enthusiastic about X hates Apple
- "Old time" editors are frightened of technology and change

You missed a couple:

- Apple knows better; if Apple makes it then it's superior
- Everyone is just being too emotional

Since you seem to have missed it, I'll point out that there is actually good critical discussion going on in these threads.


[Stuart Short] "Wow... to put any value whatsoever into someone's opinion that admits to having never actually USED X and cites missing features that in fact aren't missing, merely because he's a great editor?"

For the record, he clearly states he's talking about the june release when XML and SAN support were missing. He also states these features were added in the september update.

Also, he states he hasn't used the software "in a real world situation" (not that he's "never used" it). I don't know whether you're expecting him to adopt unproven software on a multi-million dollar project, but if you are then you've shown something of your character and experience.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch
on Oct 29, 2011 at 10:14:34 pm

Oh settle down, folks.

This is boring. Unlike the X-files, not only is the "truth" out there, it's finally pretty evident to all but the zealots on both sides.

In the beginning nearly EVERYONE got FCP-X significantly wrong. We did that because it was nothing like we expected. It was significantly harder to understand it's new way of approaching NLE operation than everyone thought. That's, IMO, partly because it was so fundamentally different, and partly because with so many people so knowledgeable about Legacy the natural tendency was to compare it TO Legacy rather than take it on it's own terms.

Now the picture is a lot clearer. They moved many "legacy" needs down the importance list in order to elevate a host of new features that they believed would be critically useful to the future of editing. Those largely revolve around data management and smaller, less complex and formal productions the kind of which are well suited for web deployment rather than theatrical distribution and episodic TV creation.

From their public statements, it appears that the FCP team is fully aware that to make a great "general purpose" editing tool for the future, they'll have to add many things back in that they "de-prioritized" in the initial release. But Apple has pretty clearly said that they are working on precisely that.

I admire Walter Murch like everyone else. Possibly more so. (I was lucky enough to run into him at NAB one year in the Grand Lux cafe at the Venetian and he graciously took 15 minutes to chat with me directly about FCP, having no clue that I was helping put on the users group event that night. That night I saw him do EXACTLY the same thing with a huge line of fans who lined up for a moment of "personal time" with him. He treated each and everyone in line incredibly graciously - staying for HOURS after the program had ended to make sure everyone who wanted to talk to him, could.. The mark of a man who truly cares about his craft and has a wonderfully generous spirit about sharing his knowledge.

I don't know what "genius" is so I'm not qualified to comment on whether Mr. Murch is one. But he's clearly and unarguably a superb film editor, a world class sound for picture artist, and an amazingly decent and generous guy. And that's way more than good enough for me.

I suspect that like everyone else, he will come to FCP-X in his own way and in his own time. And whether it "gets" is better than anyone else is entire dependent on the amount of time he's been able to personally spend with it, because as we see time and time and time again in these debates - what's different about FCP-X takes significant time to learn and understand well enough to appreciate.

But please, don't invoke his name on the pro or con side until he makes a clear pronouncement that he has explored it to his content, and has formed an opinion either way.

Then take that opinion and do him the respect of acknowledging that it will relate most closely to the kind of work that HE does, and that as thoughtful and well schooled in the editing arts as he clearly is, it won't necessarily relate to the kind of editing tasks he does NOT regularly do. Unless he makes wider pronouncements on his opinions of it's general utility. If he does I too will listen.

But I'll still make my own choices based on what I have to do. Not what any Hollywood film editor does, regardless of how much I respect him or her.

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

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch
on Oct 29, 2011 at 11:44:58 pm

Bravo Bill. Bravissimo.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: Walter Murch
on Oct 30, 2011 at 9:25:27 am

[Bill Davis] "In the beginning nearly EVERYONE got FCP-X significantly wrong. We did that because it was nothing like we expected. It was significantly harder to understand it's new way of approaching NLE operation than everyone thought. That's, IMO, partly because it was so fundamentally different"

I - since day one - strongly disagree with that statement. It is not at all hard to understand and it is even much easier to grasp by newbies. I used Liquid Chrome and other tools (Edius, Speed Razor, Edit*, FCP) and FCPX seems to combine the good features of many of them while eliminating the bad ones of FCP7.

What is hard to understand? Once you know a Project is now called Event, and your sequence is the project you are set. From then on: Import, sort, edit, export.

The only feature that is hard to grasp for me is the colour-board. While it is great for quick fixes, I fight when using the vectorscope and want to shift the colour into a certain direction.

Did I edit from day one like today? No, of course not. Of course there are moments at first where you look for stuff or you are baffled by buggy-behaviour of the early release (boy do I hate it when I copy effects and forget I also wrote over the audio-compressors with the colour-look). So I know it is not finished and I am surprised how Apple handled the release. But the software´s set-up is extremely easy to understand, elegant to work with and will be changing the way people edit ON ALL LEVELS.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Walter Murch
on Oct 30, 2011 at 8:45:05 pm

Alban,

To the extent you are talking about the core editing functions of the software, I largely agree. While much of the initial angst about X focused on elements such as magnetism, , it's clear now that these were pretty easy to adapt to with a little hands-on experience.

The real complications are in learning how to maximize the use of the brand new meta-data tools. Knowing the nature, best uses, and strategies for smart collections, event libraries. What the project library allows and doesn't allow, is actually more complex than simply learning how to assemble a basic cut in X.

That's part of where the initial confusion came from I think. So many new trees to focus on that we literally couldn't grasp the boundaries of the new forest very well..

"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

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch
on Oct 30, 2011 at 9:09:11 pm

[Bill Davis] "The real complications are in learning how to maximize the use of the brand new meta-data tools. Knowing the nature, best uses, and strategies for smart collections, event libraries. What the project library allows and doesn't allow, is actually more complex than simply learning how to assemble a basic cut in X."

I find it a bit ironic that, in spite of the fact that Apple's design direction is to simplify and be intuitive, FCP X is anything but that, once you get past the basics. Just look at how much folks in this forum are struggling to make sense out of it. I don't think the untainted college student or YouTuber is a good measure. In almost all instances, those people are never power users of any software. I'm not criticizing - just making an observation.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch
on Oct 30, 2011 at 9:19:17 pm

Those users will be the power users. The novices to video production are remarkably adapt at this application and take to its workflow and quickly become what I would consider power users. They have no understanding of the implications of track based applications, only seeing this as stories with connections. The paradigm has an aesthetic logic that's easy to follow.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch
on Oct 30, 2011 at 9:27:39 pm

[Tom Wolsky] "The novices to video production are remarkably adapt at this application and take to its workflow and quickly become what I would consider power users."

With all due respect, that's also true of iMovie, Vegas and many others. In my experience, I have almost never seen novice users become power users without training. I don't think FCP X changes that. The difference is that it is more rigid, so it's harder for people to get in trouble. The ones that do advance on their own are those that gravitate to understanding software concepts in general. Most novice users stay at the minimum level of knowledge needed to get their immediate project done. I would suggest that many feature film editors are also not power users of NLEs. That's why many of them rely on technically-savvy assistants.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Walter Murch
on Oct 30, 2011 at 9:45:03 pm

"In my experience, I have almost never seen novice users become power users without training."

Absolutely. I don't disagree at all.

"I would suggest that many feature film editors are also not power users of NLEs."

Indeed. So often I have taught advanced classes where on the first day, what I call "remedial FCP" I am interrupted by someone who says, "Wait, what did you just do," and it's the simplest shortcut, some basic thing they never learned when teaching themselves.

Perhaps that's why Mr. Murch's timeline looks so strangely layered to Jeremy.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Walter Murch
on Oct 30, 2011 at 11:10:16 pm

[Tom Wolsky] "Perhaps that's why Mr. Murch's timeline looks so strangely layered to Jeremy."

It doesnt look strangely layered, it actually looks simple, there's just a lot of it. I'm sure there's good reason and FCP7's timeline almost dictates that style of organization (as much as people say its an "open" timeline, it's still a constructional method, like it or not). Exporting tracks was one, or perhaps it has to do with the shots from certain cameras for conform (like those shots are 1080 instead of 2k, or shot on SxS instead of codex), or some other tag, Perhaps there's a specific cc or treatment that needs to be done to those shots. I do the same thing on a smaller scale. It seems to me it's there for organization, not real estate efficiency. I am just speculating. I think I've been around long enough to be able to read a timeline, even if my career didn't start in film. :)

My point is that with Roles and a database driven structure, all that info will be able to exported/extracted as it is now in a fraction of the screen space and in fewer clicks. Hey, perhaps that's a new paradigm?


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Walter Murch
on Oct 30, 2011 at 10:33:14 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I find it a bit ironic that, in spite of the fact that Apple's design direction is to simplify and be intuitive, FCP X is anything but that, once you get past the basics. Just look at how much folks in this forum are struggling to make sense out of it."

But Oliver, that's how these things always go with new programs and hardly an accurate assessment or some scientific poll.

In my experience, once you get past the basics, you're off to the races. There's very little to make sense of once you get past the basics. You can edit, experiment with looks, audition, mix audio, work with text, organize and search faster than any program I've used.

I can imagine why X would be an issue for the reasons we've all discussed.
But I can't imagine anyone struggling with it once they learn it - it's a very fast, intuitive program.


Return to posts index

Devin Crane
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 12:51:30 am

It's funny how people read things differently, from what I read, he's not using it now but is cautiously optimistic about it. Never in the article does it say however that he "won't use it" as the post replies.



Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 2:56:15 am

[Devin Crane] "It's funny how people read things differently, from what I read, he's not using it now but is cautiously optimistic about it. Never in the article does it say however that he "won't use it" as the post replies."
Is not about interpreting Murch's words but that time-line.
Does people think that is possible to do that in FCPX?
Would people spend time learning FCPX to try to do that job?
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 5:39:52 pm

Devin,

I agree the headline here is a bit misleading. On the other hand, the linked article states:

"He used FCP7, which he acknowledged may be the last time he uses Final Cut Pro."

Walter Murch seems pretty ambivalent about FCPX, and I'm sure he'll be testing workflows and considering a number of different NLEs. Which is pretty much where most FCP editors are right now, from what I see.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 7:30:10 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Walter Murch seems pretty ambivalent about FCPX, and I'm sure he'll be testing workflows and considering a number of different NLEs. Which is pretty much where most FCP editors are right now, from what I see."

I'm not so sure he will necessarily be evaluating workflows with X. He moved to FCP for "Cold Mountain" because Digital Film Tree had worked out the kinks. This was also after the Coens had started using it. I don't see any suppliers at the DFT level jumping onto the FCP X bandwagon yet. I also think that given the perception in Hollywood about X, it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to convince a studio to risk millions on a post workflow based on X. Maybe in 3 years or more. "CM" was cut with FCP 3. I also suspect that he's not the only highly visible FCP feature editor who has sent Apple an off-the-record WTF response.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 7:52:45 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I'm not so sure he will necessarily be evaluating workflows with X. He moved to FCP for "Cold Mountain" because Digital Film Tree had worked out the kinks."

Yet he seems to have at least had a quick look at it and seems to be aware that Apple is working on improvements. If/when FCPX seems "ready" someone may see the opportunity to jump in and provide the backend support. It's not there yet.

I don't doubt that Apple's analysis is guided by dollars and cents(sense too). Multi Million Dollar Hollywood productions only make a minuscule amount of NLE and Mac sales, I suspect. The value to Apple is in PR of course. The Apple internal evaluation may be how much does that increase sales of FCPX (which would still be only of small value to Apple) and, more importantly, how many more Macs will that sell.

It's only a guess of course but I suspect when the new MacPros hit (early next year so it seems), FCPX may be in the throughs of another update and at that point it might be worth it for Apple to step up its marketing game depending on what the next FCPX and MacPros have to offer. It may yet take another update or two after that for FCPX to be competitive (mid to late 2012 or thereabouts) and that's when I think Murch might have a closer look. That's when I think there's the possibility of a major "backend" supporter stepping into the market.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 8:18:47 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Yet he seems to have at least had a quick look at it and seems to be aware that Apple is working on improvements."

He has had regular contact with them over the years and was invited to the Feb advance screening.

[Craig Seeman] "I don't doubt that Apple's analysis is guided by dollars and cents(sense too). Multi Million Dollar Hollywood productions only make a minuscule amount of NLE and Mac sales, I suspect. The value to Apple is in PR of course."

Agreed. But even the PR may be small. If you notice the Apple website, marketing case studies of features dwindled a lot since about 2008. FCP adoption in Hollywood features peaked about then, so Apple may have decided to move on.

[Craig Seeman] "I suspect when the new MacPros hit (early next year so it seems), FCPX may be in the throughs of another update and at that point it might be worth it for Apple to step up its marketing game depending on what the next FCPX and MacPros have to offer. "

IF there are new Mac Pros. That's another thread of course, but I tend to see Apple focusing on Mini and iMac solutions. Of course, nothing but pure speculation at this point. ;-)

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 8:56:07 pm

[Oliver Peters] "He has had regular contact with them over the years and was invited to the Feb advance screening."

[Oliver Peters] "Agreed. But even the PR may be small. If you notice the Apple website, marketing case studies of features dwindled a lot since about 2008. FCP adoption in Hollywood features peaked about then, so Apple may have decided to move on."

FCP hasn't had much new to offer Hollywood since then. I think it'll be some time (at least a year or two) before Apple has anything interesting for Hollywood. Personally I think the database media management end might be a hook but I don't think Hollywood is Apple's priority. I think Murch's "they like us..." comment pretty much describes where things sit. Like, not Love. Not mission critical and would be premature for that kind of relationship now.

That you see Evan Schechtman RadicalMedia/Digital Outpost making the rounds might indicate where Apple might be targeting in the shorter run. Only when (if as some feel) that happens will there be the backend support to move to the next step.


[Oliver Peters] "IF there are new Mac Pros. That's another thread of course, but I tend to see Apple focusing on Mini and iMac solutions. Of course, nothing but pure speculation at this point. ;-)"

It may not be called MacPro but something will replace it. My own guess is it will be like a high end MacMini. Something like: two PCIe slots, one of them populated by a GPU and a second that can be used for another GPU or something else. An SSD boot drive and one standard internal hard drive. There will be no space for additional internal drives or GPUs. There may be no optical drive. It'll have three or four Thunderbolt ports for expansion. It may be a 2 Rack Unit sized box. It'll come in some variant of 6, 8, 12, 16 core models.

Basically it'll look like a large MacMini. It will be very powerful and rely heavily on Thunderbolt for expansion. It'll certainly be a "Pro" machine but given the design, might start at a lower price point.

I think Apple's goal will be to have a higher end computer with broader appeal than the current MacPro. At that point you might see some marketing geared towards and FCPX/Thunderbolt based facility with communication designed to work well with server/san environment.

Thunderbolt will not only be part of the communication but it'll allow one to move such peripherals to MacBookPro and even MB Air for portability and flexibility of resources.

Obviously FCPX and related will have to grow a bit more but this is where I'd guess Apple is headed.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Oct 30, 2011 at 9:02:57 pm

[Craig Seeman] "FCP hasn't had much new to offer Hollywood since then......That you see Evan Schechtman RadicalMedia/Digital Outpost making the rounds might indicate where Apple might be targeting in the shorter run.....My own guess is it will be like a high end MacMini. "

Agreed on all counts.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jerry Hofmann
Re: Walter Murch won't use FCX
on Nov 1, 2011 at 12:29:20 am

I think Apple might have plans to replace the workflow we're used to with tracks. You need export of only certain elements right? Roles = Tracks? couldn't be too hard to make certain roles like music, sync, fx, etc export separately.

But come on... if you were doing features would YOU choose FCP X in a 1.0 release? Naaaah.

Jerry

Apple Certified Trainer, Producer, Writer, Director Editor, Gun for Hire and other things. I ski. My Blog: http://blogs.creativecow.net/Jerry-Hofmann

Current DVD:
http://store.creativecow.net/p/81/jerry_hofmanns_final_cut_system_setup

8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17" MBP, Matrox MXO2 with MAX - Cinema Displays I have a 22" that I paid 4k for still working. G4 with Kona SD card, and SCSI card.


Return to posts index

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