FORUMS: list search recent posts

New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Jeremy Garchow
New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 12:54:51 am

Check it out here: Link

In my tiny corner of the production world, and I don't work in Hollywood so my needs might vary, it's all together true. Time is a constant pressure, and expectations to do more with less time are greater and greater. Losing quality is not an option. Even before we start editing, before we get in to more creative talks, the first question more and more is, "when can we see something"? Two weeks is an eternity.

Part of this is most of our clients are removed from edit the process, therefore they forget very quickly how much time things can take. X greatly streamlines the organization and prep phases, even getting to the first cut. Ironically, finishing is a slower process as the control isn't quite there yet, and learning the new interface will cause some slow downs as we learn more and more efficiencies. I do find the first "80%" does go much faster, though.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 1:32:59 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "X greatly streamlines the organization and prep phases, even getting to the first cut. Ironically, finishing is a slower process as the control isn't quite there yet, and learning the new interface will cause some slow downs as we learn more and more efficiencies. I do find the first "80%" does go much faster, though.
"


Since when was the act of editing a slice and dice best answered by a tool that does the three quarters tomato chopping and dicing?

how great a tool is that?

what in gods name? is the last 20%? useless? or the last 10%? or the last 5%?

remember here - that is defending utilitarian editing - on some level so does bill. although bill just appears to hate good editors more.

neither really care that this is brain damaged editing brought on to the main stage by cupertino - a crowd who couldn't care if editing, design, craft or our entire community died by fire.

cupertino are the people being defended - not the software - cupertino - a group of people who would collectively sell your mother, her dog, and the dogs kennel down the river to make a single dollar.

that is apple. they only exist to make money. they have no other prerogative.

this - for once and for all - is not a professional piece of kit, its not meant to be, and amazingly it bears no relation to professional software. the metaphors are moronic, it is completely beholden to imovie, its not particularly well made, nobody in the horrible professional sphere can touch it - this software does not exist. The events are from iphoto, the magnetic timeline is from imovie, I'm really asking -

what. are. we. doing. here?

This software is not realistically discussed or employed professionally. Not on any scale anywhere. Its not. FCP is dead and we are left having a weird , truly heartfelt conversation courtesy of a black sociopathic fruit company that would see us all burn without a single blink.

everything else aside, apple are not good people.

Apple are not a good company. they are more than able to act in the psychological manner of every other modern corporation.

they lack empathy.

Apple are, in no way unusually, collectively, and as america's biggest company, in the fashion of our times - sociopaths/psycopaths.

Apple became sociopaths a while ago.

It's why we're all so confused, we remember a lesser apple, it had smaller blood - but as corporations are/are not people - scale breeds psycopaths.

apples regard to duty of care for editing is near psychopathic in its complete disdain.

they have no emotional core. If they had a dog, it could be burnt in front of them and editing software is, relatively, a piece of toilet paper.

Apple are near flat out sociopaths at least. As an individual in operation, we are dealing with a sociopath. no empathy, no memory.

Apple are bad people.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 3:34:51 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Apple are, in no way unusually, collectively, and as america's biggest company, in the fashion of our times - sociopaths/psycopaths.

Apple became sociopaths a while ago.

It's why we're all so confused, we remember a lesser apple, it had smaller blood - but as corporations are/are not people - scale breeds psycopaths.

apples regard to duty of care for editing is near psychopathic in its complete disdain.

they have no emotional core. If they had a dog, it could be burnt in front of them and editing software is, relatively, a piece of toilet paper.

Apple are near flat out sociopaths at least. As an individual in operation, we are dealing with a sociopath. no empathy, no memory.
"


Happy to see your advanced degree in the behavorial sciences being put to such good use.

Honestly, I'm curious what you're doing wasting your time in an area as mundane as this lowly video editing group, since you obviously have such a superior degree of medical training and can diagnose entire corporate structures at a single bound? Bravo, sir. You've "schooled" us all.

Folks, we clearly have a medical brain of rare sensitivity amongst us. I'm tempted to seek out a scriptwriter and a copy of Premier Pro (using FCP-X would be WAY too ironic) and storm Hollywood with a HOUSE clone!

(Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, but if anyone reading here is actually struggling with any form of mental illness in the family, please be assured that AG is not cruel, but merely a bit clueless not to understand that tossing around mental illness terms like swear words at a Vegas fight can be kinda hurtful. Something I was reminded of once when I did precisely the same thing, carelessly describing a young persons behavior as "psychotic" only to be pulled aside by a very upset 14-year old schoolmate of my sons who was upset because his father had, in fact, just been diagnosed as precisely that — and it was tearing their family to shreds.)

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


Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 2:29:44 pm

[Bill Davis] " I was reminded of once when I did precisely the same thing, carelessly describing a young persons behavior as "psychotic" only to be pulled aside by a very upset 14-year old schoolmate of my sons who was upset because his father had, in fact, just been diagnosed as precisely that — and it was tearing their family to shreds.)"

Fortunately there are not too many 14 year olds on this forum, at least not chronologically. Just how PC do we have to be here? Can we no longer say something is "sick" because someone might have a family member with an illness, I can't call something "idiotic" because someone's dead Dad was an idiot and it brings up bad feelings - wait I can't mention dead Dads then either, can I?

Bill, your post is crazier than Andreas's and at least he had the advantage of being drunk when he wrote it. As for your situation with your son's friend - the problem wasn't that you used the word "psychotic," the problem is that the kid's dad was ill. Nothing you said caused it, nothing you don't say will make him feel better. Sometimes the world just sucks.

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


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:24:15 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Bill, your post is crazier than Andreas's"

What was crazy on my last post????????

My name is Andreas and I try to get the best out of FCPX.

Andreas :)

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 6:18:52 pm

[Andreas Kiel] ""Bill, your post is crazier than Andreas's"

What was crazy on my last post????????"


Apologies, I mean to say Aindreas.

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 5:31:44 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Sometimes the world just sucks.
"


Nothing more true that that.

But it's equally true that some people still value dated concepts like "manners" - that social lubricant that means one tries to be cognizant of the differing sensitivities of others rather than simply operating as if "my" standards are the ones that must rule all interactions.

That was my "lesson" when I screwed up with that kid. I wasn't trying to - but I made him feel crappy (or better by being able to vent on me, who knows!) I can give myself a free pass knowing that hurting him wasn't my intent - or I can try to learn from the experience. It's not so much "political correctness" as it is using life's "feedback loop" to try to act in ways that don't cause unintended hurt. And what is wrong with a goal like that?

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

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 5:56:01 pm

[Bill Davis] "But it's equally true that some people still value dated concepts like "manners""

Bad manners would be talking about a subject after someone asks you not to. Self censoring yourself without a specific cause seems a bit daffy to me.

[Bill Davis] "That was my "lesson" when I screwed up with that kid. I wasn't trying to - but I made him feel crappy (or better by being able to vent on me, who knows!)"

I've thought a lot about that story and about what I should have added but didn't, so now here goes.

Let's look at the situation: Your son had a 14 year old friend who's family was in trouble. Until you provoked him, with your wicked tongue, you were unaware of the situation. Being unaware you were unable to help in any way whatsoever. The kid was very brave and talked to you about his feelings (unfortunately most kids would not have the courage.) You had the normal reaction, the one that I would have had, you felt guilty. But what purpose does the guilt do - it serves to move the focus away from the kid and his problems and onto you and your feelings. As so often, guilt is a destructive bitch. But anyhow, what is the end result of your lack of so called "manners" - the kid got to tell you about his troubles, venting his feelings, and putting you in a situation where you could now reach out and help, even if only to be more aware of him whenever you saw him. A total victory for crudeness in speech.

to quote Procul Harum (something I do perhaps more frequently than I should) -

Write it down,
It might be read.
Nothing's better left unsaid.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:02:00 am

I'm genuinely starting to worry about Aindreas

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


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:21:55 am

ignore me - that spew was a back from the pub rant at apple after having ranted with editors in the pub about apple.

I was pushing the 'corporations if psychologically analysed, are found to be sociopaths' line.. quite hard reading back on it there.


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


Return to posts index

Phil Hoppes
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 11:15:47 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Apple are bad people."

Dude... seriously.... you need to go get some help. Move on with your life and go find some joy. It's a tool. A frigging screwdriver.

Sheesh....


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 4:16:32 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "what. are. we. doing. here?
"


Editing, on our end.


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 2:27:28 am

What these clients/producers need to get a grip on is that things take time. Want it to look good? Be creative? Have a story? Then it takes time.

THEY need to change...not us.

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


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 3:24:50 am

Right, the perfect NLE for a sick world.
That's why I don't need FCPX: At this point on life the only pressure I allows comes from my self.
I'm not hired because I can do it faster, but because I can do it better.
Rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 2:02:18 pm

[Rafael Amador] "Right, the perfect NLE for a sick world.
That's why I don't need FCPX: At this point on life the only pressure I allows comes from my self.
I'm not hired because I can do it faster, but because I can do it better."


But therein lies the problem. What if people hire you because you can do it better, but then pressure you to get it done faster? Do you simply say no? If you have that luxury, that is commendable, but my guess is that most don't have that luxury, hence what Philip wrote about.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:37:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " What if people hire you because you can do it better, but then pressure you to get it done faster? Do you simply say no?"

Yes. If they want better...if they hired me for better...they need to know that it takes time to make "better." Want to save money? Hire an assistant editor to bring in the footage and organize it. They are cheaper.

Quality comes with a price. If they want it, they need to give us what we need.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 1:06:22 pm

[Shane Ross] "THEY need to change...not us."

In a perfect world - yes, in the real world it's not going to happen, time and budget pressure is only going to increase.

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


Return to posts index

Phil Hoppes
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 1:33:59 pm

[Shane Ross] "THEY need to change...not us."

Good luck with that. How about standing on the beach and asking the tide not to come in?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 1:58:00 pm

[Shane Ross] "What these clients/producers need to get a grip on is that things take time. Want it to look good? Be creative? Have a story? Then it takes time.

THEY need to change...not us."


I wish it were that easy. For some reason, I just don't see things going back to the way they once were.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:34:26 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "THEY need to change...not us."

I wish it were that easy. For some reason, I just don't see things going back to the way they once were."


Then they will get crap from us. If they don't give us time, they get crap. They want better, they need to give us time. If they want to throw 80 hours of every format under the sun at us and expect a polished rough cut (meaning full audio pass) in a week, there is something wrong with them. And if they keep pushing, I won't work for them. I work for people who are realistic, and won't push me, the editor, to working 12 hour days and weekends. Sorry, I like my family.

And really...this "budgets getting smaller" thing is getting out of hand. They aren't getting THAT much smaller. Companies just have a lot of overhead...the producers don't want to take pay cuts even though they are hiring editors for less and less. And more often they are pouring most of the budget into production (Shoot RED! Shoot ALEXA! Get a huge grip truck!) leaving post with peanuts...so we are asked to do the same value in less time.

And if they do that...those many formats...I'll use Premiere Pro. Because it handles them, and still works like a professional editing app. The basics of making an edit are there.

And just because FCX is faster, doesn't mean that it is the right tool. It still cannot do a lot of what I need done. Yeah yeah...wait until the next major version. Whatever. The editing paradigm in employs doesn't work for me. They broke something that worked.

If they keep pushing for faster, they are going to just keep getting "good enough" or crap. And I am not going there.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 9:00:34 pm

Jeremy,

Have you really never negotiated on points of schedule?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:07:21 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Have you really never negotiated on points of schedule?"

Sometimes you can't. Of course we try and make it the best of all worlds, but it's hardly ever an ideal world.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:22:26 pm

Jeremy,

I suppose.

But to me this discussion really metastasizes from that original concern that most editors face: the issue of time.

It's funny to me that most here seem to fall back on the old chestnut of how important "storytelling" is (my thoughts on that word for another time) - but that takes thinking and feeling.

I'm not sure that Phillip's post (or FCPX) really addresses that issue in the broad ways suggested.

"Two times faster!" makes a good headline though.

To wit: sometimes negotiating a longer schedule might be the answer (and should probably be considered). I have turned down projects with unrealistic schedules (though, it is true, I don't always have that option).

Franz.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 2:30:54 am

Who the hell is telling stories? I suppose some are editing documentaries, or dramas, but for the rest of us it's probably corporate communication, commercials, event video, etc. and while I think it's all art, telling stories or storyteller always seemed kinda like a ridiculous term. The director would probably be more of the storyteller in many of the instances that actually qualify anyway.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 4:10:08 am

[Bret Williams] " for the rest of us it's probably corporate communication, commercials, event video, etc. and while I think it's all art, telling stories or storyteller always seemed kinda like a ridiculous term"

Well, when I edit commercials, I am still telling a story. And I still need time to look at the footage and choose the best takes.

But thanks for putting this into perspective. Now I have a clearer picture who Phil Hodgetts is talking about. Corporate communications...event video. That's who will benefit from the speed of FCX. Commercials? Well, a friend of mine edited a Superbowl commercial, and he had a lot of footage to sort through, and a story to tell. But I can see that for a lot of editing that it might speed things up.

[Bret Williams] "The director would probably be more of the storyteller in many of the instances that actually qualify anyway."

That shows how little you know about our world. The editor needs to be a skilled storyteller too. It is a collaboration. The director isn't in the bay just telling us what to do. We edit the footage without them there, and then they come in and give us notes.

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 7:47:49 am

Sorry. Semantics I guess. I don't see commercials, corporate communication, or sitcoms for that matter as "stories." That doesn't mean I don't think it's intrinsically artistic at all or that any type of editing is more artistic that the other. Often I feel that the "make something out of nothing" corporate crap is the most challenging. Obviously something well thought out and planned before it ever hits my desk is the easiest and garners the most praise, yet the storytelling essentially writes itself. I guess I see a lot of what I do as an editor as communicating. And the art is in the clear presentation of the message. But hey, if thats a story, so be it. I just think as of late "editing" has been replaced with "storytelling" a bit too often like it's the catchy new buzzword.


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 1:32:58 pm

[Bret Williams] "Sorry. Semantics I guess. I don't see commercials, corporate communication, or sitcoms for that matter as "stories.""

Where were you in the last six months? When Apple's new paradigm was introduced, even a cat sleeping on a couch has become a "storyline" and it is considered an "event". Want to add a dream sequence over it?
That's on a "secondary storyline"...And so on...Forget any titles though, better add them on youtube.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 7:59:09 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "Where were you in the last six months? When Apple's new paradigm was introduced, even a cat sleeping on a couch has become a "storyline" and it is considered an "event". Want to add a dream sequence over it?
That's on a "secondary storyline"...And so on...Forget any titles though, better add them on youtube."


I guess you're not quite over the "let me be clever and wrap some ill-thought dismissal in poor argument" era.

Can I join you and be equally dismissive of the conventions that, in Avid (or Vegas, or Legacy) everything is reduced to being a "track?" (A thing that shows something has passed by learning nothing save an impression in the dust - and certainly nothing of value — behind?)

Or are you suggesting that interface designers must re-tag their interface with precision descriptors like "insert dream sequence" so that the user can comfortably do precisely that?

; )

"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

Christian Schumacher
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 9:36:15 pm

[Bill Davis] " I guess you're not quite over the "let me be clever and wrap some ill-thought dismissal in poor argument" era."


Unfortunately, I can't Bill. So, you have to put up with me. I still have to deal with this poor release from Apple, and also theirs ill-thought-out dismissals of our conventions that agreeably have endured over a hundred years. You can complain as much as you want, but I don't think that my simple poor argument on a forum could be in anyway, more dismissive -and important- than to what Apple have managed to accomplish to have done to date, specially by attempting to re-invent those very known conventions. You're looking up to the mothership way too much.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 9:52:23 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "You can complain as much as you want, but I don't think that my simple poor argument on a forum could be in anyway, more dismissive -and important- than to what Apple have managed to accomplish to have done to date, specially by attempting to re-invent those very known conventions. You're looking up to the mothership way too much."

Good or bad, Apple are in the business of re-inventing conventions, someone has to at least try and shake things up a bit.

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


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 10:06:58 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Christian Schumacher] "You can complain as much as you want, but I don't think that my simple poor argument on a forum could be in anyway, more dismissive -and important- than to what Apple have managed to accomplish to have done to date, specially by attempting to re-invent those very known conventions. You're looking up to the mothership way too much."

Good or bad, Apple are in the business of re-inventing conventions, someone has to at least try and shake things up a bit."


Fair enough, Steve. Let's see if that's bad or good, then. I wonder how it will turn out.

Let me fix a typo I made:

"but I don't think that my simple poor argument on a forum could be in anyway, more dismissive -and important-than to what Apple have managed to accomplish to date, specially by attempting to re-invent those very known conventions."


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 10:37:00 pm

[Steve Connor] "Good or bad, Apple are in the business of re-inventing conventions, someone has to at least try and shake things up a bit."

This whole "shake things up a bit" argument has always sounded a little silly to me. If you want to shake things up I would suggest a good wood roller coaster - the Cyclone in Coney Island would do nicely for that.

Successful companies seek to make useful products, and if they've made a useful product they try to make it better. I don't think Apple was trying to shake things up - they already knew what they had, they had tested the UI on Imovie. They were simply trying to redefine their market - out with the upper 5%, in with the theoretical hordes of new users for their simplified workflow.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 1:28:52 am

[Herb Sevush] "I don't think Apple was trying to shake things up - they already knew what they had, they had tested the UI on Imovie. They were simply trying to redefine their market - out with the upper 5%, in with the theoretical hordes of new users for their simplified workflow."

First, I think you nearly totally misunderstand the target market for FCP-X.

It's popular to think it's aimed at the iMovie crowd, but if you'd have spent any serious time with it, you'd know how silly that sounds.

iMovie folks do not need a complex database in their NLE. They don't need 32 bit floating point math accuracy. They don't need or want clip collections, I/O paths to Motion or XML interchange.

And if you think the X interface is "simplified, you really haven't used it much. I'd argue that it's significantly more complex than Legacy ever was. Not because the structure is currently "built out" at the same level Legacy was after a decade of development, but because at it's core - it's a whole lot more "extensible" than Legacy ever was.

The truth of X is that it sequesters assets upon import - then allows the editor to affect them by the application of robust metadata to represent clip change states in ways that allow the user to preform countlessly more complex operations than Legacy ever did.

The reason is that the timeline in legacy was a dumb beast. It was a fixed container that "learned" from nothing and "informed" nothing in return.

X, on the other hand, is an agile data container (one type of which can be video assets, but can equally be fixed graphics, motion graphics, sounds or whatever) that can be affected by other data (and can in turn reflect it's internal states via data export) in ways the Legacy was simply never built to do.

As robust as it became over time, FCP-Legacy was a pretty DUMB construct (if often operated by many, many very smart people.)

X is a much smarter design - and when it grows more, you'll be seeing whole new possibilities emerge from that intelligence.

Every month I learn more about it as a user, I'm more and more comfortable betting my whole business model on my growing certainty that time will prove this view to be accurate.

And the "it's dumbed down FCP-Legacy" to be totally discredited.

We shall see.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 1:38:18 am

[Bill Davis] "It's popular to think it's aimed at the iMovie crowd, but if you'd have spent any serious time with it, you'd know how silly that sounds. "

Odd...seeing the two very recent posts saying how useful FCX was in furthering projects started in iMovie. It is for the crowd that wants just a little bit more than iMovie allows.

*snicker*

Seriously...to have it "import from iMovie," and be so close to how iMovie looks and feels...I hardly see how that statement is "silly." It was made by the guy who made the most recent version of iMovie. So it was made by the guy who makes stuff for the iMovie crowd...and it even acts like iMovie.

[Bill Davis] "iMovie folks do not need a complex database in their NLE. They don't need 32 bit floating point math accuracy. They don't need or want clip collections, I/O paths to Motion or XML interchange."

Some do. A lot do. I have seen many many people move to FCP from iMovie because they want more than iMovie can provide...and then are lost because FCP doesn't act like iMovie. Well, now it does! WIN!

*snicker*

Yes, I am trolling now. I'll be honest.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 1:39:52 am

[Bill Davis] "It's popular to think it's aimed at the iMovie crowd, but if you'd have spent any serious time with it, you'd know how silly that sounds. "

So true! So silly! Where on earth could that idea have possibly come from?

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 1:47:55 am

Bill -

The last line of my original post to Steve was "And even Bill Davis agrees with me on this", so I guess it was better that I cut it out.

[Bill Davis] "First, I think you nearly totally misunderstand the target market for FCP-X. It's popular to think it's aimed at the iMovie crowd, but if you'd have spent any serious time with it, you'd know how silly that sounds."

I never said it was meant for the Imovie crowd, I merely said that they had already tested the UI in Imovie and knew what they were trying to do.

Over and over you have stated that X is not meant for the top "whatever" percent of workfolows but for all the other professionals that make up the majority of video editors. You don't want it to handle too many cameras in multicam, you don't care if it can't handle markers without bloating file size, the list goes on and on about all the things you don't want Apple engineers to bother with because it will take time way from the features that suit you, and by extension, the vast majority of professional video editors. I was merely agreeing with you here by saying Apple's marketing is aimed at editors like you and away from editors like me. Are you now in a position where you will disagree with yourself in order to disagree with me?

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 5:06:22 am

[Herb Sevush] "You don't want it to handle too many cameras in multicam, you don't care if it can't handle markers without bloating file size, the list goes on and on about all the things you don't want Apple engineers to bother with because it will take time way from the features that suit you, and by extension, the vast majority of professional video editors. "

Well, there is some truth in this, Herb.

But it misses the larger point. Which is that the features that will satisfy the larger and wider video production world of tomorrow, simply may not be the ones that satisfy the needs of guys like you today.

I'll grant that editing itself - at least as you currently practice it - might not need to change for quite a while. But whether that's a broad trend or a calm island in the midst of a storm is increasingly open for debate. I still think there are massive shifts taking place out there. One of which reflected by the X rebuild is the "datafication" of nearly everything.

Internet search used to be the province of university folk. Today it's something grandmothers regularly do to find recipes. That's powerful change.

FCP-X "fits" that because I see it as an alternative we didn't have before that's more closely targeted towards a new world where video is just another form of data. And organizing it, searching for it, and manipulating it, may actually become as important as "editing it" a process that used to be the end of the manipulation chain, but that I think is moving more toward being one "state" of the data grouping that increasingly is expected to evolve over time.

I embrace that concept since it means I may be called upon to constantly monitor and update work, rather than just delivering it and that's the end of the process. I think that may turn out to be a better sustainable revenue model in the future for content creators - but we'll see. It's never really been possible to look at "deliverable work" as a fluid thing before this internet connected era. But look at how "refreshing content" streams like RSS feeds and site updating increase SEO rankings because a site is in constant change and that is reflected by the web crawlers.

In a "pull" centered world. That's valuable. If some future rev of X can help me leverage SEO results by making it easier to refresh my published video content - goody.

Just thinking out loud here.

"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

Christian Schumacher
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:52:04 am

[Bill Davis] "world of tomorrow"

[Bill Davis] " If some future rev of X can help"

[Bill Davis] "I still think there are massive shifts taking place out there"

Can you feel it, Bill?







Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 2:24:55 pm

[Bill Davis] "FCP-X "fits" that because I see it as an alternative we didn't have before that's more closely targeted towards a new world where video is just another form of data. And organizing it, searching for it, and manipulating it, may actually become as important as "editing it" a process that used to be the end of the manipulation chain, but that I think is moving more toward being one "state" of the data grouping that increasingly is expected to evolve over time."

I don't think FCPX is as revolutionary as you suggest here.

You can use metadata for organizing and searching in the browser, but you cannot use it for actually manipulating your media in the timeline. Magnetic timeline aside, the editorial tools available in FCPX are not data-driven. (Check out some of Philip Hodgett's work for real data-driven editorial tools.)

And wait a minute -- are you suggesting that FCPX might be better suited than other NLEs for our brave new world, and that this might confer some advantages onto its users? Weren't you just trying to school me last week about how irrelevant the tool is when you have talent?


[Bill Davis] "Internet search used to be the province of university folk. Today it's something grandmothers regularly do to find recipes. That's powerful change."

You keep talking about FCPX and "searchability" or "datafication," and you keep talking about the big changes in content consumption, but you haven't really been very clear about how FCPX will help you make your output more searchable or datafied (?). FCPX outputs the same unstructured data -- a video file -- that every other NLE does.

Further, how does a change from push to pull consumption actually change the production process? Isn't there still value in a production process that collects raw assets, curates them, and presents them meaningfully for consumption?


[Bill Davis] "I embrace that concept since it means I may be called upon to constantly monitor and update work, rather than just delivering it and that's the end of the process. I think that may turn out to be a better sustainable revenue model in the future for content creators - but we'll see. It's never really been possible to look at "deliverable work" as a fluid thing before this internet connected era. But look at how "refreshing content" streams like RSS feeds and site updating increase SEO rankings because a site is in constant change and that is reflected by the web crawlers."

Again, I must disagree. In my opinion, almost nobody cares about updated content; it's new content that sells.

If FCPX helps you churn out new content faster (and I do believe you when you say it's helping you do just that), then it's a great tool for you. I think we can both agree on that!

Since you're seeing big benefits from FCPX for your business, I'm curious about your opinion on that 4x claim: has FCPX let you complete your work 200% to 400% faster? Can you get what used to be a two-week job done in between a half-week and a single week?

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: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 7:09:22 am

[Walter Soyka] "And wait a minute -- are you suggesting that FCPX might be better suited than other NLEs for our brave new world, and that this might confer some advantages onto its users? Weren't you just trying to school me last week about how irrelevant the tool is when you have talent?"

Yeah, I actually think that right now, it is. It was the first of the "majors" to strip down the code to what's needed for the largest common group of editing functions. Unlike the folks here who keep asking "how will it let me work with the sound department, it acknowledges that the vast majority of editors don't HAVE a sound department. Or a dedicated color correction professional. Or a compression team. They just want quality tools to get their day to day projects done to a solid, professional standard - which in most cases means a quality picture, clear sound, and engaging graphics - the tools for the creation of which are solidly built into X right now.

As to "schooling you" that's never my intent, Walter. You clearly don't need "schooling" from anyone. All I can do here is raise my small ruckus (they make wonderful pets) and tweak those who are hide-bound in their belief that the highway is the sole existing alternative to "their way."

And the tool is "irrelevant" only so far as you have access to a choice of tools. I've never argued that something ancillary to function - like form factor and portability - can't be a significant advantages to deployment and use. If that wasn't true, we would have seen generations of harmonica players lugging pipe organs to concerts. The point is that X as it stands is a very sweet combo of tight code (making the app store deployment reasonable), solid capability, and laptop-friendly performance. There are other similar tools, but I'm comfortable with it's place in the editing choice firmament - and am enjoying it's use. Simple as that.

[Walter Soyka] "Further, how does a change from push to pull consumption actually change the production process? Isn't there still value in a production process that collects raw assets, curates them, and presents them meaningfully for consumption?"

Yes, but that's one of the places my thinking is evolving. I'm considering that "an edit" might not be the same as I've considered it throughout my career. It's always been a thing with a "finished state" like a painting on the wall. But we're all seeing the "screenification" of the physical world. Where bars, galleries, offices and yes, connected people toting smart phones and iPads are increasing in numbers. Right now, most of the content they consume is "fixed" at the point they purchase and consume it. I'm just dreaming of some possible "drift" towards a world where, like an RSS feed, a news channel loop, or the constantly updating screen at the information desk where it might be beneficial if you could "curate" conent over time more easily than finishing, publishing a file, and then serving that as a packetized fixed resource for update. I see some potential for that in X, outside the traditional video screen drivers like Watchout or it's brethren. That intrigues me. And I do think that X has some tools - represented by the Project Library and it's dynamic connection to whatever changes are made in the Primary Storyline that might cause it to become useful for tasks like that over time. They're not fully formed right now. But I think the pipes are in place. That simple ability to "scrub" through projects in the Project Library is a fine example. It's a new kind of "quick display link" right into the timeline. A single button "refresh to Vimeo" macro with email notification is about all it would take to turn that into something that updates a cadre of clients with one click. Tha'ts probably not transformative. But it is interesting in a product with such a modest entry point.


[Walter Soyka] "Since you're seeing big benefits from FCPX for your business, I'm curious about your opinion on that 4x claim: has FCPX let you complete your work 200% to 400% faster? Can you get what used to be a two-week job done in between a half-week and a single week?"

Maybe. I'm not totally comfortable quantifying it in that way - tho I certainly understand why Phillip noted that. In my experience, the change from Legacy to X has mostly enabled me to dive more fully into the editorial process quickly. Where before I was always waiting for composited assets to render (the big weakness in Legacy) X stripped that away. I think I noted the visceral annoyance I felt after I used X for a couple of projects than went back to Legacy. It was truly annoying. And I didn't expect that. Since then, i think I've maybe launched Legacy twice to look at older projects. I've found NO reason to go back to it for a project so far. But I know that's just me. Other people with other project profiles will surely find plenty of reasons to do that. Folks already working in Premier or other "background rendering capable" apps might not notice such a big change. But for me, it was palpable. Also, I have to say that because it turned out to be so "laptop capable" it changed my work habits literally overnight. I seldom did rough cuts or worked out ideas in the field even tho I had Legacy on my laptop for years. Capture scratch management was a part of that, as doing "reconnect media" and "proxy" work wasn't particularly satisfying to me on the road.

The X process with disk images seems to me much more slick and psychologically penalty-free since it feels like I'm working with full-rez files on the road and the work I'm doing there is "finalizable" in a way that my workflow wan't in Legacy.

But that might just be a reflection of the fact that I developed my workflows starting in 1999 with FCP-Version 1 back when it could barely handle DV and drive storage and firewire 400 were seriously limiting factors in a laptop world. So i'm not any kind of test case for a FCP "power user." It's never represented more than perhaps a fifth of my work since as primarily as a producer with full project responsibility for so many years, editing came to be ONE thing I did - not the main thing.

All I know is that the convergence of my i7 MacBook Pro - Installation of X - and having put in the better part of two years trasnitioning from shooting big Sony Shoulder Form cameras to shooting a 5d - was a pretty powerful convergence all at one time - and one that still seems to be paying off for me in increased image quality and low equipment overhead - while providing me the ability to produce finished project results that my clients seem to appreciate.

I know that many folks here are exclusively "editors" but, I've been doing my "end to end" production for close to 20 years now. From writing scripts to delivering finished programs. And FCP-X is part of my current tool package for precisely the same reason I relied on Sony Cameras for the first 15 years of my work. They just work well every day with few hassles. I consider FCP-X to be in the same class. I'm sure I'd feel differently if I was trying to edit TV shows on deadline. But I'm not. And I think my type of work is likely more typical of the 2 million FCP legacy seats than the guys upset because they can't interchange properly with an outside color correction team.

Simple as that.

"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

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 3:46:23 pm

Walter's response has hit on almost everything I was going to say, except he said it better, but I would like to add one thing.

[Bill Davis] "FCP-X "fits" that because I see it as an alternative we didn't have before that's more closely targeted towards a new world where video is just another form of data. And organizing it, searching for it, and manipulating it, may actually become as important as "editing it""

Video has always been just another form of data, and "searching for it, organizing it and manipulating it in time" is the definition of "editing it." That's what editors have done since rewinds were invented, what else is there?

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


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 4:16:45 pm

"[Bill Davis] "...towards a new world where video is just another form of data. And organizing it, searching for it, and manipulating it, may actually become as important as "editing it""
[Herb Sevush]
"... what else is there?"

Hi
GPS data, date/time data, copyright data, sticky production metadata. etc etc
YouTube type online video libraries would be far more effective resources with that type of 'something else' inherent in the data - to facilitate the edit, and using 'combined/linked clips' timeline methods to identify groups of clips and assets to keep track of any particular batch of the uncut assets.
It would certainly help Ridley Scott with his 80,000 clip/4,500hr projects, with another ongoing... ;-)

In the past film/video libraries required droves of librarians trained in bespoke databases (and superhuman memory feats) to service the old school 'editing' fraternity.

FCPX isn't there yet, but its likely streets ahead of MC and PP in this respect.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32:42 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Video has always been just another form of data, and "searching for it, organizing it and manipulating it in time" is the definition of "editing it." That's what editors have done since rewinds were invented, what else is there?
"


It's true.

My clients don't pay me for my project organization directly (although my organization keeps the project moving so its indirect), they pay me for the end product. The organization, and how it's done, is for me and anyone else that has to work in fcp on the project. When you start sharing projects, organization, logical organization, becomes paramount.

I might add that fcpx's approach to managing and parsing this data (inside the app) is right powerful.

If FCPX doesn't make it past grade school, my hope will be that other NLE manufacturers take big notice as to how FCPX works in this regard. In my opinion, it's an excellent approach to managing and presenting your organization right back to you, and can change just as fast as your project requirements can change, losslessly without having to completely restructure your bins. Since clips can be in multiple locations at once, it also allows multiple forms of organization for multiple people without having to restructure bins. I'm sure some will say differently, but to me as our projects are now constantly moving around to different peoples machines, this is a big difference between what fcpx offers in organization and other NLEs. Sharing, although not quite apparent, seems to be one of the underlying thoughts behind fcpx, but that's pure speculation.

If you're a one man org, or you are the only person that touches your projects, the maybe you don't care about this, but think about it from the perspective of a 3 to 300 person organization. The way that fcpx handles the data allows multiple ways of thinking without rearranging the other person's way of thinking. To me, and the way that we work, this is a pretty cool idea.

As far as metadata manipulation, it isn't quite in FCPX. Yet. It is easy to see where it might go. Look at software like PrEdit. You can see how you'd be able to feed it a paper edit, and it assembles an edit for you. That alone will knocks DAYS off an edit. Now combine that with something like Soundbite which is analyzing phonemes, things start to get crazy, real fast.

Taking these sort of organizational duties allows editors to simultaneously watch the footage. If my computer can take a paper edit and assemble a super rough first cut, timecode it and send it to my client with minimal interaction from me? Seems pretty cool (careful what I wish for, as well). It does allow me time to review the rest of the footage while that's happening, it does appease my clients to begin crafting their story ASAP, it does allow me to work on more creative aspects of the project while the paint is drying and I am no longer sitting around to watch it.

This, in essence, is what Philip is getting at (and please let me know if I'm wrong, Philip).

This isn't pie on the sky stuff, this capability is almost here.

Yes, editors will still be needed, yes, our input is still crucial to the craft, yes, we will never go back to having more time.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 4:59:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "As far as metadata manipulation, it isn't quite in FCPX. Yet. It is easy to see where it might go. Look at software like PrEdit. You can see how you'd be able to feed it a paper edit, and it assembles an edit for you. That alone will knocks DAYS off an edit. Now combine that with something like Soundbite which is analyzing phonemes, things start to get crazy, real fast."

I agree that metadata is incredibly useful. I've probably made the axe-sharpening analogy here a dozen times. Properly tagging footage with metadata is the editorial equivalent of sharpening the axe. It requires a long period of time upfront before you get any results, but once it's done, the tree falls quickly and the process as a whole should be shorter.

That said, in my mind, actually assembling the footage from tagged footage and a paper edit isn't the hard, time-consuming, or valuable part. Tagging the footage and actually creating the paper edit is.

PrEdit and First Cuts require someone to associate correct and meaningful metadata with the clips before they can return useable results. You can't just hand them a pile of footage and hit the "Make Magic" button. (At least not in the current versions... IBM hasn't brought Watson to Hollywood yet.)

This may save days in the edit bay, but it doesn't save days in the context of the entire production. It kicks the can for organization and shot selection away from the editor and back toward a producer or writer; it doesn't eliminate the need for someone actually watching and evaluating the footage.

There may be nothing wrong with that. It may save people a lot of money by letting them do things themselves they used to have to hire an editor to do.

On the other hand, you may be asking the editor to step out of the creative cut. You may not be allocating tasks to the ones best equipped to handle them. You may not be getting the best results possible in a given budget and timeframe.

I think that metadata is very valuable in post-production, but I don't think that the metadata-driven workflow you're describing fundamentally alters the process; it just shifts responsibilities around.

Am I missing something?

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

David Lawrence
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 5:07:51 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Am I missing something?"

Nope, spot on.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 5:10:35 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think that metadata is very valuable in post-production, but I don't think that the metadata-driven workflow you're describing fundamentally alters the process; it just shifts responsibilities around.

Am I missing something?"


No - you are entirely correct

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 5:44:06 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Properly tagging footage with metadata is the editorial equivalent of sharpening the axe. It requires a long period of time upfront before you get any results, but once it's done, the tree falls quickly and the process as a whole should be shorter."

OK. Let me ask you this. How often do you properly organize your footage? Do you name every clip? Do you name batches of clips? Do you add scene/take? How far do you go? How did you do it in FCP7?

Now, have you done this in FCPX? What about even a cursory organization? What if you have to rename all of your clips? Or what if you want to view them by another name? These workflows aren'y even possible in FCP7. So, you say it takes a long time upfront. Does it? My argument is that it is completely faster (I don't have an actual percentage) but it's at least double. Then as the project moves on, I can further refine and refine that organization, make it more granular. This is where FCPx shines, as all of that granularity is obtuse (in a good way), and not permanent, so I constantly change and resort depending on what I am working on and get as fine or as dull as I want. This, to me, is compounded time saving.

Show me someone who says that FCPX isn't faster, and I'll show you someone who's spent about 15 minutes with it, or is trying to make it work like other software.

FCPX is incredibly fast at organizing huge swaths of data, extremely easily. You can save those sorts for later, or not. I can't tell you how much faster it is, I have never timed it, but from experience, it is simply faster.

[Walter Soyka] "That said, in my mind, actually assembling the footage from tagged footage and a paper edit isn't the hard, time-consuming, or valuable part. Tagging the footage and actually creating the paper edit is."

Really? How much do you personally have to actually do this on your projects?

FOr instance, a current project I am working on consists of about 30 hours of interviews on two camera (so double that in real time). We have to go through the 30 hours of footage when we receive a paper edit from the client. I would much rather feed it in to a system than have me go through and sort all 30 hours of material. That way, they first few days of just getting the right soundbites together can be spent going through the other 20 hours of cutaways, and further refining that part of the organization, the part that is really going to be the bulk of the piece. This piece, by the way, will be cut down to 3-4 minutes. 30 hours of interviews to 3-4 minutes. The paper edit, is the MOST valuable way to do this. Our clients are in New York, we are in Chicago. They send us new paper edits, we update them. The first paper edit was an hour and a half long. So, it's time consuming, it's tedious, and it's highly valuable as it is essentially the spine of the whole piece.

[Walter Soyka] "This may save days in the edit bay, but it doesn't save days in the context of the entire production. It kicks the can for organization and shot selection away from the editor and back toward a producer or writer; it doesn't eliminate the need for someone actually watching and evaluating the footage."

I think you might be misunderstanding, This isn't shot selection. That is my argument. The shot selection comes later, which I still have to watch and organize while creating 1.5 hour paper edit assemblies from 30(60) hours of interviews. FCPX will not help you find the right shot. That is the job of the editor, but as you watch the footage and tag it, it will help you "refind" the right shot later. This time saving is then compounded across the project (which is why it makes it hard to run a stop watch and find out just how much faster it is). And THIS here is another reason why metadata is important (and makes things easier/faster).

[Walter Soyka] "I think that metadata is very valuable in post-production, but I don't think that the metadata-driven workflow you're describing fundamentally alters the process; it just shifts responsibilities around.

Am I missing something?"


If that also includes giving me more time to be more creative as I'm doing less monkey work, then call it what you want.

Also, as the project gets older, and more time passes (and perhaps more projects are worked in the meantime) a data search and sort becomes more and more valuable and allows me to reacquaint myself with the footage much more quickly than sorting through a ton of bins/sequences.

Look at it this way. Does tapeless acquisition save you time, or does it simply time shift the acquisition and subsequent archive of the footage? Would you rather go back to tape? Where is saving time important?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 6:01:57 pm

Jeremy -

When you get your paper edits from your clients, is it labeled in metadata or in time code?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 6:03:16 pm

[Herb Sevush] "When you get your paper edits from your clients, is it labeled in metadata or in time code?"

Trick question. It's one in the same.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 6:07:09 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] ""When you get your paper edits from your clients, is it labeled in metadata or in time code?"

Trick question. It's one in the same."


I wasn't trying to be tricky, I'm just asking if your clients are part of your metadata tagging, or are they relying on time code (a specific type of metadata) to communicate their intent to you.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 6:09:45 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I wasn't trying to be tricky, I'm just asking if your clients are part of your metadata tagging, or are they relying on time code (a specific type of metadata) to communicate their intent to you."

Got ya. Couldn't do transcripts without timecode. Well, i guess you could, but we don't.

Transcripts are handled by us (as we have the footage) so we sort of dictate the workflow to make things go much smoother in those initial stages.

Name and timecode is the standard, sometimes we add location depending on the project.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 6:46:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Show me someone who says that FCPX isn't faster, and I'll show you someone who's spent about 15 minutes with it, or is trying to make it work like other software. FCPX is incredibly fast at organizing huge swaths of data, extremely easily. You can save those sorts for later, or not. I can't tell you how much faster it is, I have never timed it, but from experience, it is simply faster."

I agree! I wasn't comparing the FCPX workflow to the FCP7 workflow; I was just saying that preparation takes time upfront, but makes the process better and faster overall. Editing without reviewing (and logging) the footage is like chopping a tree down with a dull axe. You'll see earlier signs of progress, but it'll take a longer time and more effort to get the tree down.

I'm pro-metadata. It's my third favorite feature in FCPX (after the imaging engine and the skimmer). It's not that useful for me, because I'm not doing creative editorial very often anymore -- I'm finishing and adding effects -- but I would have loved to have had it when I was doing creative editorial every day. I had to rely on tons of subclips and ridiculous naming conventions to get a poor approximation of the sort of metadata that's available today in FCPX. These features would have made my life a lot easier.

Whether we tag clips with great discipline or just try to commit them to memory, the part about actually associating metadata (either formally or informally) is vital to the process and still requires someone to actually watch and log the footage.


[Jeremy Garchow] "FOr instance, a current project I am working on consists of about 30 hours of interviews on two camera (so double that in real time). We have to go through the 30 hours of footage when we receive a paper edit from the client. I would much rather feed it in to a system than have me go through and sort all 30 hours of material."

What are you calling a paper edit? Are we talking about different things?

I used to get paper edits with reels and timecode of selects. I didn't have to sort 30 hours of material to assemble the paper edit; I just opened up the reels, set the in and out point, and added it to the program.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I think you might be misunderstanding, This isn't shot selection. That is my argument. The shot selection comes later, which I still have to watch and organize while creating 1.5 hour paper edit assemblies from 30(60) hours of interviews. FCPX will not help you find the right shot. That is the job of the editor, but as you watch the footage and tag it, it will help you "refind" the right shot later. This time saving is then compounded across the project (which is why it makes it hard to run a stop watch and find out just how much faster it is). And THIS here is another reason why metadata is important (and makes things easier/faster)."

Again, I don't think we're using the term paper edit the same way. The whole point of the paper edits I used to get was to produce a stringout of selects and reduce editorial time by shifting it to production management time.

I agree that metadata pays dividends in re-finding the right shot later in the edit. It's letting computers manage data, which is what they're good at -- it's faster, but it's not new or fundamentally different from the old-fashioned way of writing down timecodes. The difference between searching FCPX and searching a good XLS log or DAM is minimal; the difference between searching anything and not having formal metadata to search in the first place is huge.

There's a lot of metadata that never makes it out of the logger's head and into the notes (whether paper or electronic). Metadata is not a substitute for actually watching and knowing the footage. Knowing the footage isn't a responsibility I'd want to give up as a creative editor.

When I'm finishing someone else's creative edit, I generally don't care -- I rarely even have access to anything but the edit and maybe some handles.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, as the project gets older, and more time passes (and perhaps more projects are worked in the meantime) a data search and sort becomes more and more valuable and allows me to reacquaint myself with the footage much more quickly than sorting through a ton of bins/sequences."

Again, agreed -- but managing metadata is not new. The ability to do that directly within the NLE is. I do think this helps us be faster, but I don't think it quarters the amount of time needed to do a project.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Look at it this way. Does tapeless acquisition save you time, or does it simply time shift the acquisition and subsequent archive of the footage? Would you rather go back to tape? Where is saving time important?"

An ironic example. I used to use capture time to get familiar with the footage.


[Jeremy Garchow] "If that also includes giving me more time to be more creative as I'm doing less monkey work, then call it what you want."

The time crunch trend that Philip was referring to goes somewhat along these lines: as soon as you deliver "good enough" in less time than you needed before, you set a new, harder expectation for delivery times. Cutting out monkey work will not free up time for you to do better work for long; it'll shorten the amount of time you're allowed before final delivery is expected.

It's a vicious cycle, and you can't break it from within. The only solution is to step outside the cycle, manage the process, and guide expectations better.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 6:56:11 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Cutting out monkey work will not free up time for you to do better work for long; it'll shorten the amount of time you're allowed before final delivery is expected.

It's a vicious cycle, and you can't break it from within. The only solution is to step outside the cycle, manage the process, and guide expectations better."


Pro: I mean we went to all that time, money and effort to shoot the damm thing, everybody can see that it looks great, now why the hell is it taking so long to cut the piece of shit. Bloody hell, this should have been finished yesterday.

Ed: But you only shot it yesterday.

Pro: Exactly.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 7:25:24 pm

Just to be clear. Again. This is not about shot selection or "knowing" the footage. This is about the computers making certain parts of your job easier/faster.


[Walter Soyka] "Whether we tag clips with great discipline or just try to commit them to memory, the part about actually associating metadata (either formally or informally) is vital to the process and still requires someone to actually watch and log the footage."

Does it rally take that much time for a cursory organization? Yes, you have to watch the footage, and tag it, but if I know these 17 clips are "Interview 01" to get me started, what else do I need on day1?

[Walter Soyka] "What are you calling a paper edit? Are we talking about different things?"

Using my example, the paper edit was a list of selects in "content buckets" in a bit of an order. It's a rough cut, on paper with timecodes.

[Walter Soyka] "The difference between searching FCPX and searching a good XLS log or DAM is minimal;"

I disagree. It's in fcpx, immediately accessible for edit, instead of sifting through another application only to send over part of what you want, not exactly what you want. Assts Managers are great, but for quick hit editorial, not really.

[Walter Soyka] "Again, I don't think we're using the term paper edit the same way. The whole point of the paper edits I used to get was to produce a stringout of selects and reduce editorial time by shifting it to production management time."

Ok. But when you receive that paper edit, it's edit time.

[Walter Soyka] "The time crunch trend that Philip was referring to goes somewhat along these lines: as soon as you deliver "good enough" in less time than you needed before, you set a new, harder expectation for delivery times. Cutting out monkey work will not free up time for you to do better work for long; it'll shorten the amount of time you're allowed before final delivery is expected."

From my perspective, I don't agree. I do agree that the time it takes to watch footage is real time, but in all cases do you have to watch it all immediately?

And what about metadata in production? Panasonic has a wifi camera that lets you log while shooting, basically giving a rudimentary preorganized shoot to editors. That cuts prep time down even more.

The monkey work that the computer does is more time for me to address the real time duties. Like Herb said, you can't shoot and edit a film sketch in a day, but could you a tapeless sketch?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 7:48:09 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Like Herb said, you can't shoot and edit a film sketch in a day, but could you a tapeless sketch?"

Well lets see.

First you break down the sketch for locations, props and actors. Then you send someone to fins the locations and make a deal. While that's happening you call the talent agents and audition some actors, maybe you need to do a callback; and while that's happening your both shopping for and building props and wardrobe.

So no, I don't think a change in the post logging time would help very much in getting a SNL sketch done in one day.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 7:57:50 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Like Herb said, you can't shoot and edit a film sketch in a day, but could you a tapeless sketch?"

Oooppppss! My apologies Jeremy, I thought you wee referring to an earlier post about doing sketches for Saturday Nite Live. I realize now your referring to my little post about a fictional Pro and Ed. Disregard everything I just said, my bad.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 8:01:00 pm

Not including preproduction. All of the things you mention can happen while the script is being developed, even if it's in flux. We do that all the time. Script is nowhere near done, but casting, location and other productions tasks are being worked on.

And if they tried this in the film days, what does that say for us now?

If fcpx can help complete tasks faster, then we will still have jobs, or the money holders will go find places that will get it done. I wish I could tell all of our clients we need more time. The best thing we can try to do is educate them for the next time, but it still doesn't always work that way.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 8:13:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Just to be clear. Again. This is not about shot selection or "knowing" the footage. This is about the computers making certain parts of your job easier/faster."

And that's the part I agree with.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Does it rally take that much time for a cursory organization? Yes, you have to watch the footage, and tag it, but if I know these 17 clips are "Interview 01" to get me started, what else do I need on day1?"

No, it doesn't take much time for cursory organization.

You don't get much value out of cursory organization, either.


[Walter Soyka] "The difference between searching FCPX and searching a good XLS log or DAM is minimal;"

[Jeremy Garchow] "I disagree. It's in fcpx, immediately accessible for edit, instead of sifting through another application only to send over part of what you want, not exactly what you want. Assts Managers are great, but for quick hit editorial, not really."

Fair, but again, I was trying to compare working with metadata across apps to not having metadata at all. Of course it's faster to not have to change contexts. I'm not arguing against that!

FCPX adding metadata is a big deal, and it's significant. I'm not trying to downplay that.

And what are we really talking about here? Aren't we talking about automating editorial to save time?

Whether it's a computer making a rule-based edit based on encoded metadata or a person making an intuitive edit based on their memory, or anything in between, the foundation is the same: what's in the footage? That's where metadata helps.

I'm saying that it takes time -- significant time -- to create valuable and meaningful metadata, which can then actually save time later when you're actually cutting. I'd consider both of these tasks to be part of editorial today. Do you disagree?


[Jeremy Garchow] "And what about metadata in production? Panasonic has a wifi camera that lets you log while shooting, basically giving a rudimentary preorganized shoot to editors. That cuts prep time down even more. The monkey work that the computer does is more time for me to address the real time duties. Like Herb said, you can't shoot and edit a film sketch in a day, but could you a tapeless sketch?"

My argument here against a technological solution to the time crunch is that it's not permanent. You won't get to keep the time you've saved. The production will take it back.

If enhanced metadata can cut a day of editorial off a week-long project, you don't get to keep that day to make your project better. As soon as you only need until Thursday to deliver what you used to deliver on Friday, Thursday becomes your new deadline.

I am really not arguing against metadata. It's a good thing. We need more of it, and we need more tools like FCPX that can use it.

I'm arguing that metadata is not a sustainable solution to the "not enough time" problem. I'm arguing that there is no technological solution to that problem, because (Soyka's Law) "expectations rise at the same rate as capabilities."

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 8:37:24 pm

[Walter Soyka] "And what are we really talking about here? Aren't we talking about automating editorial to save time?"

Yes. And Philip is also saying that FCPX works faster (because it does).

[Walter Soyka] "I'm saying that it takes time -- significant time -- to create valuable and meaningful metadata, which can then actually save time later when you're actually cutting. I'd consider both of these tasks to be part of editorial today. Do you disagree?"

Somewhat. I think the "significant time" is where this argument lies.

Ok, let's break this down to a tv show.

The tv show is usually shot to a script. The script is usually marked with scene, and then there's takes. No question that on set some of this stuff gets changed/reordered/rewritten.

Now, let's just say that we used a camera that was able to wirelessly metalog on set. Scene, take, reel, and some other general information.

Now, let's say Fcpx was more capable, or had greater third party support.

You feed fcpx or an application a final script with scenes, fcpx then lays out the entire script by scene (which of course the order could be user defined), and each scene now has an audition clip of all the takes per scene sorted by rating.

By no means is this a complete episode, but think of the amount of time that was saved right there. I am not advocating that this is the best way to go, but I bet it will be the way it skews, and that is part of this whole argument otherwise we'd still be editing reel to reel.

This will happen especially for younger folks for which computers and tagging are quite literally a way of life. They communicate by metadata, even if they don't know what that word means.

Without an editor watching one single frame, the show is extremely and roughly put together as written. It obviously won't stay that way, as things start to get fleshed out it might all change, but days and days of organization/prep was saved right there. It's not that crazy. Editors will still have a very important role, no question, but asking for more time won't be in our vocabulary for much longer.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 8:51:53 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Without an editor watching one single frame, the show is extremely and roughly put together as written. It obviously won't stay that way, as things start to get fleshed out it might all change, but days and days of organization/prep was saved right there. It's not that crazy. Editors will still have a very important role, no question, but asking for more time won't be in our vocabulary for much longer."

Interesting argument. If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like you're proposing metadata as a way to potentially automate the manual work an assistant editor would do. Following Walter's argument, the assistant's task would shift to entering the metadata. Is this the basic idea?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 9:39:34 pm

[David Lawrence] " Is this the basic idea?"

Assistant editors, editors, whatever, so yes, more or less. Along with FCPX just being faster, in this example audition clips and the magnetic timeline come in to play.

Again, I'm not advocating this is the way to go. I'm not sure if it will turn out a better end product, but it will certainly speed things up.

Looking on the bright side of this, if your deadline is Friday, and you're done shooting the Friday before, instead of having three prep days and four edit days, you might have six edit days.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 9:55:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Looking on the bright side of this, if your deadline is Friday, and you're done shooting the Friday before, instead of having three prep days and four edit days, you might have six edit days."

Maybe, it depends how much task overlap you'll be able to squeeze. I'm with Walter in that those three prep days still need to happen at some point. It's a question of when and who does it.

Also,

[Jeremy Garchow] "You feed fcpx or an application a final script with scenes, fcpx then lays out the entire script by scene (which of course the order could be user defined), and each scene now has an audition clip of all the takes per scene sorted by rating."

AVID ScriptSync has been doing something like this for years now so the concept isn't new or unique to FCPX.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:12:54 pm

[David Lawrence] "Maybe, it depends how much task overlap you'll be able to squeeze. I'm with Walter in that those three prep days still need to happen at some point. It's a question of when and who does it."

I disagree.

[David Lawrence] "AVID ScriptSync has been doing something like this for years now so the concept isn't new or unique to FCPX."

It assembles the edit for you with all the takes? What about reviewing other takes in the context of the timeline? Is it as easy as an audition clip, or do you have to manually move every new take around?

Again, it's not about having the script in the program, it's what you do with it.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:21:52 pm

[David Lawrence] "Maybe, it depends how much task overlap you'll be able to squeeze. I'm with Walter in that those three prep days still need to happen at some point. It's a question of when and who does it."

[Jeremy Garchow] "I disagree."

Jeremy, where do you see the time savings happening?

I understand that FCPX lets you manage metadata more easily than other NLEs -- but if you're depending on that metadata for your edit, isn't any time saved from entering metadata offset by the increased volume and granularity of metadata you'd need to enter?

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:45:11 pm

[Walter Soyka] "but if you're depending on that metadata for your edit, isn't any time saved from entering metadata offset by the increased volume and granularity of metadata you'd need to enter?"

I guess it depends on how far you go. Even entering rudimentary data is much more simple and fast in FCPX. It's also flexible and most importantly easy to retrieve. FCP X moves faster than FCP7. It reminds me of using P2 Flow which was a metadata tee up to 7. I could definitely organize a shoot in minutes which would have taken hours in FCP7 including import time. (Name, angle, job#, Location, Scene, take, and other things).

As far as granularity, sure, that might slow the whole thing down as it would with anything, but since FCPX is so dynamic in it's data presentation, it works more quickly, and that's my opinion. It's extremely hard to quantify, and it's really hard to defend, especially when someone says "prove it". All the bin searching and double clicks add up when compared to a scrubbing of a refined search. My answer to prove it is, "it just does". I can't answer for Philip, though.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:57:04 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Even entering rudimentary data is much more simple and fast in FCPX. It's also flexible and most importantly easy to retrieve. FCP X moves faster than FCP7. It reminds me of using P2 Flow which was a metadata tee up to 7. I could definitely organize a shoot in minutes which would have taken hours in FCP7 including import time. (Name, angle, job#, Location, Scene, take, and other things)."

I believe that.


[Jeremy Garchow] "As far as granularity, sure, that might slow the whole thing down as it would with anything, but since FCPX is so dynamic in it's data presentation, it works more quickly, and that's my opinion. It's extremely hard to quantify, and it's really hard to defend, especially when someone says "prove it". All the bin searching and double clicks add up when compared to a scrubbing of a refined search. My answer to prove it is, "it just does". I can't answer for Philip, though."

You're claiming it's faster, and saying you can't quantify how much. That's fair.

If you had made a specific and quantified claim, like getting comparable work done in a quarter of the time, why would it be hard to prove or at least describe in greater detail? You'd know that you did a job last week on FCP7 that took 20 hours, and you'd know that doing a similar job this week on FCPX only took you 5 hours. I'm curious about the nature of the work and where the phenomenal speed increase came from. Aren't you?

I'm not trying to be a jerk (which is probably how I'm coming across). I know that this isn't even Philip's own claim -- he's reporting what he's heard from others -- but if it's quantifiable, it's provable, and if it's true, it's an incredibly important contribution to the conversation 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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:14:58 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If you had made a specific and quantified claim, like getting comparable work done in a quarter of the time, why would it be hard to prove or at least describe in greater detail?"

Here, I'll give you one. Being able to work natively with h264/AVCHD footage is way more than four times as fast, it's probably 20-30 times faster, but that shouldn't count.

Naming and organizing clips before/during/after import is another.

It's the efficiencies of skimming, not moving tracks around, no clip collisions, basically everything that some people hate about the magnetic timeline that serves efficiency, is really hard to time and therefore prove, but it does make things go faster. As the blog post said 80% of the edit, 80% of the time.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:39:09 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Here, I'll give you one. Being able to work natively with h264/AVCHD footage is way more than four times as fast, it's probably 20-30 times faster, but that shouldn't count. Naming and organizing clips before/during/after import is another. It's the efficiencies of skimming, not moving tracks around, no clip collisions, basically everything that some people hate about the magnetic timeline that serves efficiency, is really hard to time and therefore prove, but it does make things go faster. As the blog post said 80% of the edit, 80% of the time."

I get that it's hard to time any individual step, especially since there is not a 1:1 correspondence between tasks in FCP7 and FCPX.

However, it's very doable to time a project from start to finish, which is presumably what's behind this line: "As near as I can tell these people are doing the same sort of work on Final Cut Pro X as they were on Final Cut Pro 7 and finding that they get to a result from twice as fast to four times as fast. Twice as fast to four times as fast!"

If a new tool make you four times as productive, presumably you'd have some insight into the nature of the gains. Again, I am not making this up, "four times as fast" is a quote; PH assumes "twice as fast" later in the post for the sake of argument, but he did make four references to 4x or 400% in the article.

It's not that I believe this is utterly impossible -- it's that I want to understand it better, because that kind of productivity gain is simply stunning.

If you can only get the same results 2x to 4x as fast in certain situations, let's talk about what those situations are. If you can get the same results 2x to 4x as fast in virtually any situation, let's talk about that too, and then even the most hateful of haters would switch.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 12:35:29 am

[Walter Soyka] " PH assumes "twice as fast" later in the post for the sake of argument, but he did make four references to 4x or 400% in the article."

That was his reports from users. I don't know who those people are, and I highly doubt they are editing each project twice on each NLE. I woudln't do it, and I do know that there are many things in FCPX that are much faster, and it adds up. That's all I can say for me.

[Walter Soyka] "If you can only get the same results 2x to 4x as fast in certain situations, let's talk about what those situations are. If you can get the same results 2x to 4x as fast in virtually any situation, let's talk about that too, and then even the most hateful of haters would switch."

:) People can't switch for everything as it simply doesn't work with their infrastructure. No video out is a huge deal breaker among interchange. It wouldn't make sense to go fast and then hit a giant roadblock just for the sake of speed.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 5:44:55 am

[David Lawrence] " "Maybe, it depends how much task overlap you'll be able to squeeze. I'm with Walter in that those three prep days still need to happen at some point. It's a question of when and who does it.""

[Jeremy Garchow] "I disagree."

[Jeremy Garchow] "FOr instance, a current project I am working on consists of about 30 hours of interviews on two camera (so double that in real time). We have to go through the 30 hours of footage when we receive a paper edit from the client. I would much rather feed it in to a system than have me go through and sort all 30 hours of material. "

OK, so how does metadata tagging help transcribe that 30 hours of interviews? Somebody has to listen it to it, log it and select from it. For the types of shows I typically work on, that's always a critical and time consuming part of the process. How do FCPX's organizational tools change this?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 5:51:51 am

[David Lawrence] "OK, so how does metadata tagging help transcribe that 30 hours of interviews?"

Sorry, I'm beginning to lose you. It's my fault.

We have a transcription service.

The method I am proposing is theoretical. You are also mixing the two different projects I talked about today, one interview based, and one scene/take based.

Anything else we should over analyze today?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 6:41:21 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Sorry, I'm beginning to lose you. It's my fault.

We have a transcription service.

The method I am proposing is theoretical. You are also mixing the two different projects I talked about today, one interview based, and one scene/take based."


Not your fault, I was combining ideas from a couple examples as a shortcut to get at what I see as the core issue that this thread has raised. Apologies for the confusion.

I think it boils down to the question of how much of the editorial process can be automated vs how much will always require human judgement. I agree that flexible metadata in an NLE is a good thing. What I'm highly skeptical about is the notion that it cuts the post-production timeframe in half or more, as claimed in the Hodgetts article. I'm with Walter in wanting to see the proof.

I'm also skeptical of metadata driven auto assembly. Sure, maybe as a first pass instead of an assistant's manual assembly. But to do anything good beyond that, there's never a substitute for knowing the material. Knowing the material takes time. Less time, less likelihood that the very best material will always be known and used. I don't see this dynamic changing anytime soon.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Anything else we should over analyze today?"

LOL, this thread is awfully long, isn't it?

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 3:04:28 pm

[David Lawrence] "I'm also skeptical of metadata driven auto assembly. Sure, maybe as a first pass instead of an assistant's manual assembly. But to do anything good beyond that, there's never a substitute for knowing the material. "

I can see it working particularly well in the cruise industry, where you have essentially one voyage video that you are updating every seven days with fresh footage to include the passengers of that voyage. If you always shoot the belly flop contest from the same angle, etc. fast rough assembly by the numbers could make something like that work pretty quickly. Using table number and seating assignments, you could probably design a system that insured that passengers buying the video could get themselves seen in it, at least at dinner and a few other pre-arranged spots.

When I first heard of FCP X's "powerful metadata" underbelly, I thought it might be working along these lines; I was kind of surprised to see that it wasn't.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 7:34:20 pm

[David Lawrence] " Less time, less likelihood that the very best material will always be known and used. I don't see this dynamic changing anytime soon."

"DEREK MCCANTS: Yeh, and because of that in reality there’s less ownership for the editor. It used to be that an editor would do an episode. Now there’s three or four editors – maybe five – are working on the same episode to get it done."


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 8:04:17 am

[David Lawrence] "AVID ScriptSync has been doing something like this for years now so the concept isn't new or unique to FCPX.
"


This idea keeps coming up but how "other software" also does what X does but I'm kinda surprised it merits mentioning. EVERY editing software that's popular shares a whole host of editing operations with all the other competitors as well.

Nobody that I can recall has ever said that ONLY X does meta-data handling or has clip tagging tools.

The point is will it's feature MIX present a robust "value proposition" to enough editors to cause them to select it over the distinctive feature array in AVID or Premier.

Some will. Some won't. And that's fair. As long as those choosing have a clear idea of the capabilities of each, the choice is fair. It's only when patently incorrect information is propagated (it's a totally incompetent editing tool, for example - a proposition miss-implied many times here, tho never, to my recollection by Mr. Lawrence) that the game goes sour.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 9:22:55 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Now, let's just say that we used a camera that was able to wirelessly metalog on set. Scene, take, reel, and some other general information. "

Can FCPX access the scene and take metadata that you can create using a KiPro? Legacy can't and it's somewhat frustrating to know the info is there and it can't be used. Right now Legacy can only access reel#, timecode and clip name, which can be composed of the scene and take metadata, but you can't sort or search independent of clip name.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 9:55:02 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Can FCPX access the scene and take metadata that you can create using a KiPro?"

Right now, no. But it will from Panasonic P2 material (as FCPX has an XML to go off of).

I expect this will change, but who knows.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 12:56:51 am

[Herb Sevush] "Can FCPX access the scene and take metadata that you can create using a KiPro? "

By the way, the Scene take info in the KiPro does not get saved to Quicktime as Quicktime doesn't have that field.

If the KiPro generated an XML you could import to legacy, the information would get transferred.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 1:10:58 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "By the way, the Scene take info in the KiPro does not get saved to Quicktime as Quicktime doesn't have that field."

As an aside I must say that I can't hate Quicktime enough. Most every time I had a problem with Legacy the issue often came down to Quicktime limitations, and now even with X, many of the limitations still seem to come from the Quicktime wrapper. How about Apple doing something useful and actually improving Quicktime itself.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 1:20:45 am

[Herb Sevush] "How about Apple doing something useful and actually improving Quicktime itself."

I think they did my moving to AV Foundation. ;)


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 1:28:18 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think they did my moving to AV Foundation. ;)"

But how does that help acquisition. You can't shoot in AV Foundation, your often still creating Quicktime elements, and with that all the limitations that go with it, or am I missing something?

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 1:40:37 am

[Herb Sevush] "But how does that help acquisition."

By making all the acquisition folks decide to incorporate DNxHD and MXF ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 2:00:13 am

[Oliver Peters] "y making all the acquisition folks decide to incorporate DNxHD and MXF ;-)

- Oliver
"


Yup.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 2:07:29 am

[Herb Sevush] "You can't shoot in AV Foundation, your often still creating Quicktime elements, and with that all the limitations that go with it, or am I missing something?"

Not at all.

If the KiPro wrote an XML, you'd be fine. The Arri Alexa (and other cameras) write separate files that describe the shots within which then get mapped to FCP fields.

Right now FCPX even ignores Reel fields which are, in fact, in the Quicktime movie.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 9:50:51 pm

All well and good, Jeremy -- but there are too many assumptions in there for us to reasonably argue. Avid and Premiere Pro also already have tools for script-based editorial. That's not my line of work, so I can't really comment on how useful or not they are.

I agree with Philip that "faster" and "more automated" are good design goals. Who wants to work slower and harder?

I agree with Philip on the main point of his article: there's a lot of real merit in the FCPX approach. I disagree with Philip on one point, too: I think it's too early to call FCPX an inevitable winner right now. (I also think it's too early to call it an inevitable loser. I'm currently more intrigued by Oliver Peter's observation that different market segments are adopting different NLEs.)

I have a lot of respect for Philip and his work, and I'm trying to offer some thoughtful critical commentary on the ideas he's sharing. I agree with him (and with you) that using metadata will speed up editorial. I also agree that as more editors adopt metadata-driven workflows that confer speed advantages, other editors must follow suit to remain competitive.

I'm trying to point out that actually creating that metadata is still largely a manual process, and that even if it's informal for most editors today, it currently accounts for a lot of editorial time. If someone else creates the metadata instead of the editor, you are saving editorial time, but not total project time. The more an editor relies on metadata for editorial, the more important the quality of that metadata is. Prep still needs to go on the schedule somewhere.

I think that's a reasonable objection to make. If Philip can meet it (which he certainly may be able to do), I think he'll have a much stronger and more persuasive argument for others who think his claim might be a bit strong.

I'm further arguing that making the editorial process faster does not solve the time crunch problem. Will enhanced metadata tools let editors work faster? Yes! Will enhanced metadata tools give them extra time to focus on aspects of their jobs they must neglect now, due to time constraints? No! They'll just be expected to deliver comparable results in less time than they have today. The ability to edit faster will just make post clients expect work sooner.

Where I lose Philip entirely is when he postulates that people are completing their projects four times faster -- today -- with FCPX. He's saying that the industry is pre-destined to adopt FCPX because it's -- worst-case -- twice as fast. Today.

He's not qualifying it at all. He's not saying who these people are or what sort of work these people are doing. He's not suggesting there is any other path to this sort of dramatic improvement. He's implying that anyone not using FCPX (unless they can't use FCPX because they need "support for layered Photoshop files" or "selective copy and paste of attributes") is wasting 50% to 75% of their time and their clients' post budgets.

I'm challenging that. Shane is challenging that. I'm asking who is now taking a day and a half with FCPX to finish a week's worth of work, because that idea is a little hard to believe. I'm asking if the scope of work under consideration is the same, or if some of that improvement comes by moving work that is still necessary outside of the area of consideration.

If it's true, and if FCPX lets today's editor do the same work four times faster, then great! Proving it would change a lot of people's minds about the product.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:19:22 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm challenging that. Shane is challenging that. I'm asking who is now taking a day and a half with FCPX to finish a week's worth of work, because that idea is a little hard to believe"

What is a week worth of work when it comes to post? Isn't that the challenge in this whole scenario?

Is it a weeks worth of work, or do you have a week to do it?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:37:43 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm challenging that. Shane is challenging that. I'm asking who is now taking a day and a half with FCPX to finish a week's worth of work, because that idea is a little hard to believe""

[Jeremy Garchow] "What is a week worth of work when it comes to post? Isn't that the challenge in this whole scenario? Is it a weeks worth of work, or do you have a week to do it?"

Fair question. Here's Philip's set up (emphasis his):

I haven’t been using Final Cut Pro X on a huge project (yet, check back with me late next year) but I follow a lot of people who are and they universally comment that Final Cut Pro X is “200 to 400% faster” for them. As near as I can tell these people are doing the same sort of work on Final Cut Pro X as they were on Final Cut Pro 7 and finding that they get to a result from twice as fast to four times as fast. Twice as fast to four times as fast!

He closes with:
Even if it’s not there yet, the design intention and production reality seem destined to make Final Cut Pro X’s market share increase, even among the pros. (They won’t like it, but twice as fast can’t be ignored, let alone “four times faster”.)

He's saying by using FCPX instead of FCP7, you can get the same results in only a quarter of the time! It's a very, very bold claim. Late night, infomercial weight-loss program bold. Maybe it's true for some specific cases. Maybe it's true in the general case. I don't know, and that's why I'm asking. What do you think from your experience?

Incidentally, this prediction on FCPX uptake cannot fail unless Apple pulls FCPX from the market. FCPX's market share started at zero. Nowhere to go but up!

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:09:45 pm

[Walter Soyka] "He's saying by using FCPX instead of FCP7, you can get the same results in only a quarter of the time!"

I thought he said, he had hard twice to four times as fast, then said, let's call it twice as fast.

I never said it was 2x-4x fast for me, but maybe that's just me.

Even twice as fast is bold, but we would have to start from beginning to end on a project. I have not done that so it's hard to quantify for me. For me, it just is faster at a lot of tasks, Being able to use imported footage for one, organization/finding/viewing footage for two, previewing effects for three, text for four. I have no idea if that adds up to 2x as fast, but it's all much faster.

[Walter Soyka] "Incidentally, this prediction on FCPX uptake cannot fail unless Apple pulls FCPX from the market. FCPX's market share started at zero. Nowhere to go but up!"

How very astute!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:19:44 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Walter Soyka] "He's saying by using FCPX instead of FCP7, you can get the same results in only a quarter of the time!"

I thought he said, he had hard twice to four times as fast, then said, let's call it twice as fast."


Here's the line:

"They rethought the interface according to the philosophy outlined above – faster and more automated – and we have Final Cut Pro X. Let’s assume that it’s only twice as fast as Final Cut Pro 7. Some of that is simply because of a modern foundation that drops any requirement for transcoding or rendering effects, and that’s shared with other modern NLEs like Premiere Pro, Vegas, Media Composer and Edius. But some is because of the way the interface has been redesigned."


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 9:51:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Ok, let's break this down to a tv show."

I think in this whole break down you are making some incorrect assumptions about workflow.

1. A film is never cut according to "best" takes decided on set. When I deliver a "first assembly" it is almost never made up completely of the "circle" takes. I have made my own judgement calls about what I think is best and that's not always what was picked on set or location. Sometimes I'll use pieces of all takes to build a scene, because an actor might have been better at the beginning of a "bad" take than in the supposed "best" take.

2. If an assistant has to load info anyway, then from the editor's POV, both systems are equal. It may be faster for the assistant, but it's irrelevant for the editor. Unfortunately there's no way to know, because collaborative editing - as is possible in Media Composer, Lightworks or FCP 7 - is all but impossible in FCP X.

3. Not all scene/take data is always entered. If you are going from the written script supervisor's notes, then that is already sorted out for you. Simply pick your favorites or subclip then - either way, one NLE is about as fast as the other.

4. If you are working on a film show, a lot of the scene/take info was already organized by the colorist. If you get an ALE or an XML, then no need to re-enter it. Many digital shows still go through a telecine process so the workflow is the same.

5. If the editor wants to use Avid's ScriptSync, then FCP 7 or FCP X are completely inadequate. Although ScriptSync requires some assistant prep work before editing can begin, it has one distinct advantage over all other NLEs. You can click on a line of dialogue in a bin (script text is displayed) and all coverage can be reviewed for that line of dialogue, even though it occurs within the body of each media clip.

The reason to view all the footage is not to generate a bunch of metadata, it's to make creative editorial decisions based on camera work and acting performances. One NLE isn't going to make this any faster than another. It's just whether you like one mode of organization or another.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:10:20 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I think in this whole break down you are making some incorrect assumptions about workflow."

This whole thing is an assumption. There are many things that aren't in place for this to happen, I think the blog is clear on that.

[Oliver Peters] "1. A film is never cut according to "best" takes decided on set. When I deliver a "first assembly" it is almost never made up completely of the "circle" takes. I have made my own judgement calls about what I think is best and that's not always what was picked on set or location. Sometimes I'll use pieces of all takes to build a scene, because an actor might have been better at the beginning of a "bad" take than in the supposed "best" take."

I understand, Oliver. As I said, this in will no way represent the final episode, and the role of the editor (your judgment) is not removed form this process). A scene isn't complete until you edit it all together. With Audition clips, you could have everything sorted, or sorted by rating (which you can then ignore if you want) it's really easy to choose the next take without even having to find it, it's there in your timeline, the magnetic timeline makes reviewing these very easy in context. I don't care, don't sort them by rating, sort them by take. Whatever, it's your choice.

[Oliver Peters] "2. If an assistant has to load info anyway, then from the editor's POV, both systems are equal. It may be faster for the assistant, but it's irrelevant for the editor. Unfortunately there's no way to know, because collaborative editing - as is possible in Media Composer, Lightworks or FCP 7 - is all but impossible in FCP X."

Load info? Meaning footage? Metadata? All of the above?

[Oliver Peters] "3. Not all scene/take data is always entered. If you are going from the written script supervisor's notes, then that is already sorted out for you. Simply pick your favorites or subclip then - either way, one NLE is about as fast as the other."

I undertand that, but what if it was? What if in order to meet this deadline, it had to be? If people want to move faster, they better use the tools to do so.

[Oliver Peters] "4. If you are working on a film show, a lot of the scene/take info was already organized by the colorist. If you get an ALE or an XML, then no need to re-enter it. Many digital shows still go through a telecine process so the workflow is the same."

OK, so does it come in edited by scene with all the clips stacked in a timeline? Or do you have to still go through and organize those clips? It's not about the addtion of scene and take info, it's about what you do with it.

[Oliver Peters] "5. If the editor wants to use Avid's ScriptSync, then FCP 7 or FCP X are completely inadequate. Although ScriptSync requires some assistant prep work before editing can begin, it has one distinct advantage over all other NLEs. You can click on a line of dialogue in a bin (script text is displayed) and all coverage can be reviewed for that line of dialogue, even though it occurs within the body of each media clip."

Similar to soundbite, sorta kinda, but without the in app text and direct interaction. yes, ScriptSync is proprietary, so if you want to use it, you have to use Avid.

[Oliver Peters] "The reason to view all the footage is not to generate a bunch of metadata, it's to make creative editorial decisions based on camera work and acting performances. One NLE isn't going to make this any faster than another. It's just whether you like one mode of organization or another."

I disagree.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:36:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "With Audition clips, you could have everything sorted, or sorted by rating"

Then every clip in the timeline for an edited scene would have to be an audition clip.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Load info? Meaning footage? Metadata? All of the above?"

All of the above.

[Jeremy Garchow] "What if in order to meet this deadline, it had to be? If people want to move faster, they better use the tools to do so."

Then that means imposing a rather inflexible and closed method of organization that not everyone agrees is better nor that they want.

[Jeremy Garchow] "OK, so does it come in edited by scene with all the clips stacked in a timeline? Or do you have to still go through and organize those clips?"

When an XML or ALE file is used, that gives you clip name, scene/take, synced audio, TC, reel number, etc. You can certainly organize as you want, but there's no speed lost to manual data entry. The trouble with relying on this based on electronic data entry on location, is that invariably it's wrong. I frequently get P2 clips where the clip long name is incorrect, because the operator never set it right on the shoot. Or it was never updated after Day 1 of a shoot. The less you expect the crew to do the better off you are as an editor. They have their hands full and cameras like RED have made that exponentially worse.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Similar to soundbite, sorta kinda, but without the in app text and direct interaction. yes, ScriptSync is proprietary, so if you want to use it, you have to use Avid."

Not really similar to SoundBite at all. SB is like PhraseFind. It's a search tool. SB, PF and SS are all based on Nexidia's dialogue search engine. The script-based editing part of Avid has been in Media Composer for years and doesn't require Nexidia's proprietary engine. The paid option part of it, makes the dialogue analysis and sync-to-text automatic, but it can be done manually by the editor or assistant. But yes, script-based editing is only available on Avids because it's IP they own based on acquiring IP from Cinedco. The lined-script editing concept dates back to EdiFlex (Cinedco) in the late-80s/early-90s.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 10:57:26 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Then every clip in the timeline for an edited scene would have to be an audition clip."

That was what I proposed, maybe you missed it.

[Oliver Peters] "All of the above."

I have talked about how loading footage and adding metadata is really easy in FCPX, even if making high or low quality transcodes from the original.

[Oliver Peters] "Then that means imposing a rather inflexible and closed method of organization that not everyone agrees is better nor that they want."

Fine, form the producer's pov, then maybe you don't get the job??? If unrelaistic demands are being set, then something has to give. Throw us editors a bone. At least give me scene/take. I don't see how attaching scene/take to clips is a closed form of organization, but whatever. have you seen: This from: this article?

[Oliver Peters] "SB is like PhraseFind. It's a search tool. "

For now. Or do you think they are done developing it?



Just to be clear, all of this is all based on assumptions; the blog post, the technology and it's adoption, and our jobs as editors and our role in the process.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:35:11 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "That was what I proposed, maybe you missed it."

No, I didn't miss it. I just don't see it as practical. Think of how much of a RAM hog this becomes. Not to mention the human interaction required to set this up.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I have talked about how loading footage and adding metadata is really easy in FCPX"

I know you are arguing that it's faster. It is when you stick to the limitations imposed by FCP X. Take for example custom notes. You can copy & paste these as groups in FCP 7 but not FCP X. Even the act of typing in custom info is slower in FCP X because every time you click on a clip the filmstrip has to be updated. That type of manual entry cannot be handled through metadata and is slower in FCP X.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Throw us editors a bone. At least give me scene/take. I don't see how attaching scene/take to clips is a closed form of organization"

Too bad FCP X can't actually read it. For example XML files from Alexa or Pomfort.

[Jeremy Garchow] "For now. Or do you think they are done developing it?"

Linking clips to an on-screen script is IP that belongs to Avid. As far as further development of SB... Who knows? No point in discussing unknowns, but I highly doubt much more effort will be put into it. The economics are faulty. I question whether enough FCP 7 - much less FCP X - users will buy SB. Most don't have a clue what it can do and think it's too expensive because they view it in the context of plug-in pricing. The nice thing is that it isn't dependent on FCP, which is good. Banking any product or workflow on Apple is a bit of a gamble. Most of the developers who survived from the FCP "legacy" ecosystem were sent scrambling when FCP X came out, as most of their sales tanked.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 12:29:30 am

[Oliver Peters] "No, I didn't miss it. I just don't see it as practical. Think of how much of a RAM hog this becomes. Not to mention the human interaction required to set this up."

Yeah, well FCPX isn't being used in the TV shoes, either (or TV shows). This is all based an assumptions that things are going to work and work well.

[Oliver Peters] "Take for example custom notes. You can copy & paste these as groups in FCP 7 but not FCP X. Even the act of typing in custom info is slower in FCP X because every time you click on a clip the filmstrip has to be updated. That type of manual entry cannot be handled through metadata and is slower in FCP X."

Not yet. Custom notes is part of the data that will be added during the edit as you watch it, but getting a roughly assembled cut might not need those notes to get an assembly.

[Oliver Peters] "Too bad FCP X can't actually read it. For example XML files from Alexa or Pomfort."

Not yet. Not yet.

[Oliver Peters] "As far as further development of SB... Who knows? No point in discussing unknowns, but I highly doubt much more effort will be put into it. "

really? Hmm. I guess if you add more functionality and make it available to a greater audience, that would mean more people can and would use it? I am thinking about buying it. This always comes up were we need to fudge a line/word and we have to look elsewhere to see if someone said it. RIght now we search the transcripts, it would be better if we could search the footage and link to it. I am waiting to see which NLE we end up on.

[Oliver Peters] "Most don't have a clue what it can do and think it's too expensive because they view it in the context of plug-in pricing. The nice thing is that it isn't dependent on FCP, which is good. Banking any product or workflow on Apple is a bit of a gamble. Most of the developers who survived from the FCP "legacy" ecosystem were sent scrambling when FCP X came out, as most of their sales tanked."

That's a problem with the industry, anything over free is too expensive for most people. People complain about FCPX project/event management a lot, and they get pointed to Event Manger X, which is a really great solution. Someone inevitably asks, is there a free version?

Apple did not leave a popcorn trail for developers, there's no question about that. It's pretty terrible.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 12:43:24 am

[Oliver Peters] "[Jeremy Garchow] "Throw us editors a bone. At least give me scene/take. I don't see how attaching scene/take to clips is a closed form of organization"

Too bad FCP X can't actually read it. For example XML files from Alexa or Pomfort."


I should add (again), that P2 scene/take and other metadata material does come in, as FCP X reads the P2 XML. So the capability seems to be in the application, it just doesn't seem to be available to the world yet.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 22, 2011 at 7:48:20 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "This will happen especially for younger folks for which computers and tagging are quite literally a way of life. They communicate by metadata, even if they don't know what that word means."

I"ll pop in with the kind of "real world" example I've run into maybe 50 times in shooting corporate stuff.

On location, you've put five takes in the can with a talent that learned the line "our new 120 count boxes of Weezies" whereupon someone from the client side runs in and screams "The manufacturer has just changed the shipping spec. The boxes are gonna be 130 count!"

So I have a bunch of clips that are now partially "toxic" (containing bad info) but not necessarily without some value since some part of the take might be useful before or after the bad into.

In post with X, the FIRST thing I'd do is refer to the field note, locate takes 1 thru 5 and decide whether I need to "hide" the entire bad takes or just mark the actual references with HIDE tags - my choice) by using the "rejected" command (along with "hide rejected" function) to "disappear" those takes from the event browser. For the primary edit, the problem remains out of sight, out of mind.

This "always in the display" show/hide function is a lot simpler than "hiding" rejected clips by stuffing them in folders in Legacy and its more powerful since instead of whole clips, it works equally well on ranges of clips - which gives me more choices on how to use it. That kind of tagging WILL make my editing go faster since I don't have to go "finder diving" anymore to retrieve rejected material. X has a built in way to show/hide not just whole clips, but even parts of clips based on the metadata tags.

As with much of X, that's different in a way I find "better" - YMMV.

"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

David Lawrence
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 8:42:24 pm

[Walter Soyka] "(Soyka's Law) "expectations rise at the same rate as capabilities."

Well said! "Soyka's Law" is a keeper.

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


Return to posts index

Mont Sherar
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Jan 2, 2012 at 10:50:04 pm

VERY well said!

________________________________
Mont Sherar Photography
http://www.fotoblur.com/portfolio/mont


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Jan 2, 2012 at 11:40:59 pm

[Mont Sherar] "VERY well said!"

Mont,

Unless you use the "q" button to quote the person you're talking about, as I did above, no one on the forum will have any idea what the heck you're referring to.

Here are the Cow instructions: To include any portion of the post in your response, highlight the desired text and hit the "Q" key.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Jan 2, 2012 at 11:44:14 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Mont,
Unless you use the "q" button to quote the person you're talking about, as I did above, no one on the forum will have any idea what the heck you're referring to. "


VERY well said!

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 1:04:30 am

[Christian Schumacher] "our conventions that agreeably have endured over a hundred years. "

Uh....

I'm confused as to which "conventions" your talking about?" TV was only developed in the late 40s' early 50s. Are you talking movies? Are you saying that somehow "cut on the action" or "dissolve implies passage of time" traditions that might have vaguely sorta been around since the magic lantern era can't be done with FCP-X?

Heck, I'll spot you 70 of those 100 years. If you can name an edit function that's been around for even that long that FCP-X can't do quite handily, I'll bow to your wisdom. But I don't believe you can. So your original post was simply more hyperbole, IMO.

"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

Christian Schumacher
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34:37 am

[Bill Davis] "I'm confused as to which "conventions" your talking about?"

Tracks, Bins, Sequences and Source/Record monitors.

Src/Rec is from TV, but the others are much older than that.
Not a 100yrs old exactly, but old enough to become deep rooted conventions.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 7:40:40 pm

[Shane Ross] "That shows how little you know about our world. The editor needs to be a skilled storyteller too. It is a collaboration. The director isn't in the bay just telling us what to do. We edit the footage without them there, and then they come in and give us notes."

But Shane,

That's just your experience.

Personally, I've seen so many possible permutations of what a client considers "an editor" or "a director" or "a producer" that I gave up on a single, easy to categorize definition decades ago.

It's anything from a deeply experienced pro who understands the possibilities and limitations that makes them effective in whichever hat they're wearing at the moment - to the idiot nephew of the financing party - who's given the "title" to keep them out of the way.

I've seen "editors" who are truly just button pushers who look to the director for approval every 5 seconds, and editors where it's obvious after 2 minutes in their suite that by far the best "direction" you can give them is to leave for a 4 hour coffee break to get out of their brains and let them do what they do really well.

The real issue, is that while good ones (most likely like you) are a joy - the reality is that with the economic downturn and gutting of the ranks of developing talent (everyone who was filtered-up out of the newbies and given raises to keep them around were also the first ones the "cost cutters" booted to cut costs) has caused a BIG gap in talent in the entire industry.

Want to find the experienced 45 years olds in this market who WERE the soul of creative industries like ours? Order a pizza. The chance is it will be delivered by a guy in that age group who can't find work in whatever they've been getting good at for the past 20 years.

That, IMO, is the hidden crisis in our industry. That original vision of a cadre of "pro editors" in shops all around the planet ready to help the newbies and provide the wisdom to run the new tools? D-E-C-I-M-A-T-E-D.

I'd actually be interested in hearing from the facility guys here. Ignore the "boss" and the managers and just look at the guys in the seats that comprise your editing crew - now estimate their median age. I'd be curious as to whether it's greater than or less than the average age of pizza delivery guys today.

Weird world we live in.

"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

Brian Mulligan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:25:57 am

Being a local broadcast editor, I have learned to edit fast. I have gone a very non traditional route with editing systems. GVG Sabre linear editor, Lightworks nonlinear, and then Smoke. So I have never edited with Avid or FCP7 or X. I have tinkered with fcpx early on.
Lightworks had a great interface and controller. It made looking at sources, choosing shots, and finessing trims as fat as I could think. Smoke is equally fast at editorial. I can look at 50 source clps at a single glance and scrub though them to make selections.
Lightworks worked the same.

Broadcat time frames are in hours and not days. I can cut a stylized promo like this...Graphics and all...



...in 6 hrs from import to export. Or I can rough cut a feature story 3-4mins in 8 hrs and completely color grade and audio mix in 12 hrs. I have made a career at editing fast and maintaing quality.

How fast your system works does matter. I don't think I can edit as fast or as detailed in
Premiere, the only other editor I have experience with. Right or wrong we all have had to do more with less....less money, less people and less time.

Fcpx is faster than fcp7.... How could it not be. I honestly think people should not compare the two. I think source material evaluation and rough editing are some of the strengths of fcpx. But anything more than that, it's weaknesses in trimming and finessing might become more apparent.
I know I could not use it for my purposes.

Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor - Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor


Return to posts index

John Joyce
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 7:19:34 am

With respect, I have a little problem with Bill's put-down. Narrow credentialism is a plague of our age, just IMHO of course.

"So Monsieur Fermat, what would you know about mathematics? Where's your Ph.D? Exactly. You're just an ****ing lawyer."

How far up the greasy corporate pole might Steve Jobs, sans MBA, have got? Indeed, how far even he had had one?

I modestly suggest that Aindreas has made a contribution worthy of consideration.

My interest is in how Apple has junked some conventional rules of marketing and strategy. HIgh-end products exist largely to motivate the aspirational segment. The girl who buys a Hermes scarf is very likely to aware of the Kelly bag, and to hope that someone some day will give her one. It has been said that the only reason BMW produces the 3-series is to make buyers want a 5-series. Do Canon and Nikon make their money from their top-of-the-line cameras? No, but buyers of compacts know that these are the brands on the big boys' cameras. And consider mavens, usually thought important. Where are the mavens going to come from for FCPX?

In terms of strategy, it is conventionally thought important to have a place at the top table of an industry, or at least not throw it away. I don't know of course, but it would surprise me if Steve had not worked the phones, and called in more than a few favors when Avid attempted to cease Mac development. Do you think Apple is in as good a position to do that now, if Avid and Adobe pull the plug on Macs? Who expects howls of protest from Hollywood producers next time?

A problem Apple faces is its size. It is hard to make decent returns on huge capital. But do you think there is a sustainable competitive advantage in, ah, gadgets? Samsung seems to have an idea on how to deal with it:

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/12/16/samsung-uses-the-court-procedures-vs...


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 2:15:16 pm

[John Joyce] "Where are the mavens going to come from for FCPX?"

Doesn't Bill Davis qualify?

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


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 2:53:43 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[John Joyce] "Where are the mavens going to come from for FCPX?"

Doesn't Bill Davis qualify?"


:-)
FWIW


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:08:16 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Doesn't Bill Davis qualify?"

Absolutely not.

I'm not as good an editor as many here. And I'm not even as familiar with X as many here - from whom I learn much in these discussions regularly.

The only thing I bring to the party is an almost pathological intolerance for one-sidedness.

I hate it because it stifles thinking. It narrows options. And it dumbs down discourse.

That is precisely what I saw happening here almost from day one. People so gleefully ready to trash something that they (at the time) had astonishingly little understanding about. (I actually had as little understanding myself, I just didn't feel as threatened and felt that Apple's long string of successes that have helped my business grow had earned them some time to show me why they did what they did - something I"m extremely happy that happened, because X has become a very useful tool in my editing toolkit - something that would not have happened if I'd listened to the half-dozen voices here that just couldn't see it in any context beyond "the end of everything good in the world."

The voices that question FCP-X and espouse rational reasons and keep open minds I respect. And can usually learn from them.

The ones who keep trashing it like it's some lurking child molester and they're babysitting a room full of cute kids - they deserve to be called out occasionally. And sorry, but drunk or not, Aindreas went there in public, so I'm comfortable with my criticism of his post.

I'd probably enjoy a pint with him if our paths ever cross. But for those who come hear to get some semblance of a balanced view of the programs capabilities (and weaknesses) I stand behind what I wrote.

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

David Roth Weiss
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:52:48 pm

[Bill Davis] "The only thing I bring to the party is an almost pathological intolerance for one-sidedness."

Absolutely hilarious!!!

Are you trying to be funny Bill, or is this just accidental?

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

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 6:18:46 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Are you trying to be funny Bill, or is this just accidental?"

It's "accidental" in precisely the same way that in classic debate, the "pro" or the "con" sides each argue from a point of view.

I don't try to make the other sides points - and I'm fine that they don't try to make mine.

That's the difference between debate and propaganda, now isn't it?

I know it's a complex concept, David, but in this style of discussion, each party is not required to be "balanced" - but rather to provide the alternative view.

It's presumed that the audience is sophisticated enough to understand that each party might well understand the positions on both sides - and perhaps even agree with some of each.

But debate utterly fails if both parties merely argue the same position.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 9:29:23 am

I definitely have to cut fast. No question. I work in an extremely deadline driven business. What I don't get from reading Hodgetts' article is how FCP X will make my work go faster. The only thing I really get from reading his article is that he might not fully understand how to optimize FCP 7 for speed.


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 12:53:06 pm

Hmm,

I cant' use FCPX for the few real editing jobs per year, it simply doesn't match the needs I have. I can't do it with PPro, we have tried Avid and Media 100 - didn't match my needs as well. Haven't tried others. FCP in it's later versions had been a good editor for 'rough' cuts. I finalized all the stuff in AE - and I still use FCP7 and AE for my jobs.
Machines go faster every day, but as mentioned before the things which matter most quite often (maybe mostly) are the setup and organization of workflows. And that's from my opinion is the most important thing.
In old days when German Bertelsmann hold a lot of shares of AOL I was always asked to make the promos for press and one for the CEBIT show for the large screen. They always said "it's the last time you do it" when they called mr two weeks before the show - having no idea about a script, no idea about style, no idea about music etc. Only some numbers which they want to show were given.
We had been a very small production house, but had been well organized. That time we used FileMaker Pro to organize and 'keywording' our own stuff. Was a really huge data base. So compared to the big guys with the big machines and the big software, we were much better organized. We were able to develop an idea, search for stock, maybe quickly improvise some additional shooting and based on the idea let some people create a kind of 'sound floor'. We always got the job - till the german company sold their shares from AOL.
These crazy jobs could be an example where FCPX could shine (for some jobs). Keywording and Batch-Metadata-Change are excellent done. Preview is mostly real time without the need of rendering - though at a certain time of point you will need to render.

The example Brian Mulligan posted before could be a good example for FCPX & Motion - if you're organized. Can be done with FCPX, if you're prepared for that kind of job.

Philip Hodgetts would be right if he says "two times faster up to four times faster" and add the kind of project where it applies. I could give some different results.
I do understand Jeremy when he says it's working well.
I don't understand Aindreas comments - in many cases.

Anyway FCPX as now more or less is a 0.9 version (like many other apps when they change features, handling etc. - fix some bugs and add new ones). I know about that - as sometimes I write some apps.

So conclusion (from my side):
Same as Brian Mulligan: "I know I could not use it for my purposes."
Different from the above: I do care about FCPX, do send bug reports and feature requests - more people should do that.

Again my 2 cents (maybe all the "2 cents" which are given here should be sent to a real bank account, which could be used for some charity purposes)

Andreas

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 1:40:16 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I definitely have to cut fast. No question. I work in an extremely deadline driven business. What I don't get from reading Hodgetts' article is how FCP X will make my work go faster. The only thing I really get from reading his article is that he might not fully understand how to optimize FCP 7 for speed.
"


How much have you played with FCPX at this point? How about PPro or any other NLE?

There's only so much you can do to "speed up" or optimize fcp7 and let's be realistic, fcp7 is not a very fast NLE, except in XML transfers.

Sure, if you have a few supported .movs to import, that's one thing.

But tens of hours of tapeless formats that must be transcoded is another.

There are certain areas in which FCPX falls flat on its face (which all stem mostly around interchnage), but as a self contained editor where you don't need much interaction with the outside world, it is much much faster than legacy feature for feature.

Just curious Chris, but do you ever start from zero on any projects? Meaning, you are given a hard drive of 500GBs of raw footage and audio that you need to prep and organize?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:17:43 pm

Jeremy, I'm certainly not trying to debate that FCP X is not faster or better for some things. I have no doubt that it is. Sorry if you took it that way. My concern is mostly that PH is making statements about Industry work, and that the example he gives--access to SFX libraries, for instance-- can all been done as quickly and easily in FCP 7. But, hey--I'll answer your questions:

[Jeremy Garchow] "How much have you played with FCPX at this point? How about PPro or any other NLE?
"


FCP X? Only a little at this point, and just out of curiosity. I just can't justify the time until someone makes a good argument about how it will fit successfully into my work flow. I'm also not convinced of its future, yet. When I am, I will either pretty much split from this forum, or will spend a whole lot more time on the techniques forum.


[Jeremy Garchow] " How about PPro or any other NLE?"

Not PPro. But I've been a paid editor on almost all other NLEs. Some still exist. Some do not.

[Jeremy Garchow] "let's be realistic, fcp7 is not a very fast NLE, "

I know that others seem to feel that way, but I don't understand it, at least from my perspective. I find it relatively responsive on my laptop, and very responsive on my 8 Core. Just for reference, the CODECs and flavors I use most often are ProRes HQ @1080 (in all fps), uncompressed 10 bit in SD, and sometimes DVCpro HD. I do occasional Sizzle reels that mix everything from AVI files to ProRes HQ.

One thing I should say is that I do use long developed editorial practices and procedures--for instance, turning bugs or certain filters off while editing, or leaving items I'm not working on un-rendered--but from what I'm reading in the the Techniques forum, background rendering and gfx creep seem to be adding their own bug-a-boos to FCP X.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Sure, if you have a few supported .movs to import, that's one thing.

But tens of hours of tapeless formats that must be transcoded is another. "


I agree completely. And this is definitely one of the areas--that if I were working in--I would be much more interested in either FCP X and/or Premiere right now. My work generally does come to me taplessly--I don't think I've had to capture for over two years now--but they are in the relatively few supported formats I mentioned above.

[Jeremy Garchow] "There are certain areas in which FCPX falls flat on its face (which all stem mostly around interchnage), but as a self contained editor where you don't need much interaction with the outside world, it is much much faster than legacy feature for feature. "

Jeremy, that may be true for you--and many others--but it certainly isn't true for everybody. If I'm working on a trailer with a heavy deadline, I can cut from locked picture off of an Avid dump on DVCproHD, and than easily replace it with final picture using almost every other existing NLE, except FCP X.

And you say it is "much, much faster... feature for feature"--what on earth does that mean? You might find it so, but a lot of people don't. The very fact that it lacks tracks, bins to organize, no way to have multiple sequences open make it much, much slower for many people.

Here's the thing, man. I'm happy if it is faster for you. If it ever turns out to be faster for me, I'll be happy too.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Just curious Chris, but do you ever start from zero on any projects? Meaning, you are given a hard drive of 500GBs of raw footage and audio that you need to prep and organize?"

Yes, I do. All the time. If you mean from absolute scratch, then:

Not as often as I like, because I seem to have become niched and highly specialized, which has its rewards but also its distinct drawbacks. I've got a documentary I'm working on right now--right now being a relative term, in that it is a long process--about NC, Andrew, and Jaimie Wyeth. I also start occasional film promos from dailies or dumps of dailies.

Of course scratch can mean something else, as well:

My current promo project takes up a little under 3 TB in source, not including access to my SFX library (made up of four other full libraries). I expect this to get a bit larger, though not by much--maybe another TB at most. There are only about 400-500 source files in the project--not including SFX--so the number is small, but 40-50 of those files are 42+ Min long, and need to be prepped by removing unnecessary audio channels and then converted into multiple selects timelines that act as bins. So, what I lose in sheer number, I make up for in time and attention.

So, the answer is yes in both respects.

Again, Jeremy, I do not doubt that FCP X has its advantages. I don't doubt that there are many people for whom it is the best choice. I only take exception because PH seemed to be arguing that FCP X was a better solution for the world I work in, and--to me--that is clearly not the case.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:53:22 pm

[Chris Harlan] "FCP X? Only a little at this point, and just out of curiosity. I just can't justify the time until someone makes a good argument about how it will fit successfully into my work flow."

Completely understandable.

[Chris Harlan] "Not PPro. But I've been a paid editor on almost all other NLEs. Some still exist. Some do not."

But have you taken a look around recently or has it been all FCP7 all the time? Just wondering, not judging. I work with FCP7 most of the time, too. FCPX is still in testing for us at this point, but I do try and kick the tires every day if I can. I just added PPro to the list as well, alas there's only so much time in the day!

[Chris Harlan] "One thing I should say is that I do use long developed editorial practices and procedures--for instance, turning bugs or certain filters off while editing, or leaving items I'm not working on un-rendered--but from what I'm reading in the the Techniques forum, background rendering and gfx creep seem to be adding their own bug-a-boos to FCP X."

Yes, but it's much much better than FCP7. FCP7 without effects/text is fine, once you start adding even the little effects, things get much slower. FCPX offers much more real time support, and I might get some flak for this, but sometimes it feels like sketching. Also, green screen work is pretty damn sweet in FCPX, even if it's just for an offline. Doing this in FCP7 is a chore. Straight editing in FCP7 with ProRes files is fine, though.

[Chris Harlan] "If I'm working on a trailer with a heavy deadline, I can cut from locked picture off of an Avid dump on DVCproHD, and than easily replace it with final picture using almost every other existing NLE, except FCP X. "

As I said, it falls flat on it's face for interchange. That's not what I mean when I say feature for feature. FCPX as of right now, is a bit of an island. So, feature for feature (and removing the huge duty of interchange) I am talking about import, organize, edit, fx, text, audio and color, all finishing right in the application. I understand that conform to another master file like we have talked about with your workflow doesn't work with FCPX at this time. I am talking about starting from scratch with camera raw and building a story, using those files to finish. This is something I can get closer to doing in X than I can with FCP7.

[Chris Harlan] "The very fact that it lacks tracks, bins to organize, no way to have multiple sequences open make it much, much slower for many people. "

Well, it certainly works differently. It does take some getting used to, no question. There are ways to do everything you mentioned here, but there are no bins or tabbed sequences, yet there are functions to mimic those very things. I am not saying it's perfect or works the same, but you can't expect FCPX to work like FCP7 because it doesn't. I can understand if people don't want to get used to that fact. It's a big point of contention, and some people like the new UI, some don't.

In my younger days, people used to say that M100 works "the way I think" when compared to FCP the younger (version 2 and 3). Well, in certain ways, FCPX does this for me, especially in the organizational phase. Of course, it won't work for everyone that way, and Philip Hodgetts says that X is not for everyone either.

[Chris Harlan] "Not as often as I like, because I seem to have become niched and highly specialized, which has its rewards but also its distinct drawbacks. I've got a documentary I'm working on right now--right now being a relative term, in that it is a long process--about NC, Andrew, and Jaimie Wyeth. I also start occasional film promos from dailies or dumps of dailies.

Of course scratch can mean something else, as well:

My current promo project takes up a little under 3 TB in source, not including access to my SFX library (made up of four other full libraries). I expect this to get a bit larger, though not by much--maybe another TB at most. There are only about 400-500 source files in the project--not including SFX--so the number is small, but 40-50 of those files are 42+ Min long, and need to be prepped by removing unnecessary audio channels and then converted into multiple selects timelines that act as bins. So, what I lose in sheer number, I make up for in time and attention.

So, the answer is yes in both respects.

Again, Jeremy, I do not doubt that FCP X has its advantages. I don't doubt that there are many people for whom it is the best choice. I only take exception because PH seemed to be arguing that FCP X was a better solution for the world I work in, and--to me--that is clearly not the case."


Absolutely. Thanks for that. I think Ph is offering X has certain strengths to help speed up certain workflows, even though it's not quite there yet.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:19:53 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "Not PPro. But I've been a paid editor on almost all other NLEs. Some still exist. Some do not."

But have you taken a look around recently or has it been all FCP7 all the time? Just wondering, not judging. I work with FCP7 most of the time, too. FCPX is still in testing for us at this point, but I do try and kick the tires every day if I can. I just added PPro to the list as well, alas there's only so much time in the day!
"


No. Media Composer every now-and-then. And now, I'm beefing up my skills there so that I can transition to that more exclusively over the next couple of years. FWIW, I'd be interested in PPro if agencies ever take it to heart. Also, if the brightest projections for FCP X do come about, I could see moving back that way. I'd probably be interested in Smoke, if it weren't unjustifiable overkill for what I do. But, if the right project comes...

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, but it's much much better than FCP7. FCP7 without effects/text is fine, once you start adding even the little effects, things get much slower. FCPX offers much more real time support, and I might get some flak for this, but sometimes it feels like sketching. Also, green screen work is pretty damn sweet in FCPX, even if it's just for an offline. Doing this in FCP7 is a chore. Straight editing in FCP7 with ProRes files is fine, though.
"


Definitely, effects can slow things on the Macbook Pro. The MacPro, however, seems to be pretty agile at sweating the small stuff. I hear green screen is great. I always do mine in Motion, so--yeah--that would be slower.



[Jeremy Garchow] "Chris Harlan] "The very fact that it lacks tracks, bins to organize, no way to have multiple sequences open make it much, much slower for many people. "

Well, it certainly works differently. It does take some getting used to, no question. There are ways to do everything you mentioned here, but there are no bins or tabbed sequences, yet there are functions to mimic those very things. I am not saying it's perfect or works the same, but you can't expect FCPX to work like FCP7 because it doesn't. I can understand if people don't want to get used to that fact. It's a big point of contention, and some people like the new UI, some don't.

In my younger days, people used to say that M100 works "the way I think" when compared to FCP the younger (version 2 and 3). Well, in certain ways, FCPX does this for me, especially in the organizational phase. Of course, it won't work for everyone that way, and Philip Hodgetts says that X is not for everyone either.
"


Pretty much agreed. Frankly, Jeremy, I generally find your tempered assessment of FCP X's virtues far more insightful and useful than PH's. No disrespect to PH; I just think he's gotten himself caught up in a whirlwind as an evangelist/apologist, and it is perhaps difficult for him to get perspective.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:34:37 pm

[Chris Harlan] " No disrespect to PH; I just think he's gotten himself caught up in a whirlwind as an evangelist/apologist, and it is perhaps difficult for him to get perspective."

Philip can certainly defend himself, but in my discussions with him, Philip is a great believer in the power of metadata, as his Assisted Editing products attest. I think that's where he sees the speed - Smart Collections, Keywords, etc. IOW the automatic tagging versus manual entry of data. If you don't use those functions in any NLE, then I think a lot of the speed advantage is negated. FCP X is faster ONLY if you do things that are inherently slower in FCP 7 or MC.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:41:39 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Frankly, Jeremy, I generally find your tempered assessment of FCP X's virtues far more insightful and useful than PH's. No disrespect to PH; I just think he's gotten himself caught up in a whirlwind as an evangelist/apologist, and it is perhaps difficult for him to get perspective."

Ha! I'm just a rather blogless dude who edits outside of Hollywood. Don't listen to me!!! ;-D Thank you, though.

I do see where Philip is coming from, and he took it directly from real working editors talking about their jobs and the newer pressures within. This idea of having less time to do more is not from Philip, but from "the industry". I think he's rather balanced saying that it's not for everyone, but does seem to explain at least some of the FCPX approach. 2012 will be yet another interesting year.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 7:52:18 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Frankly, Jeremy, I generally find your tempered assessment of FCP X's virtues far more insightful and useful than PH's. No disrespect to PH; I just think he's gotten himself caught up in a whirlwind as an evangelist/apologist, and it is perhaps difficult for him to get perspective.""

[Jeremy Garchow] "Ha! I'm just a rather blogless dude who edits outside of Hollywood. Don't listen to me!!! ;-D Thank you, though."

I'll second Chris's statement.

I doubt I'd still be following this forum if it weren't for you and your contributions, Jeremy -- so thanks again for sharing your perspective. It is very valuable.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I do see where Philip is coming from, and he took it directly from real working editors talking about their jobs and the newer pressures within. This idea of having less time to do more is not from Philip, but from "the industry". I think he's rather balanced saying that it's not for everyone, but does seem to explain at least some of the FCPX approach."

Unfortunately, I don't think the time pressure the editors at Editors' Lounge discuss in the Vimeo links can be solved only with technology. I'd encourage everyone to actually watch (or listen to) to the video series that PH linked to. I don't think that his pro-FCPX response actually addresses the challenges that the editors raised.

Shooting ratios are up. Schedules are down. This is a terrible combination. Editors are expected to make good stories, but they have less time to review more footage. They are forced into making snap decisions about what shots to use and how to use them.

Sure, being able to skip transcode is good. Being able to tag footage so you could find it later would be good -- if there were time for that in the first place, which there isn't.

As much as I love the skimmer and metadata, even a perfectly implemented NLE will not watch your footage for you in the first place, and that's where the time crunch is hitting.

Another issue that PH seems to think that FCPX solves is that no one knows how to watch a rough cut anyone, so editors have to waste time unnecessarily polishing a work-in-progress. Whatever temp "finishing" (again, I'd call this veneering) work is done in the rough cut will be thrown out when the cut gets to the audio department or the colorist. Every minute that a creative editor spends doing temporary and fake finishing work for the sake of the rough cut is a minute taken away from their actual job, which is building the story. Whether you're on a compressed schedule or not, not letting the creative editor do their job is a real tragedy that reduces the quality of the final product.

I'll spare Bill from having to remind us about how many videos will never see dedicated audio or finishing post. While I don't disagree, I think the same problem exists here, too: if you're on a compressed schedule and you're doing finishing work before the piece is finished, you risk wasting time finishing pieces that will end up on the cutting room floor, and that time might have been better spent actually editing.

Back to this "FCPX is 200% to 400% faster" idea, supported by the notion that you can finish within the context of the edit, even Autodesk only claims that Smoke is 35% faster. They also actually back up the claim with some data [link].

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:06:24 pm

[Walter Soyka] "
I'll second Chris's statement.

I doubt I'd still be following this forum if it weren't for you and your contributions, Jeremy -- so thanks again for sharing your perspective. It is very valuable."


Thank you, Walter. I enjoy the healthy conversations! I like some of what I see in FCPX, and of course there's some things that just aren't ready. I do not post from the perspective of an Apple fanboy/diehard even though at times I might sound like one. If there was another program that handled footage in this way (and from an earlier post, it sounds like Smoke/Lightworks might have versions of this as well) I would be excited about this too.

I edit, I have pretty decent amounts of work that I shuffle around, and if X fits the bill, I'm all for it. The database approach to it I find to be great and rather unique. It keeps me interested despite in the missing interchange language, more professional tools, and instability.

[Walter Soyka] "As much as I love the skimmer and metadata, even a perfectly implemented NLE will not watch your footage for you in the first place, and that's where the time crunch is hitting."

I agree, but FCP X allows much faster and direct access to the footage more so than PPro and Avid. And tagging as you watch or as you go is great. I maintain that FCPX allows you to dive in much sooner than other applications, at least that's what I find.

[Walter Soyka] "Another issue that PH seems to think that FCPX solves is that no one knows how to watch a rough cut anyone, "

I greatly relate to this. Certain people in the biz have no idea what a first cut is, even people that work at places that you would think would know what a first cut is and this relates to what I was saying before about most of our clients being removed from the edit process. They don't sit there while I bring in and organize the footage, while I sync audio, while I watch slates and add in scene and take number to match the audio log/script notes/storyboards, while I make window burn transcription copies before I can even GET to the edit. They have no idea how long this might take, or why after spending a coupe of days getting all this stuff in, I might need to walk away for a second. We do not have assistants, we handle all of it.

There's certain people when I'm editing a job, that I know I can explain to them that this is simply a first cut and they can fill in the blanks. Others, I simply cannot give them this responsibility. So, in the interest of keeping good client relations, I need to polish, and (it's really a spit shine) as much as possible before they can fully grasp the concepts. If I don't spit shine, the client is really unhappy or starts changing things before they are even conceived because they simply "don't get it" or see the whole picture. Of course, that brings us to here:





So, this leaves me with a choice to make. I can do like Shane and Rafael are going to do, and push it back at them and say "you just have to wait a minute" or I can rush rush rush, spit shine it to get initial approval more quickly to buy me some time down the road a piece. The client does not care, and if I show what they might perceive as a substandard piece of work for the first review out of the gate, it might poison the rest of the process. If I have to bust my hump to have an initial "buy in", then so be it. I feel this is part of what's being brought up by the editors and subsequently Philip Hodgetts. I really wish I could tell everyone to hold on, but sometimes I can't.

That Smoke doc you sent is great, but the starting point is an 8 minute edited sequence, which is what this 80% seems to allude to in the blog post (From Smoke article: "Starting point for the benchmark was a basic 8 minute segment of the project edited in a multi-product workflow, comprising all the sequences."). This has nothing to do with actually bringing in , organizing and editing the footage. Let me try and say this another way. FCPX allows you to start bringing in footage and tagging it immediately, even if there's transcoding to do. This is unique to X. Even if the footage transcodes during an idle time or finishes transcoding overnight while I get some sleep, all of the simultaneous tagging that I did on the temp files (even if it's rudimentary tagging at first) is not lost. With FCP7, if I had to log and transfer, I would have to log all the footage first, then keep adding it to the queue, and every time a new clip starts transferring, the log and transfer window keeps popping back to the front (I don't know if you've ever logged and transferred, but try naming files while FCP7 L&Ts in the "Background". It can be maddening). You cannot set multiple bins for log and transferred footage, so you either have to drag the clips to a bin while they come in, or wait until the end to sort the footage. X, again, simplifies this as there are no bins, yet the clips can live in simultaneous places. I can't stress how this is completely awesome, although some people really hate it for some reason. Then, there's the tagging of ranges. Again, I find it really really handy, and removes the containerly nature of camera starts/stops, and moves it to the containerly nature of bits of hardcore organization no matter what clip the footage is in. The browser allows you to mentally grasp rather large quantities of footage almost at a glance. You can keyword or tag it with multiple references, even obscure ones, for easier finding later. Now, there's the whole metadata section (separate from the browser) of FCPX in which you can rename your clips in your browser based on whatever criteria you want. It is immensely powerful. And fast. Aindreas (but not Andreas) might be on to something that some craziness going on at Apple, but there's quite a bit of the good kind of crazy in there.

This to me, is FCPX's greatest strength, and I think what Philip is talking about. The pressures of getting stuff done faster is real, very real, for me so I imagine it is for a lot of other people as well. If FCPX helps get me to the first cut faster, then I feel OK about that. I truly appreciate FCPX treating my video clips as data, because that's exactly what they are. The database simultaneously allows me to remember my clips as a big group, or in granular collections, as well identifying things in a extremely fast physical manipulation. Again, I am Ok with that, it helps me creatively as I don't have to remember the physical binned location of each shot, I just have to remember how I remembered (and subsequently tagged) the shot when I viewed it. This is huge. The collections also give a location if that's what I need.

Some people might not like this approach. Personally, I think it helps the creative process, even it didn't save time. But it seems to be saving time as well.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:34:21 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "That Smoke doc you sent is great, but the starting point is an 8 minute edited sequence"

Sheesh! Why is Smoke even part of this discussion? Smoke is a very advanced finishing system that *can* be used for creative (rough cut) editing. FCP X is creative (rough cut) editing tool that *can* be used for finishing. I see VERY LITTLE overlap. If anything, they are complementary - start on FCP X and add the finesse in Smoke. Seems like potentially an ideal set-up for a larger shop: numerous FCP X stations with a few Smokes. At some point down the road, networked into some viable fashion for effective collaboration. Toss in Resolve and maybe Logic and it could be a strong mix.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 11:02:52 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Why is Smoke even part of this discussion?"

A better question is this: Why is FCP7?

People are looking for a way forward. Good comparisons are hard to come by; good discussions, harder.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 11:13:29 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Good comparisons are hard to come by; good discussions, harder?"

Did you actually read the rest of the post before hitting send? No offense, but your statement seems to contradict your intention.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 11:15:38 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] I'll add to the compliments to you Jeremy (and those here in general): This forum offers so much more perspective.

That's from my post down below - but if it isn't clear, I think this forum is great!

My comment in post above was referring to PH orig blog - I'm not sure what it contributes.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 11:21:36 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Sheesh! Why is Smoke even part of this discussion?"

I brought it up as a counterexample to Philip Hodgett's nebulous claim that "FCPX is 200% to 400% faster."

When Autodesk claims to be faster, they are very specific: they are 35% faster at finishing than a multi-app workflow, and they back it up with some data.

You'll get no argument from me that FCPX is faster than FCP7 at many tasks, but I think that an effort to quantify it and its real impact on editorial deserves more specificity.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 6:01:43 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I'd probably be interested in Smoke, if it weren't unjustifiable overkill for what I do. But, if the right project comes..."

By the way, Smoke would seemingly be awesome for us too, but alas to get 4 seats of it isn't quite practical at this time, even 2 seats. I have high hopes for the next CS release. We use the rest of the Adobe suite all the time, and I am curious what's going to happen with the Speedgrade acquisition.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 12:09:31 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "I'd probably be interested in Smoke, if it weren't unjustifiable overkill for what I do. But, if the right project comes..."

By the way, Smoke would seemingly be awesome for us too, but alas to get 4 seats of it isn't quite practical at this time, even 2 seats. I have high hopes for the next CS release. We use the rest of the Adobe suite all the time, and I am curious what's going to happen with the Speedgrade acquisition.

"


Keep it down. Oliver doesn't want us talking about this.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 12:12:23 am

[Chris Harlan] "Keep it down. Oliver doesn't want us talking about this."

LOL. I'm running it on my machine as well.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 12:29:14 am

[Chris Harlan] "Keep it down. Oliver doesn't want us talking about this."

I am laughing out loud. I forgot, this is polarization of (former) Apple enthusiasts forum after all. Why talk about anything else???


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 1:04:05 pm

FCPX is certainly faster, I can say this because I've been using it more or less every day for the last few months, I used FCP for years so I am qualified to make the comparison.

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


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 1:30:14 pm

Steve,

If you say:
FCPX is certainly faster, I can say this because I've been using it more or less every day for the last few months, I used FCP for years so I am qualified to make the comparison.


I could say:
FCPX might be faster in some cases, I can say this because I've been using it more or less every day for the last few months, I used FCP since first beta so I am qualified to make the comparison.


Andreas :)

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 1:34:22 pm

I think it's pretty silly to project psychological motives onto any corporate entity. Successful companies work towards two goals: make good products and make money to continue the process. Some more on one side and some on the other. Apple clearly casts itself as leaning heavily towards only caring about the product, but they (and we) have been best off when they also paid a lot of attention to making money.

FCP X is entirely in line with their stated motives of making products that they internally believe are right and wanted. So, "listening to customers" really hasn't been in their DNA for a long time, if ever. Whether or not FCP X is right depends on many factors. Same for whether it is faster or not.

It will evolve. Hopefully the bugginess will go away and it will be better optimized. It certainly will find a place in all of our workflows. I suspect even in LA. Just imagine the first time a producer hands a cut to an editor, which the producer had started on FCP X. Might not be the case in episodic TV, but I can guarantee you it will happen in docs, commercials, etc. That will be a point of decision for many, same as happened with FCP 1-7.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16:22 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It will evolve. Hopefully the bugginess will go away and it will be better optimized."

That's at the heart of it really. That it will evolve and that one hopes it will become more more stable and usable.

I really can't talk about speed, right at the moment projects take longer to complete with FCP X than they did with FCP7.

But I couldn't go backwards or sideways (to another NLE system) at the moment.

I can't invest anymore learning time into FCP7, it's been EOL'd, I've no desire of it anymore.

The large investment in learning time that I've put into FCPX is starting to pay off, I'm now understanding the app (I know as many keyboard shortcuts as I did with FCP7) and I've learnt how to get around most of the problems I come across.

But it is not faster. However I can only edit as fast as I can think anyway. So right at the moment the buggy present iteration of FCPX and myself are on a level par.


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 3:46:40 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I think it's pretty silly to project psychological motives onto any corporate entity. Successful companies work towards two goals: make good products and make money to continue the process."

It isn't that silly when a certain corporate entity is surrounded with a golden aura of wholeness and it's fiercely backed up by its customers as if it was a sort of religion that drives them blindly towards its products and far away of the "others". The way that Apple is progressively promoting itself, as a complete solution capable of re-inventing our lives, is becoming eerily close to a cult, and that of course is only achieved because of the reactions that Apple is able to gather around itself coming from its widening "fan base". Sociopathic behavior is often understood as "antisocial", but in Apple's case, I would call it "antiothers". And that's typical of a cult filosofy.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:06:27 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "It isn't that silly when a certain corporate entity is surrounded with a golden aura of wholeness and it's fiercely backed up by its customers as if it was a sort of religion"

Sure, you've got as point. I think it's silly in both directions, whether coming from customers (pro and con) or whether it's coming from internal marketing spin (aka "the reality distortion field").

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:31:57 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Sure, you've got as point. I think it's silly in both directions, whether coming from customers (pro and con) or whether it's coming from internal marketing spin (aka "the reality distortion field").
"


There aren't that many Corps. that get away with "you're holding it wrong," and have the faithful respond with, "oh, pardon me."


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:40:37 pm

[Chris Harlan] "There aren't that many Corps. that get away with "you're holding it wrong," and have the faithful respond with, "oh, pardon me.""

True, but there's nothing inherently wrong with a company defending its product designs or points-of-view. And "antenna-gate" really isn't a great example (though it provides great fodder for levity), because Apple got plenty of push-back. They offered a remedy and subsequently altered the design.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:54:55 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Chris Harlan] "There aren't that many Corps. that get away with "you're holding it wrong," and have the faithful respond with, "oh, pardon me.""

True, but there's nothing inherently wrong with a company defending its product designs or points-of-view. And "antenna-gate" really isn't a great example (though it provides great fodder for levity), because Apple got plenty of push-back. They offered a remedy and subsequently altered the design."


All true. I just can't resist now and then. Frankly, I didn't think anything of it until I read the bio (I still had my 3GS) So it is still a bit fresh for me.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:40:29 pm

[Oliver Peters] "True, but there's nothing inherently wrong with a company defending its product designs or points-of-view. And "antenna-gate" really isn't a great example (though it provides great fodder for levity), because Apple got plenty of push-back. They offered a remedy and subsequently altered the design."

I believe the point being made was that the design was altered in the next version the 4s. Those with the iPhone4 were told that the problem was imaginary and here's your phone condom to make everything all right. That was a P.R. disaster and worthy spin of some pathetic political party, not Apple.

As I said in another post, we should expect more of this. This is the Tim Cook way... bring everything to market faster. At some point you start out driving your headlights and you begin to have a string of less than stellar releases... like the iPhone 4... FCPX, OSX Lion, and iCloud. Forget any perceived shortcomings, they all had major defects that made it past testing and into the public release. In the past, that wouldn't have happened with Apple. As Dylan said, "the times they are a changing".

Too be fair to Apple, this isn't unique to them. Mercedes went from #1 in quality to a severe drop, until they publicly admitted it, and then increased the product testing cycle back to what it was before they release a product to the public. Maybe Apple will make the same decision at some point?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:34:34 pm

[Chris Harlan] "There aren't that many Corps. that get away with "you're holding it wrong," and have the faithful respond with, "oh, pardon me.""

Why does this make me laugh thinking of the slick music video I saw where the star rapper was singing into the END of a Neumann U87.

(for the music gear unfamiliar, the U87 is a very expensive German side-address mic. So singing into the end of it is the precise musical equivalent of "you're holding it wrong.")

Also, since the whole, "you're holing it wrong" meme was born from the iPhone 4 antenna field tests - it I guess it makes people feel superior to riff on that - but if the way you hold something actually tests out to diminish it's function (and for those who don't recall, it was the crazy Apple fanboy crew at Consumer Reports who withheld their recommendation because of it (IIRC) and brought the whole stink to light — shouldn't that be relevant? Most of us who owned iPhones at that time, just yawned, bought a case so we didn't inadvertently short the tiny antenna gap on the frame - whether or not it was a "real" issue - and got back to life.

That the overall phone design delighted legions and it sold zillions was trivial, I guess, in the face of the superior thinking of the haters.

I can personally attest that there's nothing quite so annoying as stumbling over actual facts along the path to one's smugness.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 3:15:52 pm

Two key quotes

"Let’s assume that it’s only twice as fast as Final Cut Pro 7. Some of that is simply because of a modern foundation that drops any requirement for transcoding or rendering effects, and that’s shared with other modern NLEs like Premiere Pro, Vegas, Media Composer and Edius. But some is because of the way the interface has been redesigned."

Much of this whole concept about faster compares FCPX to Legacy and that is a straw man analogy. The comparison needs to be to either something like Avid 6 or FCP8, the 64 bti version that could have, and in many opinions, should have been written.

Any time saving due to ability to natively edit with tapeless codecs is moot, since ALL modern NLE's can do that. By all accounts FCPX lags behind PPro in that capacity still.

What's up for discussion is how the new interface speeds editing, and on that I see no consensus. Since I have never touched FCPX I have no opinion in that area, but I have yet to see a compelling explanation as to how the FCPX timeline speeds up work in "most instances."

Statements like "it speeds up my work by half" is interesting, but not compelling without the how; and the work done needs to represent reasonably complex work or it won't apply to many here; obviously the theory being if it can do complex work, it can do simple work but the reverse is not necessarily true.

"The thing is, if we have one NLE that’s noticeably faster in use, that word will get out to producers and, guess what? Producers and executives like things done faster because that’s the direction they’ve been pushing. (Oh, and faster is usually cheaper.) If a two week job can be done in one, if a one week job can be done in three days, then whoever is doing it will adopt the tool that lets it be done in three days, or they’ll be looking for other work."

This of course will be the final evidence. If it's faster in complex workflows, then everyone here will shut up and use it.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 3:56:44 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Any time saving due to ability to natively edit with tapeless codecs is moot, since ALL modern NLE's can do that. By all accounts FCPX lags behind PPro in that capacity still."

I wouldn't discount this. Yes, FCPX still has work to do in this regard as far a native support (not codec, but container. We are talking about it here: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/22730 ). What it does have is background proxy creation while you edit, it can also make higher quality ProRes transcodes in the background as well. This is a pretty sweet feature if you ask me. It's a preference change to go from Proxy to high quality transcodes.

Avid has something similar (I think) where you can make DNxHD MXF files of the AMA files, but from what I understand, this isn't done in the background. Someone correct me if I am wrong there.

PPro, at least with CS5.5, makes some sort of cache files that you have zero control over, and sometimes don't really help (they seem to be audio related). And if you want to make proxy files, how do you do it? You'd have to do it through third party apps. FCPXs workflow in this regard has a leg up, it also wholly depends on your source footage as well. Not all workflows need proxy creation.

[Herb Sevush] "What's up for discussion is how the new interface speeds editing, and on that I see no consensus. Since I have never touched FCPX I have no opinion in that area, but I have yet to see a compelling explanation as to how the FCPX timeline speeds up work in "most instances." "

Then you have to try it to make an informed decision. In my opinion, there are things that go much faster. Organization, viewing footage, some aspects of trimming go much faster, even importing footage. While footage is importing, you can keep working and start keywording/tagging footage. When FCPX is done with the transcode, it simply connects to the transcoded footage without me having to touch anything. It's very nice and efficient. When you don't have transcoded footage, you have to wait for that footage to render/transcode upon export (See PPro). As has been mentioned, you are going to have to render at some stage of the game. What is weird is that After Effects has a proxy generator.

I do find that the earlier on in the edit FCPX is faster (the 80% of the work) but once finesse and nuance starts to come in, that's when FCPX slows down a bit, mostly in the audio controls, and fine tune control in general. Legacy has some of the same issues.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:01:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "PPro, at least with CS5.5, makes some sort of cache files that you have zero control over, and sometimes don't really help (they seem to be audio related). And if you want to make proxy files, how do you do it?"

In PPro why would you want to make proxy files? (not being argumentative, just trying to understand.) What's the advantage of Proxies if you can edit natively?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:24:56 pm

[Herb Sevush] "In PPro why would you want to make proxy files? (not being argumentative, just trying to understand.) What's the advantage of Proxies if you can edit natively?"

It depends on your workflow. For instance, I just got off a shoot were we shot 4kHD Epic R3Ds and Alexa ProRes 444 LogC.

This footage will need to live a few different computers, there's a desktop machine were it will finish and a few laptops. Most of the initial cuts are done here in house, then at some point we will take a laptop over to the clients (as it's much easier for them for us to go over there) and then fine tune the final edits before coming back here for finish and output for broadcast. Having a lightweight Proxy workflow makes this doable. The Alexa footage can pretty much be handled natively on a laptop, even with a LogC to video filter on all the footage. The red Footage has been transcoded to ProResLT. If we wanted to move even faster, I would bake a 709 LUT in to the Alexa clips, but things seem to be OK with the 444 material.

If FCPX can garner enough native container support, it would be easy to make proxies, then simply reconnect to the high res footage once the edit comes back to the studio.

Also, when making review copies and usually in an offline edit in general, using lower resolution proxies that are native to the NLE means that process goes much faster as you don't have to transcode on export (like you do in PPro). Again, I am talking about 444 and Epic footage here, not Avc-Intra or AVCHD/DSLR. There are circumstances were working natively all the time isn't necessarily an advantage. Highly compressed H264 footage is extremely processor intensive. Adobe Media Encoder is pretty cool though, and seems to crunch through footage pretty well on desktops. When working remotely on lower powered laptops, things tend to slow down.

Having a Proxy workflow gives us a bunch of flexibility for the offline stages, of course, not everyone needs that.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:37:20 pm

Gotcha, thanks. All my work is still HD, haven't used Red or Alexa yet, so that didn't occur to me.

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


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 12:05:03 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Herb Sevush] "In PPro why would you want to make proxy files? (not being argumentative, just trying to understand.) What's the advantage of Proxies if you can edit natively?"

It depends on your workflow. For instance, I just got off a shoot were we shot 4kHD Epic R3Ds and Alexa ProRes 444 LogC.

This footage will need to live a few different computers, there's a desktop machine were it will finish and a few laptops. Most of the initial cuts are done here in house, then at some point we will take a laptop over to the clients (as it's much easier for them for us to go over there) and then fine tune the final edits before coming back here for finish and output for broadcast. Having a lightweight Proxy workflow makes this doable. The Alexa footage can pretty much be handled natively on a laptop, even with a LogC to video filter on all the footage. The red Footage has been transcoded to ProResLT. If we wanted to move even faster, I would bake a 709 LUT in to the Alexa clips, but things seem to be OK with the 444 material."


I gather then, that what Jeremy really meant to say is that proxies may be desirable in PrPro when working in conjunction with other, less native capable, systems. Neither Red nor Alexa material require them, that I'm aware of...though I'm not sure about Alexa Raw. Maybe Dennis R. can address that.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 12:21:16 am

[David Cherniack] "I gather then, that what Jeremy really meant to say is that proxies may be desirable in PrPro when working in conjunction with other, less native capable, systems. Neither Red nor Alexa material require them, that I'm aware of...though I'm not sure about Alexa Raw. Maybe Dennis R. can address that."

It's more about working on lower power machines for offline. ProRes seems to be fine.

Having a proxy workflow can be beneficial as we don't have to tote the full res files, or wait for as much transcoding on exports/renders. Overall, proxies are lighter weight, FCPX has a nice proxy generation system that I don't have to think about too much. I can start getting my hands dirty right away. It's a nice and easy feature if you need it.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:14:03 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Avid has something similar (I think) where you can make DNxHD MXF files of the AMA files, but from what I understand"

Correct. As yet, Avid doesn't have background functions. But, neither does FCP X. Its "background" functions are really "idle time" functions.

However, AMA files do not necessarily require any transcoding into MXF. Many of the formats work natively as linked files due to the AMA plug-in architecture. As such, they are immediately available at full resolution. You can edit a project from XDCAM or AVC-Intra and output to tape without ever transcoding.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:27:02 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Correct. As yet, Avid doesn't have background functions. But, neither does FCP X. Its "background" functions are really "idle time" functions."

Still, it happens when I'm not thinking about it, and it allows me to continue working while FCPX takes advantage of me stepping away for a second. I personally, like the way it works, although I do turn off timeline rendering. The transcoding and proxy creation part of it is helpful to me, though.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:17:45 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I do find that the earlier on in the edit FCPX is faster (the 80% of the work) but once finesse and nuance starts to come in, that's when FCPX slows down a bit,"

End-to-end time is the only valid measure of "faster". Add color correction, mixing and output to deliverables into the equation and it's both faster and slower depending on which part you are judging.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 4:46:04 pm

"What is weird is that After Effects has a proxy generator."

Well, maybe it's not so strange... considering that AE isn't designed to work in real time...

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:03:46 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Well, maybe it's not so strange... considering that AE isn't designed to work in real time..."

True, but still, even though PPro is designed to work in "real time" more so than AE, it doesn't all the time. Have you tried PPro with a capture card yet? Adding filters and effects to 4k or 4k raw footage isn't exactly real time, unless you have CUDA, which doesn't work very well with capture cards on a Mac. So it's not all roses and pancakes. Having a proxy workflow in PPro would make much more sense to me as with AE, everything needs to be RAM previewed anyway.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 9:33:55 pm

"True, but still, even though PPro is designed to work in "real time" more so than AE, it doesn't all the time."

I don't think I said anything about Premiere Pro, so I'm not sure what your point is here. AE uses a proxy workflow because it's (sometimes) the only way to work with a complex composite. AE artists don't (or shouldn't) expect realtime playback of heavy projects at full resolution.

"Have you tried PPro with a capture card yet? Adding filters and effects to 4k or 4k raw footage isn't exactly real time, unless you have CUDA, which doesn't work very well with capture cards on a Mac. So it's not all roses and pancakes."

Yes, I use PPro with Blackmagic capture cards for all editing projects. I haven't worked with a lot of Red footage, but when I do, it's a pretty smooth experience. It's about equal to editing H.264 @ 1080 24p. I can add filters, stack graphics and audio without major playback issues. Though I must confess, I haven't had to cut a heavy 4K RAW project yet. Then again, I'm not a Mac user so my user experiences may be different.

"Having a proxy workflow in PPro would make much more sense to me as with AE..."

You actually can use a proxy workflow in PPro, this has been possible since the Premiere 6.5 days, it's just not "built in" the same way it is in AE.

"...everything needs to be RAM previewed anyway."

Yup, because it's a completely different kind of tool. With Motion Graphics/VFX work, you don't expect to work in full resolution in real time.

Thanks,

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:09:55 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Yes, I use PPro with Blackmagic capture cards for all editing projects. I haven't worked with a lot of Red footage, but when I do, it's a pretty smooth experience. It's about equal to editing H.264 @ 1080 24p. I can add filters, stack graphics and audio without major playback issues. Though I must confess, I haven't had to cut a heavy 4K RAW project yet. Then again, I'm not a Mac user so my user experiences may be different. "

And you have a CUDA as part of your setup?


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 11:19:42 pm

"And you have a CUDA as part of your setup?"

Yes, my main workstation (at work) has a Quadro FX 4800 and my home machines have FX 3800 and 1700 cards respectively. Again, I'm a Windows user so I can't speak to the performance of my Mac OS counterparts.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:07:03 pm

Jeremy - "PPro, at least with CS5.5, makes some sort of cache files that you have zero control over, and sometimes don't really help (they seem to be audio related). And if you want to make proxy files, how do you do it? You'd have to do it through third party apps. FCPXs workflow in this regard has a leg up, it also wholly depends on your source footage as well. Not all workflows need proxy creation."

I wouldn't exactly call proxy creation a "leg up". While it's true, CS5.5 DOES create cache files, they are very small pointers that don't have to be archived with the project. The problem most folks over look in this with the FCPX implementation is the fact that is DOUBLES YOUR VIDEO DATA. Yes, it is just a re-wrap of the footage and it is quick, but now you have twice the physical data on your system. At this point you have a few choices; 1. Keep all of that data, both raw footage and re-wraps and archive it. That's going to become cumbersome really quickly if you have more than one person in your shop. 2. Get rid of your raw data and store ONLY the re-wraps. Several problems here such as meta-data from the RAW files not completely being transferred, sharing re-wraps across platforms (anyone know if sending these to PC's is feasible? Historically hasn't been) and what if you need to send the data back to the camera for some reason? (lining up shots for direct matching is one example).

The point is, native does NOT mean re-wrapping raw data. FCPX loses to CS5.5 hugely on this one. Don't see how you can really say otherwise.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:12:32 pm

[Marvin Holdman] "The problem most folks over look in this with the FCPX implementation is the fact that is DOUBLES YOUR VIDEO DATA"

Depends on how you use it, and this is nothing new to a FCP workflow.

If just creating proxy files and you do not bring in the original footage to the event, it does not double your data. It does add to the data, yes, but depending on your chosen X workflow, it doesn't necessarily double it.

[Marvin Holdman] "The point is, native does NOT mean re-wrapping raw data. FCPX loses to CS5.5 hugely on this one. Don't see how you can really say otherwise."

I didn't. I said proxy workflow, not native workflow, in which X has a leg up as PPro does not offer a proxy workflow. In our case, since this footage from my recent example needs to live on 3 different machines that aren't connected to the SAN, having lightweight proxy files is much easier than trying to shuffle around a bunch of R3Ds and 444 ProRes files, but that's just me. When using a proxy workflow, the original files don't move around with the proxy files.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:10:28 pm

Philip Hodgetts: "I haven’t been using Final Cut Pro X on a huge project (yet, check back with me late next year) but I follow a lot of people who are and they universally comment that Final Cut Pro X is “200 to 400% faster” for them. As near as I can tell these people are doing the same sort of work on Final Cut Pro X as they were on Final Cut Pro 7 and finding that they get to a result from twice as fast to four times as fast."

What does 2x - 4x faster than FCP7 mean? Is it saving people 5 to 7.5 hours over a 10-hour day? For those using FCPX full-time now, would you say that you were wasting 50% to 75% of your day before?

I got the impression that the editors PH was responding were lamenting tightening schedules not leaving them enough time to properly familiarize themselves with their footage so they can craft a story.


Philip Hodgetts: "What’s interesting is it parallels what seems like a design philosophy behind Final Cut Pro X. From what I’ve done in Final Cut Pro X, it seems to me to encourage a much more polished project along the way. It’s as easy to add an animated, high production value title as it would be to add a placeholder to remind you to do it later, as I’ve always (previously) done."

I have to flatly disagree with this, because actually creating an animated, high production value title still takes time. Adding a pre-existing asset is pretty fast in any NLE.


Philip Hodgetts: "I consider that to be a core strength with Final Cut Pro X – the ability to polish as you edit is much more fluid than in other NLEs of my experience. When you already have a searchable database of music cues and fx sounds, ready access to an Aperture photo library (or iPhoto), and hundreds of pre-programmed titles and looks, it’s much easier to approach finishing-as-you-go, and therefore fill that demand of modern production situations."

In my mind, this is not the definition of finishing. This is a high-gloss veneer.

One of the things that disappointed me the most about FCPX was that I hoped to use it as a finishing tool, but at least for the moment, it's not well-suited for that.

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

Chris Harlan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:27:56 pm

Exactly, Walter. Well said!

Also, I don't understand why PH doesn't think I don't have equally "instant" access to photos and sfx through the OS X file system. I often build sfx bins dragging and dropping from outside FCP. I can easily preview gunshots in finder from gun folders and dropped them into a bin.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 7:30:07 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Also, I don't understand why PH doesn't think I don't have equally "instant" access to photos and sfx through the OS X file system. I often build sfx bins dragging and dropping from outside FCP. I can easily preview gunshots in finder from gun folders and dropped them into a bin."

Excellent point. I've been using OSX finder tools as part of my organizing strategy for years. One example - when I get a HD full of unfamiliar clips, the first thing I always do is view everything in the finder in coverflow view. I then use quicklook to skim anything of interest. Using this technique, even if there's hundreds of GBs to go thru, I get a sense of the footage landscape very fast and can quickly set up my bins in a way that makes sense.

Another technique that works well - all sfx are organized in a special iTunes library. Keywords are built into the filenames and searching and playback are fast and easy. When I find the sounds I want, I reveal in finder and copy to my project.

I'm not suggesting these techniques are superior to FCPX's new organization tools (which are very good), just that there are strategies you can use with legacy for significant leverage when organizing.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 7:34:03 pm

I have been using iTunes for YEARS...and I mean pretty much since it came out...to organize my SFX and music. I talk about this in my tutorial DVD for FCP...using iTunes. Find what I need, drag it into the folder I want on my media drive, then into my project. Done. This way, I can archive the media I use in my project, grab the drive and bring it to another station, or hand it off.

Oh, FCX doesn't like you doing that.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 7:51:37 pm

[Shane Ross] "Oh, FCX doesn't like you doing that."

You can use files from anywhere in FCPX.

You can also move or consolidate media very easily in FCPX.

You just have to know how to use the preferences. It's actually pretty easy, and in most cases if you want to move a project wholesale, you just use the Finder.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 7:53:46 pm

I'll have to believe you Jeremy. I have seen dozens of posts on people having nothing but problems with this. But, might attribute that to unfamiliarity with how the app works. Like Avid people using FCP...not knowing how FCP does things, assuming it is just like they do with Avid.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 8:16:38 pm

[Shane Ross] "I'll have to believe you Jeremy. I have seen dozens of posts on people having nothing but problems with this. But, might attribute that to unfamiliarity with how the app works. Like Avid people using FCP...not knowing how FCP does things, assuming it is just like they do with Avid."

And FCPX certainly does things differently, you just have to know when things break down, just like any application. Replacing/overwriting files outside of FCPX simply doesn't work, which is probably what you might be seeing.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 8:31:30 pm

[David Lawrence] "Excellent point. I've been using OSX finder tools as part of my organizing strategy for years. One example - when I get a HD full of unfamiliar clips, the first thing I always do is view everything in the finder in coverflow view. I then use quicklook to skim anything of interest. Using this technique, even if there's hundreds of GBs to go thru, I get a sense of the footage landscape very fast and can quickly set up my bins in a way that makes sense.
"


This is exactly what I used to do until FCPX, now using the skimmer in FCPX gets this done in the same way but quicker. I can get a great overview of my clips very quickly. Just done it with 2500 clips I just received on a new project i've just started.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 8:49:27 pm

[Steve Connor] "This is exactly what I used to do until FCPX, now using the skimmer in FCPX gets this done in the same way but quicker. I can get a great overview of my clips very quickly. Just done it with 2500 clips I just received on a new project i've just started."

The skimmer takes some getting used to, but it rocks. It's my second-favorite FCPX feature (behind new floating-point RGB processing).

I think Brian alluded to this earlier, but the skimmer is a bit reminiscent of scrubbing clips on Smoke's edit desk (though Smoke lets you scrub them right in the thumbnail, which eliminates the one-viewer limit and makes it much handier for comparing two or more shots).

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

Shane Ross
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 5:54:04 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What does 2x - 4x faster than FCP7 mean? Is it saving people 5 to 7.5 hours over a 10-hour day? For those using FCPX full-time now, would you say that you were wasting 50% to 75% of your day before?

I got the impression that the editors PH was responding were lamenting tightening schedules not leaving them enough time to properly familiarize themselves with their footage so they can craft a story."


NAILED IT!

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


Return to posts index

Philip Hodgetts
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 9:53:29 pm

If you read the article, I used the editor's lounge comments where the editors where lamenting the lack of time, and then broadened the discussion out to considering the two pressures: lack of time (to see all footage, to contemplatively edit) and pressure for more finished rough cuts. Given those pressures are only going to increase, then the technology *is* the solution.

Producers are not going to revert to giving 3 weeks for the 3 week job, just 1 as the editors' in the video noted. Projecting forward, the fastest system - whatever that maybe (might turn out to be lightworks) will be the one that becomes dominant. ]

I then pointed out that those who are using FCP X are reporting that it is much faster for the work they're doing than the same work in FCP 7.

If you want practical advice on how to improve your editing today, Steve Martin or Larry Jordan would be your go to guys. If you want some clue as to where we'll be as creative industries in 10 years, you'll read me, Oliver Peters and a few others.

Philip

Philip Hodgetts
President, Intelligent Assistance
AssistedEditing.com Fast First Cuts, Metadata Worfklows
Big Brains for Rent bigbrainsforrent.com
The New Now - Grow your business - ProAppsTips.com
Personal Blog http://philiphodgetts.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:06:02 pm

[Philip Hodgetts] "I then pointed out that those who are using FCP X are reporting that it is much faster for the work they're doing than the same work in FCP 7.
"


We are and it is.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:13:21 pm

Phillip,

If you read my post below, it outlines why I don't think you've addressed the concerns of editors as expressed in the original video.

But I'll add this here since I think it underscores the debate:

[Philip Hodgetts] "I then pointed out that those who are using FCP X are reporting that it is much faster for the work they're doing than the same work in FCP 7."

This seems an odd point of departure for considering NLEs.

Two year old software? It is not a continuation as many people are so careful to point out. Why not compare to the other options out there? I suppose it was the comparison that "a lot of people you knew" were making, but you should probably consider a larger perspective on a post that asks if FCPX is "favoured" on a blog about "The present and future of post production business and technology".


Franz.


Return to posts index

Philip Hodgetts
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 6:13:04 pm

I was not trying to address the concerns of the editors in the video. If you thought that you completely, absolutely missed the point of what I wrote. Their concerns - the reality of the changed workplace - was a starting off point to project theoretical future scenarios.

Those editors (like Shane) want producers to give them more time, and that would be great. I don't expect it to ever happen.

Philip Hodgetts
President, Intelligent Assistance
AssistedEditing.com Fast First Cuts, Metadata Worfklows
Big Brains for Rent bigbrainsforrent.com
The New Now - Grow your business - ProAppsTips.com
Personal Blog http://philiphodgetts.com


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 20, 2011 at 6:22:51 pm

Phillip...it would be a lot less confusing if you used examples of people who use FCX. And specifically tell people HOW users of FCX are editing 200-400% faster, instead of just tossing that number out there.

Interview...or get quotes from...people who are using FCX and have them tell you "I am editing things in a day that used to take me two because..." Stuff like that. Use examples of time constraints from people who use FCX...not from people who are in the 2% that don't use FCX. They have different issues concerning time than the people who really use FCX.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:16:27 pm

[Philip Hodgetts] "I then pointed out that those who are using FCP X are reporting that it is much faster for the work they're doing than the same work in FCP 7."

It's much faster than working with a moviola as well, but what's the point of that comparison? FCP was 2 years out of date last spring, which is why many of us who had been waiting for an upgrade went a little ballistic when instead of an upgrade we got a Beta release of a new Ap that wouldn't be ready for complex workflows for at least another year, if ever.

Comparing FCPX to Legacy is ridiculous, compare it to PPro, Avid or any other active NLE if you want to talk about it's speed and efficiency.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 10:39:41 pm

[Philip Hodgetts] "lack of time (to see all footage, to contemplatively edit) "

Something I don't see how FCX can improve. SKim quicker...OK. But actually SEE the footage. AVID, FCP, Premiere Pro, FCX...all take the same amount of time.

[Philip Hodgetts] "and pressure for more finished rough cuts. "

Finding the RIGHT music for a scene or a spot won't improve with FCX. It will still take us time to lisen and try them out. NLE cannot improve that. Mix sound effects, music...adjust audio levels....do a temp mix. Maybe people who know FCX can do things fast, but for me, FCP 7 is the fastest at that. Adjusting levels with a keyboard I am very fast.

But those factors cannot be sped up with an NLE. Watching the footage, knowing what you have and finding the best moments. And finding the right music cue for a scene...again, that takes time and an ear for the music and how it will make the scene feel. No way will an NLE make me hear music faster and determine how it will work with a scene, or project.

[Philip Hodgetts] "Producers are not going to revert to giving 3 weeks for the 3 week job, just 1 as the editors' in the video noted. "

I know. So they cannot complain when the temp music isn't quite right, or the scene isn't as strong as it can be. That I might not have used the best take...that I didn't have time to find the perfect music cue. Because they are impatient and want a cut scene NOW...fully mixed. OK, I can do that. Will it be my best work? No. Will FCX speed things up so that I can view all the footage faster? Find the perfect music cue quicker? I don't see how.

Oh, because the time I need to import and convert or transcode the footage will be shortened? I can transcode/import over night when I go home...let it churn. And with many NLEs, I can access the footage right away...start working, transcode when I leave, then relink to the new files when I get back. I need to render? That time has always been a small part of my day. If it's a big render, I do that when I go to lunch, or go home for the night.

[Philip Hodgetts] " then pointed out that those who are using FCP X are reporting that it is much faster for the work they're doing than the same work in FCP 7."

WHich editors? Working on what type of projects? Small fast promos? Sizzle reels? News broadcast? ENG? WHO is seeing the speed increase in their day? And really, is it making so that what you used to do in 10 hours, you now do in 5? 7.5?

The NLE cannot speed up my process of looking at footage, and listening to music. If the producers want things faster, then they'll get something that is "good enough." Because that is all they are giving me time for.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 11:29:11 pm

Shane, I definitely second what you are saying here.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
on Dec 19, 2011 at 11:43:10 pm

Still comes back to the fact that some of us who are actually USING the software are reporting it's faster for our work. If it were any other software people might take that as evidence that at least it might be partially correct ( 400% iimprovement is certainly not!)

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


Return to posts index