FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Seeman
FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 3:49:38 pm

More specific about FCPX than Iditarod workflow with it but one can infer that his information came from the workflow (likes/problems). Also important is that he used it on a major project such as Iditarod and also why. Also note his conclusion.





Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 5:18:50 pm

Craig,


He seems to be impressed with the speed of X, background processes, the fact that raylight works, and auto white balance. He also outlines issues with audio and plug-ins. Was there something else you thought was interesting or insightful?


Franz.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 5:45:10 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Was there something else you thought was interesting or insightful?"

Primarily that this came from what I suspect was a challenging situation, editing and delivering in the field while covering Iditarod, rather than just playing around or working with projects which might have less pressure.

His evaluation might not sound much different than many others, give or take, but knowing from what circumstance it was coming from is, in itself interesting to me. That he concludes after this real world use and real world issues, he'd still prefer it over FCP7 (which may well be an admission to how badly FCP7 aged rather than how great FCPX is on its own, admittedly).

I think many of, even those who like FCPX, would acknowledge that Audio is FCPX's Achilles heel at the moment.

Personally I think the background processing may be an issue in a lot of cases. It may well be the cause of much beach balling. Others have pointed out that it's often better to turn it off entirely and do the render on export.

Overall though he certainly found it worthy on what I suspect was a high pressure short turnaround professional project . . . at least preferred over the aging FCP7.



Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 5:51:21 pm

Appears he has had nearly exactly the same experience that I and others have had.

Not easy to come to grips with the changes.

Lots of annoyances that need to be overcome when you're learning the new thinking.

Frustrations (large and small) along the way.

But once you do get comfortable with the new process - almost nobody I've talked to who've used X to deliver real work find it acceptable to considering going back to editing the way we did before we dug in and learned enough to really appreciate it's strengths.

Either we're all crazy - or there is something different about it that makes so many feel that once we've made the full transition - fully jettisoning X and going back to the way we used to edit is the one thing we simply won't seriously consider.

Which mirrors my experience very well.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:01:18 pm

[Bill Davis] "Either we're all crazy - or there is something different about it that makes so many feel that once we've made the full transition - fully jettisoning X and going back to the way we used to edit is the one thing we simply won't seriously consider."

I don't think anyone is crazy in this discussion Bill.

I'm continuing to work with it because I like so many things about it.
The speed of grading and unlimited secondaries built into each track.
The speed of adjusting audio waveforms in realtime in the timeline.
The speed of organizing and compiling with the Keyword Editor and Event Browser.
But I'm not going to stop clamoring for important improvements that would expand it's capabilities.

I've created a workaround for one that's bothered me a lot, but the memory and performance issues are big issues for me.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:08:43 pm

[Jim Giberti] "But I'm not going to stop clamoring for important improvements that would expand it's capabilities.

I've created a workaround for one that's bothered me a lot, but the memory and performance issues are big issues for me."


Given it's 1.0.x nature, I think the performance issues will be addressed as, at the moment, performance (where and when it does work) is one of its biggest current selling points.



Return to posts index


Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:11:38 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Given it's 1.0.x nature, I think the performance issues will be addressed as, at the moment, performance (where and when it does work) is one of its biggest current selling points.
"


Right, but I don't think it's just me...why did 1.0.3 go the other way with performance?

I was becoming a big fan, warts and all, because of performance and features, but I'm convinced that they made a boo boo with the update.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:49:28 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Right, but I don't think it's just me...why did 1.0.3 go the other way with performance?

I was becoming a big fan, warts and all, because of performance and features, but I'm convinced that they made a boo boo with the update."


So many beach balls for me as well. Notice his comments on using the Izotrope AU plugin. Obviously they made a change that impacted performance in ways they probably didn't vet throughly. I think this is part of the "hurry up" schedule they're on which seems to be at around 12 weeks for each release give or take.

I don't doubt Apple is acutely aware of the flaws in their QC process but they're also aware of what a slower rate of change would do. It's a risk benefit analysis I suspect they've made. I suspect they'll be bumps throughout the rest of this year as they try to push things out quickly. I suspect at some point they're going to do a reconnoiter and do a major issue focused release (like 10.0.2 was but more extensive) but it'll mean little movement in the feature set at that point. I think they're juggling a bit, much like the guy on the Ed Sullivan show with all the plates and some of the plates are falling. I do think they'll addresses them along the way.

I know we want everything and we want it now but their real world development is prioritizing things with their secret formula.



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 8:23:48 pm

[Craig Seeman] " I think this is part of the "hurry up" schedule they're on which seems to be at around 12 weeks for each release give or take."

Why can't they now just get the wretched thing right instead of rushing out ill-considered and inadequately QC'd updates? They're just looking more and more incompetent each time they do this.


PSD support, multicam, and broadcast support are clearly a mess that they thought they had to get out there in order to stem the flow of criticism. It's become increasingly apparent that they're panicking ...

I so wish that weren't the case and they were actually on top of this thing, but that's a position it's very, very hard to support.

Their pants are down around their ankles and it's not a pretty sight.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 9:04:40 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Why can't they now just get the wretched thing right instead of rushing out ill-considered and inadequately QC'd updates? They're just looking more and more incompetent each time they do this."

I'm sure it's a managerial decision that they need to show feature progress. I'm sure there's some serious internal "battles" on feature vs stability. They're getting hit publicly from both sides so I'm sympathetic with the juggle.

[Simon Ubsdell] "PSD support, multicam, and broadcast support are clearly a mess that they thought they had to get out there in order to stem the flow of criticism. It's become increasingly apparent that they're panicking ..."

I can't blame them though. They're getting damned if you do and damned if you don't. In fact one could say this is what happens WHEN THEY DO LISTEN . . . and everybody is talking at once and with conflicting priorities.

I'd have to say, all things considered, even I'm "bitting the bullet" and appreciating the feature releasees (despite their issues) because they are showing "feature intent" and, I'd suspect from a marketing perspective that's the most important "rescue" as far as their public face.

To put it one way. I have confidence they'll fix the bugs, the lack of confidence comes from whether "professional" features will be implemented so they make decisions such as "beta" broadcast monitoring to let the world know they're working on it. This is just Apple's way of "informing" people.

[Simon Ubsdell] "Their pants are down around their ankles and it's not a pretty sight."

It depends on how you look at that. I'd argue it's nice that they're showing us their stuff at least.

Way back when I made the "autistic" analogy of listening and responding (I know analogies are against the COW law now) but this seems to be how they listen and respond.

People want to "hear" about the roadmap. Apple's way is to reveal the road even though the pavement has yet to be smoothed. My own opinion is that it will get smoothed and I very much appreciate seeing the road even with its bumps.



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 9:19:14 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I'm sure it's a managerial decision that they need to show feature progress. I'm sure there's some serious internal "battles" on feature vs stability. They're getting hit publicly from both sides so I'm sympathetic with the juggle."

I'm sure you're right about the diagnosis but, look, it's Apple we're talking about here - an absolute corporate giant - and they can' get their act together. It's altogether rather pitiful ... or actually quite funny, depending on how you look at it.

[Craig Seeman] "In fact one could say this is what happens WHEN THEY DO LISTEN"

I really don't think the "amazing" 10.0.3 features were in any way a response to a listening process - they clearly aren't moving at the sort of pace that would mean they could have taken on board any of the post-release commentary. This is surely stuff planned form way back - and they still can't get it right.

[Craig Seeman] "they are showing "feature intent""

Feature intent is all well and good - but how much longer do we have to keep watching and hoping they can put on a plausible show? I think time is starting to run out on this one ...

[Craig Seeman] "[Simon Ubsdell] "Their pants are down around their ankles and it's not a pretty sight."

It depends on how you look at that. I'd argue it's nice that they're showing us their stuff at least."


That was definitely good for a laugh - thanks!!!! :-)

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:05:43 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'm sure you're right about the diagnosis but, look, it's Apple we're talking about here - an absolute corporate giant - and they can' get their act together. It's altogether rather pitiful ... or actually quite funny, depending on how you look at it."

I think it's their chosen (yes it's a choice) resource reality. They are doing the best they can I suspect with what resources the department has. That they're moving this quickly is impressive . . . and that it's this sloppy is obviously not. I do think things will get better as they balance things out over time. They are in "hurry up" mode and I think they'll be that way for the rest of this year but I think as they get to a place they're comfortable with in the feature set, they'll be in a better QC state. I don't think "hurry up" mode will last beyond the year (it better not).

[Simon Ubsdell] "I really don't think the "amazing" 10.0.3 features were in any way a response to a listening process"

I think it's impacting prioritization and that's why some things are rushed.



Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:13:58 pm

[Craig Seeman] "They are doing the best they can I suspect with what resources the department has. That they're moving this quickly is impressive"

I hear what you're saying and broadly I'm sure you're right - but is it really true to say that the speed is impressive?

Multicam, broadcast monitoring, PSD support are not exactly new and exciting things, are they? It's all fairly basic stuff you'd have expected to be there from day one, not to be limping into view almost a year after the launch. None of these are innovations, they're staples of the 21st century NLE.

My concern is based on the evidence that FCPX has been in gestation for a good many years now and it's still waaaaaaay off the mark. The pace of development looks to be totally unsatisfactory if it's to draw level with the opposition in any foreseeable timeframe.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:34:09 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "My concern is based on the evidence that FCPX has been in gestation for a good many years now and it's still waaaaaaay off the mark."

1.0 applications generally have some time under development before they get out the door in their 1.0 state. FCP legacy took some time as well between Macromedia and Apple.

Unlike those FCPX probably has deeper ties to AVFoundation and things being developed in the OS as well so it may well be more limited by parallel development of things it needs.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 11:27:47 pm

[Craig Seeman] "
Unlike those FCPX probably has deeper ties to AVFoundation and things being developed in the OS as well so it may well be more limited by parallel development of things it needs.
"


so the logic is that overall control of the operating system is impeding stable development of the application?

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 11:45:57 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "so the logic is that overall control of the operating system is impeding stable development of the application?"

Just my guess but I think it's part of the place Apple has put themselves in. Given how I think Apple works as a company things are probably fairly tightly tied in some aspects. I wouldn't be surprised if Snow Leopard support were dropped fairly quickly. That might help things. Given that they've already announced Mountain Lion it seems they're trying to move a lot forward very quickly for them to get where they want to be. That's part of the reason why I think this year will be a bit tumultuous.

Keep in mind one of the things that many feel hampered FCP legacy was its close ties to Quicktime whereas as Avid and Premiere aren't.

I also think once they work out things in the OS some badly needed features like an auto save history (versions) will be implemented. Broadcast monitoring is also OS related I believe. I suspect there are other things as well.

One way to look at it is that FCP legacy was so badly behind in so many ways that FCPX is not only new but tied much more tightly to OS (and AVFoundation of course) that what we're seeing is the "rebuilding" period. I suspect it will all be tied together in a much prettier knot the end of this year or early next.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 12:05:07 am

[Craig Seeman] ""so the logic is that overall control of the operating system is impeding stable development of the application?"
"


to be fair to you mate, I suppose I did put the sentence up with a question mark at the end.

The point, as it were, is that the question mark implies incredulity.

I do not believe the statement above is either credible or logical.

I myself tend to subscribe to Ubsdell's Pant's Down Theorem.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 12:40:31 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I do not believe the statement above is either credible or logical."

And broadcast monitoring ISN'T tied to the OS?
We don't know what else they're working on that may also be tied to OS development.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 1:18:57 am

[Craig Seeman] "I also think once they work out things in the OS some badly needed features like an auto save history (versions) will be implemented. Broadcast monitoring is also OS related I believe. I suspect there are other things as well."

Does it really matter to us as users if something is being implemented in the OS or in the app, especially when it's coming from the same developer and they can do whatever they want? AV Foundation is a new feature in Lion, but they used a private version for FCPX on Snow Leopard.

Also, Adobe and Avid implement broadcast monitoring without writing operating systems.


[Craig Seeman] "One way to look at it is that FCP legacy was so badly behind in so many ways that FCPX is not only new but tied much more tightly to OS (and AVFoundation of course) that what we're seeing is the "rebuilding" period. I suspect it will all be tied together in a much prettier knot the end of this year or early next."

I agree with your analysis, but Apple is not the only one that has rebuilt. Adobe and Avid have also recently written and/or re-written their own low-level media handlers (comparable to AV Foundation), too.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 1:48:22 am

[Walter Soyka] "Does it really matter to us as users if something is being implemented in the OS or in the app, especially when it's coming from the same developer and they can do whatever they want?"

It's just a point of possible information. Understanding why something might be happen is independent of whether I like it or not.

[Walter Soyka] "Also, Adobe and Avid implement broadcast monitoring without writing operating systems."

But Apple writes both Operating Systems and NLE software to sell hardware unlike the above. They may want to use technologies as part of their echosystem which depends on the OS doing certain things rather than the apps as "stand alone."


[Walter Soyka] "AV Foundation is a new feature in Lion, but they used a private version for FCPX on Snow Leopard."

And maybe that was the first rush move that they might not have wanted to make but had to at the time. I suspect they may drop Snow Leopard support fairly quickly as far as FCPX support is concerned as things are moved.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 2:53:17 am

[Walter Soyka] "Adobe and Avid have also recently written and/or re-written their own low-level media handlers (comparable to AV Foundation), too.
"


Yeah, but the OS department and the ProApps department are each in their own veiled castle walls, right?

Do you think adobe and avid have such segregated development departments? My guess is no.

I do feel like 10.0.3 was released to get fcpxml out and released to the world as quickly as possible, and the rest of the inconsistencies be damned.

I hear what you're saying about all of that, Craig. It's an apt speculation.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 3:30:44 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yeah, but the OS department and the ProApps department are each in their own veiled castle walls, right?"

I don't assume that -- as I mentioned, FCPX on Snow Leopard uses AV Foundation as a private library. AV Foundation wasn't available publicly on OS X until Lion, right?

I do agree with Craig's analysis that Apple is likely spreading development over the OS X and FCPX teams. I'd also agree with Simon that Apple's biggest challenges with FCPX don't seem to be tied to OS-related features.

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: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 3:56:44 am

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX on Snow Leopard uses AV Foundation as a private library. AV Foundation wasn't available publicly on OS X until Lion, right?"

Is AVFoundation available publicly? ;). Just kidding.

Just because fcpx uses AVFoundation doesn't mean that the ProApps Development team, and the SnowMountainLionLeopard development team talk, or are allowed to talk, accept when needed. Maybe things are different under Cook, who knows.

Monitoring is certainly tied AVFoundation, and it seems to be why it's still in beta as it still needs work on the OS level.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 4:35:45 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Just because fcpx uses AVFoundation doesn't mean that the ProApps Development team, and the SnowMountainLionLeopard development team talk, or are allowed to talk, accept when needed."

There must be some coordination, right? Otherwise, how could the ProApps team know they could depend on the AV Foundation / OS X team to develop specific functionality? If there were no coordination, wouldn't the ProApps team would have to do as other NLE developers do -- write it themselves if they want to make sure it gets done?

It makes good sense to develop as you and Craig are describing. It'd be wasteful for Apple as a whole to develop a video API for a single specific app, when they could develop media frameworks available on the platform as a whole instead.

But this is all Inside Baseball speculation.

All that matters to what Aindreas has dubbed Ubsdell's Pants Down Theorem is that Apple as a whole -- no matter which divisions are responsible for what -- may be late delivering features overall, and are certainly rushing stuff out the door without sufficient QC. To whatever extent they may continue doing so, they are damaging their credibility badly.

Craig's comparison to the plate spinner is very apt. They've got a lot going on, and maybe that's the wrong approach. Jim seems right to call 10.0.3 a step backwards, and Simon seems right to suggest that the most important priority for 10.0.4 should be improving the fundamentals: performance and stability.

Getting those right first, and then adding features (while prioritizing their functionality and reliability over their rapid introduction) could change the whole nature of the conversation about FCPX.

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: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 5:26:00 am

[Walter Soyka] "There must be some coordination, right? Otherwise, how could the ProApps team know they could depend on the AV Foundation / OS X team to develop specific functionality? If there were no coordination, wouldn't the ProApps team would have to do as other NLE developers do -- write it themselves if they want to make sure it gets done?"

You mean like that one time a QT/iTunes update really screwed fcp7 up real well?

Sure there's coordination, AVFoundation has been in iOS for a while, but is there mutual interest and development? Maybe. Maybe not.

[Walter Soyka] "All that matters to what Aindreas has dubbed Ubsdell's Pants Down Theorem is that Apple as a whole -- no matter which divisions are responsible for what -- may be late delivering features overall, and are certainly rushing stuff out the door without sufficient QC. To whatever extent they may continue doing so, they are damaging their credibility badly."

Yes, they are rushing. They rushed the announcement, they rushed the release, they are rushing the updates. They either have completely lost their minds, or they know what's coming. Once people get what they want, all of this speculation will be over and done. Finished. Yep, they will have lost a few loyal soldiers along the way, but it's the cold and calculated cost of doing business.

You will also notice the rushed updates have been decidedly pro features. As Craig alludes to, these features are to get those words out in to the lexicon to let people know, for now, they're still playing. The next few updates will need to show how serious they are about it. The beachball/slow down syndrome is popping up all over the interwebs more now than ever.

Apple won't be able to keep that up for much longer.

Is iMovie 64 bit?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 6:24:05 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "You mean like that one time a QT/iTunes update really screwed fcp7 up real well? Sure there's coordination, AVFoundation has been in iOS for a while, but is there mutual interest and development? Maybe. Maybe not."

I don't mean to be constantly argumentative, but I do consider this a bit of a different case.

QuickTime was already mature by the time FCP was built, so FCP was able to lean on it very heavily. By the time that QT iTunes rental disaster occurred, FCP itself was pretty mature, too. That release didn't just bork FCP; it hurt all QuickTime-dependent apps. As I recall (and how could I forget), any QuickTime render in AE that took longer than exactly 10 minutes would fail. Ouch. It was definitely bad QC, but maybe not a coordination issue.

AV Foundation and FCPX have both been under simultaneous active development for years, and Apple must have had to decide which team would develop support for specific features (like broadcast monitoring). How could FCPX have ever shipped if those teams weren't working closely together?


[Jeremy Garchow] "Apple won't be able to keep that up for much longer."

They've kept it up for this long...


[Jeremy Garchow] "Is iMovie 64 bit?"

Nope. I also think iMovie is based on QuickTime, not AV Foundation.

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: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 1:52:08 pm

[Walter Soyka] "AV Foundation and FCPX have both been under simultaneous active development for years, and Apple must have had to decide which team would develop support for specific features (like broadcast monitoring). How could FCPX have ever shipped if those teams weren't working closely together?"

By the skin of their teeth, hence, "beta".

So do you think the ProApps team is driving AVFoundation?

No way. AVFoundation was built to make sure YouTube worked on the iPhone first, and they'll roll the rest of the "QT Replacement" aspects later, much later.

Otherwise there'd have been a maintenance release by now.

My guess is ProApps is waiting on the OS team, and they aren't necessarily coordinated in some sort of programming ballet.

[Walter Soyka] "They've kept it up for this long..."

When I said they cant keep this up, I meant having a program that is not just quirky, but kind of broken.

Since 10.0.3 especially, the crash and certainly the beachball posts have risen dramatically, and not just here, but everywhere. It wasnt like that in 10.0.2, it was just quirky, and you deal with quirks of you like something well enough. It's very hard to deal with broken.

They won't be able to maintain that for too much longer. Or if 10.0.4 performs even worse.....?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:48:25 pm

[Jim Giberti] "The speed of grading and unlimited secondaries built into each track."

ayes to that, I genuinely do adore the power windows and secondary CC capabilities. For me its one of the whispers of the powerhouse system we dreamed of. I ride FCPX an awful lot on fresh Applestore hardware, and the ability to re-light HD shots in realtime with multiple CC masks, vignettes, and defocus is just an utter blast.

It's one piece of the FCPX architecture that instantly delighted me. As an integrated, in context always on attribute - it feels quite transformative.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:13:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "Either we're all crazy - or there is something different about it that makes so many feel that once we've made the full transition - fully jettisoning X and going back to the way we used to edit is the one thing we simply won't seriously consider."

I'd add that some of us have used other NLEs as well.
I spent over 10 years on Avid. I knew it well enough to work as the facility engineer at a major broadcast oriented facility and train the editor as well as maintain the systems. The new Avid MC, while a MAJOR improvement, uses a paradigm I do NOT want to go back to after using FCPX.

FCPX has answered so much of what I've hoped for in an NLE for so many years that, despite its flaws, I have to maintain hope. It is much closer to what I want an NLE to be.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 7:29:42 pm

[Bill Davis] "Either we're all crazy"

C'mon Bill, that's too easy, you gotta make us work for it.

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: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:56:16 pm

[Herb Sevush] "C'mon Bill, that's too easy, you gotta make us work for it."

OK, Herb, but if you're gonna ding the "crazy" bell on me -how do you handle that the original link here was to yet another pro user in the field saying the same thing I've said over and over and over again.

Paraphasing: "I've taken the time to learn it via trial and error - and now that I understand how it operates - it does things in edit workflow that I simply don't want to give up."

Isn't that useful for everyone to discuss?

In fact the ONLY people I can conceive of who wouldn't want to address that idea are those with an emotional or financial ax to grind.

Criticism is the easiest thing in the world to generate. We all can find countless things to point out in the world that are not to our liking.

But when you ask people to explain why so that everyone might learn the thinking behind the criticism, in my experience, most of the time it comes down to "because I just don't LIKE it."

As one small example, people diss X for crashing. Which is fair. It does crash. And if that's all someone has to say, it's fair - but it's also misleading. Cuz, when others note that it largely crashes "losslessly" and an average user seldom gets set back much if any from such a crash - that's useful for someone trying to decide whether to use it.

I think it was Mark who even had it crash spectacularly and destructively. For a few days he was angry and pissed. Which we all get. And we all took it as a cautionary tale and re-doubled our guard and re-thought our workflow. But it also looks like Mark's natural anger is abating and he's STILL working with X.

Why, for heaven's sake? Shouldn't he just dump it and move on? If that "can" happen (and clearly it can) what's the balancing positive that makes him still want to use it?

Isn't that worth examining?

I push back a lot because it works for me. Not always, not in every case. But it presents new and exciting tools for me that have changed how I work - for the better.

I can edit faster with X than I could with Legacy - and now I understand that with every project I successfully create and archive, I am building a global database for each client that I can use in the future that will potentially improve my efficiency further.

I just got an order for new commercials for a west coast client just yesterday, and was able to save hours if not days by instantly calling up the relevant selects via keywords off the old project.

I went from idea to rough cut in 30 minutes , rather than a full day of dis-archiving their project from a year ago and re-capturing the digital tapes which would have been the process a year ago.

That's what X has the potential to do. Uniquely in my estimation. It's built for persistent on-line asset storage and retrieval. Not editing in a bubble cut off from sources and exports as the Legacy interface largely was for small facility editors like me.

I've already used features like the Share capabilities to turn client approval dubs into something that take literally seconds to generate and email, rather than the hours it took to burn DVDs and FedEx them off in the past.

The "timeline operations" module in the middle of FCP-X is all that most traditional "editors" are stuck arguing about.

(Analogy alert: look away so as not to burn your brain!)
To me that's like arguing exclusively about the engines at a car show. Should it be part of the discussion? Absolutely. But it's not the only discussion worth having. And the engine doesn't adequately describe the entire car experience, does it?

Some here can't or simply don't want to edit with X. Fine. I can and enjoy doing so. And I feel like everyday I do it, I'm building a better editing future for myself, because much of the work I do at my edit station today - particularly in the new prep workspace - has great potential to be useful to me tomorrow.

That's the kind of stuff that those of us who are using it are seeing as transformative. Not whether the timeline is magnetic or not. That turned out to be almost totally trivial in hindsight.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 12:14:12 am

[Bill Davis] I went from idea to rough cut in 30 minutes , rather than a full day of dis-archiving their project from a year ago and re-capturing the digital tapes which would have been the process a year ago.

That's what X has the potential to do. Uniquely in my estimation. It's built for persistent on-line asset storage and retrieval. Not editing in a bubble cut off from sources and exports as the Legacy interface largely was for small facility editors like me.

I've already used features like the Share capabilities to turn client approval dubs into something that take literally seconds to generate and email, rather than the hours it took to burn DVDs and FedEx them off in the past."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how uploading files for client approval or keeping files online so you don't have to batch capture from tape are workflows exclusive to FCPX. One place I worked at was emailng MPEG1's for approval in '01 and at another they started media managing the FCP projects archival purpose. As you can imagine, it made revisiting old projects significantly easier (especially when many times the changes were just a new logo there and update the date here).

The search process is very limited because it is just an Excel document tracking which projects on are archived where, but once the DAM is rolled out everything will be keyword searchable and metadata can be entered by anyone in the office (Mac or PC) and by anyone that's cleared to access it from offsite as well.

If you are smaller shop that might be overkill, but this place has over three dozen editors and producers that routinely access footage and currently the only way to do that is via one of the workstations directly connected to the Xsan so for people to be able to get what they need from their own desk will be huge.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 12:22:19 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how uploading files for client approval or keeping files online so you don't have to batch capture from tape are workflows exclusive to FCPX."

I've been doing that for years, as well. I don't get the hullabaloo, either.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 9:47:33 am

[Chris Harlan] "I've been doing that for years, as well. I don't get the hullabaloo, either."

Not out of FCP-legacy you didn't. Unless you spit out a standalone file, opened up an email app, used the finder to navigate to that file. attached it to the email , and sent it on it's way. then navigated back to FCP.

Now al that is in a simple menu directly inside the X interface. And along with email, you get a nice choice of other "publishing" options including easy access to YouTube and Vimeo - complete with the ability to tag your output with search terms for basic search engine optimization.

Since YouTube is now the second most visited "search" facility on the planet after Google - that small accommodation will likely help scores of people develop new content publishing approaches along with live website updating, visual cataloging and other interesting new capabilities as X matures.

Remember the entire video world is no longer limited to what's on TV and in the Movies.

Times are changing. And my explorations tell me that X was built for that kind of foreseeable future.

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

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 5:04:21 pm

[Bill Davis] "Not out of FCP-legacy you didn't. Unless you spit out a standalone file, opened up an email app, used the finder to navigate to that file. attached it to the email , and sent it on it's way. then navigated back to FCP.
"


You make it sound so hard, Bill. All that "navigating." And, here, all I thought I had to do was click a few things. So, with FCP X, what happens when you want to use something other than the couple of bundled services? I guess you've got to get your parka on and set forth navigating.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 5:12:39 pm

[Bill Davis] "Not out of FCP-legacy you didn't. Unless you spit out a standalone file, opened up an email app, used the finder to navigate to that file. attached it to the email , and sent it on it's way. then navigated back to FCP.

Now al that is in a simple menu directly inside the X interface. And along with email, you get a nice choice of other "publishing" options including easy access to YouTube and Vimeo - complete with the ability to tag your output with search terms for basic search engine optimization."



You're moving the goal posts, Bill. In your previous post, the one Chris and I commented on, you said that now that you have FCPX you can upload for client approval instead and no longer have to make DVD screeners and FedEx them out. The uploading method is not unique to FCPX, which was your implication from the previous post, but I agree that it can takes a few less mouse clicks in FCPX than it would in other NLEs.


And, like Michael said, basic tapeless archiving can be as simple as a mirrored pair of HDDs and a spreadsheet tracking what's on each one. I've been doing this for personal & small side projects for years (as well as at the 'zillion dollar' company I used to work at). For my own things I recently got CatDV to replace my spreadsheet as I started to want more info at my fingertips than what is practical to put in the spreadsheet.

I'm all for giving FCPX credit where credit is due, but there's no reason to go for an infomercial style, over the top hard sell.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 9:32:37 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how uploading files for client approval or keeping files online so you don't have to batch capture from tape are workflows exclusive to FCPX. One place I worked at was emailng MPEG1's for approval in '01 and at another they started media managing the FCP projects archival purpose. As you can imagine, it made revisiting old projects significantly easier (especially when many times the changes were just a new logo there and update the date here)."

Andrew,

I freely acknowledge that large TV operations and post houses have had capabilities like this for a long time. At the cost of building out zillion dollar infrastructures and maintaining teams of engineers to keep it all running.

Now anyone can have the same basic capabilities for $299 and the cost of a MacBook Pro.

That's a significant change in paradigm, IMO.

FCP X is clearly not designed to replace a broadcast play out system... at least at this point in it's development!

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


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 11:31:45 am

[Bill Davis] "I freely acknowledge that large TV operations and post houses have had capabilities like this for a long time. At the cost of building out zillion dollar infrastructures and maintaining teams of engineers to keep it all running."

Bill, I was doing all of this by myself at a small ad agency with only a handful of hard drives, a Dell workstation and Media Composer - 5 years ago.

Any project I'd archived could be back online within minutes - often less than 30 seconds. It didn't take zillions of dollars or engineers. Just a basic understanding of harddrive based archiving and choosing an NLE that could manage media intelligently.

Regarding file delivery for approvals - I've been that about 7 years. It's wasn't a one-click straight to Vimeo or YouTube, but the clients wouldn't have agreed to that anyway. They wanted specific file types emailed to them or uploaded to their (or our) FTP.

I am curious, can you set up your own template to compress to a particular file type then immediately upload it to an FTP site? I've played with FCPX some but I haven't messed with the publish features. Are they customizable, and if so to what degree?

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 8:06:47 pm

[Michael Hancock] " am curious, can you set up your own template to compress to a particular file type then immediately upload it to an FTP site? I've played with FCPX some but I haven't messed with the publish features. Are they customizable, and if so to what degree?"

As with most Apple software designs, you're given basic capabilities inside the program that fit the most common export profiles - particularly if those are satisfied by technologies that Apple owns and don't have to license from outside.

I suspect that the X designers felt that FTP will be dying out since there are so many more "user friendly" choices every day ala YouSendIt and Dropbox - the kind of services I see creative pros using today instead of the somewhat arcane FTP utilities.

So inside X, you get a menu of sixteen primary choices.

The first 4 are Media Browser, Apple Devices, DVD, and BlueRay.

(the Media Browser, btw, is very interesting to me - as it allows you to "publish" your video in various Apple friendly sizes (iPod to "Mac and PC" that are accessible to you regardless of whether the source media is present. It's a "published final" state. truncated from the original file, if that's what you need - very much like an "export" in Legacy - but one that the program indexes and manages from an internal media browser, rather than just randomly plopping it wherever you have the finder currently saving things.

Ignoring the podcast producer (since I don't do that), you arrive at email, this is a single choice interface that combines significant compression, and a message creation interface so you can shoot out approval copies via email simply and easily from within the program.

The major services block comes next. YouTube, Facebook, Vimeo, and CNN's iReport. These all allow you to store your account settings and do one click publishing to sites you choose with your account settings and passwords stored and auto-inserted to make recurring "publishing" easier.

Next is the big one, IMO. It's Export Media and lets you do limited customization of a standalone output file. Admittedly it's pretty Apple Centric centered on ProRes and H-264 - but that makes sense since these are all codec choices that Apple has the rights to use without further licensing arrangements. This is also where you can use Roles to create audio and video stems for some forms of collaborative work.

Exporting from Export Media is also the gateway to creating files that I pull into Episode if I need to transcode to something like WMV, FLV or SWF for older style corporate servers, etc.

There are also images sequence options for animation work, HTTP streaming, etc.

All in all, its a pretty modern array of choices centered around Apple's licenses that reflects their view of how people will generate and share work in the "connected" future.

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

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 8:50:25 pm

[Bill Davis] "I suspect that the X designers felt that FTP will be dying out since there are so many more "user friendly" choices every day ala YouSendIt and Dropbox - the kind of services I see creative pros using today instead of the somewhat arcane FTP utilities."

"FTP is dead" is the new "tape is dead." Like tape or even the 40-year-old EDL, sometimes good ol' FTP may be a better fit for a specific workflow. Although I have subscriptions to both YouSendIt and Dropbox, I still must use FTP extensively for moving image sequences or large single movie files that are impractical for the newer browser-based cloud storage services.

You know what? I'm totally ok with my creative apps not having an FTP utility built in. I need them to let me create. I have other applications for the backend workflow stuff.

Bill, I think the reason you get a lot of pushback on examples like this one is that there's a perception that FCPX makes easy things easier, but also sometimes makes hard things harder -- and you're only highlighting the easy stuff.

Personally, I'm most interested in FCPX's success stories where it has made a hard thing easier.

I do agree with you that FCPX has enormous potential; I'm just not sure I can agree with you that it will live up to it. I also believe that the Internet and mobility are not changing media production fundamentals any more than the dot-com boom and crash changed business fundamentals. For these reasons, I don't think that talking about what FCPX might someday allow is as beneficial as talking about what it can do today.

For now, I'm very interested in the practical benefits of FCPX. I'd love to hear about how people are working around the scary reliability and performance concerns on big projects so they can take advantage of features like the cool built-in DAM. I'd love to hear how people are using FCPX and collaborating with others.I'd love to hear how people are staying organized better with project duplication, or speeding up their work with keyword ranges, or making better cuts (or getting faster approvals) using auditions, or building and using rigged Motion templates for graphics.

One-click upload doesn't impress me, because the manual process isn't daunting at all. Native no-transcode editing doesn't impress me, because both PrP and MC (to an extent) can do it. Portable editorial doesn't impress me, because you could do it with FCP1 on a PowerBook G3 twelve years ago.

Once we look over these, I think there are many real cases where FCPX can win because of a specific advantage no one else has. I'm sure you have some of those stories to tell yourself. Those are the ones I'd love to hear about and learn from.

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: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 9:48:15 pm

[Walter Soyka] "One-click upload doesn't impress me, because the manual process isn't daunting at all. Native no-transcode editing doesn't impress me, because both PrP and MC (to an extent) can do it. Portable editorial doesn't impress me, because you could do it with FCP1 on a PowerBook G3 twelve years ago.

Once we look over these, I think there are many real cases where FCPX can win because of a specific advantage no one else has. I'm sure you have some of those stories to tell yourself. Those are the ones I'd love to hear about and learn from."


Walter,

I get your perspective. But in this, your view and mine simply don't dovetail. I wrote for so long for a general video editing audience, so I tend to try to "universalize" what I post. While I know it's going to be read and critiqued by you and many other working professionals here, it's also going to be read by a large audience that isn't working at the top level of production.

My writing orientation has always been not to get so caught up in my interest in the "high level features" that I forget that others might not know as much about the software's more basic capabilities as you and I.

And if other packages have similar capabilities so what? Does that make a discussion of how they're implemented in X less useful in a forum where the Software's name is right up front?

Let's not forget that these basic capabilities are often precisely the ones that make a particular software approach more productive for a particular user.

X is a program for a LOT of different kinds of editors. And for every one of you who is only marginally interested in Share - I bet there are a large number of people reading here who knew very little about that particular capability in X before my post - and will be a bit more able to see if the tool might appeal to them if they can better understand what X offers in this area.

I get that you and others here are at a level where "share" represents a lot of duplication of what you already do in your sophisticated workflows. And if "top level pros" was the exclusive target audience for X, I'd agree with you. But its not. Just like Legacy, X has, from the beginning, been promoted by Apple as a "general purpose" professional video editing tool for the modern editing era. Not one exclusively built for large shops with traditional model workflows.

I suspect that as many come here to explore what FCP-X can do as continue to come here exclusively to crow about what it can't. And particularly, since this forum seems to keep getting almost weekly "promotional announcements" about it's competitors capabilities, I think providing the audience with discussions about what it can is every bit as germane to these discussions.

So that I took the time to post about some of the areas where it's designers built-in some "non-traditional" workflow enhancements purpose built for the new connected era - and that's worth noting.

Fair is fair, after all.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 -- NOW: An Open Letter to Aspiring Post Production Professionals
on Mar 30, 2012 at 6:15:53 pm

[Bill Davis] "I get your perspective. But in this, your view and mine simply don't dovetail."

Fair enough. That's part of what makes this forum interesting -- different people, different perspectives, different needs, different workflows.


[Bill Davis] "And if other packages have similar capabilities so what? Does that make a discussion of how they're implemented in X less useful in a forum where the Software's name is right up front?"

I'm not saying it's not useful to discuss, but FCPX will not score any knockout punches in areas where its competitors offer similar functionality.

Easy DSLR workflow is new to the FCP franchise starting last June, but it's old hat to Premiere users. Tony's sports highlight reels, on the other hand, are a great example of a workflow where FCPX has a unique advantage and can score a knockout punch.

I know that you can cut anything in MC, Pr, or FCPX if you have to. Since all three NLEs exhibit totally different design philosophies, I'm most interested in knowing how to use them to play to their strengths.


[Bill Davis] "I wrote for so long for a general video editing audience, so I tend to try to "universalize" what I post. While I know it's going to be read and critiqued by you and many other working professionals here, it's also going to be read by a large audience that isn't working at the top level of production. "

I thank you for the compliment, but speaking for myself, I think I've still got a long way to go before I reach the top level!

I've been treating this as a conversation with the participants here. I didn't realize I was a foil to write to a larger audience.

If I were going to write an open letter to the large audience that isn't working at the top level of production, here's what I'd say:

I encourage you to try FCPX for yourself. Learn it, use it, then love it, like it, ignore it, or hate it.

If you aspire to rise, though, I'd also encourage you to learn other NLEs. Look beyond the Apple ecosystem. In my experience, the more-interesting and better-paying projects come with higher expectations and deeper challenges. These challenges are not all easily solved within any single app.

Knowledge of other tools -- and/or the ability to connect the dots in between then -- is critical for anyone looking to advance their career in post-production or improve the quality of their output.

More importantly, intimate knowledge of the principles behind the tools is the key to problem-solving in post-production.

For example, if you must rely on the Share feature to compress and upload to Vimeo, drop whatever you are doing right now, and go learn the basics of compression. Not knowing something like this puts you at a disadvantage against someone with even a cursory understanding of compression, and when there is so much talent (or at least interest) in the field of production, you need to do everything possible to make yourself marketable or to make your output superior.

I don't mean this as an indictment of FCPX, and I want to be very clear that I believe you can do outstanding work solely in FCPX.

I do mean this as an indictment of the way that Apple's design philosophies can undermine professional development if you are not careful. Simplicity is a fine goal, right up until it impedes flexibility or nuance. I have no problem with Share functionality making it easier to upload to Vimeo, as long as it continues to support custom exports, too.

Share to Vimeo is a time-saving shortcut. If you only ever use that shortcut, though, and never learn how to do it for yourself, you're strapping on a straightjacket designed in Cupertino.

Please note that there are also straightjackets available from Tewksbury, San Jose, San Rafael, etc.

With any application from any vendor, read beyond the marketing materials. Cut through the hype. They all have strengths and weaknesses. They are not all appropriate for the same work. No one vendor in this space has a monopoly on innovation or vision of the future. As much as your choice of tools can help you, it can also hurt you.

My message to anyone would be to always continue learning, and to never accept artificial limits on your 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

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 -- NOW: An Open Letter to Aspiring Post Production Professionals
on Mar 30, 2012 at 6:30:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "With any application from any vendor, read beyond the marketing materials. Cut through the hype. They all have strengths and weaknesses. They are not all appropriate for the same work. No one vendor in this space has a monopoly on innovation or vision of the future. As much as your choice of tools can help you, it can also hurt you.

My message to anyone would be to always continue learning, and to never accept artificial limits on your capabilities."


Fantastic post Walter.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 -- NOW: An Open Letter to Aspiring Post Production Professionals
on Mar 31, 2012 at 4:46:53 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Walter Soyka] "With any application from any vendor, read beyond the marketing materials. Cut through the hype. They all have strengths and weaknesses. They are not all appropriate for the same work. No one vendor in this space has a monopoly on innovation or vision of the future. As much as your choice of tools can help you, it can also hurt you.

My message to anyone would be to always continue learning, and to never accept artificial limits on your capabilities."

Fantastic post Walter.
"


Yeah! Nearly Poifect!


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 -- NOW: An Open Letter to Aspiring Post Production Professionals
on Mar 30, 2012 at 6:37:00 pm

[Walter Soyka] "My message to anyone would be to always continue learning, and to never accept artificial limits on your capabilities."

Terrific and inspiring post!!!!!

The "keep learning" thing is the most important thing you can do both from a business point of view but more importantly from a personal growth point of view - and not just within the world of your immediate job.

If you only know one way of doing something, especially if that way has narrow limits, then you're really losing out in so many ways.

Everything new you learn sooner or later feeds into what you already know and enhances it.

Sometimes it even pays to embrace things you don't think you like - at the very least you will gain valuable perspective. And one day you might just find the job that is perfect for the knowledge you have acquired.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 2:59:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "OK, Herb, but if you're gonna ding the "crazy" bell on me -how do you handle that the original link here was to yet another pro user in the field saying the same thing I've said over and over and over again."

I wasn't really dinging the bell, I was just reacting to the sentence itself, it was like challenging someone to make a funny comment. So to clarify Bill, I don't think your crazy. I do think some of your arguments are lacking in logic, but it's not a personal judgement.

[Bill Davis] "As one small example, people diss X for crashing. Which is fair. It does crash. And if that's all someone has to say, it's fair - but it's also misleading. Cuz, when others note that it largely crashes "losslessly" and an average user seldom gets set back much if any from such a crash - that's useful for someone trying to decide whether to use it."

On the other hand people praise X for it's speed. I don't see how continuous crashing helps your overall cutting speed, even with lossless reboots, but hey, that's just me.

[Bill Davis] "I can edit faster with X than I could with Legacy - and now I understand that with every project I successfully create and archive, I am building a global database for each client that I can use in the future that will potentially improve my efficiency further. I just got an order for new commercials for a west coast client just yesterday, and was able to save hours if not days by instantly calling up the relevant selects via keywords off the old project. I went from idea to rough cut in 30 minutes , rather than a full day of dis-archiving their project from a year ago and re-capturing the digital tapes which would have been the process a year ago."

I like the database of keywords, that works for me, it sounds very convenient to have it inside the ap. See, I can admit that their are some excellent ideas within X. But for the rest, the dis-archiving and re-capturing has nothing specifically to do with X, your talking about tapeless workflows and archiving, and while X is an improvement over Legacy there, many other NLE's -- PPro, Edius -- had X beat to market with that workflow by about a year.

[Bill Davis] "That's what X has the potential to do. Uniquely in my estimation. It's built for persistent on-line asset storage and retrieval."

What is unique about X as far as asset storage and retrieval goes? Persistent on-line storage is dependent on the size of you asset library. I shoot 15 Terrabytes of new material each spring. If I needed persistent storage I would have to buy a new 16TB raid every year. With that financial commitment even Legacy could have "persistent on-line asset storage and retrieval." I don't see how X makes the storage and retrieval process go any faster or cheaper - this is a real question - can you explain what you mean here?

[Bill Davis] "I've already used features like the Share capabilities to turn client approval dubs into something that take literally seconds to generate and email, rather than the hours it took to burn DVDs and FedEx them off in the past."

One click export is nice, but it's not that much faster than the 5 clicks I need to export a file with Legacy. I still have to send some of my clients DVDs, their choice not mine. I think the ability to remotely screen and work with collaborators using Ichat and Skype is a much bigger deal.

[Bill Davis] "The "timeline operations" module in the middle of FCP-X is all that most traditional "editors" are stuck arguing about. (Analogy alert: look away so as not to burn your brain!) To me that's like arguing exclusively about the engines at a car show. Should it be part of the discussion? Absolutely. But it's not the only discussion worth having. And the engine doesn't adequately describe the entire car experience, does it?"

But if the engine won't get you up the mountain it's a waste of time talking about the great navigation features and the lumbar support. It's not the only thing, but it's a deal breaker.

[Bill Davis] "That's the kind of stuff that those of us who are using it are seeing as transformative. Not whether the timeline is magnetic or not. That turned out to be almost totally trivial in hindsight."

If it's so trivial and yet so polarizing, you'd think they would address it.

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: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)
on Mar 29, 2012 at 9:57:56 pm

[Herb Sevush] "On the other hand people praise X for it's speed. I don't see how continuous crashing helps your overall cutting speed, even with lossless reboots, but hey, that's just me."

It's because it's not actually "continuous crashing" at all. It's more like "situational crashing" - in some circumstances where the database processes get confused because they don't have time to do their work before the user moves on - you can get into loops where crashes become more common until the software gets its organization sorted out.

When things are properly stored and rendered and where X expects them to be - I can editing contentedly for DAYS without a hint of a crash - moving between projects and versions with speed.

Then I'll get into something complex, and forget that the engine is chugging away in the background and I'll keep asking it to keep up with more and more commands until it gets angry with me and demands my attention with a "soft crash." (I label it that because 99 times out of 100 on re-boot I end up right where i left off.)

So you can call that "continuous crashing" if you like. But if you use the software as much as I do for daily work - you start to get feel for when to keep pushing and when to back off and let X do it's behind the scenes stuff - and that process alone seems to reduce crashes to a minimum.

Again, it's a different beast than Legacy. And I suspect there's a LOT going on in the code behind the scenes that make it work this way.

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

TImothy Auld
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 5:58:15 pm

I watched this whole thing. Are you kidding me?

Tim


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:07:37 pm

And just to put a finer point on it if your supposed partners have decided to call your product by a different name then I, as a user, would be very worried. And I am.

Tim


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:17:25 pm

And to put an even finer point on it there is nothing in this video that addresses his workflow from beginning to end. Or even from the beginning. What is it other than a house organ?

Tim


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:54:56 pm

Implied rather than explicit but given he's from NJ he either spend many a dime to go there or this was a real job which required a real decision on which NLE he used (unless you think Apple was the one who paid his way). The conclusion was certainly some issues that badly need to be addressed but an overall experience better than FCP7. Some of us, me included, really do prefer FCPX to 7 wherever and whenever possible.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 7:03:51 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Some of us, me included, really do prefer FCPX to 7 wherever and whenever possible."

The straw man argument again. It is fair to Compare it to PPRO, Edius, Avid or Vegas, but comparing it to EOL'd software? - Why don't you compare it to a Steinbeck while your at it.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 8:16:15 pm

[Herb Sevush] "It is fair to Compare it to PPRO, Edius, Avid or Vegas, but comparing it to EOL'd software? - Why don't you compare it to a Steinbeck while your at it."

It's certainly fair to compare it to non Apple NLEs. He doesn't do that so there's no "there" to look at in this video. He's just pointing out that it's better than FCPX in his opinion which, for some here, can't seem to get past.

Certainly some of the features FCXP has, have been in PPro for some time and some are better implemented in Avid currently.

That set of comparisons are for someone else to make when they do an FCPX project having used Avid or PPro recently.



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:42:43 pm

[Herb Sevush] "It is fair to Compare it to PPRO, Edius, Avid or Vegas, but comparing it to EOL'd software? - Why don't you compare it to a Steinbeck while your at it."

Sorry Herb but my inner pedant is being invoked. None of those NLE's have written anything so hard to compare to Steinbeck, but Steenbeck is another matter.:)


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 12:44:33 am

[Michael Gissing] "Sorry Herb but my inner pedant is being invoked. None of those NLE's have written anything so hard to compare to Steinbeck, but Steenbeck is another matter.:)
"


That's pretty funny. I'm reading/listening to "East of Eden" right now, and if it comes down to a choice between FCP X being in the world and "East of Eden" being in the world, I'll take "East of Eden." Magnificent book! Much more too it than the movie.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 2:27:05 pm

[Michael Gissing] "None of those NLE's have written anything so hard to compare to Steinbeck, but Steenbeck is another matter."


Blast you, spell checker!!!

I should have gone with Moviola.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 2:59:08 pm

But isn't this forum all about "Of Mice and Editors"



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 8:26:28 pm

[Craig Seeman] " this was a real job which required a real decision on which NLE he used (unless you think Apple was the one who paid his way)."

"I've been using it (chuckle) almost by force"

In the video he implied that the decision to use X wasn't exactly his.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 9:16:33 pm

[Herb Sevush] "In the video he implied that the decision to use X wasn't exactly his."

I don't think he means Apple was the enforcer (but just speculation). He seems to indicate issues that might have occurred with FCP7.

It certainly would have been interesting if he had the wherewithal (both time and familiarity) to spend some part of the project on FCPX and another on PPro for example.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:58:39 pm

[TImothy Auld] "And to put an even finer point on it there is nothing in this video that addresses his workflow from beginning to end. Or even from the beginning. What is it other than a house organ?

Tim"


Uh,

I didn't realize that this was supposed to be a "workflow training product."

It's just the story of a working editor. Cutting a real project on real deadlines in the real world. Using a new tool that many people are interested in.

Nothing to get upset about, Tim.

(Do you tear up car brochures when you read them and decide that the model being shown doesn't fork for your particular family situation? Must be a tough life for you if that's your approach to all product change.)

"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

TImothy Auld
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 8:12:17 pm

Bill,

Careful what you "quote." Did I say anywhere at at anytime that this was - entirely in your words by the way - a "workflow training product" No. I did not. What I said, and which you did not address, is that the original post seems very much like a house organ. So let the person who posted it come and defend it. I doubt he needs you to do so.

Tim


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 9:07:04 pm

This is what I said from the beginning was going to happen.

Quick turn around live sports related stuff like this is right in the X wheelhouse.

You are going to have more and more people at different levels of production coming forward to say how well X works for them, and that will spur more and more people to use it.

When you look at the pic of the camera crew they are holding their cams in the shot and none of them look cheap.

That's a real crew doing real work.

Just like our FOX SPORTS producers this year leaving to cover spring training with X in tow.

He broke down bad stuff about it also. In the end the pros outweighed the cons so he went with it. That's me.

I like how he said he wasn't going back twice hahahaha he couldn't just say it once : )

Thanks for posting it.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 9:27:07 pm

All the best, Tony.

Tim


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 10:14:17 pm

Tony - how are you dealing with Audio -- isn't it a time vampire rubber banding every single track of audio to get mixes just right - in FCP7 -AVID- Premiere and virtually every other NLE we've used in the last decade, there's a dedicated real time - keyframe recording mixer built in - but not here....that's a big missing feature.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 28, 2012 at 11:06:13 pm

[Andy Field] "that's a big missing feature"

Yes, it is. I'm just making my adjustments in the timeline. (BTW I love those faders that he talked about)

Remember most of the events I'm working on are out of million dollar remote trucks.

Games aside, if we do a multi-cam round table for MLB or heck Oprah was just here,

the client wants all cameras isoed so they can do their own cut later sometimes, but the sound is mixed from the truck and sometimes submixed from the stage to the truck. They might just say give me the straight mix off the x-file or want certain talent mics to go with the camera that his that talent.

In the case where they want talent broke out they STILL take the main mix from the board on one ch (or two if it's stereo) because they just don't want to re-mix the whole show. They want to cover themselves and that's cool but no matter how big their show is, and I don't know many people bigger than Oprah, at the end of the day they are leaving that truck with 4 tracks of audio. No matter how much wire gets hung out on set day.

My point is, the bigger these shows are, and the more complicated the audio is, the more mixed they are, before it ever gets to whoever will re-cut it. At that point the hard work in audio is already done.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 3:53:08 am

[tony west] "Quick turn around live sports related stuff like this is right in the X wheelhouse.
"

This have been told here long ago and I think is widely accepted, but what this means for the people that is not on sports and news?
I've said many times that i wish I would have had FCPX years ago when I worked on news & sports, but that's not my job anymore.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 1:19:40 pm

[Rafael Amador] "but what this means for the people that is not on sports and news?"

There are plenty of people on here using X for things other than sports or news my brother, just look around on here.

He--, I'm the only one talking about sports, everybody else here is talking about something else.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 4:02:48 am

[tony west] "They want to cover themselves and that's cool but no matter how big their show is, and I don't know many people bigger than Oprah, at the end of the day they are leaving that truck with 4 tracks of audio."

That might be the case for your truck, but on the large unscripted stuff I've worked on, there are definitely more than four audio/video ISOs available--usually one for each lav, a couple of booms, and a static room mic. Of course that's in a studio, so its easier to manage.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 1:42:19 pm

[Chris Harlan] "That might be the case for your truck, but on the large unscripted stuff I've worked on, there are definitely more than four audio/video ISOs available--usually one for each lav, a couple of booms, and a static room mic. Of course that's in a studio, so its easier to manage.
"


Of course, I think most people know I'm not suggesting we are all working on the same shows, that should go without saying.

I was just on a job like you described two weeks ago. The audio might be handled funky by X right now in that case but still can be done.

My point is I'm willing to deal with that because of the ease in other parts that I like.

That's what that guy in the video was saying. He didn't like everything in X but he liked more than he didn't like and he got the job done with it.

There are a gazillion shoots where there is only one person on camera at a time.

Carpet commercial, hotel spot it's election time some politician standing there talking.

Then the other extreme I described. If there is a job with 20 mics or more without a truck there to mix it, I wouldn't want to work that job anyway.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 1:55:02 pm

[tony west] "Then the other extreme I described. If there is a job with 20 mics or more without a truck there to mix it, I wouldn't want to work that job anyway."

Ha! I am laughing out loud.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 4:21:00 pm

[tony west] "Of course, I think most people know I'm not suggesting we are all working on the same shows, that should go without saying."

Sorry if I misunderstood you. It seemed to me you were strongly implying that even large shows max out at 4 ISOs, let alone the small ones. And yes, I think most people know we are not all working on the same shows.

[tony west] "The audio might be handled funky by X right now in that case but still can be done."

That's good. For my particular job, the trade-off wouldn't be anywhere near worth it, but I certainly see where it would work well for many people.


[tony west] "There are a gazillion shoots where there is only one person on camera at a time.

Carpet commercial, hotel spot it's election time some politician standing there talking.
"


Of course there are. Do you somehow think I'm arguing that there are not? My response to your earlier statement was focused only on the assertion that jobs top out at four ISOs, which was apparently my mistake by misinterpreting what you were saying. Again, if I misunderstood you, sorry.

[tony west] "Then the other extreme I described. If there is a job with 20 mics or more without a truck there to mix it, I wouldn't want to work that job anyway.
"


Yeah, that would be a challenge. Fortunately, I've never seen such a thing in the kind of format you are talking about.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 10:19:03 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Yeah, that would be a challenge. Fortunately, I've never seen such a thing in the kind of format you are talking about.
"


But what am I talking about? A round table, entertainment show or Supercross that's not live but needs to be posted for air at a later date.


It all goes to the same point. Complicated audio on multi-cam shoots mixed down before it leaves the truck for post.





Dude wait! Don't plug all that audio in! People have not seen such a thing!



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 29, 2012 at 10:40:43 pm

[tony west] "[Chris Harlan] "Yeah, that would be a challenge. Fortunately, I've never seen such a thing in the kind of format you are talking about.
"

But what am I talking about? A round table, entertainment show or Supercross that's not live but needs to be posted for air at a later date."


Tony, I'm afraid I sometimes get a bit lost in conversation with you. You were talking about a hypothetical "job with 20 mics or more without a truck there to mix it," to which you added, "I wouldn't want to work that job anyway." You didn't specify what kind of job, other than its a remote, so I don't know why you are asking me to guess.

Whatever format you were or were not talking about, it involved a remote truck, and I was simply agreeing with you that twenty ISOs coming off of a truck without anyone riding herd on them would be daunting, and probably unnecessary, and though I can imagine such things exist, I personally have not seen them.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 30, 2012 at 1:33:19 am

[Chris Harlan] " so I don't know why you are asking me to guess. "

I didn't ask you to guess anything. You decided to comment to me.


You assumed those two examples I gave were the only types of events.

I didn't ask you to assume that.


Big complicated event audio uses trucks for the most part and the sound is mixed down.

I don't know what's confusing about that.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 30, 2012 at 4:11:33 am

[tony west] "[Chris Harlan] " so I don't know why you are asking me to guess. "

I didn't ask you to guess anything. You decided to comment to me. "


Yes, you did.


[tony west] "You assumed those two examples I gave were the only types of events.

I didn't ask you to assume that."


No, I didn't.


[tony west] "Big complicated event audio uses trucks for the most part and the sound is mixed down.

I don't know what's confusing about that.
"


I'm not confused. I've been around big events for far longer than you have. I've been in all sorts of trucks. I have a friend who operates his own very nice, very large truck. And, in other parts of my career, I've spent quite a bit of time mixing down analog sound myself. I really am not confused about trucks, remotes, or sound mixing. Really.


I'll tell you, though, what is confusing me, Tony; it is that I haven't the slightest idea what it is you are talking about. This started as a brief comment about ISOs, and has mushroomed into some sort of conversation that makes me feel like, well, I'm on mushrooms. Any part of the miscommunication I might be responsible for, I'm really sorry.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 30, 2012 at 3:22:13 pm

[Chris Harlan] "
I didn't ask you to guess anything. You decided to comment to me. "

Yes, you did."


paste the line then, instead of your comment.


[Chris Harlan] "I've been around big events for far longer than you have."

This is strange, I don't know you, so how do you know how long I have been in the business.
If this is true post what year I started and where.



[Chris Harlan] " I really am not confused about trucks"

Then you should understand what I said about trucks.




[Chris Harlan] "I'll tell you, though, what is confusing me, Tony; it is that I haven't the slightest idea what it is you are talking about. "

You keep saying that you don't know what I'm talking about then I explain it then you say you don't know what I'm talking about again.


People point out that X can't handle complicated audio, so my point is one, most shoots don't have a ton of tracks of audio. More times than not it's one person on camera at a time. And two, when you have a big muti-cam shoots with many mics, that sound is mixed down before the editor gets it. so that's a job that X could handle also.

[Chris Harlan] "some sort of conversation that makes me feel like, well, I'm on mushrooms."

I feel that way to about you.

If other people on here thought I was confusing I would give it a thought but they are not.
It's just you.

I don't really enjoy conversing with you and you don't enjoy conversing with me, yet you keep sniffing around my post seeking to communicate with me.

I find that behavior.........weird.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 30, 2012 at 3:45:27 pm

[tony west] "when you have a big muti-cam shoots with many mics, that sound is mixed down before the editor gets it. so that's a job that X could handle also."

I cut multi-cam cooking shows, 5 cameras lately. Generally 2, sometimes 3 people cooking at once. There is a mixed track that I send to all of the cameras, plus there are 3 iso tracks plus iso tracks from 2 EFX shotgun mics mounted in the kitchen that are spread out over the remaining available camera tracks.

When cutting I use the mixed tracks 90 % of the time. But when I need to go to the iso's it's generally for repairing audio and the cuts run from 3 frames to 30 seconds. I have dozens of these cuts in each show, where I need to replace ch1 Cam A audio with ch2 Cam C audio. I also need to refind sync if I decide to go from a cover shot back to a WS. By all counts X is not suited to this task. Legacy was, Avid is, Discreet *edit could do this 10 years ago - this is not an unusual workflow for multi-cam.

So yes, most truck shoots have a mixed track to work with, but no, that doesn't get around the problem of cutting those shows with X unless the mixed track is perfect. Needless to say, I have never seen a perfect mixed track in the last 20 years of doing this.

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 30, 2012 at 4:29:55 pm

[Herb Sevush] "But when I need to go to the iso's it's generally for repairing audio "


OK Herb, good points.

My question is this (and I know it's a extra step workaround that you shouldn't have to do) but can you repair the audio on that clip before you start your multi-cam edit since it's hard to do once you get in there.

Like you said

[Herb Sevush] "90 % of the time" you are on the mix so you tweak up RF hits or whatever before, so when you start your edit you are dealing with audio you have already fixed.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 30, 2012 at 4:42:43 pm

[tony west] " can you repair the audio on that clip before you start your multi-cam edit since it's hard to do once you get in there."

It doesn't work that way, the entire edit is done in multi-cam mode, you don't start in one mode and then switch later on. Also I never know what I'm going to have to fix till I make the edits.

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 30, 2012 at 9:14:08 pm

[Herb Sevush] "It doesn't work that way, the entire edit is done in multi-cam mode, you don't start in one mode and then switch later on. Also I never know what I'm going to have to fix till I make the edits.
"




I just shot a cooking show with 5 cams 9 ch audio. I didn't cut it. The station did in 7

I would have liked to have done it in X so I could put it to that type of test.
I'm pretty confident I could have got it done.

For me it comes down to pros and cons

pros:
I like that audio sync
I don't waste time with jamming tc in field
64 bit
and other tools

cons:
audio funky to handle in multicam mode


Pros out number cons for me.
I guess it's the same for that guy that started the thread in the first place.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 30, 2012 at 9:35:34 pm

[tony west] "I would have liked to have done it in X so I could put it to that type of test. I'm pretty confident I could have got it done."

I'm sure you could, the question is, in my situation, why would I want to, since there are better systems for cutting this type of material that are already out there. For this type of job Legacy is way better. The right tool for the right job.

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 30, 2012 at 10:59:15 pm

[Herb Sevush] "For this type of job Legacy is way better. The right tool for the right job."


Yes, you should use that no doubt.

I won't though.

I'm never going back to 32 bit

That's the whole thing right? Everybody should use what's working for them.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 30, 2012 at 11:32:56 pm

[tony west] "If other people on here thought I was confusing I would give it a thought but they are not.
It's just you.

I don't really enjoy conversing with you and you don't enjoy conversing with me, yet you keep sniffing around my post seeking to communicate with me.

I find that behavior.........weird.
"


Wow. Tony its a forum. We comment on each other's posts. When we find something we disagree with, we say it. I promise you, I have absolutely no interest in you in any way that involves "sniffing around." To reiterate what this whole gnarly thing is about--I've personally worked on a number of event shows that have more than four ISOs in addition to a rough mix. You were strongly implying that most of those things top out at 4. I disagreed with you. How the conversation got to all of the places you took it, I have no idea.

I will try heartily not to post on any of your comments unless I find something that I really disagree with. Then, I'll post.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 31, 2012 at 1:07:31 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Tony its a forum. We comment on each other's posts."

Your doing more than commenting on my post.

Your trying to insult at the same time (your mushroom comment)

You didn't answer my question.

What year did I start?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Mar 31, 2012 at 4:23:43 pm

[tony west] "You didn't answer my question.

What year did I start?
"


Tony, how would I possibly know? But I look at your picture and you seem to be reasonably young. I was working major events like the Academy Awards back in the early '80s. So, if it turns out that I'm wrong, and you have in fact been working on those kind of shows for that long then I apologize and congratulate you on your youthful resilience.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Apr 1, 2012 at 2:36:25 pm

[Chris Harlan] "[tony west] "You didn't answer my question.

What year did I start?
"

Tony, how would I possibly know? But I look at your picture and you seem to be reasonably young. I was working major events like the Academy Awards back in the early '80s. So, if it turns out that I'm wrong, and you have in fact been working on those kind of shows for that long then I apologize and congratulate you on your youthful resilience."



I kinda figured that it was that pic.

Thanks for the compliment Chris, but I have to admit I'm closer to 50 than 40 : )

I just look kind of young. I can tell you after running up and down the sidelines on Sunday I don't feel so young hehehe

I apologize for getting so harsh with you.

I took some of your comments as personal, but I don't think you meant them that way now.

Glad we could end on a more positive note.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:14:11 am

[tony west] "I apologize for getting so harsh with you.

I took some of your comments as personal, but I don't think you meant them that way now.

Glad we could end on a more positive note."


It's cool, man. I apologize too for anything untoward that I may have said. I was pretty sure we were misunderstanding each other. Any, Tony, just for the record I am very interested in hearing about your positive experiences with FCP X. I really do believe that it is useful for a number of people, and I'm hoping that someday it will be useful me.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:45:12 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I am very interested in hearing about your positive experiences with FCP X. I really do believe that it is useful for a number of people, and I'm hoping that someday it will be useful me."


There are a lot of things I like about X Chris, but part of it is, I kind of feel I don't have many choices.

I don't like Avid so I'm not going back there.

I looked at cs5 and didn't like that much. cs6 might be cool but I would be starting all over and I'm getting up to speed on X, and legacy is too slow for me now that I have used 64

I do my effects in Motion so that kind of holds me there also.

The main thing I guess is I don't see X standing still. I think they will just keep making updates and it will get better and better.

As good as seven was people still had a list of things for Apple to improve on. I feel It's always going to be that way with any app.

After that last update X really bogs down depending on what your doing (heavy graphics maybe)
That's going to have to get fixed very soon.

When I look at videos from Steve Martin (ripple training) he is very excited about X.
He's a very talented editor and his enthusiasm gives me hope for the future.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Apr 2, 2012 at 4:04:53 pm

[tony west] "When I look at videos from Steve Martin (ripple training) he is very excited about X. He's a very talented editor and his enthusiasm gives me hope for the future."

Not meaning to rain on your parade, and this is not specific really to X, but Steve Martin is a "professional trainer," his enthusiasm is part of his job description. It's like taking a cue from the enthusiasm of a car dealer - even if his car is known to catch fire upon ignition, he's the last guy who's going to tell you.

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Apr 2, 2012 at 6:02:11 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Steve Martin is a "professional trainer," "


Yes, indeed.

But he is also a Pro editor.

He also knows X better than most people I have seen, so when I have a questions I kind of look to him.

The thing is Herb, I want all the information I can get to make up my own mind.

I can find people on here to rip X

I would say he is the other side. He can break down what X CAN do.

The main thing that never changes though is this........can I get my clients job done in this program.

So far I have not been stopped on a job because X couldn't handle it. I'm going to keep using it until that happens or until I like something better.


Return to posts index

Mark Palmos
Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
on Apr 14, 2012 at 10:42:22 am

Craig, not sure why the FCPX article is in the photoshop forum...
Also not sure why people are still bothering about FCPX... but that's up to them ;)
Cheers,
Mark.


Return to posts index

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