FORUMS: list search recent posts

Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Seeman
Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:23:47 pm

Much of the blog is in response to Creative Cow (obviously this forum). It seems to be an early response with a much later update. It's more about sentiment than anything else but given the COW focus and the sentiments expressed, it's worth a read. It does show one perspective from a professional editor at NBC in NYC.

FINAL CUT PRO X – REVENGE OF THE EDITOR
http://www.loudyeti.com/?p=127



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 1:12:29 pm

With a $600 DSLR, a $1000 computer and now $299 piece of software you can make a TV show or a movie.

While technically you can, is it going to be anything that anyone would want to watch? There are so many "cheap" pieces of media out there that fail on every single count, that this seems somewhat disingenuous, especially for someone who works in broadcast. Takes a lot more than that to produce a show that even looks like the quality you would see on NBC, let alone actually get broadcast outside of news.

Sorry, I know a bit off topic, but this irks me.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 1:13:57 pm

I should also add that you could purchase a cheap Windows laptop, install Lightworks, and make it about $500 total instead of $1300. It's not like FCPX magically improves the quality of your footage or anything.


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 1:21:23 pm

[Gary Huff] "you could purchase a cheap Windows laptop, install Lightworks, and make it about $500 total instead of $1300"

You add emphasis to his point that cost of entry is very low. Talent and skill are the telling factors.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 5:58:35 pm

Hear that sound?

drip...drip...drip...

Could that be water seeping through small cracks in the dam.

A year ago it was "it's impossible to use this professionally."
A few months later we heard that ABC was doing some limited use on the big sports games.
A few months later it was "well, Leverage is going to switch to it."
Now we learn from a first hand source that NBC is going to be using it for a network show.

drip...drip...drip...

Do you really think that someone or something is going to run in and patch this dam or divert the river?

Who, precisely? Apple keeps improving and expanding it... and so how's it gonna go backwards and get less capable, exactly?

(increasintly faster)
drip...drip...drip...drip...drip...


Honestly, this is not intended to piss anyone off, tho I expect, sadly, this it will do precisely that. But if I've learned anything here, It's how to face and shrug off certain types of criticism. So setup your fireworks and start your launch sequences - nothing says "celebration" more than endless speeches - punctuated by loud sparkly noise! ; )

"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

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:03:21 pm

YES!!! Bill you might be my favorite person in the world right now. If your ever in NYC lunch is on me.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:12:24 pm

[Mike Fernanandes] "YES!!! Bill you might be my favorite person in the world right now. If your ever in NYC lunch is on me.

loudyeti.com"


Better than that, if you come to NAB next year, Walter S and I will invite you to the "secret i don't HATE FCP-X meeting where you can speak freely and everyone smiles and is polite regardless of what you say, be it praise or critique of X."

It makes for a really GREAT 3 hours or so.

Take care. ; )

"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

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:17:58 pm

DONE! I will see you there sir.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 20, 2012 at 1:26:23 am

. . . And you might qualify as one of the more courageous editors.
I appreciate your jumping in here.



Return to posts index


Mitch Ives
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:52:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "Honestly, this is not intended to piss anyone off, tho I expect, sadly, this it will do precisely that. But if I've learned anything here, It's how to face and shrug off certain types of criticism. So setup your fireworks and start your launch sequences - nothing says "celebration" more than endless speeches - punctuated by loud sparkly noise! ; )"

Bill, I don't think honest discourse pisses people off. What pisses people off is people who dismiss legitimate criticism, as simply being a hater (a term you frequently reference).

Since I've been on this forum a lot longer than you (the beginning actually), I've seen this forum progress through it's various stages. While there's always been topics of disagreement, it reached new levels with FCPX's release. I think most people saw the potential of FCPX, they also saw the gaps. Are they being addressed, you bet... and nobody is happier about that than me.

What bothers me is when someone who lacks the the experience or framework to grasp a particular issue that I or someone has raised, while in between sips of Koolaid and out of ignorance, they criticize us for bringing up something they aren't able "to get". The failure isn't ours, it's theirs.

Is it not possible to like FCPX, and yet see which articles of clothing are missing? I would think that any enlightened person would think so, and I'm guessing you do.

Awhile back when I posted the keyframing issue I discovered, people were quick to point out that FCPX uses EaseIn/EaseOut as the default (unlike FCP7). Thank you, but since this isn't my first rodeo, I knew that. My point was that I made them all "linear" and it still has the same problem. So I clarify that, and the topic goes silent. This is a reoccurring pattern... criticize the poster who says something that isn't positive, and once he proves it to be true, ignore him. This tactic is right out of Saul Alinskey's "Rules for Radicals" and it has no place here on this board.

I'd suggest that in the future, instead of acting like Enron and thinking we're all the smartest person in the room, that when we see a criticism, we say "what is it they know that I don't", rather than assuming they're wrong or don't get it?

Does that work for everybody... cause it'd work for me?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 10:38:14 pm

[Craig Seeman] "You add emphasis to his point that cost of entry is very low. Talent and skill are the telling factors."

Talent and skill are the telling factors... as long delays introduced by not using the best, or even the right, tool for the job don't don't bring you down first. I mean, can I use the a tack hammer to drive a large nail? Sure, it would work in a pinch but I sure as heck wouldn't choose to frame a whole house with one (especially if I framed houses for a living and competed against other framers for jobs).

If you have all the time in the world then that's one thing, but paying work tends to have deadlines which makes time a factor which makes using the right tool for the job a higher priority than if you are creating a labor of love on the side.




Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 9:34:51 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Talent and skill are the telling factors... as long delays introduced by not using the best, or even the right, tool for the job don't don't bring you down first. I mean, can I use the a tack hammer to drive a large nail? Sure, it would work in a pinch but I sure as heck wouldn't choose to frame a whole house with one (especially if I framed houses for a living and competed against other framers for jobs). "

I'll risk angering the analogy gods once again...

Today, hammers are for the do-it-yourself clan and for touch up stuff. Nobody actually sees them as a smart way to handle a large project like framing a house anymore. They use compressors and nail guns. Period.

It's a large complex system requiring power, air hoses, etc. but the efficiencies of the complex approach nets much better and more efficient results than swinging a framing hammer. So FCP-Legacy is a superb nail gun system. You can build ANYTHING with it. It was great!

But the largest "nail gun" company stepped back and has created a smaller, cheaper "power hammer" (lets' call it PowerHammerX) that's self-contained and doesn't require all those compressors and hoses.

But right now, it's still a new tool - not yet as fully featured or fully powered as what it replaced. So it's not ready to transform the industry and make all those existing compressors and hoses obsolete. But the convenience of being able to move around freely and drive nails with no more effort than the nail gun users - inside a much sleeker and more portable form factor- is pretty attractive.

And for those who do lots of light framing with modest dimensional lumber that the new tool works well for - well, they've seen the writing on the wall. They're increasingly leaving the compressor at home and working with the new smaller and slimmer tool.

If the PowerHammerX folks can raise the power of their system - and prove it's just as robust and solid as the older system. It's got a really bright future.

Nothing more than that.

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 19, 2012 at 1:14:41 am

[Bill Davis] "I'll risk angering the analogy gods once again..."

I was just speaking to the general idea that tools don't matter when in the real world they do. My post contained no hidden meanings nor subtle digs.




Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 1:19:54 pm

[Gary Huff] "is it going to be anything that anyone would want to watch?"

It depends on the story telling ability and how much the low cost camera might hold you back if at all. There certainly are limitations to a $600 DSLR (especially without extra kit) but in the right hands it'll do OK.



Return to posts index

Paul Jay
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 2:03:11 pm

What you are describing is more a social issue than a technology issue.
I personally wonder why so many people nowadays like utterly crappy uninspired music.

There are brilliant productions on cheap hardware and there are terrible productions on expensive hardware.

And there's a lot in between.


Return to posts index


Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 2:20:34 pm

Hi Gary.
We actually shoot on Panasonic HPX-170's but of late myself and other station groups have actually been adding footage with Canon DLSR's. Our sister station in San Diego produces a show called SoundDiego which shoots almost entirely on a DLSR. The graphics for my show as well are all shot on a DSLR. And especially as more and more things go tapeless and the addition to IPTV becoming more and more mainstream compression rates are being improved everyday. So the difference in an image between camera's more and more starts to dwindle. Top that with it being fed over your cable or antenna its actually very easy to get a great picture with inexpensive gear.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:33:07 pm

[Gary Huff] "While technically you can, is it going to be anything that anyone would want to watch?"

Actually yes, if you're talented and understand story, of course it would be.

It's not really a relevant question any longer.

And it has nothing to do with whether these are ideal professional tools.

The question itself has been long answered.

Besides it's kind of an odd question to ask given that the most popular genre of TV, that "everyone" wants to watch, is reality TV - which takes exactly how much skill to shoot and edit creatively?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 7:08:53 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Besides it's kind of an odd question to ask given that the most popular genre of TV, that "everyone" wants to watch, is reality TV - which takes exactly how much skill to shoot and edit creatively?"

None to shoot, but from what I've hear (i don't do it myself) actually quite a lot to edit.

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


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 7:56:02 pm

http://www.loudyeti.com/?p=49

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 9:32:48 pm

[Herb Sevush] "None to shoot, but from what I've hear (i don't do it myself) actually quite a lot to edit."

I think the folks who shoot "The Deadliest Catch" and "Dirty Jobs" might disagree. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44:03 pm

I agree with Shawn here. Don't crap on someone else's lively hood simply because you don't like it. This is what i mean about this page. Its easy for you to lump in genre's and groups of people and just say oh that's garbage.

The people that work on all those reality shows that you say are garbage are people just like you. They work hard everyday just like you. Maybe thats their dream job, maybe they are taking the work that they can get but that in no way gives you the entitlement to say that what they do is easy or not. They have to deal with all the same nonsense that is the entertainment industry just like you. So if I watch something you do and its not something of my own personal taste does that give me the right to say you suck at your job.

It's hard to shoot any show. It's hard to produce any show. Its work to edit anything. And one would think that these types of forums with professionals would be uplifting and or encouraging. We can and should be better than this.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 9:59:18 pm

[Herb Sevush] "None to shoot, but from what I've hear (i don't do it myself) actually quite a lot to edit.
"


I'm talking the quality not the quantity of footage. It was the question "who would want to watch it" that I was refering too.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 10:05:08 pm

[Jim Giberti] "I'm talking the quality not the quantity of footage. It was the question "who would want to watch it" that I was refering too."

I'm with you on the "who would want to watch question." the answer is assuredly not me.

However I know several editors who work on reality shows and it actually takes a fair amount of skill to make anything at all out of the huge pile of dreck they are given to work with and the absurd deadlines they are under.

As someone once said of a project I worked on "they're trying to make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t."

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 10:16:50 pm

[Herb Sevush] "As someone once said of a project I worked on "they're trying to make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t."
"


Yes, and thank you for the finer point to mine.

That's a perfect way of describing talented editors forced to make virtual idiots saying phony idiotic things, look entertaining.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 19, 2012 at 2:34:07 am

While technically you can, is it going to be anything that anyone would want to watch?
Well, 90% of the stuff on TV is unwatchable nowadays. So the technology of your NLE is the smallest problem of our media-environement.



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 1:15:32 pm

Can’t send my mix to Protools or Color. – I don’t understand as I do my show mastering in FCP. Always have.

How can he work in broadcast and yet think the world revolves around his workflow? He doesn't have to send to Pro Tools? Great! Awesome! But some people have to, and they have a legitimate complaint, dontcha think?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 1:30:28 pm

[Gary Huff] "How can he work in broadcast and yet think the world revolves around his workflow? He doesn't have to send to Pro Tools? Great! Awesome! But some people have to, and they have a legitimate complaint, dontcha think?"

It's not that some have to, it's that some don't. And some of those that don't, can still do professional broadcast work. It's not that many complaints weren't legitimate, it's that some weren't. Depends on the job.

He's not the only one who has these sentiments. I've talked a couple of others doing broadcast work and they don't desire to have any online presence (in forum , blog or interview). They feel there have no reason to defend their choice of tool of preference (FCPX) and don't have any need or desire to get into online "defense."

Given how significant the COW plays in his commentary, I don't doubt that there are a number of people who go about their professional business (some in broadcast) who use FCPX and have no desire to share their experience given the hostility.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 2:52:03 pm

[Craig Seeman] "He's not the only one who has these sentiments. I've talked a couple of others doing broadcast work and they don't desire to have any online presence (in forum , blog or interview). They feel there have no reason to defend their choice of tool of preference (FCPX) and don't have any need or desire to get into online "defense.""

That cuts both ways. There are plenty of people who have rejected X who have no desire to be pounded on by some of the local proselytizers. In fact most people are quite shy about publishing in public on any forum, the ratio of lurkers to posters must be very high - Tim Wilson do you have any numbers on that. So I'm not feeling your pain on this Craig.

As for "The Yeti" his first specific comments were about multicam editing and they were so ignorant and arrogant as to make one question his judgement about anything, including which way is up.

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


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 3:20:29 pm

Hi Herb

Multicam – I do see the value in multi cam editing. I am not trying to discredit it and if you your self do use it awesome. I myself just have never gotten the hang of it in any sort of way. I’ve always felt it was a bit more work than stacking footage and razor it. Like running a switcher on a live shoot sometimes its not as accurate as I’d like it be. (i’ll blame that on reflexes being not up to snuff) and my train of thought is if i have to watch it live switch and then go back and re-tweek I haven’t really saved any time. Our show uses at time 3 – 4 cameras simultaneously if you were doing say a concert or sporting event SURE Multi-clip that up but I’ve just never really felt it was efficient.

And Up's the direction with the clouds right?

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 3:30:20 pm

[Mike Fernanandes] "I’ve always felt it was a bit more work than stacking footage and razor it. Like running a switcher on a live shoot sometimes its not as accurate as I’d like it be. (i’ll blame that on reflexes being not up to snuff) and my train of thought is if i have to watch it live switch and then go back and re-tweek I haven’t really saved any time. Our show uses at time 3 – 4 cameras simultaneously if you were doing say a concert or sporting event SURE Multi-clip that up but I’ve just never really felt it was efficient."

I ran a multi-cam edit in Premiere CS4 (not very well touted with it's multi-cam abilities) and never had a problem. Don't do them often, but it works well enough for my purposes.


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 3:46:46 pm

Totally I've dabbled with it. Its a nice feature. I'm just not down with the multi-cam.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 4:29:08 pm

[Mike Fernanandes] "I am not trying to discredit it and if you your self do use it awesome. "

From your blog:
"Multicam – I’ve never been a fan of this feature. I never use it and when I have multiple cameras I drop them all in a timeline shrink each down 50% and pull out the blade tool. It might not seem right or the easiest way to do it but I like it. I even tell all my new employees to edit this way. And they all seem happy too."

What do you do when it's more than 4 cameras? What do you do when it's an entire show? I understand that this type of cutting suits your limited needs for multicam but why encourage your employees NOT to learn something that might prove useful?


[Mike Fernanandes] " I myself just have never gotten the hang of it in any sort of way."

So lets disparage something you've never used while in the middle of an article complaining about people who disparage something (FCPX) they never use.


[Mike Fernanandes] "Like running a switcher on a live shoot sometimes its not as accurate as I’d like it be. (i’ll blame that on reflexes being not up to snuff) and my train of thought is if i have to watch it live switch and then go back and re-tweek I haven’t really saved any time."

Absolutely. I make my living the way I do because a while back I convinced some producers that as long as I was re-cutting their live switched shows anyhow, they should throw out the switcher, record all the cameras and let me cut it in post. Higher quality, same cost, more time - but they weren't up against tight deadlines. And you know what, they won some Emmys that way.

But let me suggest something to you. If your going to do it stone age style, set up your repo layers the way you do but then export it as a file. Now take that "quad split" file and lay it on the highest track, on top of your repo video. Now delete all the repo attributes so that the underlying tracks are full size. Now blade away to your hearts delight, covering over the quad split with whatever angle you like. This way you always have the quad split reference no matter what you do later and you don't have to constantly undo and redo the repo settings.

[Mike Fernanandes] "And Up's the direction with the clouds right?"

Only when your standing on the ground.

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


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 5:22:16 pm

What do you do when it's more than 4 cameras?
I shrink the scale down to 33% and adjust accordingly.

What do you do when it's an entire show?
The content we've produced has never been a full 30min program with multi-cam the entire 30minutes we produce live shows as well but again those are switched. but if it were I'd probably do it the same way.

I understand that this type of cutting suits your limited needs
( really.. is that constructive in anyway? )

for multi cam but why encourage your employees NOT to learn something that might prove useful?
I show people every way and every possible thing you can do. People I've hired have moved on to other shows with in the company and they continue to not use multi-cam and that's 100% on there accord. I'll poll them for you if you'd like.

So lets disparage something you've never used while in the middle of an article complaining about people who disparage something (FCPX) they never use.
I have used it. I've attempted to use it in X as well. In cutting this episode I started with multi-cam and then recut it with just synced clips ( the video layers stacked ) I prefer just having them stacked. And as you said it's not as accurate to use so why use it?

But let me suggest something to you. If your going to do it stone age style ( again insults not constructive )

set up your repo layers the way you do but then export it as a file. Now take that "quad split" file and lay it on the highest track, on top of your repo video. Now delete all the repo attributes so that the underlying tracks are full size. Now blade away to your hearts delight, covering over the quad split with whatever angle you like. This way you always have the quad split reference no matter what you do later and you don't have to constantly undo and redo the repo settings.

Right here- THIS IS AWESOME. I've never thought about exporting a clip and having it play as a master. If i ever run into a larger multi cam situation and my machine is having a hard time maintaing playback rates that will for sure be a huge time saver and easier on the machine. For this sir I thank you.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 5:59:08 pm

[Mike Fernanandes] "I understand that this type of cutting suits your limited needs
( really.. is that constructive in anyway? ) "


You are being overly defenisve here. I wasn't being facetious I was being descriptive. From my point of view you have limited multi-cam needs - no long form, no 9 camera, etc. I was simply saying that since you don't cut multi-cam on a regular basis and in complex ways then I understand how it might not be worth the trouble to learn the multi-cam feature.

[Mike Fernanandes] "I show people every way and every possible thing you can do. "

Then how am I supposed to understand this quote from your article:

"I drop them all in a timeline shrink each down 50% and pull out the blade tool. It might not seem right or the easiest way to do it but I like it. I even tell all my new employees to edit this way."


[Mike Fernanandes] "And as you said it's not as accurate to use so why use it?"

I don't know what this refers to, whats not as accurate and when did I say it?

[Mike Fernanandes] "But let me suggest something to you. If your going to do it stone age style ( again insults not constructive ) "

Thin skinned again. I was going to describe it as "primitive" but thought that was too negative. How about "anti-deluvian," You are editing in a style I used 20 years ago when there were no better options. There are now better options. You can choose not to use them and still do great work. When I was cutting film I worked with editors who only used uprights, wouldn't use a flatbed on a bet. Some of them did great work that way. They were absolutely stone age, but it worked for them.

[Mike Fernanandes] "Right here- THIS IS AWESOME. I've never thought about exporting a clip and having it play as a master."

The standard procedure for cutting multicam pre NLE was to record a quad split of the field cameras, using one of those boxes used by apt. building security departments. I'd rough cut the show with those and then cover them over with the master shots once the cuts were tight - this is the same deal. It's the way I cut on FCP before they had the multi-cam feature, and trust me I was not happy about having to use it after working with a real multicam feature for the few years before.

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


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:16:31 pm

Absolutely. I make my living the way I do because a while back I convinced some producers that as long as I was re-cutting their live switched shows anyhow, they should throw out the switcher, record all the cameras and let me cut it in post. Higher quality, same cost, more time
To me and if only too me. Multi-cam is like running a switcher its great for a pass but not in the long haul. Again I'm sure it awesome for some people and if you use it and love it a tip of the hat to you. I have more control and work faster with stacks. Give any two editors the same material they all are going to give you different timelines. End of the day it all gets flattened.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 7:14:37 pm

[Mike Fernanandes] " Multi-cam is like running a switcher"

It is not in the slightest like running a switcher. That's like saying a 747 is like a kite because they both use wind currents. A multicam feature does everything a switcher does just for starters, then it should do everything a standard single clip NLE can do as well. It does them both simultaneously.

[Mike Fernanandes] "I have more control and work faster with stacks. "

There is nothing, and I truly mean nothing that I can't do with the Legacy multicam feature that you can do with stacks. Slip, slide, match back, trim, slip sync, re-find sync, change audio channels, -- name me one thing you can do with stacked shots that I can't do with the Legacy multicam? On the other hand lets see you change angles with one click even after you've moved a shot out of sync with the audio in stacks?

I don't doubt you work faster with stacks but I think it's because you don't know how to work with the multicam feature. Unlike you I have extensive experience both ways and I know I can't come close to the speed of working with the multicam feature when using stacks, and that's not even going into the time it takes to set the stacks up.

Why do you think they bothered to invent the multicam feature in the first place?

[Mike Fernanandes] "Give any two editors the same material they all are going to give you different timelines. End of the day it all gets flattened."

True that. End of the day we all get flattened.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 7:18:35 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Mike Fernanandes] "Give any two editors the same material they all are going to give you different timelines. End of the day it all gets flattened."

True that. End of the day we all get flattened."


Quotes of the week!

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 7:33:20 pm

I totally hear you. I know its a good tool and it can do some awesome stuff. I just don't love it. I hate using a mouse too and use a Wacom instead. You can make the same argument. Both are pointing devices different in execution but similar in results. These are all just tools everyone uses them differently. I'm not saying my way is better it just works better for me and I know other editors that enjoy it as well.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 20, 2012 at 1:41:39 am

There's some irony in the comments about how you chose to do your multi-cam work which is, as some would note, one of the more successful features in FCPX even noted by some of its more general detractors.

One of the criticisms leveled against FCPX is its rigidity in how it "forces" one to work a certain way.
Yet, you show that you are free to use an "older" method to doing multi-cam that predates the inclusion of such in many NLEs. FCPX, in its "trackless" environment, still allows one to put clip above clip and razor blade.

I'd guess one can say that FCPX can fit into a "neo-traditionalist" workflow. As long as one understands how FCPX works, one can figure out how to get there and not find it an inconvenience at all.

You show that one can appreciate the new features you like using and mix that with older methods you still prefer using.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 7:40:46 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I don't doubt you work faster with stacks but I think it's because you don't know how to work with the multicam feature. Unlike you I have extensive experience both ways and I know ..."

Uh, you don't supposed that anyone could possibly read this as an attack on the PERSON rather than the idea?

Naw, couldn't be.

We all know that when people write stuff like this - everyone in this forum "hears" an even, reasonable tone in their head, not a dismissive sneering put down...

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 8:16:04 pm

[Bill Davis] "Uh, you don't supposed that anyone could possibly read this as an attack on the PERSON rather than the idea?

Naw, couldn't be. "


Bill, if you've been following along, Mike has admitted he doesn't really use the multi-cam feature, his exact quote about it was "I myself just have never gotten the hang of it in any sort of way", while I use it every day. You might also have read where I gave him a tip about how better to use the "stacks" method he already employs. I could do that because I've used variations of that method for years. So lets see, I've extensively used both methods, he admittedly hasn't. I don't see anything personal about that, it's just the facts. How should I have written it?

[Bill Davis] "We all know that when people write stuff like this - everyone in this forum "hears" an even, reasonable tone in their head, not a dismissive sneering put down..."

We all know that your paranoid beyond belief and hear the sky falling whenever the wind blows. Now that was a personal attack. See the difference?

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: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 8:34:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Bill, if you've been following along, Mike has admitted he doesn't really use the multi-cam feature, his exact quote about it was "I myself just have never gotten the hang of it in any sort of way", while I use it every day. You might also have read where I gave him a tip about how better to use the "stacks" method he already employs. I could do that because I've used variations of that method for years. So lets see, I've extensively used both methods, he admittedly hasn't. I don't see anything personal about that, it's just the facts. How should I have written it? "

Let's take this seriously for a moment.

When I read your post, it sounded extremely snarky and dismissive to me. So I started to respond to it.

BUT - and I think this is VERY important.

After I cut out your words to quote them, a funny thing happened. I noticed that while my "snarky" reading was perfectly in tune to your words (try going back and reading what I quoted of yours in the previous message and see if you can 'hear" it as mocking and dismissive, just for fun) - I also noticed that it was possible to step back and read the SAME words with less internal emotion and sneering in mind.

Essentially, it reminded me that when we write things here - the TONE we might actually be using is generally NOT conveyed with the text. That is something that comes from the readers perceptions of the personality of the poster.

I find it easy to attribute dismissal and condemnation to you, because we argue. So the lightbulb for me was to understand that there might actually be different intent behind the words that you, or Chris's or Aindreas might actually THINK they are putting into what they write.

And in fairness, I suspect it's worked both ways. I've often been surprised at how negatively many here have taken things I've written - when I've honestly written them with a neutral or even conciliatory tone in my head - only to find that people read them as if I was mocking their ideas.

THAT is the point here.

Absent the cues of tone and body language, I suspect we ALL have been guilty of applying personality traits to others that they simply don't have (or at least aren't using in the moment.)

You guys missed the meetup in Las Vegas, but the four of us sat at a table for nearly three hours and nobody had an argument or a hassle. Everyone listened. Everyone was respectful. And more than that - it was fun.

So I'm just pointing out that probably half the vitriol here is actually nothing more or less than dumb mistakes on the parts of EVERYONE here, myself firmly included in misinterpreting TONE.

Simple as that.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 9:19:52 pm

[Bill Davis] "Let's take this seriously for a moment."

Good, I think this is a good place to do that. I hear what your saying and generally agree with it.

However if you really look at my writing you'll notice constant phrases like this - "I believe that (you don't get something)" "I think that (such and such doesn't work)" "In my workflow (bladah bladah bladah.)"

I try never to be absolute or authoritarian in my arguments, despite being cynical in my tone. I make it an emphasis to let everyone know how subjective my opinions are. And if you actually look carefully at my posts you'll find that other than mentioning certain features of FCPX that are simply missing at the moment, I never venture an opinion on the software itself. I will discuss theoretical methodologies that I prefer, but I don't slam X as a piece of software. I can't, I've never used it so how can I slam it?

I do however slam people whose proclamations I find unreasonable.

The war is over. FCPX is here, your doing well with it, Tony West is doing well with it, The Yeti is doing well with it. Many other people think it's not for them. Some are still on the fence (you'd be amazed at what group I'm in.) Every critique of X is not a critique of everyone using X, nor is it a vote on it's pro or unpro-fessionalism. That ship has sailed, professionals are using it. How many and what type of work they are doing is yet to be determined.

[Bill Davis] "I find it easy to attribute dismissal and condemnation to you, because we argue."

Yes we do.

[Bill Davis] "So the lightbulb for me was to understand that there might actually be different intent behind the words that you, or Chris's or Aindreas might actually THINK they are putting into what they write."

Sometimes I think it's the reader who misses the intent, sometimes the writer misspeaks.

[Bill Davis] "You guys missed the meetup in Las Vegas, but the four of us sat at a table for nearly three hours and nobody had an argument or a hassle. Everyone listened. Everyone was respectful. And more than that - it was fun. "

I would have enjoyed it. I've already met Walter and I would enjoy meeting everyone who makes the effort to post here.

[Bill Davis] "So I'm just pointing out that probably half the vitriol here is actually nothing more or less than dumb mistakes on the parts of EVERYONE here, myself firmly included in misinterpreting TONE."

Is this where we kiss and sing Kumbaya?

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 8:02:27 am

[Herb Sevush] "The standard procedure for cutting multicam pre NLE was to record a quad split of the field cameras, using one of those boxes used by apt. building security departments. I'd rough cut the show with those and then cover them over with the master shots once the cuts were tight - this is the same deal. It's the way I cut on FCP before they had the multi-cam feature, and trust me I was not happy about having to use it after working with a real multicam feature for the few years before."

Quad Split! Way back when I was a driver/post utility on Barney Miller, our Quad Split (which I believe was a Danny Arnold invention) was a fifth camera in a sequestered room pointing at a stack of four monitors (with camera feeds from the floor) and a timecode monitor positioned in the center. The editors used to make paper cuts which the AEs would assemble on a CMX. Ah, the memories.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 1:20:27 pm

And to think that kind of thing was the easy way. At least we didn't have to brush on iron solution and cut with razor blades, though I do admit to trying it once - just for fun.

Tim


Return to posts index

Greg Leslie
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 6:41:28 pm

Ha! I remember reading about your "quad split" in a broadcast trade and doing a forehead-slap. What a great idea!


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 3:24:04 pm

[Herb Sevush] "As for "The Yeti" his first specific comments were about multicam editing and they were so ignorant and arrogant as to make one question his judgement about anything, including which way is up."

I agree. Not only is this an appeal to authority argument (He won an Emmy, therefore FCPX is better because he likes it!) but his opinion is somewhat questionable given the kinds of statements in makes in the article.

And, BTW, winning an Emmy means $#!t-all in my book.


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 3:35:55 pm

No i brought up the Emmy simply because I wanted anyone who read my page ( of which i really didn't expect anyone too ) to know that I wasn't some kid in high school with pimples on my face and my head in the clouds. Your jumping to a few conclusions of my intentions though I stated that I wasn't posting that fact to brag in any way just to let you know this isn't my first day.

I agree with you 100% winning something for work you did is great. Work you do way more important.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 4:33:56 pm

[Mike Fernanandes] "No i brought up the Emmy simply because I wanted anyone who read my page ( of which i really didn't expect anyone too ) to know that I wasn't some kid in high school with pimples on my face and my head in the clouds."

I was mostly referring to the title of this thread. And I never thought you were simply pimply-face high school kid, but I do think you have your head in the clouds. A lot of it strikes me as trying to make it work simply because it's Apple, and by golly I love that company!

If Adobe, AVID or, heaven forbid, Microsoft had released the exact same NLE, I think you would have dismissed it outright instead of plowing through to make it work because you needed to be able to make it work.

Could be wrong, but a lot of people who got upset at the discussion on Creative Cow over FCPX, seemed to carry that banner as their rallying cry.


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 5:52:40 pm

For the Record I didn't post this on this forum so the title of the article isn't up to me.

It's not about the brand. If any other company came up with this system I'd still want to use it.

AVID is tried and true right... been used for ever
Adobe is basically what FInal Cut 7 ( i mean in theory not actually I'm aware of it's differences )

X is a different mind set. You have to think about how you cut very differently. And I felt that if a major NLE was going to go this route it would be dumb of me not to learn it enough to be comfortable.

Think of it this way. 3 years down the road. Smaller houses looking to save money might be using it. Networks might adopt it. Maybe one day a feature film wants in. And that job comes across your table for a project you really want to do but their rigs are all X. Isn't it better to know how to use it than to say "it's not for pros' and miss out on opportunities.

It's not about making it work regardless of limitations its about being able to work anywhere and on anything. And that in my opinion is the definition of a professional.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 9:07:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "In fact most people are quite shy about publishing in public on any forum, the ratio of lurkers to posters must be very high"

There's a somewhat poor thermometer for that; Twitter's "tweets" and Facebook's "likes".
Until this day, the FCPX debate forum had 18 tweets and 115 likes.
While the FCPX techniques had 1 tweet and 5 likes.

I reckon the techniques forum is a lot newer than this one, but I still count that as an anecdotal evidence that FCPX is not only in its infancy, but pretty much raising uncertainty regarding its future.

Is that due to the 'haters hatin' or the mother's mishandling of her newborn?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 9:19:09 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "I reckon the techniques forum is a lot newer than this one, but I still count that as an anecdotal evidence that FCPX is not only in its infancy, but pretty much raising uncertainty regarding its future.
"


Wow, that's quite an assumption based on tweets and likes

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 9:30:11 pm

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 9:37:34 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases"

I really don't think your assumption from a "cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative sample" means "there is a larger chance that it may be true'

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 10:05:02 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "I reckon the techniques forum is a lot newer than this one, but I still count that as an anecdotal evidence that FCPX is not only in its infancy, but pretty much raising uncertainty regarding its future.
"


Interesting. I draw a direct relationship to people enjoying controversy more than technical talk.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 10:05:59 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Interesting. I draw a direct relationship to people enjoying controversy more than technical talk."

I assumed they were coming for Aindreas.

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


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 12:10:47 am

[Jim Giberti] "Interesting. I draw a direct relationship to people enjoying controversy more than technical talk.
"


Sure, but I don't see this "controversy" as entertaining when is born from carreer angst and industry worries.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 12:30:30 am

[Christian Schumacher] "Sure, but I don't see this "controversy" as entertaining when is born from carreer angst and industry worries.
"


For some it is (angst ridden) for others it isn't. The attraction is from the dynamic between the two,

I'm just putting the posted data into the Cause+FX machine and reading out the results.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 8:23:53 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I've talked a couple of others doing broadcast work and they don't desire to have any online presence (in forum , blog or interview). They feel there have no reason to defend their choice of tool of preference (FCPX) and don't have any need or desire to get into online "defense.""

Craig Seeman, in a parking lot, after putting the flower pot on the balcony, speaking to the unseen professional FCPX hordes; leading quiet, fearful, completely silent, magnetic lives.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 9:24:41 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Craig Seeman, in a parking lot, after putting the flower pot on the balcony, speaking to the unseen professional FCPX hordes; leading quiet, fearful, completely silent, magnetic lives."

This should be the blurb under a New Yorker cartoon.

Aindreas, you are a peach.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 10:11:08 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Aindreas, you are a peach.
"


A plum even.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 12:19:54 am

the years' quote still goes to you herb.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 1:27:54 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the years' quote still goes to you herb."

The year is young, there will be much to complain about, I still have my money on you.

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


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 3:25:35 pm

Hi Gary
I don't think the world revolves around my workflow. In fact I often tell people that work for me. "Most other people probably don't do this" My point was more so that the tools inside the program are pretty sweet on there own. And you can now go x to protools so problems solved.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 3:29:10 pm

[Mike Fernanandes] "I don't think the world revolves around my workflow. In fact I often tell people that work for me. "Most other people probably don't do this" My point was more so that the tools inside the program are pretty sweet on there own. And you can now go x to protools so problems solved."

I was referring to this statement:

Can’t send my mix to Protools or Color. – I don’t understand as I do my show mastering in FCP.

Why did you choose to phrase it that way instead of, "While I can see that that could be an issue for some, I master my shows within FCP, so it wasn't a problem for me." There is a lot of stuff people on here talk about that is never a part of my workflow, but I understand it. I don't just simply dismiss it because it's not my experience.


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 3:44:18 pm

I get it but also I'm not dismissing it. I was saying what works for me. I didn't say forget protools and how dare you color correct anything.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 4:38:38 pm

[Mike Fernanandes] "I get it but also I'm not dismissing it. I was saying what works for me. I didn't say forget protools and how dare you color correct anything."

It doesn't have to be that extreme. You said you don't understand how that's an issue. That's as dismissive as you need to be.


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 4:05:03 pm

I found the ProTools, Logic and Color comments very odd in the article. For starters a lot of broadcast pros are dependent on I/O workflows to and from their editor. The audio-mixing in FCPX is very limiting. You don't even have a multi-track or channel mixer.

And that Color is built into FCPX... This is not the case. Perhaps parts of Colors engine resides in FCPX but as a grading tool FCPX isn't there yet. GUI is completely different and huge features are lacking:

- No curves support. Both RGB + LUMA as well as HSL.
- No key frame support at all
- Limited still-store or other comparison tools
- Limited matching if you disregard the "match grade" feature (which is quite unreliable). Even FCP7 is better here.
- No tracking support.

Not that I want to be the negative b-srd but a few comments came out really odd to me. That said, some features of the color correction / grading tools in FCPX are promising. The same can be said for audio-side of things. But they aren't a ProTools or grading suite replacement by a long shot from my experience.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 4:42:55 pm

While FCP X's color board is no Color, it's so far ahead of FCP 7's color tools. The lack of color wheels is odd, but I find the board intuitive in other ways. It was obviously a contraption to save space in the interface, and it does do that. Seems like so much of what they're doing is to save space. Except the timeline! I need the timeline on it's on monitor. Not the event or viewer!

And the new scopes are just amazing. Sure would be nice to see more that one at a time.

Considering Color is eol'd, any point that you can't roundtrip to color somewhat moot. But you can roundtrip in much better fashion to Resolve. And it's free (for 1080p lite version).

I don't send to pro tools much, but I do occasionally send a project out for sweeten or mix if there's a budget. That said, I'm liking audio mixing in X so much better than legacy. It seems that some really need the audio tool in their workflow. If so they won't be happy. But I rarely used the tool in any sort of "live" fashion. I didn't record keyframes. The times I did, I found myself having to go back and clean up. I used to to live mix clips, but I found myself always confused as to what track a clip was on. Now, I just adjust the volume of the clip right in the track while it's playing. I can even MOVE a clip while it's playing. I can even ADD KEYFRAMES while it's playing. I can add a RANGE and lower the volume of that area while it's playing, eithe by hand, or by keyboard shortcuts. I can see the waveforms of each track adjust as I make changes. So, no, I don't have a little window with audio sliders and all the pretty meters going. What I have instead is direct, in the timeline live manipulation of volume and filters and even placement. I can see the waveform of a whole track adjust and see any problem areas without listening to every second of a track and watching every little meter. To me, it's much more organic.

And aren't they planning some sort of multitrack audio tools? Seems like it'll be one of the better NLE audio systems if they add a mixer interface and make anyone happy.


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 4:51:41 pm

AMEN brother. See this is what I was trying to get at. Instead of harping over what it doesn't have, spend some time with it and you'll be impressed.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 8:14:47 pm

I've pretty much written much of what's in your blog 5 times and not hit the post button. In fact, I've written too many posts that I've never posted. I write alot to just to figure what I'm thinking. Then never post, email, or publish (ha!).

Someday I'll actually write out a decent rant on how where X is going is great, and how where it is is good, and how connected clips and seondary storylines suck and are a necessary construct to make magnetism work, which is an unnecessary fix to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

must resist urge and get back to work...


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 10:13:12 pm

[Bret Williams] "I've pretty much written much of what's in your blog 5 times and not hit the post button. In fact, I've written too many posts that I've never posted. I write alot to just to figure what I'm thinking. Then never post, email, or publish (ha!)."

The sign of a thoughtful man. I also work through creative things by talking aloud a lot too.
My wife would probably like you better.


[Bret Williams] "Someday I'll actually write out a decent rant on how where X is going is great, and how where it is is good, and how connected clips and seondary storylines suck and are a necessary construct to make magnetism work, which is an unnecessary fix to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place."


I wish you would Bret, we'd have a lot in common to share.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 4:58:42 pm

[Bret Williams] "Now, I just adjust the volume of the clip right in the track while it's playing. I can even MOVE a clip while it's playing. I can even ADD KEYFRAMES while it's playing. I can add a RANGE and lower the volume of that area while it's playing, eithe by hand, or by keyboard shortcuts. I can see the waveforms of each track adjust as I make changes. So, no, I don't have a little window with audio sliders and all the pretty meters going. What I have instead is direct, in the timeline live manipulation of volume and filters "


I could have written this myself Bret


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:33:38 pm

I think that our Loud Yeti friend has just given us the read of his Rorschach test, and I'm not sure he passed.

For most of this year, no matter how angrily a thread begins, it becomes MORE full of helpful hints and engaging discussion than not. This forum is far more viscous than vicious, and has been for a very long time.

I can only assume that we're seeing something of a reverse Geneva syndrome. People who like X are so adamant about how many other people "don't get it" that they've missed that they're not under seige. They're now the majority. It's almost like overreaction to perceived slights has become a form of self-validation.

I didn't see anything in the Loud Yeti's post that I haven't seen all over this forum every day, and throughout the COW's article library where pro-X articles vastly outnumber the early anti-X ones.

For all the people for whom X still doesn't, and may never, have the features they need, there are scores of other posters who have moved into the, "not now, but wow, there's some cool stuff here, let's see where we're at next year" frame of mind.

Maybe I have a skewed perspective as somebody with no particular perspective, and I read every single post in this forum since April 2011. Every single one. All of them. I actually keep track of what everyone says, and chart the changes over time. The forum that this used to be and the forum it is now are two different things.

So where our friend the Loud Yeti tells haters to relax, I'm far more inclined to tell the players to relax. Reason -- including reasoned rejection as appropriate -- is far more the order of the day than not. You're way, way out front here, and it's okay to act like you're not being persecuted. One option is to graciously accept a growing hegemony.

Of course, as someone who rarely graciously accepts anything, I heartily encourage you to select another option if you're so inclined.

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou

The typos here are most likely because I'm, a) typing this on my phone; and b) an idiot.


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:56:02 pm

Hello Tim
I feel as though there is confusion as to timeline here. The post I put on my blog was an older post from a different website i host written around last year. My at times aggressive verbiage was from the programs launched. Which I think we all agree was a wild few weeks.

I've since revisited the topic with more of an understanding of the program and a goal to put it through it's paces on a different level. Up until then most usage as I imagine with most others has been casual. And as more and more updates were presented I was searching for other editors, shows or networks that were using X in a more real demanding way. And the only other television show I could find any sort of information on was Leverage (on USA).

I've felt that there were more people out there that secretly liked X and maybe WANTED to use if for their day to day but maybe like myself hesitant to do so with out seeing others drink the kool-aid first. Again I didn't post this on creative cow. it was on my blog in hopes that maybe someone searching for a little nudge would leave a comment or two to discuss. But once it went live on Creative Cow I figured I should join the discussion and maybe we can all hold hands while we jump off that cliff of NEW and UNKNOWN together.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 7:36:44 pm

[Tim Wilson] "People who like X are so adamant about how many other people "don't get it" that they've missed that they're not under seige. They're now the majority. It's almost like overreaction to perceived slights has become a form of self-validation. "

Well, perhaps.

But if I, particularly have a bit of a persecution complex in all of this, it's not that there wasn't the result of a long, long battle.

Tim, since you're tracking stuff, I'd be interested in the radio of time's I've posted anything complimentary about X and either Herb, Chris H, Aindreas, and a few others, either individually or together HAVENT popped up to argue with me not only to argue voiciferously about my view of the program's essential worth - but often implying that I'm personally an idiot for my thinking.

Clearly since I've been here the whole time, I'm not particularly put off by that - and actually I've kind of enjoyed it since I like debate and I enjoy being pushed to defend my contentions. So I'll ABSOLUTELY cop to wading into many of these fights and even escalating them.... but isn't that exactly what's made this forum so popular?

This place is ALL about dissent. Voicing it, AND having others call foul when they disagree.

And sorry, the "ratio" of haters to acceptors may have shifted significantly, but most weeks there's still posts wildly mis-representing the software. Precisely from people who appear NOT understand it very well.

So I post help in Techniques (and a few other forums) - and I push back against what I perceive to be mis-information right here. Are you saying that because the "FCP-X is valuable" voices are starting to form a majority that it's time to stop?

Jeez, dude, how the hell are Craig, Jeremy, and I supposed to build and grow our CULT in the face of a jury instruction like that!? ; )

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:17:46 pm

[Bret Williams] "And aren't they planning some sort of multitrack audio tools? Seems like it'll be one of the better NLE audio systems if they add a mixer interface and make anyone happy.
"


In my feverish dreams - they do for audio what they did for multi-cam. An accessible, separate workspace that is task specific for audio. And heck, maybe one for Color as well.

If so, it would be very stormy days ahead for the haters.

"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: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:44:10 pm

[Bill Davis] "n my feverish dreams - they do for audio what they did for multi-cam. An accessible, separate workspace that is task specific for audio. And heck, maybe one for Color as well.

If so, it would be very stormy days ahead for the haters."


I'm well beyond the emotional aspects of this or whether people feel passionately for or against. It's ayear later. Where past the theoretical and into practical reality - those of us who are producing with FCPX.

Yes, it has holes, and how they're filled in the coming months is all that matters.

If they're not filled then it's another discussion, but PP has holes too. What current system doesn't.

But yes Bill, if they add an audio component similar to that (and I do think they're about to) then this new system will take a giant leap forward.


Return to posts index

Lemur Hayop
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:46:32 pm

I like The Yeti's analogy about Home Depot. I guess it takes a creative mind to view the world in such a way.

I think FCPX is innovative, but people can't or don't like to give up the old stuff, even the youngest of young editors. They love that FCP7/Premiere legacy workflow. I started using PPCS6 and although it's oldskool I like it. I almost dumped FCPX but I need a magnetic timeline for some projects. Ultimately I'll use both, old and new.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 6:59:22 pm

Doesn't matter what NLE you use (FCP7, FCPX, PPRO, or AVID). Twenty years from now no one is going to be able to open whatever file format is currently in vogue. 99.999% of our computer-generated art will disappear into the ether. Face it, we are the disposable generation creating disposable art for a disposable culture.

Wow, that had nothing to do with this thread, but it was great to get that little rant of my chest.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 8:18:09 pm

The question can be answered. Can Avid open a composer file from 1992? I'd be curious to know.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 8:27:58 pm

[Bret Williams] "The question can be answered. Can Avid open a composer file from 1992? I'd be curious to know."

Ahhh, I wasn't being that serious. Just wanted to blow off some steam 'cause I am having a bitch of a time making a quicktime file that plays decently as a Withoutabox online screener.

So resume the FCPX blog discussion. Sorry I interrupted.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 8:26:56 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "a bitch of a time making a quicktime file that plays decently as a Withoutabox online screener"

Actually that's a real pain in the @$$. I used "H.264 LAN streaming" and it worked pretty well after I added compression markers where necessary. The running time was 12 minutes. I used a slower bit rate for a 23 minute short (that no one seems to want to screen). That longer movie takes forever to load in withoutabox too, so I'm suggesting to you to also send DVDs because you can't be certain that the film screener will wait long enough for the movie to load.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 20, 2012 at 2:56:59 pm

[Richard Herd] " I used "H.264 LAN streaming" and it worked pretty well after I added compression markers where necessary."

I am going to have to try that. Do you get a good full screen image? The problem I get is the way it smashes down all files to 480x360. I just can't get a screener that doesn't look like total crap when viewed in full screen mode. (Which I find frustrating since all withoutabox online advice recommends that your screener play well at full screen.) I just don't see how this is possible when their player uses such a dinky frame size.

I think I am going to just send DVD screeners. Online screeners is a great idea, it is just a shame withoutabox executes it in such a sucky fashion.


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 9:21:10 pm

[Bret Williams] "Can Avid open a composer file from 1992?"

Not sure from 92, but an Avid bin can be interchangeably opened by any avid system...
Meaning that a sequence created today on Avid 6 can be opened in an ancient one from the 90's.
(and of course, an older one can also be opened in a newer system)

Of course there are some gotchas, like features that didn't exist or some that have changed, etc...
Not talking about media here, but editing.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 11:30:51 pm

Think of the hurdles. How would I even get the file onto a 92 avid? No USB. Operating system is probably incompatible with current networks. SCSI? I'm thinking floppy disk.

I swear there was an issue in the past going from PC vs 8 to PPC Mac version 7.


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 12:00:39 am

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/45/870222#870278

[Bret Williams] "Think of the hurdles. How would I even get the file onto a 92 avid?"

I didn't say there wasn't any pain involved, only that's not only possible to get an edit from a past system but actually the other way too, and I guessed that was relevant to the problem Mr. Wardlow was addressing. As to your question, even 20 years ago there was network access.

Quick search:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/45/870222#870278


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 7:52:50 pm

For those interested I just got this comment on loud yeti from a gentleman named Dale.


"As an fcp, avid, adobe and now and fcpx editor I have to say, I love fcpx. Like you, I enjoy editing at a different level then in the past.

I know you mentioned you were wondering about other shows being cut on fcpx, so I'll tell you about the show I'm almost finished......cut, mastered and delivered from fcpx and fcpx alone.

It's call "Nova Scotia Revealed". It's for a Canadian broadcaster called EastLink TV. It's 13 episodes 30 mins each.

It's a fast show that follows two hosts as they make there way to 3 or 4 locations per episode. Anything from 300m in the earth in an old mine shaft to 3000m In the air in a glider.

Fcpx has opened a creative streak that I could not have gotten from any other nle....not that the ideas wouldn't have existed, but they would have been crushed by deadlines and budgets that somehow fcpx has helped me get by. "


I hope there are more people like you out there Sir and look forward to seeing your show.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 8:19:20 pm

[Bill Davis] "An accessible, separate workspace that is task specific for audio. And heck, maybe one for Color as well. "

YES! I ain't a programmer, but it would seem they only need a GUI.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 10:28:23 pm

[Bret Williams] "While FCP X's color board is no Color, it's so far ahead of FCP 7's color tools."

OK Bret, you started it so let's go.
Yes it is.

[Bret Williams] "Seems like so much of what they're doing is to save space. Except the timeline! I need the timeline on it's on monitor. Not the event or viewer! "

Yes they really, really do. It's the timeline that needs both the vertical space of a second monitor Please.

[Bret Williams] "Considering Color is eol'd, any point that you can't roundtrip to color somewhat moot. But you can roundtrip in much better fashion to Resolve. And it's free (for 1080p lite version). "

Yes. I hated round tripping in Color it was kludgy and...well, kludgy. Magic Bullet and the Color Board are also a great way to finish and it works within the program.


[Bret Williams] "That said, I'm liking audio mixing in X so much better than legacy."

Yes. Because it's more powerful because it's Logic. The addition of an actual mixer combined with the current potential would make exporting to PT or DP unnecessary if you know how mix and sweeten audio.

It's really tiring agreeing with you Bret.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 18, 2012 at 5:04:07 am

[Jim Giberti] "It's really tiring agreeing with you Bret."

What is "words my wife hasn't ever uttered" Alex?


Return to posts index

Mike Fernanandes
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 17, 2012 at 7:35:09 pm

They might not be replacements. But they are very good. And I very much miss the mixer. Timeline mixing is great but being able to fine tune a little more with out having to type in the levels would be awesome. I think they posted though that it was coming back. So here's to hoping.

loudyeti.com


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43:37 pm

I belong to this group of people (as posted above) who read a lot, type in a reply and don't post it.
I don't belong to any of the groups of people which are FCPX Lovers or FCPX Haters.
I belong to the group of people which says we have to make it work.
I belong to the group of people which says we have to make it look fantastic, appealing and produce a (finacially) successful movie.
I belong to the group of people which says we have to keep the deadline.

Some of this, maybe all, can be achieved with FCPX in a specific environment or with a specific job. Other things can't be achieved in another environment/job.

In Germany there is kind of saying "Don't keep the ashes, but keep the fire". With FCPX Apple went a new way and forgot some of the "fire".

So people who say "it's not that cuddly" are right, those who say "it's cold or icy" and those who say "take an additional jacket" are right as well, also those who say "it's cuddly - where is your problem" are right.
It's all about what you want to do and how you want to do it. Again, that doesn't mean that any of these kind of editors does anything wrong and should be hated or loved

An example in the original (old) blog had been multi-camera set up and handling. This example shows that there is no real need for Mike Fernanandes for this feature. Others do need it, for example me (or better those people who are involved in the production). The example given from Herb is one of the best for "keeping the fire" for the future. The old fashioned split screen can be a real good method (I did that for years even before FCP was released). And it is meanwhile integrated into FCPX.
yYears ago we tried to set up an efficient workflow for a lot of (world wide) daily soaps which uses only 2 cams for a 45 min show and external audio - at the end we decided to use FCP. We succeeded.
Earlier this year several people of the AAA teams flew over the ocean to watch this workflow. Everybody said "Whow" nobody said "We can make this work with our current (upcoming) version".
These people (my customers) won't publish anything in any forum or blog - that was already mentioned above.

My personal things...

... one is that with FCPX I lost more or less all control about metadata.
That doesn't make FCPX a bad app - most people don't need it. Maybe I'm just a one in a million.
And you can have two points of view with metadata. One is to keep and edit all of them in an event or project, the other is to keep them outside or better inside a file. Most of the people don't care about what is kept in a file and just are happy to have have a smart NLE using FCPX.

The other thing most people don't use is subtitling. Both FCP and Avid offer some hooks to create a collaborative workflow. With FCPX meanwhile a little weak hook is there. FCP had been the most open system and that's why I mentioned the "keep the fire".
Once upon a time Shane Ross send me an email about "how can my subtitles be spell checked and grammar checked by somebody else than me for a show". FCP allowed to do that - FCPX allows that only somehow (meanwhile). There are ten thousands of users who just use an app of mine to juggle those subtitles forth and back. With FCPX a lot of options vanished. And there are many "FCPX Lovers" which finally said "It's impossible" even though I tried to give them help to manage the job.

There are more examples about what works or doesn't work. Even for the approach how to edit there are a lot - but that's the same for all other NLEs.

Finally the title of the topic was wrong:
"Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX "
It's emotional and divides people into emotional groups. But who cares?
I got several awards as well in a world which most of you don't know.
So what would happen (if I'm not under NDA) if I post something like: "World wide known company XXX says that after a year of testing FCPX does not match their needs"
Probably nothing would happen rather than people would spend some of their valuable free time to start a discussion.

Just my 2 cents

-Andreas

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 20, 2012 at 1:05:55 am

[Andreas Kiel] "So what would happen (if I'm not under NDA) if I post something like: "World wide known company XXX says that after a year of testing FCPX does not match their needs""

Those types of posts have been very common on this board Andreas, from Mark R. to Walter B. It's because there's been such a dearth of posts about FCPX being used by professional facilities that this post stirred up one of the more active threads in a long time.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
on Aug 20, 2012 at 1:23:37 am

[Andreas Kiel] "Finally the title of the topic was wrong:
"Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX "
It's emotional and divides people into emotional groups."


Because there have been a good number of posts that insist FCPX is not suitable for broadcast work and/or that "no one" is using it for broadcast work and/or not used for series work, etc.

The heading is accurate. I don't see it as divisive.
It's a post from one individual, who has won an Emmy who is using FCPX and likes it.



Return to posts index

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