FORUMS: list search recent posts

Commercial advantages

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bernard Newnham
Commercial advantages
on Sep 9, 2012 at 9:53:45 am

I was going to put this at the bottom of a thread called "Tedious track based editing", but I though maybe it deserved its own. I was quoting -

[Aindreas Gallagher] "hey craig, are you still going ahead with that london based post facility based around FCPX you mentioned a while back?"

Yes, scouting for a location at the moment. Opening around Christmas or March. Would really like to know what apple are going to do with the Mac Pro.


I've only ever been a client at facilities houses - lots of them and for lots of years. As a client, I was never interested in what actual equipment they used, only in whether it could do the job I needed to do. By far the most important thing in the place was the editor him or her self - knowledgable, sympathetic, speedy - and with style. The toys came a long way behind all that.

I wonder what commercial advantages FCPX will bring to a facilities house, and what disadvantages....?

Bernie


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 9, 2012 at 10:26:43 am

yes. I have, on the very odd occasion, been the editor in the big suite with the plasma screen - the one thing you are overwhelmingly aware of is the need to make a good connection with the client - once they trust you, feel like you are properly taking in their concerns, and the earlier the better - once you get to that point you could be banging two salamis together to make the edit for all they care.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 9, 2012 at 2:21:47 pm

It was the same with Final Cut Pro The Elder.

Back when more people would actually sit with us in the suite for days/weeks agency types, about a few hours in to the day, would suddenly notice I wasn't cutting on Avid when they finally looked at my computer screen. "You're doing THIS in Final Cut Pro???". I of course promptly returned, umm, yes.

If the editor can get the job done, and the program can survive a day of client editing, as a great man once said, at that point you could be banging two salamis together to make the edit for all they care.


Return to posts index


Bob Woodhead
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 9, 2012 at 4:06:17 pm

Prosciutto is what pros have cut for years. Anyone cutting salami will be laughed out of the deli.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 9, 2012 at 4:38:43 pm

For clients weary of FCP X, just start rolling through font choices while the font changes just as fast on the client monitor. I love that. And you can actually type the text right on the image. Crazy stuff. Who would've thought an editor would ever want to do that?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 9, 2012 at 7:38:43 pm

Also don't overlook the lure of being able to work and comp with little equipment remotely.

My son just came in and turned me on to the latest Lindsey Stirling - VenTribe video.

Shot on DSLR (visible in one of the African classroom shots) - this shows the value of being able to travel light and still make sure you've got what you need to make the project you want - without dragging a flypack all over the planet.

Nice piece of work, this.

BTW, Ms Stirling (an 'also ran" on American Idol) is becoming a major Viral star largely via YouTube strategies according to her Forbes profile "The Dancing Violinist - How Lindsey Stirling Is Conquering YouTube One Video At A Time"

This thread is about "commercial advantages." I think mobility (whatever software you use to achieve it) is an increasingly big one.

I can't help thinking what it would have taken to produce this level of "on-location" video just a few short years ago.









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


Bernard Newnham
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 9, 2012 at 10:33:09 pm

"Shot on DSLR (visible in one of the African classroom shots) - this shows the value of being able to travel light and still make sure you've got what you need to make the project you want - without dragging a flypack all over the planet."

Though I'm happy to be corrected, I have a feeling this wasn't such a lightweight operation. Shot on DSLR it might have been, but if you saw one, we're on a camera crew of 4 or 5. Then there's sound, makeup, lighting (reflectors?), transport, production.....

A pity that the mimed voice sounds like it was in the studio (of course) and she's in the bush with no effects. Bad sound on the PTC at the end.

B

Bernie


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 2:15:09 am

We've been able to shoot and edit broadcast video on laptops and small cameras for 12 or 13 years. Not sure how FCP X is any amazing leap forward in this realm.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 4:08:37 am

[Bret Williams] "We've been able to shoot and edit broadcast video on laptops and small cameras for 12 or 13 years. Not sure how FCP X is any amazing leap forward in this realm."

Bingo.

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 4:16:43 am

[Bret Williams] "We've been able to shoot and edit broadcast video on laptops and small cameras for 12 or 13 years. Not sure how FCP X is any amazing leap forward in this realm."

Huh?

I said nothing about FCP-X.

In fact I said: This thread is about "commercial advantages." I think mobility (whatever software you use to achieve it) is an increasingly big one.

Me thinks you might be starting to project a preconception on what I'm writing?

That guy with a small stabilizer and a DSLR was the point, I have no clue what software it was edited on. Plus I presume that they did with the vast majority of music videos do - pre-produce the audio track and simply mime to it on location.

To my eye, there was little lighting beyond the adept use of natural light and some bounce fill.

That's where a DSLR that can use a f2 lens and generates a darn clean signal at ISO 2500 enables a new agile and compact approach to high quality remote work.

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

Michael Gissing
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 4:37:43 am

I think this clip is a good example of cost rather than mobility. There is nothing about this clip that couldn't have been done in the 1980s with an Aaton 16mm camera and nagra playback. I was doing location doco work with two man crews in Africa, Asia and around Australia with little more kit that was needed to do this clip in the 80s. I also did location music videos with the same two man crew doco approach. Available light, a flexifill & exposure latitude of film....

But the cost of the camera and film processing & post costs have changed dramatically. Also any cameraman worth his salt wouldn't have dropped focus as often and any old school editor would have avoided the few shots with drop focus & ugly reframes but these days? Even back then we played with home made steadycam stabilisers and polypipe skateboard truck dollies that we made on the spot after visiting the local hardware store.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 5:44:31 am

[Bill Davis] "In fact I said: This thread is about "commercial advantages." I think mobility (whatever software you use to achieve it) is an increasingly big one."

[Bret Williams] "We've been able to shoot and edit broadcast video on laptops and small cameras for 12 or 13 years. "

I think Bret's point is that we've been able to shoot and edit broadcast video on laptops and small cameras for 12 or 13 years. In other words, mobility isn't new. What is new is the level of quality possible for relatively low cost.

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


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 6:07:49 am

The question posed in the thread was "what commercial advantages will FCP X bring?"

Jeremy mentioned clients weary of using FCP Legacy and how they were surprised he wasn't using Avid.

I mentioned specifically how clients might be weary of X, so you should show the title tool off.

You apparently replied to my specific post about FCP X with a comment about portability. One would logically assume that you're adding to the conversation and speaking of FCP X.

If you were commenting on the original post in the thread, then you should have replied to that.

I took your reply to my comment on why FCP X was cool to be another reason why FCP X was cool. A reason that didn't really make much sense.

Simple as that.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:25:47 am

Guess I should add it didn't make much sense in the context of a direct reply to my post. It certainly makes sense on its own.


Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 7:05:51 pm

[Bill Davis] "To my eye, there was little lighting beyond the adept use of natural light and some bounce fill.

That's where a DSLR that can use a f2 lens and generates a darn clean signal at ISO 2500 enables a new agile and compact approach to high quality remote work.

Nothing more than that."


Okay, then... so looking at the piece with a colorist's eye.... The way most of the costuming *pops* (especially the blue uniforms in the classroom and the red outfit the performer is wearing) suggests there was also a massive amount of grade/correction involved-- and usually is when sourcing DSLR.

Sweet little tune, Hans Zimmer might find it somewhat familiar, "I'm from Kenya, I've got an itch in my bra" occurs to me...(The kids have been singing that, parodying "Circle of Life" if the joke is opaque). Could stand being about 2:57... 4:whatever-it-is seems a bit heavy, if not slightly self-indulgent. But what else do you do with all that footage?

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 10:10:09 pm

[Joseph Owens] "Sweet little tune, Hans Zimmer might find it somewhat familiar, "I'm from Kenya, I've got an itch in my bra" occurs to me..."

Fair, but you've got to bring that up with Rhianna -

I first heard this tune when a now ex-client was looking for a piece of "walk on" background music for a corporate show - (embroiling me in yet another un-winnable skirmish over using un-cleared pop music for a corporate event!) - then was surprised to hear it used as her signature piece in her big performance at the Grammys.

Now it shows up in my life again.

Like that PSY deal - no matter your personal tastes, you just can't escape catchy pop music in the modern era - no matter how much you might want to!

"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

Gary Huff
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:26:07 pm

[Joseph Owens] "
Okay, then... so looking at the piece with a colorist's eye.... The way most of the costuming *pops* (especially the blue uniforms in the classroom and the red outfit the performer is wearing) suggests there was also a massive amount of grade/correction involved-- and usually is when sourcing DSLR."


Exactly. Canon 5D footage does not look like that coming out of the camera. It looks more like the end piece with her talking to the camera (and they couldn't be bothered to even get decent audio? Wow.)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:02:47 pm

[Gary Huff] "Exactly. Canon 5D footage does not look like that coming out of the camera."

I "so" do not get this attitude.

So RED footage looks great coming out of the camera? NOT.

I thought the entire direction of the industry was to capture better footage in terms of resolution (and latitude and grading potential when possible) - and then post grade to taste.

At the high end, that's the RED workflow.
At the low end, it's the DSLR workflow.

What's the difference? It's modern production as it's practiced by everyone.

You can snipe at DSLR's H264 compression or that they "dumbed down" the sensor for video all you like, but the marketplace has voted overwhelmingly in favor of the imagery produced by DSLRs, And like it or not, the device has arguably elevated the quality results obtainable by those with modest budgets more than any other video device of this generation.

The RED ONE entry point remains upwards of $20,000+ and yields outstanding results at that price point.
The DSLR entry point for the 5D is around $3,000+ and yields remarkable image results at it's price point.

I'm all for pushing for quality - but every "flaw" people are pointing out in these pieces has nothing to do with the equipment. It's essentially "They should have done that part better." Which is to my thinking a very slippery slope, since I can't think of a single one of my own hundreds of delivered projects that, on looking back, I don't say exactly the same thing about.

Maybe you guys work on "perfect" projects. (or at least ones with the budget to go re-shoot if you discover a flaw - but in my world that just doesn't happen. You go out, work like a dog to do your best - and if there are flaws, you work to correct them in post. And sometimes you have to live with them because the shot is more important than it's imperfections.

The cold hearted reality check is that they didn't hire you or me to go to Africa - they hired the guy who shot this piece. And sorry, but he delivered a great product. Not flawless, but undeniably effective.

And frankly, in the context of this piece, those flaws border on meaningless in the sense that after seeing this, my 19 year old son immediately went on line looking to see if Ms. Sterling was coming to town. She is - and he's motivated to put his money down to see her perform.

Mission accomplished.

The video is driving tangible positive financial results for it's producers.

Would they have sold a single additional ticket if they'd shot this on a RED or with a larger crew?

I seriously doubt it.

Which to my thinking is kinda "game over" right there.

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


Gary Huff
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:33:40 pm

[Bill Davis] "The cold hearted reality check is that they didn't hire you or me to go to Africa - they hired the guy who shot this piece. And sorry, but he delivered a great product. Not flawless, but undeniably effective."

That is not a reality check. The simple truth of the matter is that if whoever made that hiring decision knew of me and my work instead of this person, I would have been the one to go.

Simple as that.

There's nothing special about this video at all. Nothing I couldn't have handled either. The only reason is because I wasn't even in contention, and that has nothing to do with 5Ds or FCPX or Retina displays or any of that gadgety-goodness b.s. That's networking, plain and simple.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 11, 2012 at 9:48:17 pm

[Gary Huff] "That is not a reality check. The simple truth of the matter is that if whoever made that hiring decision knew of me and my work instead of this person, I would have been the one to go.

Simple as that."


Perhaps they didn't hire either you OR me because they valued "lack of arrogance" over technical skill?

Worth thinking about, no?

"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

Gary Huff
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:36:22 pm

[Bill Davis] "Perhaps they didn't hire either you OR me because they valued "lack of arrogance" over technical skill? Worth thinking about, no?"

Why would I waste my time thinking about a total hypothetical? It'd be nice if you actually added something of value to the conversation for once.


Return to posts index


alban egger
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:07:15 pm

Try editing 1080p on a laptop from 2000.
And try editing and finishing in Fcp7 or any 32-bit NLE on a laptop.
It worked, but it was a hassle.
The new NLEs are just flying. even on portable machines.



Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 1:07:26 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] " once they trust you, feel like you are properly taking in their concerns, and the earlier the better - once you get to that point you could be banging two salamis together to make the edit for all they care."

hahaha this is genius A


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 8:38:21 am

"We've been able to shoot and edit broadcast video on laptops and small cameras for 12 or 13 years"

I lectured around the place for several years for the Royal Television Society on lightweight production, then characterised by the VX1000 etc. FCP1 came out and I added a Mac laptop to the gear, and at the end of the lecture opened it up and said "and now we can edit in the field on a laptop in broadcast quality". It used to produce an amazing stir, and one man in Dublin so disbelieved me he stormed out.

B


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 3:39:36 pm

[Bernard Newnham] ""We've been able to shoot and edit broadcast video on laptops and small cameras for 12 or 13 years"

I lectured around the place for several years for the Royal Television Society on lightweight production, then characterised by the VX1000 etc. FCP1 came out and I added a Mac laptop to the gear..."


This was true for the introduction of HD as well. Remember that FCP 4.5 was rebranded as FCP HD. It supported DVCPRO HD over FireWire, in both 720p and 1080i.

(Talking about portable HD of course. Not that FCP HD was the first version to support HD. That was FCP 3 in 2002. I was at Boris FX at the time, launching Boris RED 3, and presented at many, many events where Apple also showed uncompressed HD in FCP 3. Quite the pile of gear to do that -- but remember when uncompressed was the Holy Grail?)

FCP 5 added HDV (which had actually been introduced in FC Express the year before I think) and P2 card support.

So really, you have to give as much credit to Panasonic for MAKING a format lightweight enough to work on a laptop, followed by HDV of course -- but The Legend of FCP was out in front for supporting untethered HD on laptops, 7+ years ago. (You could in fact do uncompressed on a laptop by using external storage and IO, taking HD on laptops with FCP back 10 years.)

Leaving aside for a moment the argument over whether HDV was (is?) a pro-quality format, the point is that professional results on portable platforms has been a non-issue for a very long time. It's easy now with almost NLE you can name.

So, among the arguments fer or agin X, I don't see how image quality meaningfully factors in.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 4:04:54 pm

[Tim Wilson] "So really, you have to give as much credit to Panasonic for MAKING a format lightweight enough to work on a laptop,"

It is THE VERY REASON for me to make an exodus to FCP way back when. 720p24 DVCPro HD support from Varicam footage.

I had a laptop, some firewire drives, and rented/used a comparatively expensive HD1200A.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 4:41:52 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It is THE VERY REASON for me to make an exodus to FCP way back when. 720p24 DVCPro HD support from Varicam footage."

Same here. We were about to start a new PBS series, went out to NAB and demo'd the then brand new varicam + 1200 + FCP DVCPRO HD workflow, jumped right in and here we are about 8 years later. I would like to add that the AJ 1200 was about the worst professional deck I've ever worked with (I don't count anything made by JVC as professional) Traded it in a few years later for the 1400 and have been all smiles ever since.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 6:25:15 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Traded it in a few years later for the 1400 and have been all smiles ever since."

Yes, a much more capable deck.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 10, 2012 at 10:13:48 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, a much more capable deck"

(imitating a modern 17 year old video dude) "What's a deck? Is it something like a memory card?"

(sigh)

"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

Bernard Newnham
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 12, 2012 at 8:09:02 am

So - lots of replies, but no actual conclusions.

From my POV, with lots of years as a producer client, and a few years of being producer/editor/cameraman etc, if I were starting a small facility, I'd forget the hardware for a while and find the best editors for the price. Then I'd ask them about the hardware, and take a consensus. But - if I had to do it myself in 2012, I'd go for Adobe on PCs. PCs because there's always an upgrade, and Adobe because it has currently the best integration with almost everything.

Bernie

Bernie


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:16:14 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "PCs because there's always an upgrade, and Adobe because it has currently the best integration with almost everything."

Worth considering.

But while I agree that Adobe has excellent integration within the users workflow - I'd be interested on how you see their integration outside of the "in-suite" content creation setting.

That is precisely what's been most interesting to me about the FCP-X approach. It appears to be a step toward an always connected workflow - rather than the classic style of content creation and perfection residing inside the suite - but that "masters" are something that you disconnect from the creation process.

What tools does it have for built in publishing and connectivity?

Honestly asking - I'm not familiar with the Adobe line nearly as much as I am with the X approach - which leaves it's "masters" dynamically connected to not only the editing suite - but to the Publish area as well.

Is Premier still following the - make it over here - then export it as a disconnected file over there - then if you need another one, repeat process - or are they migrating towards dynamic files that remain persistently connected to the editorial suite and just publish the current state as needed - the process that I see X as being built around?

I'd truly enjoy hearing your thoughts on 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

Shawn Miller
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 12, 2012 at 8:24:36 pm

[Bill Davis] "But while I agree that Adobe has excellent integration within the users workflow - I'd be interested on how you see their integration outside of the "in-suite" content creation setting."

I guess it depends on what content you're creating. Different CS applications can exchange files and formats with different outside applications. This is why AE (for instance) can be used as the hub of a very VFX/Mograph centric workflow (because it can open Cinema 4D or Maya projects), or as the backend to a PPro edit destined for finishing somewhere else (Avid, FCP, DaVinci, et.). The Adobe Suite isn't exactly an island.

[Bill Davis] "What tools does it have for built in publishing and connectivity?"

For publishing, Adobe Media Encoder, for connectivity, XML.

[Bill Davis] "Honestly asking - I'm not familiar with the Adobe line nearly as much as I am with the X approach - which leaves it's "masters" dynamically connected to not only the editing suite - but to the Publish area as well.

Is Premier still following the - make it over here - then export it as a disconnected file over there - then if you need another one, repeat process - or are they migrating towards dynamic files that remain persistently connected to the editorial suite and just publish the current state as needed - the process that I see X as being built around?"


I'm not sure I understand the statement. Which encoders leave media dynamically connected to pushlishing systems? Can you give an example?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 12, 2012 at 9:36:03 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I'm not sure I understand the statement. Which encoders leave media dynamically connected to pushlishing systems? Can you give an example?"

Well, in X - every thing in the Project library is dynamically connected to the Storyline that it's a reflection of. The Share menu lets you express it out to the net via Vimeo, YouTube or to your own in-house server.

As you make changes in the Storyline, those are expressed instantly to the repository in the Project Library. If you want to maintain a version, you just duplicate the project. This allows for pretty agile versioning. To switch from Verson A to Version B, you just share out the new one.

It's not so much connection to "publishing systems" as much as it's that the entire program being designed to export directly to a export stream, rather than exclusively to the desktop as a standalone file - and having built- in tools to enable that (keyword attachment, etc) right inside the program.

Seems like one of the primary changes between 7 and X was that 7 was designed to create a "disconnected master" (what was what media used to nearly exclusively be) while X is designed to create a "editable stream" and maintain that inside the software for future manipulation and re-deployment.

I think it's a pretty profound change in thinking. Of course, it requires circumstances of use that can benefit from it. For instance if you're cutting a piece for today's 7pm news, it's not a very big deal. But if you're publishing a series of virtual catalog pages with embedded video that includes something like pricing, for example - it's a VERY powerful new approach that gives you much more dynamic access to content change over time.

So I'm trying to see how the other teams are thinking about this new kind of "connected world" production reality.

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

Shawn Miller
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:38:23 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well, in X - every thing in the Project library is dynamically connected to the Storyline that it's a reflection of. The Share menu lets you express it out to the net via Vimeo, YouTube or to your own in-house server.

As you make changes in the Storyline, those are expressed instantly to the repository in the Project Library. If you want to maintain a version, you just duplicate the project. This allows for pretty agile versioning. To switch from Verson A to Version B, you just share out the new one.

It's not so much connection to "publishing systems" as much as it's that the entire program being designed to export directly to a export stream, rather than exclusively to the desktop as a standalone file - and having built- in tools to enable that (keyword attachment, etc) right inside the program."


So, it sounds like you're describing an automatic encoding system that lets you programmatically render files out to specific locations in whatever format may be needed. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

Adobe's approach to that functionality is via watch folders. Just set up a file location in Adobe Media Encoder and whatever you place at that location gets encoded to whatever format(s) and destination you specify.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 12:31:06 am

[Shawn Miller] "So, it sounds like you're describing an automatic encoding system that lets you programmatically render files out to specific locations in whatever format may be needed. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying."

Pretty close. Inside the software, for example, you can bake in your Vimeo or YouTube account settings. From within the software, you can then simply "print" your video to that account with nothing more than a stop (inside the software) to append search tags.

it makes "publish to my web accessible video portal" pretty much a single click operation.

Right now the auto-publish is limited to YouTube, Vimeo and CNN iReport - but clearly the design goal was to enable "publish out to services from within the app" as a software feature.

[Shawn Miller] "Adobe's approach to that functionality is via watch folders. Just set up a file location in Adobe Media Encoder and whatever you place at that location gets encoded to whatever format(s) and destination you specify.
"


OK, I think I understand. You Export your Master to that folder, then it publishes via the other program. Does the Master file remain connected to the editorial functions ala X and Share? Or is that master disconnected from further revision?

Thanks for helping me understand this, BTW.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 1:00:55 am

[Bill Davis] "Inside the software, for example, you can bake in your Vimeo or YouTube account settings. From within the software, you can then simply "print" your video to that account with nothing more than a stop (inside the software) to append search tags. "

[Bill Davis] "Does the Master file remain connected to the editorial functions ala X and Share? Or is that master disconnected from further revision?"

Wait, so are you saying that once you "publish" a video to YouTube in FCPX, you can update the video in FCPX, then re-publish the updated video back to its YouTube page and it will replace the old video but keep the view count and all the existing comments? AFAIK, replacing video is possible within Vimeo, but it's never been possible with YouTube. If FCPX enables this, that feature alone would be worth the price.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 1:11:48 am

[David Lawrence] "If FCPX enables this, that feature alone would be worth the price."

Sadly I don't know. Because of the original terms of service precluding commercial work on YouTube when we were deploying our client systems, we went with Vimeo Pro accounts for all of them - and I don't have any YouTube streams going.

Anyone else know about this?

"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

Shawn Miller
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 4:49:23 am

[Bill Davis] "

[Shawn Miller] "So, it sounds like you're describing an automatic encoding system that lets you programmatically render files out to specific locations in whatever format may be needed. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying."

Pretty close. Inside the software, for example, you can bake in your Vimeo or YouTube account settings. From within the software, you can then simply "print" your video to that account with nothing more than a stop (inside the software) to append search tags.

it makes "publish to my web accessible video portal" pretty much a single click operation.

Right now the auto-publish is limited to YouTube, Vimeo and CNN iReport - but clearly the design goal was to enable "publish out to services from within the app" as a software feature."


Ah, I see. It's literally like publishing a video asset for a website. I don't think AME has that capability, just stock templates for authoring the media that goes to Vimeo or YouTube, or what have you. But I think its a cool feature. Does it only work for Vimeo and YouTube, or can you publish to any streaming media server or service?

[Bill Davis] "OK, I think I understand. You Export your Master to that folder, then it publishes via the other program. Does the Master file remain connected to the editorial functions ala X and Share? Or is that master disconnected from further revision?"

Yes, that's correct. You can output master files from Premier (or AE, or Photoshop) directly to a watch folder, and AME will encode those files to any format(s) you wish. Once rendered or encoded, the output file has no association to the project.

[Bill Davis] "
Thanks for helping me understand this, BTW."


Thanks for helping me understand the publish/share features in X. They sound very cool.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:43:07 pm

If I understand your example Bill, all FCPX is doing is exporting a file directly to an off site storage like Vimeo without leaving a local copy.

I need the local copy which is part of my deliverables to the client and having to open and close projects to access versions seems increasingly unconnected compared to FCP7 in my typical workflow of having to copy paste between two or three final versions of a graded, titled timeline. If I can't have at least three or four sequences open at once, I really can't use that software.

What Adobe are doing with Adobe Anywhere is in my mind a fantastic addition to collaborative, open and truly connected workflows and is one of many reasons why I am switching from FCP7 to CS6. FCP X may be heading in that direction but I need to know now.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 1:08:57 am

[Michael Gissing] "If I understand your example Bill, all FCPX is doing is exporting a file directly to an off site storage like Vimeo without leaving a local copy.
"


It's one built-in option among others. You can also "Share" to the desktop as you like - which is pretty much what Export did in Legacy - cut a file off "as is" from the editorial system permanently.

The difference between Legacy and X is that in X, all your masters typically remain dynamically live and accessible all the time. You don't have to close a project in order to open another one. They're all accessible via the project library.

[Michael Gissing] "I need the local copy which is part of my deliverables to the client and having to open and close projects to access versions seems increasingly unconnected compared to FCP7 in my typical workflow of having to copy paste between two or three final versions of a graded, titled timeline. If I can't have at least three or four sequences open at once, I really can't use that software. "

I think you might be misunderstanding the concept of "Projects" in X - verses "Sequences" in legacy.

Since Legacy couldn't open more than one project at a time, the only construct was to work in Sequences within a Single Project. With X, that's kinda disappeared. Sequences are no longer important as a workspace construct having been replaced by the database in the Event Browser combined with the Project Library.

Opening a Legacy Project to access it's content is kinda GONE in X. All your Projects are essentially available all the time via the Project Library and so it's trivial to grab content from one and past it into another.

Again, this is mostly a change of language and design ideas. Not better or worse, just different - and until someone learns the different approach, it's understandably hard to see why there might be advantages to the new way that outweigh the old.

Your "copy paste between two or three final versions of a graded, titled timeline. Is truly trivial under X. Take one graded and titled Project and Duplicate it three times. Change what you want about the clones. Copy and past from or to them at will. Then Share from each. Done.

Just like your "sequences" in Legacy, they'll ALL be there ready for you to re-work in the event browser next time you come back to refine them - but SO WILL all your other work. So if you remember a title you did on a DIFFERENT project a month ago, you con't have to shut down and load the old project as in Legacy - you just access the different one from the event browser, cut and paste and keep working in X.

[Michael Gissing] "What Adobe are doing with Adobe Anywhere is in my mind a fantastic addition to collaborative, open and truly connected workflows"

I'd very much like to understand this. What is this "truly connected workflow?" Is it connected inside the suite to other parts of the same suite? Or is it a software design constructed to connect FROM within the suite TO the larger outside world?

It has seemed to me that this is one of the things that X has opened up in my thinking. I think of my edits less as crafting "an edit" that begins and ends in the software - and instead I'm thinking more and more of creating persistent content that will adapt and change as necessary and which I'll refine and deploy and re-refine and re-deploy as necessary.

There will always be a market for videos as "a thing" that's done and that's it. I'm just imagining that there are other extremely video friendly concepts out there where the ability to have the video remain connected to the content creation, deployment and management system might be a major advantage.

That's why I'm interested in what the other NLE manufacturers are doing in this area.

Nothing more.

"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: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 1:47:22 am

[Bill Davis] "Since Legacy couldn't open more than one project at a time"

You can have as many projects open in Legacy as you want, cutting pasting and copying between them.

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: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 4:30:49 am

[Herb Sevush] "Bill Davis] "Since Legacy couldn't open more than one project at a time"

You can have as many projects open in Legacy as you want, cutting pasting and copying between them.
"


That's wild. I can't imagine not knowing that. I guess different work flows, but I regularly have/had multiple projects open. In fact, I often media-manage timelines into their own projects, have several of them open at once, and cut and paste between them. When I'm working on a Sizzle reel, I can have a bunch of these open at the same time.

I guess that just demonstrates how differently/deeply we can use a program. I've used FCP for years and had no idea that you could do sub frame audio editing in it until David Lawrence pointed it out. So, ain't like Bill's alone in not knowing ALL the features.

I DO like the Avid approach of being able to load bins from other projects. In fact, I find myself liking much about Avid the more I use it. Funny, that.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 3:41:04 am

So FCPX can do what legacy does except Legacy allows multiple sequences in a project as well which is exactly what I need.

Adobe Anywhere was covered in a previous thread but basically it allows multi users to interact on a single project within a local network or via the internet.
The patent thread started over Apple trying to take a patent on a similar concept and at the time I expressed concern that it was to stop others (ie Adobe) from doing exactly what they have done. I hope it doesn't and I also hope Adobe don't have some patent to block Apples collaborative workflows if and when they appear.

So unlike FCPX, Adobe Anywhere has both dynamic linking to ancillarly software like Ae plus collaborative multi users working on a single project. That is why I want to go CS6 becasue that is important in my workflows.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 5:35:03 am

[Michael Gissing] "If I understand your example Bill, all FCPX is doing is exporting a file directly to an off site storage like Vimeo without leaving a local copy. "

It leaves a local copy. In the Final Cut Projects > Project Name > Shared Items folder, there's a copy of the "published" movie.

If you send to Youtube et al, it's h264, so as long as you can make your version from that. ;/

Exporting a non-published QT movie, gives you the option of where to put it. A plist is written with the non published movies to the shared movie folder along with its ID, and it tells you info about what has been exported. Some if this information is then shown in the "Sharing" tab of the inspector in the project library and acts as a record of all the different versions of that particular Project that were exported. There's a little magnifying glass that you can click and it will open the exported file provided the title and location match the plist file. If you move or rename the exported file, the Sharing tab in no longer connected to the file.

Searching for the movies "string" (or ID) unfortunately does not turn up in a Spotlight search.

I have no idea why this might be useful to anyone, but there you go.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 14, 2012 at 8:48:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well, in X - every thing in the Project library is dynamically connected to the Storyline that it's a reflection of. The Share menu lets you express it out to the net via Vimeo, YouTube or to your own in-house server. As you make changes in the Storyline, those are expressed instantly to the repository in the Project Library. If you want to maintain a version, you just duplicate the project. This allows for pretty agile versioning. To switch from Verson A to Version B, you just share out the new one. It's not so much connection to "publishing systems" as much as it's that the entire program being designed to export directly to a export stream, rather than exclusively to the desktop as a standalone file - and having built- in tools to enable that (keyword attachment, etc) right inside the program. "

Adobe applications have a feature called Dynamic Link which allows you to pipe the output of these applications together without "disconnected" intermediate renders.

I can work on a graphic in After Effects, bring it into my timeline in Premiere via dynamic link, and then bring the Premiere project into Adobe Media Encoder via dynamic link.

If I go back and make a change in the graphic in AE, the change flows through to Pr and AME.

Adobe's DVD/Blu-ray/Flash authoring app Encore is also tied in via dynamic link.

AME supports automatic FTP upload, but it does not auto-publish to Vimeo/YouTube (that I am aware of).

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

Michael Gissing
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:25:59 pm

Yes Bernard, to the original question. My small facility is switching to PC and CS6. Same reasoning. I am building two new PCs for a much cheaper price than staying with Mac. Plus the price and availability of up to date NVIDIA graphics cards and lots of internal PCIe slots.

Laptops for my work are useless. I need two big screens, an output to a proper monitor via an I/O card, decent ergonomics with multi button mice and the ability to put the keyboard where I want it which is never right hard against a screen. I think the ergonomics and limited screen size of laptop editing is going to make my life harder. Already I get editors watching their grade on big screens marvelling at things missed in the edit like shot stability, small movement in frame on cuts. Already I do a lot more tidy ups for editors, rolling edit points to make up for these missed details.


The other driver for me is open workflows. I only do post grade & online plus sound post. My Fairlights are already PC so I am happy with WIN 7. Most editors who feed work on to me are either staying with FCP 7 or switching to CS6. I also have some AVID editors so I need a system where open interchange like AAF or OMF is integral to the program.

The other thing is da Vinci Resolve will be on the same PC again going with PC as I need the CUDA grunt and plenty of slots for Blackmagic card and potentially a Red Rocket.

The Mac will remain in the system for legacy work and my wife will use it for her iTunes/ iPad interface and retire her old laptop.


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 8:45:36 am

"Yes Bernard, to the original question. My small facility is switching to PC and CS6. Same reasoning. I am building two new PCs for a much cheaper price than staying with Mac. Plus the price and availability of up to date NVIDIA graphics cards and lots of internal PCIe slots. "

The only reason I've continued to watch and sometimes contribute to this forum is my continual amazement at the customer loyalty to a company that has no loyalty to those same customers. At 65, and now working at a university part time, I don't have to make a living from this stuff any more - I just need to keep up so I can pass the knowledge on. But I've never ever had loyalty to any company whose products I've used, only to the one which pays me. If it works, buy it - if it doesn't, look elsewhere.

The switch to PCs at this point is a no-brainer. That doesn't mean that it's a permanent answer, but if you need to be up with the pack, or preferably ahead, there's no point in locking yourself into a customer base where products are limited and mostly out-dated. Buy a PC, use it. After a few months, open it up and put in a bigger disc, or memory, or the latest CUDA card. Repeat ad infinitum. The university does this with hundreds of machines. And now that you're in the big world of the PC, look around at the huge range and choice of software. If the answer in 2012 is Adobe, then fine - but if the answer in 2014 is Bloggs, then just switch. No waiting for one supplier to get their act together, or in this case, not.

So - who's going to be standing in the queue outsider the Apple shop for a iPhone 5. Sad, sad people....

Bernie


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 9:30:46 am

[Bernard Newnham] "So - who's going to be standing in the queue outsider the Apple shop for a iPhone 5. Sad, sad people...."

So what has the iPhone 5 got to do with your Mac/PC argument?

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


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 10:40:11 am

Absolutely nothing

Bernie


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 12:49:26 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "The switch to PCs at this point is a no-brainer. That doesn't mean that it's a permanent answer, but if you need to be up with the pack, or preferably ahead, there's no point in locking yourself into a customer base where products are limited and mostly out-dated. Buy a PC, use it."

And you can even hedge your bets and purchase components that are ripe for turning your PC into a Hackintosh if you ever decide to go back to OSX.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 2:47:01 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "The switch to PCs at this point is a no-brainer"

For me personally, it's the opposite of a no-brainer.

I guess that means, a brainer.

There's a lot more to it than just buying a PC and loading it up with CUDA especially when you have more than one person to account for, a legacy of Mac based archive and projects that still generate income, and well, a brain.

It's not about loyalty to me. If I went PC none of those companies have loyalty either so it's really no difference. I don't feel betrayed by Apple at all. I guess I don't have a relationship with a company like that. It's business. Clients have walked away, I have had to walk away for certain projects, the ball bounces that way sometimes. For that, I can't just simply walk away from Apple as there's still business on the table. It's not even about FCP, it's about much more than that. There isn't anything that I have to have to get the job done right now that is PC only.

Sure, I can build a Hackintosh, but that seems rather daunting and certainly unsupported. Multiply that by 5 machines, and that becomes a nightmare waiting to happen. I can purchase any Mac that can also run Windows officially if that's what I need. CUDA is getting better and better on the Mac with every OS release. This means that soon, the computers will be very similar. Certainly, PCs have a CPU edge at the moment. Our work isn't all about the CPU. For some, it is, and perhaps that makes this a no-brainer for their needs.

What is important is the right tool for the right job, and right now with all things considered, all things are still pointing to FCS3. I'm not looking for fastest, I'm looking for better. Everyday, there are multiple companies working to gain or keep my attention and business. So far, there isn't a clear winner for our business needs, but I think about it a lot. I hope that I have a lot more career left so I need to think about this stuff. I can't simply make a rash and expensive decision. CNN/BBC/Universal Studios we are not.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 9:06:06 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "I wonder what commercial advantages FCPX will bring to a facilities house, and what disadvantages....?
"


Hey Bernard, folks get a bit carried away on this site. Both our initial threads have been hijacked by an army of vested interests pontificating in their own gravy. I cut a weekly magazine program, I have done for the last 7 years. The series producer has said, "where ever you go, we go" I cut a bunch of other TV with producers that are saying the same thing. They couldn't care less what program I use FCP, AVID, Premier. They like working with me and I like FCPX simple as that. I think commercial advantages are minimal apart from "no tape", so no tape hardware. I also think apple gear looks cool, makes the suits look cool, and lets be honest clients like hanging out in cool Boutique facilities while making cool contemporary TV. There you have it.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 13, 2012 at 10:05:30 pm

[craig slattery] "Hey Bernard, folks get a bit carried away on this site. Both our initial threads have been hijacked by an army of vested interests pontificating in their own gravy"

This forum is all about pontification. I didn't agree with your original pontification but starting a thread doesn't make you the arbiter.

Yes clients want a result and don't much care for the tools that get the result. Smart clients also care about workflows and have loyalties to editors and other post facilities that finish the grade, online & deliverables so they need to know that the people they want to work with can work together.

If you are doing it all in house then bravo. In broadcast that almost never happens so Bernard's point about whether FCPX is a wise move for a facility is also valid. If a local edit facility chooses to go FCPX (and so far none have), then they need to talk to me and other post facilities to make sure our current cooperative workflow can continue.

I also take Jeremy's point about backwards loyalty with old legacy projects so I am keeping a MacPro running with FCP7. Ironically it is CS6 that is more backwards compatible than X which is also a consideration.


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: Commercial advantages
on Sep 14, 2012 at 11:12:58 pm

[Michael Gissing] "then they need to talk to me and other post facilities to make sure our current cooperative workflow can continue. "

Nice idea, might be a stretch getting the BBC folks down to Tasmania.


Return to posts index

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