FORUMS: list search recent posts

The NLE that keeps moving forward?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 2:32:40 am

Just as Oliver's post below was interesting and informative - today I got my issue of Broadcast Engineering where longtime industry writer Steve Mullen takes a very interesting look at FCP-X - not looking so much at the theory of where NLEs came from or where they might be going - but rather concentrating on the specifics of how today's new larger captured rasters might work with modern editing approaches.

He's focused on taking modern large raster (4K2K) camera output and looking at using that large raster to re-frame and re-use PARTS of the running footage for effect during editing.

Working with FCP-X and it's Proxy workflow, he specifically mentions techniques like using the built in "Ken Burns" effect to do moves in post involving his running single cam HD footage.

More exploration of how X's re-imagined workflow might help people think a bit differently about how to approach some things in a world where rasters are getting larger, faster.

November 2012 Broadcast Engineering - Shooting Quad HD for HD projects.

Interesting.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 2:42:32 am

[Bill Davis] "Working with FCP-X and it's Proxy workflow, he specifically mentions techniques like using the built in "Ken Burns" effect to do moves in post involving his running single cam HD footage."

Not sure what a proxy workflow has to do with this particularly, however, I don't see what FCPX adds to this. I used Premiere CS5 with 4K Red One footage and had to reframe on a 2k timeline in order to have inserts that weren't being shot. FCPX wasn't even out then.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 4:10:41 am

[Gary Huff] "Not sure what a proxy workflow has to do with this particularly, however, I don't see what FCPX adds to this. I used Premiere CS5 with 4K Red One footage and had to reframe on a 2k timeline in order to have inserts that weren't being shot. FCPX wasn't even out then.
"


It's kinda funny, but the the moment I wrote this I said to myself that somebody here was going to pop up with the same old same old - "but Software X does that too so X is really nothing special!" - I honestly thought it was going to be Harlen. But not this time! (maybe he's finally tired of making the same comment over and over??)

SO in the spirt of upholding my traditional response, here's your (yikes) analogy...

Yep, and a V8 Truck and a Honda Prius both get you to the grocery store.

So what?

If you don't understand the reality that a new tool that gets the job done might turn out to be worth exploring - it's hopeless trying to convince you otherwise.

You can spend your whole life figuring that because matches create perfectly good flames - that means theres absolutely no good reason for the world to have Zippos, flares, or butane torches.

But please, some of us are simply interested in the ability to learn and enjoy new approaches to things.

My little, quick, affordable, fun, and amazingly capable software does 2K/4K via Proxy really well and has nice capabilities to make moves within those frames easy and fun!

The article was informative and interesting to folks like me (and presumably the readers of Broadcast Engineering) who might have come out of an era where it was typically unrealistic to even think of blowing up our poor SD rasters. When we first got to HD, same issue. Now that bigger rasters are the norm, we get some of the same capabilities with a MacBook Air and X and a $4500 camcorder.

Are you just upset because you likely had to invest in a RED workflow to do it and now Mr. Mullen talks about an alternative that sacrifices what might in some workflows be a non-critical level of quality in exchange for saving about $30 thousand bucks?

Wow.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Rafael Amador
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 4:51:51 am

[Bill Davis] "It's kinda funny, but the the moment I wrote this I said to myself that somebody here was going to pop up with the same old same old - "but Software X does that too so X is really nothing special!" - I honestly thought it was going to be Harlen. But not this time! (maybe he's finally tired of making the same comment over and over??)"
Bill,
You could have started your post pointing out to and interesting article on FCPX/4K workflow, but when you start it with a subject that sounds to old propaganda ("The NLE that keeps moving forward?"), you should expect whatever answer from people that are not so in love with the application.as you are.
You suggest that FCPX is the only NLE that moves forward. Let others think different.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:57:46 am

[Rafael Amador] "it with a subject that sounds to old propaganda ("The NLE that keeps moving forward?")"

Uh, I just called the thread this because the thread ahead of it that I referenced in my OP was titled "The NLE that just wouldn't die."

It was a silly little wink. Nothing more.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 5:12:44 am

Here is the link in to the article.
http://broadcastengineering.com/cameras-amp-lenses/shooting-quad-hd-hd-proj...

I'm not sure why you tried to represent this as a FCPX-centric piece Bill when the article is really about the usefulness of reframing and FCPX, to me, just gets mentioned as an aside.

From the article:
"It’s also possible to edit Quad HD using Final Cut Pro and Media Composer (OS X and Windows).
.
.
.
The advantages of shooting Quad HD are available whether one shoots with a low-cost ENG-style camera or a far more expensive cinema-style camera. The difference is one of image quality, not post production."
Emphasis mine.




Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 5:16:36 am

[Bill Davis] "It's kinda funny, but the the moment I wrote this I said to myself that somebody here was going to pop up with the same old same old - "but Software X does that too so X is really nothing special!" - I honestly thought it was going to be Harlen. But not this time! (maybe he's finally tired of making the same comment over and over??)"

It could have just as easily been me! :)

If the subject of this thread were "An NLE that keeps moving forward" then there would be no debate. However, you chose "THE NLE that keeps moving forward" (emphasis mine), so surely you can see how others may infer a suggestion that other NLEs are not moving forward.

I read the article. It's not mainly about FCPX; it's about shooting at a higher resolution than final output, so you can reframe in post. This was an optical trick when shooting on film, it was pretty commonly done with 1080 footage in a 720 raster. It was also famously done for Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which was shot in 4.5K and 5K but finished in 4K. CreativeCOW Magazine had a nice article on their 4K workflow [link] with Michael Cioni last year.

Mullen himself also notes in his Broadcast Engineering article that you could cut quad HD in FCP Legend or Media Composer.

Conspicuously absent among his mentions is Premiere Pro, which also easily handles Quad HD (and beyond), and which, with a CUDA card, uses the ultra-high-quality Lanczos scaling algorithm. (This could be an interesting point of comparison for this workflow with FCPX. Unless someone knows off-hand what scaling algorithm FCPX uses, I'll have to try to design a test for it.)

For the sake of completeness, I'll note that you couldn't (easily) do this in FCP Legend with true 4K, because it exceeds FCP's 4000 px limit (quad HD at 3840x2160 squeaks in under the wire), and because FCP Legend's scaling tended toward icky.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 7:06:09 am

[Bill Davis] " I honestly thought it was going to be Harlen. But not this time! (maybe he's finally tired of making the same comment over and over??)"

Ah, Bill. Maybe my calling you out on your egregious BS does get a little one note. Sorry about that. At least when I do that, I'm specifically responding to something you've written, and not defaming you as an aside to someone else. Lord knows, though; I've probably been guilty of that. Maybe even to you. If so, I apologize.

I would normally make some kind of comment here like: Me?! You're the biggest tape loop on the whole forum! But, you're right. What's the point in repeating that over and over. It always sounds the same, and it never sinks in.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 8:20:25 am

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously as a professional to calls camera moves on stills "The Ken Burns Effect."

(Them Bill, not you.)

Points directly at who the audience of the app is...not professionals, but consumers.

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


Return to posts index


Morten Carlsen
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 11:06:34 am

yes, overusing the KB effect looks like crap. However, imagine having a 1080p project which you plan on releasing as 720..

You'd create a 720 project and ingest the 1920 clips with spatial conform set to none... Here the KB effect becomes extremely interesting.
The KB effect is nothing but animating keyframes only automated... In above scenario the KB effect will save many many hours.

Consider the KB effect as animating several keyframes at once and that on motion pictures. I often use the KB effect to smooth a real camera move.
I'll just "anti" the move but slightly less which will save me from smoothing the move via motion tracking in AE...

Just a thought


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 12:30:33 pm

Hmm.

I thought Ken Burns produced high quality content and not facebook worthy consumer level drivel.

Here, you can listen to Ken Burns talk about the Ken Burns Effect:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/2012/11/ken-burns-on-the-ken-burns-effect/

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 2:10:22 pm

He does produce high level stuff, and I like his response to the Pan and Zoom on pictures being attributed to him.

BUT...

Panning and Zooming on pictures has been happening LONG BEFORE Mr. Burns came along. It was called Motion Control (if a platter was used), moves on stills, panning and zooming...any number of things. Apple called it The Ken Burns effect in iMovie...a consumer level app...so that people would know what it was. Which people? Consumers who watched Ken Burns. Because us Pro's already knew what it was.

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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 2:14:35 pm

Many motion control houses here in Chicago died a long time ago. They used to be bastions of Chicago post.

If it was called Pan and Zoom it would suddenly be pro? Who cares what it's called? It does a better job than fcp7s shitty ease keyframing.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 2:57:16 pm

Jeremy -

As someone who spent some of his formative work years, (1974 -77) doing mostly animation on stills for a variety of animation and design houses, I too get highly annoyed at calling something the Ken Burns effect. the annoyance has nothing to do with Ken Burns, who's work I like very much, nor does it reflect any degree of "professionalism" on someone who uses that effect; the anger is addressed to the lack of appreciation of the history of the medium. Most young filmmakers call it the KB effect, but when they do it in front of me they get a quick lesson in film history.

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: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 3:03:20 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Jeremy -

As someone who spent some of his formative work years, (1974 -77) doing mostly animation on stills for a variety of animation and design houses, I too get highly annoyed at calling something the Ken Burns effect. the annoyance has nothing to do with Ken Burns, who's work I like very much, nor does it reflect any degree of "professionalism" on someone who uses that effect; the anger is addressed to the lack of appreciation of the history of the medium. Most young filmmakers call it the KB effect, but when they do it in front of me they get a quick lesson in film history.
"


I adamantly second this. No disrespect to Ken Burns at all, but its akin to saying anything shot with a wide angle lens is Kubrick-like.


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 3:31:41 pm

[Chris Harlan] "... akin to saying anything shot with a wide angle lens is Kubrick-like."

Chris,

The Kubrick shot is a wide angle lens pointed at a forehead.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Morten Carlsen
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 3:59:32 pm

Probably folks used THAT shot before Kubrick -- only they didn't do it in a H-Wood Flick... and catch fame for it


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 4:46:10 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[Chris Harlan] "... akin to saying anything shot with a wide angle lens is Kubrick-like."

Chris,

The Kubrick shot is a wide angle lens pointed at a forehead.

Franz.
"


Franz, I think its a regional thing, because here I'm almost certain that the Kubrick shot is a wide angle tracking shot of either the interior of a space station, a once futuristic milk bar, or WWI trenches.

Speaking of which, I'm going to get to go see both Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon on the big screen this weekend. They're using this very old process by which they shoot a powerful light beam through a series of plasticish connected stills. It seems farfetched to me, but it will probably work.


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 5:08:09 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Franz, I think its a regional thing, ..."

Chris,

Yes, if the region in question is about 1m diameter centered on me.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 5:24:05 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Speaking of which, I'm going to get to go see both Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon on the big screen this weekend. They're using this very old process by which they shoot a powerful light beam through a series of plasticish connected stills. It seems farfetched to me, but it will probably work.
"


Sounds like the future!

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 5:32:51 pm

[Steve Connor] "Sounds like the future!"

Even more shocking, the still images seem to be "printed" on something that sounded like cellulite, which sounds quite gross, but I've been promised that there is no liposuction tie-in.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 5:41:19 pm

dont worry

i am going to film an interview soon

on videotape


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 6:02:47 pm

Chris,

... took me a while to find this (recently read and half-forgotten). There isn't much in there that you don't know already, but the last paragraph is a bit despairing:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/11/with-35mm-film-dea...

"In the meantime, it's viewer beware. To celebrate Cinerama's 60th anniversary, earlier this fall Arclight Cinemas showed 12 Cinerama productions, some in the original three-strip process, at its Cinerama Dome theater in Los Angeles. How The West Was Won was screened in authentic Cinerama. 2001: A Space Odyssey, on the other hand, was a DCP presentation of the 2K scan: not exactly a Blu-ray, but the master used to make the Blu-ray. As author Mike Gebert put it to me, "Is that all there is to project 2001 with these days? That's sad.""

Franz.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 6:46:08 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "In the meantime, it's viewer beware. To celebrate Cinerama's 60th anniversary, earlier this fall Arclight Cinemas showed 12 Cinerama productions, some in the original three-strip process, at its Cinerama Dome theater in Los Angeles. How The West Was Won was screened in authentic Cinerama. 2001: A Space Odyssey, on the other hand, was a DCP presentation of the 2K scan: not exactly a Blu-ray, but the master used to make the Blu-ray. As author Mike Gebert put it to me, "Is that all there is to project 2001 with these days? That's sad.""
"



How sad. I went to a LACMA (our art museum) screening of Spartacus a couple of weeks ago. They showed the Academy's 70mm Restoration print (I think Spartacus was originally 65mm) which was glorious, but 3/4s of the way through something went wrong, maybe with the film gate, the lights came up, and we all sat there wondering how much of the reel had spooled off into the booth. Five minutes later we were watching again, right where we left off, so no damage. The few minutes we were all holding our collective breath makes me appreciate the need for good 4k (dare I ask for 6k?) projection all the more.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 4:45:08 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Most young filmmakers call it the KB effect, but when they do it in front of me they get a quick lesson in film history."

[Chris Harlan] "I adamantly second this. No disrespect to Ken Burns at all, but its akin to saying anything shot with a wide angle lens is Kubrick-like.
"


here we go

my point was to shane saying that the kenburnseffectisconsumer is hogwash ie bullshit

listen to ken tell it like it is its not the ken burns effect so much as a filmaking technique

if you go on shoots im sure youve heard we need more rembrandt or for the follicly challenged you might need a picard light

relax its going to be ok no need to adamantly shove everything down youngsters throats

if it causes them to watch more ken burns documentaries they might actually learn something

all is not lost

a rose is still a rose

now if i could just have your john hancock on this dotted line and initial here and here

punctuation is for the weak

good day


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 4:49:02 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "punctuation is for the weak

good day"


ROTFL


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 5:16:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "if you go on shoots im sure youve heard we need more rembrandt or for the follicly challenged you might need a picard light"

A Picard light was named after an actor, not a DP, just like an "Obie" light was named after Merle Oberon, not the DP who came up with it (I believe it was Lucien Ballard.) I don't think anyone really believes that Rembrandt invented 3/4 back light. Many young people actually believe that KB invented the KB effect, especially because it's almost impossible to get them to watch anything made before they were born. Hence the history lessons.

[Jeremy Garchow] "relax its going to be ok no need to adamantly shove everything down youngsters throats"

Wait till your my age.

[Jeremy Garchow] "all is not lost"

Incorrigible optimist.

[Jeremy Garchow] "a rose is still a rose"

But who was it named after.

[Jeremy Garchow] "punctuation is for the weak"

It still has it's uses ;)

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: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 5:48:34 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Jeremy Garchow] "a rose is still a rose"

But who was it named after."


romeo montague duh

wink emoticon


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 6:09:26 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "But who was it named after."

romeo montague duh"


beautiful.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 3:28:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "RED workflow"
Not too many consumers are gonna do this:
http://library.creativecow.net/battistella_david/FCPX-RED-Shoot-Edit/1


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 9:08:36 pm

for starters - FCPX is not a prius, its the google auto-drive car, if we're going that way.

you can say its going to keep moving forward, but I really wonder. and seeing as how you've got quite the little flamebait thread going - here is some brandy on the crepe, this is as best as i can explain my issue with the software:

OK - say for kicks editing is post modern, in that the modernist era of formal contextual shark icon experimentation - it could be argued - is over.

we are all now aware say, after a decade and a half on the ground, that a true track timeline can faithfully represent any given expression of editing in any context.

it appears to be that bullet proof.

say we know this because it is currently handling all editing tasks, from the guardian, to the NYT, to the BBC, to film, documentary, to every corporate entity, to near every single instance you can think of.

the true multi-track timeline, the core of any NLE to this point, is fit for all instances. It's a functioning word processing construct say - although it's way more complex than typing on a keyboard - let's all forget that editing is the new vernacular of literacy.

nobody is crying out now for a light works shark icon, or an attic metaphor - there was a period of true experimentation running over a number of years - does anyone remember the "judgement 3D" timeline? It bulged out in the middle. that one, from memory, weirdly came from the lara croft game publishers.

FCP via macromedia didn't copy Avid all those years ago - (I'm riffing madly here) but they had arrived at similar conclusions about the broad shape of the issue - apple heavily innovated within an open timeline allied to physical object malleability - but the open tracked timeline itself was never in question.

Apple, I would vehemently argue, are not truly innovating the timeline here with FCPX -and even if they are - they are simply doing it all ten years too late.

this is not a tape to tape meets linear conceptual break - this is Apple messing around with, and reducing in scope, agreed fundamental non-linear open track timeline methodology?

they are boiling it down to what they feel is an essence. You talk a lot about a new wave coming, that actually bothers me as an idea that they would grasp editing through FCPX.

So lets just say I know that clips are connected.

I know because when you hit the space playbar - it tells you. Playback alone declares live relationships and their faults.
editing isn't a nodal parent child analysis operation like compositing - its a playback operation.

so lets presume that anyone in their first week of college realises that clips have an intrinsic connection.

because a single second's bad drip of clip overhanging a music beat will teach them that right?

you know it the second you begin to realise it jars. when you hit the spacebar.

live editing playback failure instructs and so you need to act immediately on the live objects. Right? they are just bits of that moving image

but ok - so then -

- why exactly are apple casting this critical, and (necessarily failed initially) live relationship in a hard to unpick connected clip concrete mess?

Its not, at all, difficult to interrogate V/A relationships in editing. it only requires looking at the timeline. Indeed, openly judging and critiquing those relationships, forms a half decent definition of editing sort of?

Editing is meant to be live sensitive jelly - between the clips, the intent, the music, the VO - so then why please did the engineers in apple decide they should set canonical parent child relationships at timeline entry? that then have to be unpicked later when those relationships run out of date?

in educational terms, by robbing all that sensory per clip malleability, by deadening whole chunks of the timeline into predisposed lego super objects the minute they meet each other, objects that you can mindlessly heft around like a pick up truck, by doing this -

I would argue very strongly that apple have effectively lobotomised whole sections of the personal editing exploratory process by making these default decisions.

by casting simplified concrete b-roll in software, that acts like a multi-story pick-up mechanism - this deadens the questions that might arise later in the students mind because well, sure its all glued together now so why bother - not that they would - but the software lends itself to moving on.

I would personally argue that apple are anti-intellectual here, that their decisions - the pre-jointed lego they have constructed for editing - is fundamentally anti-intellectual.

not so much maybe for the seasoned practitioner who can side step the gross simplification of process - but what kind of educational basis for editing is clip super-glue by default?

isn't this rather intellectually dodgy for that kid in college?

Isn't his or her's perception of editing fundamentally altered by the initial affirmation in picking up those whole chunks of an early edit, with a massive, simplified contextual thumbs up from apple?

Fine that FCPX has some role: but as to any primary role, for people starting out, or as a real editing environment - my personal view is no.

Its not so much that I don't want FCPX to succeed, it's that I don't think it should. Its bad candy.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 9:26:07 pm

A very eloquent and interesting post Aindreas, it almost makes me want to free my creative mind from the shackles of the FCPX timeline and go back to the mystical promise of the magical open timeline where anything is possible.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 9:31:05 pm

there you go.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 9:29:48 pm

Now that is poetry! But I think you cribbed it. I think its the famous lost "Portrait of an Editor as a Young Man." Pretty soon you'll be all "riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to FCP X."


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 9:34:23 pm

ha!

I'm a Flann O'Brien man myself. no better novel than swimtwobirds.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 11:01:08 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "ha!

I'm a Flann O'Brien man myself. no better novel than swimtwobirds."


From what I just read about it, that may well be the case. I'll have to give it a try. That and The 3rd Policeman.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 11:35:14 pm

honest to god, they're just pleasure reading - its like Joyce with a truly mad sense of humour.

at swimtwobirds is the only book alive where I know you can say that - it is a book, within a book, within a book, where the characters rebel.

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


Return to posts index

Morten Carlsen
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 11:05:32 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Its not so much that I don't want FCPX to succeed, it's that I don't think it should. Its bad candy."

I hated FCP7. Used Premiere Pro and AVID Media Composer. All NLEs (B4 FCPx) IMO had one thing in common. They were all "hiding' the media from the visual editor. Aside from that, I thought that the NLEs were flawed in that their timeline reminded me of that of a DAW... FCPx was the first NLE that actually made a timeline dedicated to Video and NOT utilizing a DAW-Style timeline.

I can cut in any NLE out there and while I cut I care about one thing only, finding the clip I have in mind, immediately. And getting it inside the sequence.
admittedly - this process differs greatly based on which kind of project you are doing; Music Video Style, Documentary or Feature Film... Be that as it may, there is nothing out there which offers better tagging or "Media Transparency" than FCPx. And getting it into the timeline is simply put faster than anything around..
Mind you, that I have been editing on NLE since a long time and first time I got my hands on FCPx I was totally thrown off.... However, me not being ignorant thought to myself, give it a chance... And i started fooling about with it after work.... And the more I delved in, the more I saw the opportunity of speeding up my workflow significantly... Today after many months of getting to know it, I can say that I am able to finish an identical project about 10 times faster in FCPx than any of the other NLEs i had been working with prior...

One huge part of FCPx's speed is the ability of compositing and color correcting inside of FCPx... Motion X is basically a plug-in for FCPx.. You can save your whole workflow of grading in motion and load it up inside FCPx as a plug-in.. That made FCPx my new best friend.. I've been grading in everything ;tween AMC, Resolve, AE, Speedgrade, colour etc.... Typically my grading involves loads of compositing. All which is totally undoable in any other NLE... FCPx makes it 100% possible.. FCPx is a color grader's dream come true.. Surely, there are things for which I render a prores 4444 and go to AE...

And one thing that should NOT be forgotten is the Optical Flow of retiming in FCPx... It is the best out there, bar none... Works true wonders and easily outperforms AE's Time Warp for generic tasks...

In my humble opinion which is not so humble at all.... FCPx is the most misunderstood app to ever surface a computer.. If folks would give it a real shot, they would be dropping jaws... Been using it 18 MOnths... And I cannot remember with any other NLE that me or my partner ever bursting out with "Man, I just love this app" so many times per day.... And I've been editing many years...

Be that as it may, what ever gets the job done.. It is "just" a software......


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 11:24:29 pm

Nice post Morten, sums up how I feel about FCPX.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 11:45:58 pm

[Steve Connor] "post Morten"

Read this twice as "postmortem."


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 11:59:01 pm

[Richard Herd] "Read this twice as "postmortem.""

LOL


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 27, 2012 at 11:57:40 pm

[Morten Carlsen] "FCPx is the most misunderstood app to ever surface a computer.. If folks would give it a real shot, they would be dropping jaws... Been using it 18 MOnths..."

... what he said. While there certainly are some quirks, and incomplete features, and limited (but improving) support for a "traditional" offline->finish workflow... When it comes to editing, X is a joy to use. Well, once you wrap your head around it is... ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 12:05:35 am

Nice post, Morten. I do appreciate your perspective and hope to hear more about how you're using FCPX.

I do have a question on the speed claim:

[Morten Carlsen] "Today after many months of getting to know it, I can say that I am able to finish an identical project about 10 times faster in FCPx than any of the other NLEs i had been working with prior..."

10x improvement is a huge number. That means a month-long job is done in 2 days, a week-long project is done around lunchtime on Monday, and a day-long project is done before your morning coffee gets cold.

I am sure that FCPX is faster than FCP7 at many tasks, but are you really seeing an improvement that big? On what kinda of work? Where do you see the biggest time gains?

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 12:20:45 am

[Morten Carlsen] "
I can cut in any NLE out there and while I cut I care about one thing only, finding the clip I have in mind, immediately. And getting it inside the sequence.
admittedly - this process differs greatly based on which kind of project you are doing; Music Video Style, Documentary or Feature Film... Be that as it may, there is nothing out there which offers better tagging or "Media Transparency" than FCPx. And getting it into the timeline is simply put faster than anything around.

One huge part of FCPx's speed is the ability of compositing and color correcting inside of FCPx... Motion X is basically a plug-in for FCPx.. You can save your whole workflow of grading in motion and load it up inside FCPx as a plug-in.. That made FCPx my new best friend.. I've been grading in everything ;tween AMC, Resolve, AE, Speedgrade, colour etc.... Typically my grading involves loads of compositing. All which is totally undoable in any other NLE... FCPx makes it 100% possible.. FCPx is a color grader's dream come true.. Surely, there are things for which I render a prores 4444 and go to AE...
"


I completely agree with all this - I'm picking your stuff comprising ingest, footage interrogation, and colour operation.

it does not go to the fundamental issue of what the actual timeline itself is.

I've personally been taking edits into AE since about AE version 4.1, when I was working off an intergraph?
I've also graded in a fair bit of stuff (not as much as yourself). The first serious manual I picked up was for flint 5.0 - that was dense. it was four or five manuals?? Although I can say I've graded station idents in the free colour finesse that has come with AE for many years. i find it killer. the ability to call cyan in highlights always feels like a dagger stroke to me.

I'm on record here saying that FCPX is a clean break/quantum leap in timeline CC operation. I've got best in breed vignettes/power masks - a highly wonky CC panel but fine - but in the round it beggars every other editing system in play. It could use an adjustment layer paradigm to drop a minimal magic bullet wash over all mind you.

As to Motion - don't get me started. the lost opportunities there are mental. I have honestly had the rant before.

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/44082

And with all that said - the editing timeline is simply not on. It's borrowing too many idioms. Do you know? having parent child compositor nodal style locked expressions within an editing timeline makes absolutely no bloody sense.

ask yourself - why do we have locked parent child relationships? this isn't nuke - look - they aren't even feeding each other geometrics or CC information - why?

because it would make no sense - that stuff does not map to a moving image timeline.

So then why exactly do we have automatically mapped parent child relationships off the primary? what exactly is that for? given edits change constantly? Its not a situation where we are re-mapping the alpha input on a complex composite?

Do you see what I am getting at?

Isn't this ridiculously over-engineered?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 12:32:26 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "And with all that said - the editing timeline is simply not on. It's borrowing too many idioms. Do you know? having parent child compositor nodal style locked expressions within an editing timeline makes absolutely no bloody sense."

What's weird is a developer the other day on Twitter said that FCPX is a pure AAF concept.

From @woowave1

"xml parser is terrible both in fcp and premiere. the so called magnetic timeline is pure aaf concept"

and I asked pure in what sense?

"in a sense that offsets don't have to be absolute and values can be relative with child parent like relations."

it makes sense to someone, I guess.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 12:33:45 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It could use an adjustment layer paradigm to drop a minimal magic bullet wash over all mind you."

FCPX can do that. Create a blank title in Motion and publish it to FCPX. Connect a blank title to your timeline over the other clips, add effects, and enjoy your new adjustment layer.

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 1:03:25 am

and well hello to that. - I half suspect art of the guillotine RSS popped that up at some point and I didn't take it in.
I really wouldn't mind a nightmare - you have to use it FCPX scenario - it does kind of feel lacking.
Impossible to come by mind you,

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 1:17:54 am

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX can do that. Create a blank title in Motion and publish it to FCPX. Connect a blank title to your timeline over the other clips, add effects, and enjoy your new adjustment layer."

Or, just grab this... :-) http://alex4d.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/adjustment-layer-fcpx-effect/

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 1:41:33 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "ask yourself - why do we have locked parent child relationships? this isn't nuke - look - they aren't even feeding each other geometrics or CC information - why? because it would make no sense - that stuff does not map to a moving image timeline."

Ok, I'll play.

Parent/child relationships make sense to me. This hierarchy can actually reflect editorial intent. They may not always be the best way to represent an edit, but that doesn't mean they're always the worst.

Sometimes, clip are intended to be intercut relative to other clips. The real structure of an edit like this is hierarchical; we just can't express that on an open timeline (unless we are using Sony Vegas with its sync link feature [link]). In this case, doesn't the open timeline actually fail to reflect editorial intent? Why would these same two clips, proximal in absolute time but lacking a formal relationship on an open timeline, better reflect the edit?

The relationships are not locked. You can move stuff in and out of the primary in FCPX as easily as you can move it up or down a track in FCP7.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "So then why exactly do we have automatically mapped parent child relationships off the primary? what exactly is that for? given edits change constantly? Its not a situation where we are re-mapping the alpha input on a complex composite?"

They're not automatically mapped, at least not in the sense that the application decides for you. FCPX creates exactly the relationship that you tell it to.

FCPX lets you explicitly manipulate the relationships between clips. FCP7 lets you implicitly manipulate the relationship between clips by explicitly manipulating their relative positions in time. In both, you have to do some timeline jujitsu to make the right thing happen. In FCPX, you may have to move something into or out of the primary. In FCP7, you may have to select some edit points but not others before spacing the edit out.

Is remapping the story structure in the face of a changing edit really any different than remapping nodes in the face of a changing composite?


[Aindreas Gallagher] "Isn't this ridiculously over-engineered?"

Of course you may recall that I do have an issue or two with the magnetic timeline, and I think there are ways it could be vastly improved... but consider this: the FCPX timeline model could contain the FCP7 timeline model (consider Giberti tracks or the erstwhile Lawrence multiple primaries) -- but the reverse is not true today in any implementation other than Vegas.

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 2:32:33 am

[Walter Soyka] "Is remapping the story structure in the face of a changing edit really any different than remapping nodes in the face of a changing composite?"

come on. you're joking right?

given that FCPX is actually collapsing those two propositions into one unwieldy mess?

Do you not see the difficulty?

say an edit - its component parts, with the director, the client, the design elements - is more than complex enough.

the idea that the edit should independently start to declare expression linked relationships, continuously, as objects enter the timeline -

that is just ludicrous walter.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 3:43:56 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "come on. you're joking right? given that FCPX is actually collapsing those two propositions into one unwieldy mess? Do you not see the difficulty?"

No, I'm serious.

Again, I'm not going to be the best magnetic timeline defender. I think you and I do some similar work, I prefer open timelines, too, and I think it's clear I'm not adopting FCPX any time soon -- but I do think the added abstractions in the magnetic timeline could be beneficial in many cases.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "say an edit - its component parts, with the director, the client, the design elements - is more than complex enough. the idea that the edit should independently start to declare expression linked relationships, continuously, as objects enter the timeline - that is just ludicrous walter."

Or it could be a useful tool.

Seriously, why is telling your NLE "this clip belongs on V4 at time 00:05:12" inherently better than "this clip attaches to THAT clip at this point"? You can composite the same scene with layers or nodes, but you'd have to structure it differently. When changes come in, you'd have to deal with different re-structurings.

I am the Devil's advocate here, but are there no cases where this crazy magnetic timeline could be a good choice?

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 2:32:45 am

[Walter Soyka] "Sometimes, clip are intended to be intercut relative to other clips. The real structure of an edit like this is hierarchical;"

How so? The relationship between clips on a timeline is always temporal. Locking a fixed temporal relationship between clips doesn't require hierarchy, it requires grouping.

[Walter Soyka] "we just can't express that on an open timeline (unless we are using Sony Vegas with its sync link feature [link])."

When I group clips in Pr, how is this not expressing/preserving the desired clip sync relationship? Isn't that all that matters? Vegas has some nice tools for manipulating individual clips in groups but I don't find its parent/child paradigm very useful.

I think all that matters is a simple way to make groups and when desired, a simple way to move individual clips without breaking the group. I think this could be done with better grouping tools and would give track-based NLEs most of the advantages of the magnetic timeline without the drawbacks.

I agree with Aindreas, hierarchy is meaningless in an editorial timeline. But if we buy into the FCPX paradigm of parent/child relationships defining the edit, the problem with the FCPX timeline isn't hierarchy itself, it's that Apple engineers got the top level parent wrong. The top level parent needs to be absolute, external time; not V1.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 2:45:23 am

[David Lawrence] "the problem with the FCPX timeline isn't hierarchy itself, it's that Apple engineers got the top level parent wrong. The top level parent needs to be absolute, external time; not V1."

The way i use it, that's exactly how it works. Primary Storyline contains a chunk of gap the length of the spot/trailer/whatever. (actually usually longer so I can store random bits at the end.) Everything is connected to that "time track". If I want canned transitions or want to use trim mode I make secondary storylines with whatever clips I choose. I can put all my "timeline markers" on the gap. And I can drag stuff around free form just like I'm used to doing but using all the magnetic goodness that X provides. FCPX is ridiculously flexible, contrary to popular misconceptions. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 3:24:38 am

[Charlie Austin] "The way i use it, that's exactly how it works. Primary Storyline contains a chunk of gap the length of the spot/trailer/whatever. (actually usually longer so I can store random bits at the end.) Everything is connected to that "time track". If I want canned transitions or want to use trim mode I make secondary storylines with whatever clips I choose. I can put all my "timeline markers" on the gap. And I can drag stuff around free form just like I'm used to doing but using all the magnetic goodness that X provides. FCPX is ridiculously flexible, contrary to popular misconceptions. :-)"

No doubt you're using it exactly as the designers intended. ;) I'd say the fact that you're using it that way proves my point. But hey, if it works for you and you like it, enjoy! :)

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 3:45:19 am

[Charlie Austin] "The way i use it, that's exactly how it works. Primary Storyline contains a chunk of gap the length of the spot/trailer/whatever. (actually usually longer so I can store random bits at the end.) Everything is connected to that "time track". If I want canned transitions or want to use trim mode I make secondary storylines with whatever clips I choose. I can put all my "timeline markers" on the gap. And I can drag stuff around free form just like I'm used to doing but using all the magnetic goodness that X provides. FCPX is ridiculously flexible, contrary to popular misconceptions. :-)"

[David Lawrence] "No doubt you're using it exactly as the designers intended. ;) I'd say the fact that you're using it that way proves my point. But hey, if it works for you and you like it, enjoy! :)"

I'm with David. The Giberti method works around deficiencies in the FCPX timeline (which I think multiple primaries could solve).

May I ask -- why do you choose not to use clips in the primary timeline to drive the story?

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

Charlie Austin
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 4:22:04 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'm with David. The Giberti method works around deficiencies in the FCPX timeline (which I think multiple primaries could solve).

The who what? got a link to this method? Seriously, I'm interested. :-) It might be nice to be able to connect clips to secondary story lines, but I really think that would be overcomplicating it. Compound clips work pretty well in that regard.

[Walter Soyka] May I ask -- why do you choose not to use clips in the primary timeline to drive the story?"

No real reason, other than force of habit. One of the things that drove me crazy about MC back at the turn of the century was all the trim modes with gap as media between clips. The X timeline isn't really that exactly, but honestly I'm just not used to it yet. I may start messing with it at some point, but *not* using it really has no effect on how I assemble something, though I'm starting to see how it might be useful, especially with the new expandable audio "tracks" ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 4:42:03 am

[Charlie Austin] "The who what? got a link to this method? Seriously, I'm interested. :-)"

Here you go:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/29301

I think Jim made a template project available if you want to try it out.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:58:13 am

[David Lawrence] "[Charlie Austin] "The who what? got a link to this method? Seriously, I'm interested. :-)"

Here you go:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/29301

I think Jim made a template project available if you want to try it out."


Thanks. :-) I actually had seen that at some point. When I first started messing with X, I tried to create a similar structure using empty compound clips as dividers between say. MX/FX/DIA/VO etc. It worked, but at some point I realized I really didn't need them, I just let go of tracks intellectually. More or less. Given the proper roles, it's trivially easy to see specific clips as the playhead moves over them. I know it's apparently just me, but I could care less if my clips are perfectly aligned with one another. I mean, it's not like the media needs to actually pass over a head to play back right? I think being able to group roles by type would/will be nice, but I've grown accustomed to not thinking about where my audio goes in the timeline. It's freeing. lol.

As to video... same deal. Whatever is on top of the pile of clips is what I want see on playback. I can "connect" clips (audio and/or video) to a specific point on the primary storyline (even if it's just filled with gap) if I want, so I can easily drag chunks of material around without the need to select all the individual clips. Being able to assign a z-index value to video clips in addition to their roles would be nice, but again, the debate over the philosophy of the magnetic timeline totally mystifies me. In practice, once you get used to how clips move around, it's no different than editing in FCP 7 or any other NLE I've used. Select portion of source clip, edit into timeline, add related audio, repeat 'til done.

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:47:54 am

[Charlie Austin] " the debate over the philosophy of the magnetic timeline totally mystifies me. In practice, once you get used to how clips move around, it's no different than editing in FCP 7 or any other NLE I've used. Select portion of source clip, edit into timeline, add related audio, repeat 'til done."

Correct, this is exactly what most experienced FCPX users will say, but no matter how many times you say that the timeline in X isn't a problem and in almost all cases it's an advantage, you're not going to convince Aindreas.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 3:49:40 am

[David Lawrence] "No doubt you're using it exactly as the designers intended. ;) I'd say the fact that you're using it that way proves my point. But hey, if it works for you and you like it, enjoy! :)"

Well, I'm not sure the designers intended for me to work with it in a specific way though. My point, (which I think is proven as well, lol) is that it *can* work that way if you want it to, or it can work like an old skool avid with gap between all the clips, or like a canvas where you just throw throw stuff wherever. However you want to work is how it works. Unless you want tracks. Then you're SOL. But tracks are stupid. :-)

Anyway... X doesn't work in only one, rigid fashion, but editors do, hell I did. X freaked me out until I really dove into it. I just don't get the whole hulabaloo about parent/child vs temporal paradigms. I'm an editor, not a philosopher. ;-) All I know is that I can cut things just fine, and I can also do stuff I could never do in a million years in Legacy. It's so deep i can't see the bottom and it's fun... for me anyway. But like you said, if an NLE works for you and you like it enjoy. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:34:13 am

[Charlie Austin]"But tracks are stupid. :-)"

I know this is tongue in cheek but it suggests to me you have not experienced tracks in their full glory. Most NLEs under utilise possibilities with tracks. Legend sucked and Vegas does a much better job. Before you dismiss the usefulness of tracks though you really need to use a system that at least tries to do it properly.

Sometimes moving forward takes us up dead end alleys. I prefer a system that is moving smart. Years ago I suggested to DAW software people to embrace the idea of collapsing down a group of sounds into a grouped object that could then be manipulated by dynamics, EQ & levels as an object. I was told it wasn't necessary due to sub mix routing and temporary grouping plus it would be screen messy to unpack the object to manipulate individual parts of the object. So I can see that there are times that a trackless object may be a useful thing. These days with drama sound design going into hundreds of tracks, I think DAW software could look at the group object idea again. Nesting was a poor attempt in Legend.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:01:37 am

[Michael Gissing] "I know this is tongue in cheek but it suggests to me you have not experienced tracks in their full glory."

It *was* tongue in cheek but, for what it's worth, I was a post production mixer/sound editor for about 10 or so years before I became a picture editor, and my first multi-track recordings were done on a "sound on sound" 1/4" deck. So I have experienced tracks in all their glory. ;-) And honestly, if FCP X was supposed to be a DAW I would miss tracks. But isn't, and I don't. Just my opinion of course... :-)

[Michael Gissing] "Years ago I suggested to DAW software people to embrace the idea of collapsing down a group of sounds into a grouped object that could then be manipulated by dynamics, EQ & levels as an object."

Yep. Roles. Assign Roles/Subroles to faders/groups and off you go. I imagine that, or something like it, is coming. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:25:35 am

[Charlie Austin] "And honestly, if FCP X was supposed to be a DAW I would miss tracks."

Interesting. Why would you be missing tracks if it were a DAW?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:23:43 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Charlie Austin] "And honestly, if FCP X was supposed to be a DAW I would miss tracks."

Interesting. Why would you be missing tracks if it were a DAW?"


A valid point... I guess, on reflection, I wouldn't need "tracks' per se, but as a mixer i'd want to be able to keep similar roles together in the timeline. Again I think some sort of z-order setting would do the trick. Assign whatever roles/subroles I want, and in the role index window use a drop down menu to order them. VO would be 1, Dia 2, FX 3 etc... So not really tracks, but visual groups. Add in the ability to assign roles to faders/busses and I'd be happy.

But when I'm cutting, I my main concern is fitting everything in the least amount of timeline real estate as possible no matter where it is positioned. If I need to see specific roles it's just one click to highlight them.

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:43:26 pm

Hey, Charlie!

I don't know where you are these days. Are you cutting most of your promo work on X now? Or are you still going back and forth? And what are you seeing around you? Most of the contemporaries I interact with are Avid/moving to Avid, 7, or moving to Premiere. You and John D., of course, sing X's praises to the sky, and I believe you. What's happening around you? How about a progress report?


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:34:23 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Hey, Charlie!

I don't know where you are these days. Are you cutting most of your promo work on X now? Or are you still going back and forth? And what are you seeing around you? Most of the contemporaries I interact with are Avid/moving to Avid, 7, or moving to Premiere. You and John D., of course, sing X's praises to the sky, and I believe you. What's happening around you? How about a progress report?"


Hey Chris. :-) I'm trying to do as much as I can in X. I'm at a small shop and some sequences need to move around to different editors still on 7, so I'll either cut that stuff in 7, or use Xto7, which has gotten pretty damn good at conversion. I don't really know what folks at other places are doing, I'm kind of on a little island here, though I'd imagine Avid folks are probably sticking with that, and 7 folks... no idea. :-)

I think at some point we'll all switch to X here. It's just a matter of finding enough time for everyone to get used to using it. That's really the biggest hurdle. Also I'm still not completely comfortable with the ability to get stuff out to finish. The audio elements move pretty flawlessly with XtoPro, it's the EDL stuff that makes me a little nervous. I mean, I can get good EDL's out, in fact EDL-X is incredibly good at listing/manipulating source data, but the info regarding effects/transitions etc is still a little thin. Not a problem for a forgiving post house, of which there is maybe uh... one I can think of. :-)

The biggest hurdle to getting people onto X, IMO, is all the crappy feelings and FUD left over from the initial release. I still hear the iMovie Pro comments all the time. It's really too bad, because once you get past the "it's different and I'm confused" phase the app is amazing. I'm at a point where the only time I think about how X works is when I find some new crazy feature that makes my life easier. That happens a lot, the latest being the ability to assign roles to individual tracks in source clips. I may not need to break out feature audio anymore, it can just ride with the picture now. :-) Fortunately, as long as I can get stuff out for finish, nobody really cares what I'm cutting on. :-) The next year or so should be interesting...

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:41:43 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I don't really know what folks at other places are doing, I'm kind of on a little island here, though I'd imagine Avid folks are probably sticking with that, and 7 folks... no idea. :-)
"


I actually know of a cable Network promo Dept. that is switching from Avid to Premiere, of all things. The only other major switch I know of is a Games House (primarily) going from 7 to Premiere. Most everything else big that I touch seems to be just where it was two years ago. I know more individuals moving towards Avid than I do Premiere--or at least saying they are going to do so--and you and John D. make up the X Factor.


[Charlie Austin] "The biggest hurdle to getting people onto X, IMO, is all the crappy feelings and FUD left over from the initial release. I still hear the iMovie Pro comments all the time. It's really too bad, because once you get past the "it's different and I'm confused" phase the app is amazing."

I think you are quite right about that. I hear people talking about it like its a monster baby with three heads. When things settle down (and maybe a few things are added) it will become about style, approach, and taste. Eventually it will come down to mindsets, and the choice will be more a reflection of someone's thought processes and approach. Hopefully, we can get to the point where we consider ourselves fortunate to have so many approaches.


[Charlie Austin] "I think about how X works is when I find some new crazy feature that makes my life easier. That happens a lot,"

Weirdly, I'm having the same experience with old, crusty Avid. Since we last parted, its improved some, but more importantly, I've grown as an editor and am now rediscovering it in a new light. This whole period, has been quite exciting, actually; and now that I'm down the road some from when it all happened, I'm grateful that it did.

[Charlie Austin] "The next year or so should be interesting...
"


Definitely.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 29, 2012 at 2:38:40 am

[Charlie Austin] "I guess, on reflection, I wouldn't need "tracks' per se, but as a mixer i'd want to be able to keep similar roles together in the timeline. Again I think some sort of z-order setting would do the trick. Assign whatever roles/subroles I want, and in the role index window use a drop down menu to order them. VO would be 1, Dia 2, FX 3 etc... So not really tracks, but visual groups. Add in the ability to assign roles to faders/busses and I'd be happy."

Visual grouping thru roles would be great but in a DAW I would still want an external, absolute temporal frame-of-reference. Spiking everything to a big gap in the primary seems like a force fit.

Last year, we got into a pretty deep and productive discussion on this topic. As a sound guy who likes FCPX, you might find it interesting. If you have time, take a deep breath and start here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16693

Then go here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16886

I'd certainly be curious to hear more of your thoughts.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 3:28:35 am

[David Lawrence] "How so? The relationship between clips on a timeline is always temporal. Locking a fixed temporal relationship between clips doesn't require hierarchy, it requires grouping."

In a group, the related clips are peers. In a hierarchy, the related clips are ordered. Different degrees of structure.


[David Lawrence] "When I group clips in Pr, how is this not expressing/preserving the desired clip sync relationship? Isn't that all that matters?"

Maybe here's a case where a single point (not a range!) is important. Groups do not codify the connection point that defines the relationship.


[David Lawrence] "I think all that matters is a simple way to make groups and when desired, a simple way to move individual clips without breaking the group. I think this could be done with better grouping tools and would give track-based NLEs most of the advantages of the magnetic timeline without the drawbacks."

I agree!

Here, you've conceded that the magnetic timeline has some benefits. What are they, and where do they come from, if not from hierarchy?


[David Lawrence] "But if we buy into the FCPX paradigm of parent/child relationships defining the edit, the problem with the FCPX timeline isn't hierarchy itself, it's that Apple engineers got the top level parent wrong. The top level parent needs to be absolute, external time; not V1."

I agree!


[David Lawrence] "I agree with Aindreas, hierarchy is meaningless in an editorial timeline."

Having moved to graphics and finishing, I'll need to defer to a proper editor here to discuss whether hierarchical edits actually track story structure in a creative edit, but but the places where I see hierarchy in my work are lower-thirds that are legitimately tiered under speaker clips, graphical elements that are related to specific pieces of content, and sfx that belong to specific moments or graphical hits. (I can see an easy case for cutaways, but I don't think I have the necessary experience to know when they'd work and when they'd break.)

Let me flip the question around a bit: does hierarchy misrepresent the edit in all cases?

Again, I'm probably not the best person to defend the magnetic timeline, and I sure wouldn't want to have to use it for all cases, but I do see some value in it. Really, adding multiple primaries would change a lot!

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 5:37:00 am

[Walter Soyka] "Really, adding multiple primaries would change a lot!"

Like what?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:11:40 am

[Walter Soyka] "In a group, the related clips are peers. In a hierarchy, the related clips are ordered. Different degrees of structure."

Yes, but from a purely practical standpoint, what difference does it make to playback?

[Walter Soyka] "Maybe here's a case where a single point (not a range!) is important. Groups do not codify the connection point that defines the relationship."

True, but again as long as the clips are locked together temporally, what difference does it make? Syncing to a hit point between source and record is a specific edit type (sync/replace edit in FCP7 IIRC) that isn't used most of the time.

[Walter Soyka] "Here, you've conceded that the magnetic timeline has some benefits. What are they, and where do they come from, if not from hierarchy?"

Well, some people think they're benefits ;) Isn't the main one being able to move groups of clips around and reorder things without worrying about clip collisions? I don't think you need hierarchy to do that, you just need smarter groups and smarter grouping/moving tools.

[Walter Soyka] "the places where I see hierarchy in my work are lower-thirds that are legitimately tiered under speaker clips, graphical elements that are related to specific pieces of content, and sfx that belong to specific moments or graphical hits. "

Great example. In terms of the composite, yes, the lower thirds/graphics could be considered children of the parent content. But in terms of playback, hierarchy is irrelevant. All that matters is that they appear when they're supposed to in time.

[Walter Soyka] "Is remapping the story structure in the face of a changing edit really any different than remapping nodes in the face of a changing composite?"

Yes, very! A nodal compositor maps the render pipeline for the shot. Remapping nodes has nothing to do with time. Very different tools for very different purposes.

[Walter Soyka] "Let me flip the question around a bit: does hierarchy misrepresent the edit in all cases?"

It's not that it misrepresents the edit, it's that in the context of a timeline, it's an inappropriate contrivance.

The parent/child hierarchical metaphor that drives the magnetic timeline UI is a computer science metaphor, not an editorial metaphor. Maybe it's an elegant representation of the underlying timeline data model, but the data model is irrelevant to the task of editing. I've yet to meet an experienced editor who explicitly thinks in terms of building hierarchies when doing the actual work of cutting. Do you know any?

Designing a UI around a data model may make sense to computer engineers, but it's rarely good for users.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 29, 2012 at 12:44:05 am

[David Lawrence] "The parent/child hierarchical metaphor that drives the magnetic timeline UI is a computer science metaphor, not an editorial metaphor. Maybe it's an elegant representation of the underlying timeline data model, but the data model is irrelevant to the task of editing. I've yet to meet an experienced editor who explicitly thinks in terms of building hierarchies when doing the actual work of cutting. Do you know any?

Designing a UI around a data model may make sense to computer engineers, but it's rarely good for users."


this. essentially this.
apple made gigantic perception errors in the software engineering room.

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


Return to posts index

Morten Carlsen
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 11:40:18 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "So then why exactly do we have automatically mapped parent child relationships off the primary? what exactly is that for? given edits change constantly? Its not a situation where we are re-mapping the alpha input on a complex composite?

Do you see what I am getting at?

Isn't this ridiculously over-engineered?"


HI There,

I do see what you are getting at. I am not sure that look that deeply under the hood in regards to Mr. Timeline.
Not sure either, that I use the "Timeline" the way Apple Engineers intended. I use it the way that it makes sense to me.
What I love about it is that with FCPx I can make the timeline work in so many different ways that only my own creativity puts a sock to it ;-)
Cant say that with other NLEs. As a matter of fact and I dont say this just to oppose, after using FCPx 18 Months and occasionally editing in PPRO or AMC (Just not to get too rusty should I cut in a foreign facility) those NLEs are more confining work-wise than FCPx.

I think the biggest problem folks used to the "older" NLEs are having with FCPx's timeline is that they (I was too) treat it as if it was a "normal" timeline. It looks like a normal timeline but it is extremely far from being it ;-)

I remember cursing and that loudly over the magnetic timeline, connections moving when trimming etc etc.... It drove me nuts the first two days.. Then I said to myself, OK... FORGET the "old" timeline and try making the "new" work - get your head around it" -

And thats what I did. And today I embrace it 100% and I have re-based my cutting style around it. And while I used to be considered a very fast cutter - the speed at which I can cut in FCPx is so superior that only the CPU speed puts a limit to it. 3 days ago I was cutting in PPRO (love the CUDA real-time rendering) after having not used it for about 3 months. I still know all my short keys, tricks etc... I started cutting and for the first time I seriously realized HOW great the FCPx & its timeline is... Doing generic tasks like trim, roll, ripple etc which I used to think were fast before the days of FCPx all of a sudden seemed slow and non intuitive. In the music video I did it called for a lot of retiming. I have gotten so accustomed to the quality of Optical Flow in FCPX and in PPRO all (unless I go to AE) is the dull frame blend which looks horrible in my eyes...Sure adobe gives you great ways of retiming but you HAVE to roundtrip to AE and although this is made VERY easy in CS6 it is still much faster NOT having to roundtrip. Optical Flow would be ONE very very big reason for me to work in FCPX even if I would hate its timeline concepts which I dont ;-)

So, without even knowing it, I had gotten so accustomed to the timeline concept of FCPx that I was seriously missing it cutting in an old-time NLE.

Still - to me the single most important thing is getting the job done. I am a highly visual guy and what makes FCPx the superior choice to me, is the Event Library and its concept. I am a big fan of getting to know my material and "sort on the run" --- I am also REALLY big on saving time.

Imagine a project with about a 1000 media files. In a normal NLE that would take about 1000 double clicks alone to view them. In FPCx ZERO. I can see them all at a glance a skim thru them without clicking. Creating Smart-FIlters and Keywords are making way for way of sorting previously unthinkable. I remember the days where sorting/naming/logging took days for a medium sized project and it was something I dreaded every time. With FCPx this process is more or less eliminated. I go thru the source media of 1000 files in about 2 hours and after that I have tagged it in so many ways that I can sort my whole event library 10 different ways if I want to. The metadata system (roles in particular) is just so darn brilliant... Doing this in any other NLE is making me vomit ;-)

PC VS Mac - DAW VS DAW or NLE VS NLE - I use and make money with all 3... I hate wars like "My Software is a better choice than yours" or Protools is better than Logic (It is ;-))) ! They are all just ideas of how to accomplish a given task... I would NOT want to ever cut in Sony Vegas ever again but I would rather cut in Sony Vegas than not cut at all ;-)

To be able to really judge (meant literally) a software-concept one must get really acquainted with it ! Most folks driving frustration towards FCPx are FCP users wanting FCPx to be an update to FCP


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 3:07:17 pm

[Morten Carlsen] "Imagine a project with about a 1000 media files. In a normal NLE that would take about 1000 double clicks alone to view them."

Morten,

I'm always surprised by these approaches - did you really work this way? Did you never seem to wonder if there was a better way?

Select All and Drag to Sequence - 1 Click, 1 Drag.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Morten Carlsen
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 3:40:12 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Morten,

I'm always surprised by these approaches - did you really work this way? Did you never seem to wonder if there was a better way?

Select All and Drag to Sequence - 1 Click, 1 Drag.

Franz."


Hi Franz,

well, of course I did... Instead of bins in Premiere Pro (back then) I had sequences with the clips pertaining to scenes.
Still, getting them up into the "Source Viewer" took a kkey command or a double click. I even had my own skimmer in PPRO before they added
hoover scrub or FCPx came about. I had that programmed via apple script and system events. I have misused Premiere Pro and AMC to make it work more visually long before FCPx came about... That is WHY I switched to FCPx when it came about.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 4:08:15 pm

[Morten Carlsen] "That is WHY I switched to FCPx when it came about."

Morten,

It's been interesting to watch FCPX discussion particularly around efficiency and speed.

The claim often repeated here is that you have to understand FCPX to use it properly - ie. there is an "optimum" approach.

But yours is not the first post that makes me wonder about how others use their NLE of choice (now and in the past). 1000 double clicks? and further down Tony West talking about patching tracks slowing him down. (I don't think I've ever patched a track in 10 years or more of using FCP).

It's interesting because there are often claims about users "not understanding" FCPX but I read stuff like that I wonder which users "understand" the current the NLE they use. I've seen all sorts of bad habits, and poorly thought-out process. It seems to me that's true regardless of NLE - in other words any NLE requires understanding how to optimize the software to the task.

The 10 x speed claims are pretty funny though - if somebody told me their new software allowed them to edit ten times faster (transcoding, rendering, exporting times aside), I would really wonder about their editing practice.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 4:23:04 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "The 10 x speed claims are pretty funny though - if somebody told me their new software allowed them to edit ten times faster (transcoding, rendering, exporting times aside), I would really wonder about their editing practice.
"


I think these claims just give ammunition to FCPX detractors, objectively no NLE can be 10x faster in overall operation than another in the hands of a skilled Editor, but if it's faster for the person using it, regardless of their previous editing practice, then that has to be a good thing doesn't it?

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 4:32:38 pm

[Steve Connor] "... if it's faster for the person using it, regardless of their previous editing practice, then that has to be a good thing doesn't it?"

Steve,

This is a common refrain here. But I've not made claims against people feeling good about what they do. If someone is feeling good about the software their using, that's a good foundation for work.

For me claims of speed beg the question - what is it faster at doing? If someone claims it's faster at "editing" then I'm going to wonder about what they really mean.

My point above is that the speed claims may say as much about previous practice as it does about new software.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 4:38:11 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "My point above is that the speed claims may say as much about previous practice as it does about new software.
"


Maybe true in some cases, but pretty much everyone who uses FCPX on real world projects say it's faster, surely that has some weight? Not everyone who uses it was inefficient with using other NLE's surely?

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 4:52:51 pm

[Steve Connor] "... but pretty much everyone who uses FCPX on real world projects say it's faster, surely that has some weight? Not everyone who uses it was inefficient with using other NLE's surely?"

Steve,

I think people who try it and stick with it are the ones that like it - "speed" seems to be cited often. I think you probably won't hear much from those who find it clunkier or slower - they just won't use it - though there has been some notes (from Oliver Peters in particular) about things that tend to bog him down in FCPX.

That doesn't answer the real speed question, though.

"Speed" relates to specific tasks, or general approaches. I've been working on the same scene assembly for over a week now - it's been ridiculously slow. And though render speeds are slow, nothing about the NLE I'm using has had a meaningful impact on the speed of the process. This wouldn't have been any faster in X, PPro, Avid - the issues are creative.

When you hear complaints about double clicking on 1000 clips, doesn't it raise process questions?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 5:20:22 pm

Yes, but I'm imagining it was an extreme example to make a point.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 5:27:45 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "This wouldn't have been any faster in X, PPro, Avid - the issues are creative."

Of course that's an empirical issue. You could test that to find out. There are tools built into X that are designed for issues that are creative. The most readily available one is the audition tool set. It may work for you. It may not. But you can find out, if you have time.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 5:39:23 pm

[Richard Herd] "Of course that's an empirical issue."

Richard,

Auditions would not be of use to me.

I'm not really sure how one could do any sort of empirical test. Once I've cut the scene in one NLE, I've largely "solved" or addressed the creative issues that have been taking so long. To cut the same scene in another NLE, I'd just more or less execute the decisions once again. It's the creative process that takes time - not the execution. I guess incompetence or poor process would slow things down.

I suppose one could do a comparison of similar approaches using different scenes, but it would require aggregation of several such scenes to be meaningful (as no two scenes are in any way "equal" in the challenges they present).

Franz.


Return to posts index

Morten Carlsen
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:51:22 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "That doesn't answer the real speed question, though.

"Speed" relates to specific tasks, or general approaches. I've been working on the same scene assembly for over a week now - it's been ridiculously slow. And though render speeds are slow, nothing about the NLE I'm using has had a meaningful impact on the speed of the process. This wouldn't have been any faster in X, PPro, Avid - the issues are creative."


Exactly... And an NLE which is "hiding" its Source Media from its operator is getting in the way of being creative.

If you had cared to read my post in full... You would have NOT bitten so tightly on the 1000 clicks and 10 times faster.
You would have understood the essence of the words which IS - LESS CLICKS and FASTER TURNOVER...

I..e... You tell someone in a bar "I've just seen Stevie Wonder Eyeballing Esther Williams" the guy goes "Get out a here..."
The guy does NOT want you to actually EXIT the bar... You know, he is just making a point.

So was I with FCPx... Sadly, you are seeing what you wanna see and NOT what's in the paragraphs. Even going to extends of suggesting my incompetence because I can work faster in FCPx..

I am 100% confident that if you would see me cutting in PPRO or any other NLE of the past, you would be quite amazed over the speed at which I can do it.
(Not trying to sound like a smart arse or nothing.) And PLEASE, dont bite down on FAST equalling Good or bad.

Speed does NOT pertain to the speed of the CPU or the App.. I count speed in years... I.e. Looking for a source file in PPRO will take you X amount of time, looking for it FCPx will take you x-10 amount of time. "Amortise" that over a year of 2 and you will be counting weeks instead of seconds.

I know you are going to smile over this and further classify me as incompetent in your book which is fine.

But please, quit the condescending tone in your text. It does absolutely no good !


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:00:26 pm

[Morten Carlsen] "I know you are going to smile over this and further classify me as incompetent in your book which is fine.

But please, quit the condescending tone in your text. It does absolutely no good !
"


It's always thin ice when someone starts to question other peoples style of editing to make a point.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:32:38 pm

[Steve Connor] "It's always thin ice when someone starts to question other peoples style of editing to make a point."

Steve, Morten,

True enough. Apologies to Morten if you feel attacked.

On the other hand it shouldn't be sacred ground - a lot of good discussion has come from people explaining how they do what they do, and why. (after being challenged).

Also, I've just seen a lot of bad practice lately.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Morten Carlsen
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:45:23 pm

Steve,

I dont mind being challenged in an orderly fashion. However, the minute I sense condescension - all bets are off !


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:24:50 pm

[Morten Carlsen] " I know you are going to smile over this and further classify me as incompetent in your book which is fine."

Morten,

If you're going to make wild claims like "ten times faster", you'll probably get called on it. Making up numbers is a not uncommon feint here.

I have no idea of your competence or processes - I'm only going on what you've posted.

This was your comparison:
Imagine a project with about a 1000 media files. In a normal NLE that would take about 1000 double clicks alone to view them. In FPCx ZERO.

But my point - and I'll repeat it here again - is not accusations of incompetence, imagined or otherwise; a common refrain in the boards has been that FCPX has certain optimum uses, and users should learn those uses to get the most out of the NLE (in lieu of the non-optimal uses). But this is true of any NLE, and actually not a bad way of assessing them - how broad and deep is the set of optimized uses? how do the optimized uses fit with my needs?

But you're not going to get good answers to that out of absurd 1000 to 0 click comparisons.

You seem pretty happy using FCPX. There are those still trying to figure out what is next for them; they need insightful comparisons.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Morten Carlsen
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:43:51 pm

OK../.. For this who did not understand the meaning of my posts...

FCPx will make you CLICK a WHOLE lot less when searching for your source media. as a matter of fact it will make you click zero time to view ALL your source media... All it takes is a scroll wheel and slight mouse movements..

To those of you who misunderstood my 10 times faster... I did not actually measure the exact amount of which FCPx was faster...

It might be 100 times faster for you or even slower... 10 Times was a figure of speech... I could have used MUUUUUUCH....
But then again, then Franz would have counted the Us in mUch and deemed me a legasthenic !


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:52:26 pm

[Morten Carlsen] "It might be 100 times faster for you or even slower... 10 Times was a figure of speech... I could have used MUUUUUUCH.... "

Get outta here. Like, leave the bar.

;)


Return to posts index

Morten Carlsen
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:03:01 pm

I just ordered ;-)


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 5:18:33 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "further down Tony West talking about patching tracks slowing him down. (I don't think I've ever patched a track in 10 years or more of using FCP)."


Just selecting where the audio from a clip of b-roll would go.

I don't do that now. The sound of that b-roll of say a truck just goes with the video of the truck since they are imbedded.

I'm dropping the single item in a spot not multiple ones. Clearer?

I could break them apart if I wanted to most time I don't have a need to. I want them to ride together.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 5:43:09 pm

Tony,

That was all clear and understood by me from your original post.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 5:46:00 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "(I don't think I've ever patched a track in 10 years or more of using FCP)."

so you only do v1 a1/a2 editing?


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 5:53:10 pm

Jeremy,

Typically I have 6-8 video tracks (usually escalated to maybe 12 or more during prep for lab) and 12-16 audio tracks.

I think I've posted more than one example in past - the first is still illustrative.
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/17728

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:05:45 pm

So how do you get away with no patching?


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:16:01 pm

Jeremy,


I've discussed before that I work with what might be called "sequence-based" editing (as opposed to what might be called "clip-based" editing). I've thought that I might make a longer post on this approach and why I continue to use it.

The short answer is that I start any project by dragging all clips into a sequence (or sequences). From that point on it is very rare that I ever go back to the browser for clips - pretty much everything gets manipulated, deleted, copied, pasted in sequence.

The viewer only gets used for effects (and on rare occasions some matchback or tech problem-solving type functions).

Multiple tracks come from selection and dragging.

(As an aside, this is one reason why the appeal of the organizational tools in the FCPX Event Browser don't get me too excited - my organization is done in sequence.)


Franz.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:41:15 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Multiple tracks come from selection and dragging.
"


At some point you have to say I want this audio to go to A 3 or 4 or 8 or 9 right?

However you want to word it, it's got to get there.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:48:40 pm

[tony west] "However you want to word it, it's got to get there."

Tony,

Yes, I suppose if you want to broaden the meaning of patching to include clip arrangement in the timeline, then I do "patch".

That would mean that compound clips, arranging and managing clip connections and secondary storylines come under the same meaning, wouldn't it?

Franz.

Edit: on reflection, though, it seems to be me that "patching" is better reserved for the source / record "patch bay" paradigm it came from - ie aligning signal paths.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:58:54 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Yes, I suppose if you want to broaden the meaning of patching to include clip arrangement in the timeline, then I do "patch"."

You have to patch when you are putting audio and video on multiple tracks it's a feature of track based editing, your statement that you hadn't patched anything in ten years was a strange one.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "That would mean that compound clips, arranging and managing clip connections and secondary storylines come under the same meaning, wouldn't it?"

Not at all, compound clips are effectively nesting, clip connections and secondary story lines are placed automatically, not patched

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:03:57 pm

[Steve Connor] "... your statement that you hadn't patched anything in ten years was a strange one."

Steve,

I think we're down to semantic arguments then - I suppose you're correct that when I drag multiple clips into a sequence, there is a patching operation that goes on. This is automatic though, and would not slow me down. Tony West's original post was that patching used to slow him down.

Franz.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 9:58:52 pm

I got you, but my overall point was that there were many things that added together made it faster for me.

I listed 5 things, what about the other 4?

Maybe Apple looked and said nobody is using this patch panel for almost 10 years accept Tony West so lets get rid of it : )


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:12:21 pm

[tony west] "Maybe Apple looked and said nobody is using this patch panel for almost 10 years accept Tony West so lets get rid of it : )"

I have it on good authority, this is exactly what happened.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:15:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[tony west] "Maybe Apple looked and said nobody is using this patch panel for almost 10 years accept Tony West so lets get rid of it : )"

I have it on good authority, this is exactly what happened.
"


NDA violation, man. Right there.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:16:12 pm

the truth is out there


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:02:14 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] " if you want to broaden the meaning of patching to include clip arrangement in the timeline"

That's what I thought, you had a problem with how I said it.

I call it patching because fcp calls it a patch panel that you are clicking on. I don't see that as broadening the meaning.

So, you first select the position of of the clip and then you select the track via the patch panel (a 26 or whatever)

That extra patch panel step is not there for me in X and I don't miss it.

Each time you click on that patch panel those are clicks I'm not doing.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:27:52 pm

[tony west] "I call it patching because fcp calls it a patch panel that you are clicking on. I don't see that as broadening the meaning."

Tony,

Yes, that's what I thought you meant.

I don't touch that panel.

Maybe "never in ten years" is a slight exaggeration, but pretty close to never.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:11:50 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[tony west] "I call it patching because fcp calls it a patch panel that you are clicking on. I don't see that as broadening the meaning."

Tony,

Yes, that's what I thought you meant.

I don't touch that panel.

Maybe "never in ten years" is a slight exaggeration, but pretty close to never.

Franz.

"


So that you don't think you are going crazy, let me say that I agree with you. I do that kind of patching in Avid all the time, but almost never in FCP. In FCP, I drag a clip onto a track, and the act of dragging it, "patches" it. So, putting it into the timeline "patches" it, but its part of the physical action of the drag. I find I almost never use the insert edit tools in FCP, but rather drag and cut, paste, and insert/paste. I tend to work one hand keyboard/one hand mouse in FCP, which has become over the years my preferred approach.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:19:18 pm

[Chris Harlan] "So that you don't think you are going crazy, let me say that I agree with you. I do that kind of patching in Avid all the time, but almost never in FCP. In FCP, I drag a clip onto a track, and the act of dragging it, "patches" it"

Having looked back at Franz's shots of his timeline, I now understand how he doesn't use the patching very often, by keeping the B-roll well separated from any narrative, so the auto patching doesn't encroach.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:26:03 pm

[Steve Connor] "I now understand how he doesn't use the patching very often, by keeping the B-roll well separated from any narrative, so the auto patching doesn't encroach."

Steve,

If you by "B-roll" you mean "non-sync" and by "narrative" you mean "sync" then I think I understand you, and yes the auto-patching is largely accommodated by timeline organization. Note though that mostly I'm working with clips that are already in the timeline in question, and so strictly speaking there's no patching, unless we broaden the term to include the moving of clips on tracks.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:30:13 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "If you by "B-roll" you mean "non-sync" and by "narrative" you mean "sync" then I think I understand you"

Thank you for the translation

[Franz Bieberkopf] "and so strictly speaking there's no patching"

Absolutely correct

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:41:14 pm

[Morten Carlsen] "I even had my own skimmer in PPRO before they added
hoover scrub or FCPx came about. I had that programmed via apple script and system events. "


eh? that sounds intriguing - would you like to expand on the methodology? am curious.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 5:21:21 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[Morten Carlsen] "Imagine a project with about a 1000 media files. In a normal NLE that would take about 1000 double clicks alone to view them."

Morten,

I'm always surprised by these approaches - did you really work this way? Did you never seem to wonder if there was a better way?

Select All and Drag to Sequence - 1 Click, 1 Drag.
"


I tried to work this way for a big client. Here was the workflow. maybe you can fix it.

1. Shot.
2. Log and transferred footage into 7.
3. Created individual sequences pertaining to location.
4. Sent sequences to Color for color correction
5. Sent back to 7.
6. Exported timeline with timecode for Creative Director to screen dailies (on vimeo pro).

Here's where I need your help: How do I turn sequences into media items so they open in the viewer window?


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 5:41:26 pm

[Richard Herd] "How do I turn sequences into media items so they open in the viewer window?"

Richard,

I'm not sure I understand the intent of the question.

Why not just open them as sequences? Why do you need them in the viewer window?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:47:03 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Why not just open them as sequences? Why do you need them in the viewer window?"

That's how I edit. I open media items in the viewer and set ins and outs and then I insert that into the sequence. (That was the whole PIOP debate.)

Sequences open as sequences and I can't figure a way to set in and outs in a sequence so they can be entered into a second sequence. So for the previously mentioned workflow, I copy and pasted, which was pretty slow. I thought about exporting the sequences into QT and then re-importing, but I did not--again for time. There were about 12 locations.

How would you do something similar?

The reason I did it this way, btw, was so the client never saw the untimed dailies. They wanted a saturated look.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:57:47 pm

[Richard Herd] "Sequences open as sequences and I can't figure a way to set in and outs in a sequence so they can be entered into a second sequence. So for the previously mentioned workflow, I copy and pasted, which was pretty slow."

Richard,

I would just do it in sequences - first selecting - either with one of the selection tools (usually group selection) or with in and out and option A - then copy and paste.

However, it sounds like you found that unsatisfactory (or slow). Why?

Personally I find the process I've outlined much more flexible and the timeline display give much more information (particularly once audio and multiple tracks are involved) than simple viewer in and outs.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:36:31 pm

yep, I largely work the same as you. I gave an example to david ages ago - basically I use tabbed sequences with string outs as scrubbable bins, cut and lift up the tasty bits and copy and paste into master sequence type thing.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:42:59 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "yep, I largely work the same as you. I gave an example to david ages ago - basically I use tabbed sequences with string outs as scrubbable bins, cut and lift up the tasty bits and copy and paste into master sequence type thing."

I'm interested if anyone who is now happily working in FCPX also worked this way in Legacy. It's a technique I used to use when I had a LOT of source material but I didn't like doing it very much, perhaps it's a factor in whether you can get on with FCPX or not?

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:54:03 pm

Steve,

I'm actually collaborating on a secondary project right now - he's cutting in FCPX and I've had him set up the project after my model.

He's still in early stages, but he's got all the raw material set up this way.

I may post some thoughts further in the process, in the new year.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:55:27 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'm actually collaborating on a secondary project right now - he's cutting in FCPX and I've had him set up the project after my model.

He's still in early stages, but he's got all the raw material set up this way.

I may post some thoughts further in the process, in the new year.
"


I'm sure that will raise some interesting points, look forward to it

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:55:14 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Aindreas Gallagher] "yep, I largely work the same as you. I gave an example to david ages ago - basically I use tabbed sequences with string outs as scrubbable bins, cut and lift up the tasty bits and copy and paste into master sequence type thing."

I'm interested if anyone who is now happily working in FCPX also worked this way in Legacy."


Me.

I've said this before but FCP7's only way to look at a massive amount of footage and shots was to put everything is a sequence so that's what we do. Unless, of course, you double click your way in to infinity one clip at a time.

It works, but it's highly inefficient, especially when the project goes dormant for 6 mo., then all of a sudden the client calls back and needs some re-edits. Since the timelines aren't tagged in anyway, you have to sort of remember what was used and what wasn't; what was deleted and what wasn't.

People will say that this is because FCP7 is open, I will say because there was simply no other way to do it and wasn't necessarily by design, but more by default.

FCPX changes all of that, and for me it's for the better.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 9:33:24 pm

to be fair steve - you've cut long form features, in FCPX - I'm not speaking to my work practise as anything significant right?

but as an example, working on the olympics, I found string outs in bin sequences basically a life blood under the gun.

that said - yes, FCPX feels somehow cramped to me personally. I guess that - look craig slattery has made, for me, the clearest workflow arguments for FCPX - of all the people saying it short circuits footage interrogation, he is the one really laying it out. I totally buy that.

and yet I find I don't have room in it somehow? A lot of it boils down to it being a single window brick interface. basically I need somehow, in my head, to have multiple sequences available to me on screen - not through that wonky menu push out from left thing. apple is basically doing a card shuffle thing there - swap one for the other.

Again - I just finished a half hour doc on the ryder cup - as you do, running up to picture lock, I parked and duplicated edits before large last minute client revisions - some of the later ones were more cleaned up, wiping away disabled clip choices. Basically I like to feel they are all right there before me to kind of scan and think about - not locked in an unseen sequence organiser that you have to invoke, that slides out to take over the bottom half of the screen.

that to me is apple saying - you have left an editing project, and now enter another editing project. hence them calling them projects as opposed to sequences really.

but in many cases there are small shades of grey between sequences - I personally need them near by, semantically and visually.

so that fundamentally jars for me in FCPX. but - thats small beans on the whole, still - I do find it a problem though.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 28, 2012 at 9:47:55 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Again - I just finished a half hour doc on the ryder cup - as you do, running up to picture lock, I parked and duplicated edits before large last minute client revisions - some of the later ones were more cleaned up, wiping away disabled clip choices. Basically I like to feel they are all right there before me to kind of scan and think about - not locked in an unseen sequence organiser that you have to invoke, that slides out to take over the bottom half of the screen.
"


Fair enough, if that's how you like working then FCPX as it stands doesn't work, however I'm starting to use compound clips as sequences, now the project bloat has gone and they save to the event viewer. Having them skimmable in the Event viewer and being able to edit from sequence to sequence easily works very well.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 30, 2012 at 9:50:37 pm

[Steve Connor] "I'm interested if anyone who is now happily working in FCPX also worked this way in Legacy. It's a technique I used to use when I had a LOT of source material but I didn't like doing it very much, perhaps it's a factor in whether you can get on with FCPX or not?
"


That may be. I work this way--or nearly this way--also.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
on Nov 29, 2012 at 3:23:22 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "However, it sounds like you found that unsatisfactory (or slow). Why?"

For me, I like having the viewer and the canvas. Ganging ain't so shabby either. I didn't actually measure whether or not it was slower, but it just felt slower. I surmise if I actually measured the time, it wouldn't really be slower.

Here's some additional details and comparison to X:.

I had

  • 1 project

  • 12 sequences for color timing plus

  • 1 sequence for assemble_v1, assemble_v2, etc as necessary plus

  • 1+ sequence for rough_v1, rough_v2, rough_v2, etc as necessary
  • 1+ sequence for final_v1, final_v2, final_v3 etc as necessary


  • The same example, in X would have
  • 1 event

  • 12 Compound Clips for color timing all strung out in a project
  • plus
  • 1+ project for assemble_v1, assemble v2, etc as necessary plus

  • 1+ project for rough_v1, rough_v2, etc as necessary plus

  • 1+ project for final_v1, final_v2, final_v3 etc as necessary


  • Also NOTE: I'm not really sure how I'd achieve the color timing workflow in X. For this client, being so interesting, I was loathe to show any footage until it was timed. If anyone has any X workflow suggestions, I'm all ears.


    Return to posts index

    Franz Bieberkopf
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
    on Nov 29, 2012 at 7:27:45 pm

    Richard,

    re: FCP7

    You can open sequences in the viewer if you wish. I don't work that way, so I'm not sure what sorts of issues you may run into.

    - click and drag any sequence to the viewer (if there's a shortcut for this, I don't know it)
    - mark in and out, drag to sequence or otherwise edit as if you were working with a clip - this will give you nested material (which is probably less useful), so ...
    - mark in and out, command-drag to sequence will give you clips

    re: FCPX

    I'm interested in a comprehensive comparison of project timelines in the project library vs. compound clips in the event browser. Is the only (practical) difference the location where it is stored? Are their limitations on the compound clip compared to sequences?

    Franz.


    Return to posts index

    Richard Herd
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
    on Nov 30, 2012 at 6:03:49 pm

    [Franz Bieberkopf] "You can open sequences in the viewer if you wish. I don't work that way, so I'm not sure what sorts of issues you may run into.

    - click and drag any sequence to the viewer (if there's a shortcut for this, I don't know it)
    - mark in and out, drag to sequence or otherwise edit as if you were working with a clip - this will give you nested material (which is probably less useful), so ...
    - mark in and out, command-drag to sequence will give you clips
    "


    What?! Been editing in FCP since 2003 and never thought to drag a sequence into the viewer. The ganging seems off, but I was just noodling around.

    [Franz Bieberkopf] "re: FCPX

    I'm interested in a comprehensive comparison of project timelines in the project library vs. compound clips in the event browser. Is the only (practical) difference the location where it is stored? Are their limitations on the compound clip compared to sequences?"


    I cannot think of any limitations, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. I'm happy with how CCs work. I prefer CC to Sequences. One big practical difference for me -- since you asked -- is being able to apply entire audio effects and color correction to an entire CC. Those effects then follow the CC.

    For example, a scene of matching singles (actor A and actor B). I select the A-camera footage and put them on top of the primary then compound them. B-camera stays underneath and compound clip that one too. Then I apply a first pass color correction and audio eq and compressor to the individual compound clips. Then I compound the whole thing so its one unit and I apply a color correction look to that roll-up (which is typically sitting in the spine). And the spine is the actual piece that will be delivered, so if you imagine there's several compounds from each shooting location that have all been "first-passed." Then I compound the whole thing and apply a color "look" to the spine. For me, (and I'm very good in color), this has been a practical application gain.

    No one ought to work like that in 7: In comparison this would be like having a Sequence with V1 (B-camera) and V2 (A-camera) stacked on top of each other and then sending V1/V2 (stacked mind you) to Color. When they return, contain/nest those inside of a 3 Sequence that then rolls into a 4th Sequence that has more nested clips right next to each other in the sequence. All of those have been first pass cc'd and eq'd. Then send the whole thing to Color to apply the final look. That would be a lot of rendering and media storage time and space.

    But is it really a practical advantage? I don't know because that's not the way to work in 7, of course. The workflow is totally different. I assume you know the proper workflow and won't belabor that issue.

    Narrowing the practical advantage even further is that the compound is keyword-able and available in the Event, which means it could be available to any subsequent project, but so what? I do not need Client-A's stuff available to Client-X. Sometimes it could be useful if Client-Y had a giant 3 year project and they needed a sizzle reel or something and I did not need to cull through the stuff, but then culling through the stuff is how I find the stuff. It's a creative intuitive process, for me, a feeling. So it's all a little weird, to me, and a bit oversold by the X fanatic that keywords are better than putting it all on a sequence and actually watching all the footage because the obvious problem with a big 3 year project is the keyword lexicon. (Hope that makes sense.)

    Here's some audio explanation regarding practical advantage: The audio eq and compressor/limiter stuff is an actual practical advantage, for me, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with X because in 7 I always round trip audio into STP if I'm doing it or ProTools for an actual audio person. Anyway, in X, one practical advantage is a bussing-like technique gained via Compound Clips. By CMD-clicking clips, individual clips can be added to Compounds. Then entire effects, limiters, eqs, can be added.

    In 7, to accomplish the same deliverable, I roundtrip to STP and apply fx to channels and bus the channels. Then send back to 7. Same outcome. Same deliverable. Is it an actual practical advantage? I don't really know.

    Although it's not the compound clip v Sequence dialectic, cutting Js and Ls, for me, is the biggest practical advantage because the audio is embedded in the clip. CTRL-S and the audio shows up. Double-Click the "space between the clips" and the precision editor shows up. Then I either use the keyboard or mouse to adjust where the L or J is. WOW! That has been very accurate. In 7, to get the same deliverable there's much more steps involved (unless I'm missing something, but I don't think so). For me, X is superior to 7 in cutting dialogue coverage. It's in the dialogue coverage editing where I use auditions the most because I use the cut-to to control the pacing. Audition are cool for structure of course, but for me that seems kind-of simpleton obvious. Pacing a dialogue edit is much more subtle. I count frames, 5, 6, 7, which frame in the close up does the actor's pupil dilate for the emotion? Auditions allow me to make these subtle changes and watch them, for a feeling. I do not show these auditions to the producer. These are for me to make decisions.

    I hope that answers some practical stuff. I tried not to talk about specific clients or projects even if I lose a bit of ethos. Maybe other posters will contribute their point of view.


    Return to posts index

    Franz Bieberkopf
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
    on Nov 30, 2012 at 6:25:34 pm

    Richard,

    Thanks.

    [Richard Herd] "Been editing in FCP since 2003 and never thought to drag a sequence into the viewer."

    Yes - it sort of speaks to the depth of certain functionality in FCP7 that there are things many experienced editors don't know it can do. There was someone (experienced) a while back complaining they couldn't solo audio in it (though there is a "Solo Selected Items" function right there in the sequence menu). There have been other examples too.

    This suggests one of the recurring undercurrents on the forum - we all tend to be a bit blind to features, functionality, and requirements outside of our own workflow, or even just our habits.

    (The recent "FCPX audio functions are better" thread was interesting in this light, because it essentially amounted to the idea that if you ignore the audio functions that are lacking in X (like a mixer) and focus on the audio functions that are better (like plug-ins) then you can come to the conclusion that FCPX audio is overall better). (The comparison was, of course, chronically, once again to 7).

    [Richard Herd] "I hope that answers some practical stuff."

    It sounds like much of what you've talked about is based around colour work, and I do very little of that.

    But if I'm reading your correctly, there is little difference between compound clips and sequences beyond their location. I may look into it a bit more, though to be honest my motivation for exploring X right now is quite low.

    Thanks for the write-up, though. That kind of thing makes this forum really worthwhile.

    Franz.


    Return to posts index

    Chris Harlan
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
    on Dec 1, 2012 at 12:27:36 am

    [Franz Bieberkopf] "This suggests one of the recurring undercurrents on the forum - we all tend to be a bit blind to features, functionality, and requirements outside of our own workflow, or even just our habits.
    "


    Yes! I, for one, didn't know you could sub frame audio edit in Legacy, and I'd been working on it daily for over eight years. One of the benefits I've gotten from hanging around this forum, is a much wider view.


    Return to posts index

    Richard Herd
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
    on Dec 1, 2012 at 2:16:58 am

    Great subthread Franz, your tone and professionalism are top notch, so thanks! I always look forward to your posts, even if I don't always comment. These are my reduced comments, not to be obtuse but this is all heard by google.

    Although there are gaps in a lot of what I ought to mention about compounding, there is one thing that X is worth all of its weight in gold. (Okay it's software and has no weight, so that's a joke.) I did not mention it in the previous post because it has nothing to do with your question vis-a-vis compounds and sequences.

    The Optical Flow slow motion is better than 7 and better than PPr and better than AE. I suggest the following very simple experiment:

    1. Edit something in 7, Avid, or PPr (using APR422)
    2. Export a clip that you think needs some retiming
    3. Use X to Optical Flow the slow motion.
    4. Export that as a stand alone APR422.
    5. Import and cut in.
    6. Compare as necessary.

    I compared optical flow to s-s-s in 7, and the flow is better. In this metaphor, X is a plug in.

    Rich;)


    Return to posts index

    Franz Bieberkopf
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
    on Dec 1, 2012 at 2:29:42 pm

    [Richard Herd] " I always look forward to your posts, even if I don't always comment."

    Richard,

    Thanks. If you like them now, just wait until I sort out homonyms and spelling.

    [Richard Herd] "The Optical Flow slow motion is better than 7"

    Thanks - that's something I may check out. The thing is with Apple software though, I find they develop a feature and then never touch it again. Adobe seems a bit more likely to revisit and improve features over time. (Lightroom features are a recent example of this).

    Franz.


    Return to posts index

    Jeremy Garchow
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
    on Nov 30, 2012 at 6:43:11 pm

    [Richard Herd] "Although it's not the compound clip v Sequence dialectic, cutting Js and Ls, for me, is the biggest practical advantage because the audio is embedded in the clip. CTRL-S and the audio shows up. Double-Click the "space between the clips" and the precision editor shows up. Then I either use the keyboard or mouse to adjust where the L or J is. WOW! That has been very accurate. I"


    playhead on cut.

    backslash.

    Shift Left Bracket, shift-period

    Shift Right Bracket, Shift-comma

    Drag handles on left/right side.

    If you need more,

    Shift Left Bracket, shift-period or just period
    Shift Right Bracket, shift-comma or just comma


    Return to posts index

    Richard Herd
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward? (actual workflow question here)
    on Dec 1, 2012 at 2:19:51 am

    Gracias!

    To be sure, I read all your posts and you've already posted this. Thanks again!

    I view the mouse as an improvement over DOS. Let's hear it for Windows 3.1 and Apple IIe. Lode Runner anyone?


    Return to posts index

    tony west
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 3:19:50 pm

    [Morten Carlsen] "Still - to me the single most important thing is getting the job done. I am a highly visual guy and what makes FCPx the superior choice to me, is the Event Library and its concept. I am a big fan of getting to know my material and "sort on the run" --- I am also REALLY big on saving time."

    I'm really big on saving time to, and at the end of the day getting up on that screen what's in my head.


    The thing that I would add about X and speed, is that many of the things that speed up the edit for me by themselves seem small.

    The skimmer
    tagging
    those fade handles
    not patching tracks
    retiming
    Hack, even that Burns (they need to add a control for a pause in there like FX Factory)

    I could go on, but when you put all these things together they add up to an overall faster experience for me. It's not just ONE thing, it's a bunch of things all at the same time.

    To me it speaks well to X that the debate has gotten to philosophy. (I can take that or leave it and still get my job done)

    It started out as.......X CAN'T do this or that, but apple has kept taking those things off the table.
    Leaving fewer and fewer things to point at in the can't list.

    It's just going to come down to which style you like.


    Return to posts index

    David Powell
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 3:52:47 am

    All of which can be done in Avid FX. Grade with secondaries effects and composites, save as a preset and drop it on a clip.


    Return to posts index

    Bill Davis
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:49:14 am

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "for starters - FCPX is not a prius, its the google auto-drive car, if we're going that way."

    No it's not. This is not your analogy. It's mine. So i get to make it. You can try to swipe it or re-tiniker it, but since you're not John Calvin nor Jerry Bruckheimer - and therefore lacking the followers or the box office, you don't get to make your own rules.

    Moving on...

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "OK - say for kicks editing is post modern, in that the modernist era of formal contextual shark icon experimentation - it could be argued - is over."

    Well, this is "kicks" for you - but just understand that nobody actually SAID that - so you're starting off by arguing about something that nobody's actually espousing - so you're in a self-induced spiral -pretty much from paragraph ONE.


    [Aindreas Gallagher] "we are all now aware say, after a decade and a half on the ground, that a true track timeline can faithfully represent any given expression of editing in any context."

    Yes, Aindreas - and a box of crayons can be used to draw ANYTHING on the planet. Both these statements are fabulously true and totally useless vis a vis common sense.

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "it appears to be that bullet proof."

    Again, so are crayons for expressing color, shapes and forms. THEY are "bullet proof" as a communications medium in precisely the same way. I can DRAW, shade, WRITE WORDS with them - they are PERFECT - so I suppose the world needs NOTHING but crayons. (Glad we cleared that up!)

    Next you ramble through a few paragraphs about sharks, macromedia, bash Apple with a fragment of the the Canon of HaterScripture as a "non-innovator" and lurch to something sorta resembling an actual argument


    [Aindreas Gallagher] "- why exactly are apple casting this critical, and (necessarily failed initially) live relationship in a hard to unpick connected clip concrete mess?

    Its not, at all, difficult to interrogate V/A relationships in editing. it only requires looking at the timeline. Indeed, openly judging and critiquing those relationships, forms a half decent definition of editing sort of?

    Editing is meant to be live sensitive jelly - between the clips, the intent, the music, the VO - so then why please did the engineers in apple decide they should set canonical parent child relationships at timeline entry? that then have to be unpicked later when those relationships run out of date?"


    In order...

    I'd argue that most experienced X editors find absolutely nothing "hard to unpack" about any aspect of the program. Period. It's possible YOU can't remember what's inside a connected clip relationship, but I can in the same way I know my Dremel is in the gray box on the second shelf in my garage (and that there's an auxiliary kit of bits in the Red and Beige set in the second drawer.) I know this because I have a brain. I don't have to open them all up and lay out every drill and grinding wheel to work effectively. If you do - great - fire up Premier and build the "exposed" timeline of your dreams. Nobody's arguing that YOU shouldn't.

    In the next paragraph you once again try to define what editing should be like for ME. And once again, I'm simply not going to let you. You may require an array of editing visual clues where everything must be discrete and stacked up like ABC blocks. But I'm content working like the entire modern electronics industry where sub-assemblies have proved more efficient and useful than keeping every freeking resister in piles on a workbench and soldering them on a breadboard one by one. Hint: virtually NOBODY builds electronics this way any more. Sub-assembly as a standard is smart. Wow, maybe there might be something useful about that approach in video assembly as well! - wait, NOBODY can explore that because Aindreas doesn't like to think that way. Now I get it.

    Finally and I'll be brief because I don't want to linger over long in the land of "live sensitive jelly", discussing "canonical parent child relationships" - so i'll just point out that once again, you make your constant and unwavering mistake. You start out with an absolute statement of fact: in this case, "Editing is meant to be..." before blathering on about how YOU see editing. Well, that's wonderful on Planet Aindreas. But I don't live there. And it's arguable that your planet is kinda in retrograde these days. Perhaps you work on some exalted plane where you must juxtapose each nuanced EVERYTHING between your clips, your INTENT, your Music, and your VO. Ooohhh - shivers! But maybe Cindy or Tom just needs to get a freekin clip out to the web before the sales meeting. So not to put too fine a point on it - STOP TELLING US HOW WE MUST EDIT.

    (please, everyone, read that as a "muted" or better yet, "sotto voce" bellow so as not to overtly offend, but i'm emphasizing the point with intent!)

    Cuz at base, I'm not coming here telliing you you're an idiot for how you go about your work. But I'm quite tired of you trying to tell me that because my needs might be different than yours - that you have some special insight into the ouvere of editing that I must bow down to.

    I get what you do. I just don't want to do that because I'm not the same person doing the same work as you. (thank the stars.) .

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "in educational terms, by robbing all that sensory per clip malleability, by deadening whole chunks of the timeline into predisposed lego super objects the minute they meet each other, objects that you can mindlessly heft around like a pick up truck, by doing this - "

    A - nobody's trying to steal your malleability. (ProTip: if you wrap your monitor in tin foil, I'm told it enhances sensory malleability by a significant factor!)
    B - LEGOS are extremely and nearly unfathomably cool. The unassailable proof of this is their having radiated substantial joy out from Denmark around the entire globe whilst encouraging the building of neural pathways in generations of children. To the extent X has any remote kinship to Legos - that reflects wonderfully on X in my book.
    C. Pickup trucks are also very cool. (Particularly when you need to haul stuff.)


    [Aindreas Gallagher] "I would argue very strongly that apple have effectively lobotomised whole sections of the personal editing exploratory process by making these default decisions."

    Well, yes, we KNOW you would argue that. But you'd be wrong. Deeply, and profoundly wrong. But I'm willing to listen. Go ahead, trot out even ONE example of a "whole section of the personal editing exploratory process" that X has even slightly damaged let alone "lobotomized." But the catch is that it has to be one that the majority of readers here AGREE has been thusly damaged by the X approach. I await your response and the judgement of the collective.

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "by casting simplified concrete b-roll in software, that acts like a multi-story pick-up mechanism - this deadens the questions that might arise later in the students mind because well, sure its all glued together now so why bother - not that they would - but the software lends itself to moving on.

    I would personally argue that apple are anti-intellectual here, that their decisions - the pre-jointed lego they have constructed for editing - is fundamentally anti-intellectual.

    not so much maybe for the seasoned practitioner who can side step the gross simplification of process - but what kind of educational basis for editing is clip super-glue by default?

    isn't this rather intellectually dodgy for that kid in college?
    "


    And here's the real rub.

    You don't actually understand X very well - do you Aindreas? I suspect you've dinked with it just enough to appear to have a reasoned opinion, but don't have anywhere near the depth of understanding to realize just how deeply foolish your arguments here are.

    You try to purport it's the anti-christ of editing software - but those of us without your bizarre and illogical bias just keep being HAPPY with it. And I know that drives you absolutely freekin' NUTS.

    But the truth is - it DOES make many of us happy. Not fully. Not perfectly. But HAPPY in all caps.

    So in your construct, we're either foolish buffoons - or we've actually experienced something that has so far escaped you. And the truth is - we HAVE! It's what X is like when you ACTUALLY know how to operate it. Yes it's imperfect. But it's also really freekin COOL!

    It's actually FUN to edit with. It's FUN to explore. It's FUN to experience the quality and ease and responsiveness.

    You appear to be in a sad place where you'll NEVER experience that.

    You unfolded an "angry bag" and after painstakingly constructing a Voodoo doll with FCP-X written across it in your own fresh blood - you've slipped the doll into that bag - placed it prominently in your life view - and now you feel you have to worship it as the central shrine of your public life.

    And that's too bad.

    You seem to me like the kid who's afraid to jump off the cliff into the lake even tho the kids who do appear to be having fun - so you just stand on the edge, or stop on the hike up to swim a little - but when the other kids go gleefully up to the ledge - you just sit below and tell everyone why they're so STUPID to do that.

    And you, just like their parents, are somewhat right. And also really, really wrong.

    Because it's in the healthy nature of human teens to jump. Not all, but just enough to keep the human edge alive.

    Look, everyone knows that the kids who aren't jumping secretly want the thrill. But they just can't bring themself to go where they need to be to get it. So they rationalize. But that's life. Some jump. Some don't.

    It' just sad that you've taken on the role of scold telling us that NOBODY should jump. EVER. That the safe life on the shore is the ONLY life worth living. Good luck with that.

    Look, I know that for the worldwide thousands of EDITORS LIKE YOU - X isn't right. But you're still going to have to deal with the fact that for the Hundereds of Thousands (and possibly Millions eventually) of EDITORS LIKE me - it is very cool.

    And since it provides the same quality output capabilities and 80% of the editing capabilities in a package that is, smaller, lighter and less expensive to own and operate - AND since it's more rapidly developing - I'm happy to bet on it's future.

    That's enough for now.

    Thanks for letting me exercise my keyboard.

    (If this came across as harsh, it's because I know you can handle it. Just as others are free to bash me because they know I'm happy to bash right back. That's what makes this place so fun.)

    Till next time.

    Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


    Return to posts index

    Bill Davis
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:50:25 am

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "for starters - FCPX is not a prius, its the google auto-drive car, if we're going that way."

    This is not your analogy. It's mine. So i get to make it. You can try to swipe it or re-tiniker it, but since you're not John Calvin nor Jerry Bruckheimer - and therefore lacking the followers or the box office, you don't get to make your own rules.

    Moving on...

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "OK - say for kicks editing is post modern, in that the modernist era of formal contextual shark icon experimentation - it could be argued - is over."

    Well, this is "kicks" for you - but just understand that nobody actually SAID that - so you're starting off by arguing about something that nobody's actually espousing - so you're in a self-induced spiral -pretty much from paragraph ONE.


    [Aindreas Gallagher] "we are all now aware say, after a decade and a half on the ground, that a true track timeline can faithfully represent any given expression of editing in any context."

    Yes, Aindreas - and a box of crayons can be used to draw ANYTHING on the planet. Both these statements are fabulously true and totally useless vis a vis common sense.

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "it appears to be that bullet proof."

    Again, so are crayons for expressing color, shapes and forms. THEY are "bullet proof" as a communications medium in precisely the same way. I can DRAW, shade, WRITE WORDS with them - they are PERFECT - so I suppose the world needs NOTHING but crayons. (Glad we cleared that up!)

    Next you ramble through a few paragraphs about sharks, macromedia, bash Apple with a fragment of the the Canon of HaterScripture as a "non-innovator" and lurch to something sorta resembling an actual argument


    [Aindreas Gallagher] "- why exactly are apple casting this critical, and (necessarily failed initially) live relationship in a hard to unpick connected clip concrete mess?

    Its not, at all, difficult to interrogate V/A relationships in editing. it only requires looking at the timeline. Indeed, openly judging and critiquing those relationships, forms a half decent definition of editing sort of?

    Editing is meant to be live sensitive jelly - between the clips, the intent, the music, the VO - so then why please did the engineers in apple decide they should set canonical parent child relationships at timeline entry? that then have to be unpicked later when those relationships run out of date?"


    In order...

    I'd argue that most experienced X editors find absolutely nothing "hard to unpack" about any aspect of the program. Period. It's possible YOU can't remember what's inside a connected clip relationship, but I can in the same way I know my Dremel is in the gray box on the second shelf in my garage (and that there's an auxiliary kit of bits in the Red and Beige set in the second drawer.) I know this because I have a brain. I don't have to open them all up and lay out every drill and grinding wheel to work effectively. If you do - great - fire up Premier and build the "exposed" timeline of your dreams. Nobody's arguing that YOU shouldn't.

    In the next paragraph you once again try to define what editing should be like for ME. And once again, I'm simply not going to let you. You may require an array of editing visual clues where everything must be discrete and stacked up like ABC blocks. But I'm content working like the entire modern electronics industry where sub-assemblies have proved more efficient and useful than keeping every freeking resister in piles on a workbench and soldering them on a breadboard one by one. Hint: virtually NOBODY builds electronics this way any more. Sub-assembly as a standard is smart. Wow, maybe there might be something useful about that approach in video assembly as well! - wait, NOBODY can explore that because Aindreas doesn't like to think that way. Now I get it.

    Finally and I'll be brief because I don't want to linger over long in the land of "live sensitive jelly", discussing "canonical parent child relationships" - so i'll just point out that once again, you make your constant and unwavering mistake. You start out with an absolute statement of fact: in this case, "Editing is meant to be..." before blathering on about how YOU see editing. Well, that's wonderful on Planet Aindreas. But I don't live there. And it's arguable that your planet is kinda in retrograde these days. Perhaps you work on some exalted plane where you must juxtapose each nuanced EVERYTHING between your clips, your INTENT, your Music, and your VO. Ooohhh - shivers! But maybe Cindy or Tom just needs to get a freekin clip out to the web before the sales meeting. So not to put too fine a point on it - STOP THE FARK TELLING US HOW WE MUST EDIT.

    (please, everyone, read that as a "muted" or better yet, "sotto voce" bellow so as not to overtly offend, but i'm emphasizing the point with intent!)

    Cuz at base, I'm not coming here telliing you you're an idiot for how you go about your work. But I'm quite tired of you trying to tell me that because my needs might be different than yours - that you have some special insight into the ouvere of editing that I must bow down to.

    I get what you do. I just don't want to do that because I'm not the same person doing the same work as you. (thank the stars.) .

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "in educational terms, by robbing all that sensory per clip malleability, by deadening whole chunks of the timeline into predisposed lego super objects the minute they meet each other, objects that you can mindlessly heft around like a pick up truck, by doing this - "

    A - nobody's trying to steal your malleability. (ProTip: if you wrap your monitor in tin foil, I'm told it enhances sensory malleability by a significant factor!)
    B - LEGOS are extremely and nearly unfathomably cool. The unassailable proof of this is their having radiated substantial joy out from Denmark around the entire globe whilst encouraging the building of neural pathways in generations of children. To the extent X has any remote kinship to Legos - that reflects wonderfully on X in my book.
    C. Pickup trucks are also very cool. (Particularly when you need to haul stuff.)


    [Aindreas Gallagher] "I would argue very strongly that apple have effectively lobotomised whole sections of the personal editing exploratory process by making these default decisions."

    Well, yes, we KNOW you would argue that. But you'd be wrong. Deeply, and profoundly wrong. But I'm willing to listen. Go ahead, trot out even ONE example of a "whole section of the personal editing exploratory process" that X has even slightly damaged let alone "lobotomized." But the catch is that it has to be one that the majority of readers here AGREE has been thusly damaged by the X approach. I await your response and the judgement of the collective.

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "by casting simplified concrete b-roll in software, that acts like a multi-story pick-up mechanism - this deadens the questions that might arise later in the students mind because well, sure its all glued together now so why bother - not that they would - but the software lends itself to moving on.

    I would personally argue that apple are anti-intellectual here, that their decisions - the pre-jointed lego they have constructed for editing - is fundamentally anti-intellectual.

    not so much maybe for the seasoned practitioner who can side step the gross simplification of process - but what kind of educational basis for editing is clip super-glue by default?

    isn't this rather intellectually dodgy for that kid in college?
    "


    And here's the real rub.

    You don't actually understand X very well - do you Aindreas? I suspect you've dinked with it just enough to appear to have a reasoned opinion, but don't have anywhere near the depth of understanding to realize just how deeply foolish your arguments here are.

    You try to purport it's the anti-christ of editing software - but those of us without your bizarre and illogical bias just keep being HAPPY with it. And I know that drives you absolutely freekin' NUTS.

    But the truth is - it DOES make many of us happy. Not fully. Not perfectly. But HAPPY in all caps.

    So in your construct, we're either foolish buffoons - or we've actually experienced something that has so far escaped you. And the truth is - we HAVE! It's what X is like when you ACTUALLY know how to operate it. Yes it's imperfect. But it's also really freekin COOL!

    It's actually FUN to edit with. It's FUN to explore. It's FUN to experience the quality and ease and responsiveness.

    You appear to be in a sad place where you'll NEVER experience that.

    You unfolded an "angry bag" and after painstakingly constructing a Voodoo doll with FCP-X written across it in your own fresh blood - you've slipped the doll into that bag - placed it prominently in your life view - and now you feel you have to worship it as the central shrine of your public life.

    And that's too bad.

    You seem to me like the kid who's afraid to jump off the cliff into the lake even tho the kids who do appear to be having fun - so you just stand on the edge, or stop on the hike up to swim a little - but when the other kids go gleefully up to the ledge - you just sit below and tell everyone why they're so STUPID to do that.

    And you, just like their parents, are somewhat right. And also really, really wrong.

    Because it's in the healthy nature of human teens to jump. Not all, but just enough to keep the human edge alive.

    Look, everyone knows that the kids who aren't jumping secretly want the thrill. But they just can't bring themself to go where they need to be to get it. So they rationalize. But that's life. Some jump. Some don't.

    It' just sad that you've taken on the role of scold telling us that NOBODY should jump. EVER. That the safe life on the shore is the ONLY life worth living. Good luck with that.

    Look, I know that for the worldwide thousands of EDITORS LIKE YOU - X isn't right. But you're still going to have to deal with the fact that for the Hundereds of Thousands (and possibly Millions eventually) of EDITORS LIKE me - it is very cool.

    And since it provides the same quality output capabilities and 80% of the editing capabilities in a package that is, smaller, lighter and less expensive to own and operate - AND since it's more rapidly developing - I'm happy to bet on it's future.

    That's enough for now.

    Thanks for letting me exercise my keyboard.

    (If this came across as harsh, it's because I know you can handle it. Just as others are free to bash me because they know I'm happy to bash right back. That's what makes this place so fun.)

    Till next time.

    Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


    Return to posts index

    Steve Connor
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:58:02 am

    I think we can safely say that although this forum has gone through something of a quiet spell lately, it's now firing on all cylinders again!

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


    Return to posts index

    Craig Harris
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:04:25 pm

    It should stop.


    Return to posts index

    Steve Connor
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:06:41 pm

    [Craig Harris] "It should stop."

    Why?

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


    Return to posts index

    Morten Carlsen
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 7:11:34 pm

    I take that you mean Apple and NOT adobe ?

    What exactly do you mean by 'proper' relinking ?

    I find the relinking in 10.0.6 to do what I need it to ?


    Return to posts index

    Aindreas Gallagher
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:09:06 pm

    [Bill Davis] "Well, this is "kicks" for you - but just understand that nobody actually SAID that - so you're starting off by arguing about something that nobody's actually espousing - so you're in a self-induced spiral -pretty much from paragraph ONE."

    Ah Bill Davies, Bill davies, Bill Davies, what'll I do with you?

    All I'm doing there is positing a statement -as you well know - not looking to falsely quote anyone, just proposing a statement in debating terms, that I then try to back up with argument and example - the days of shark icons at an end etc.

    After that I'm pretty much looking to see if i can get your eyes to roll back into your skull and have you start typing in tongues - with some success there I might add.

    [Bill Davis] "You seem to me like the kid who's afraid to jump off the cliff into the lake even tho the kids who do appear to be having fun - so you just stand on the edge, or stop on the hike up to swim a little - but when the other kids go gleefully up to the ledge - you just sit below and tell everyone why they're so STUPID to do that. "

    also you got my spatial positioning wrong there, shouldn't be sitting below, I'd be snootily up on the cliff edge.


    [Bill Davis] "It's actually FUN to edit with. It's FUN to explore. It's FUN to experience the quality and ease and responsiveness.

    You appear to be in a sad place where you'll NEVER experience that.
    "


    mm. it almost sounds like I'm missing out on a really good revelatory sexual experience there. although you are usually more messianic in your descriptions of engaging with the FCPX godhead, so it makes a change.


    [Bill Davis] "
    You don't actually understand X very well - do you Aindreas? I suspect you've dinked with it just enough to appear to have a reasoned opinion, but don't have anywhere near the depth of understanding to realize just how deeply foolish your arguments here are.
    "


    mm. not fair really at this stage - valid argument for say the first year, but I have gotten quite a bit more into the weeds with FCPX the last six months or so. Some of my critiques have been respectably specific regarding ranges, A/B editing and the keyframing apparatus.

    Now - you're off the leash again Bill, let mighty FCPX course through your veins as you rattle off another four thousand word reply from the mount....

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


    Return to posts index

    Steve Connor
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:13:20 pm

    [Aindreas Gallagher] "Now - you're off the leash again Bill, let mighty FCPX course through your veins as you rattle off another four thousand word reply from the mount....
    "


    Pot, Kettle etc

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


    Return to posts index

    Aindreas Gallagher
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:16:00 pm

    eh? I may have written a paragraph or two, sixty to seventy words. tops. mm.

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


    Return to posts index

    Franz Bieberkopf
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:17:10 pm

    [Steve Connor] "Pot, Kettle etc"

    Steve,

    Haven't we already had the "This forum needs a new name" post for this month?

    Franz.


    Return to posts index

    Aindreas Gallagher
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:23:30 pm

    god no - thats it. forum title:

    FCPX or not: Pot, please meet Kettle.

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


    Return to posts index

    Charlie Austin
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 28, 2012 at 8:25:43 pm

    [Franz Bieberkopf] "Haven't we already had the "This forum needs a new name" post for this month?"

    Perhaps we should change the name of this thread to:

    "The NLE that keeps moving clips in the timeline by itself".

    That would work for me. ;-)

    -------------------------------------------------------------


    ~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


    Return to posts index

    Chris Harlan
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Nov 29, 2012 at 7:34:06 pm

    [Franz Bieberkopf] "[Steve Connor] "Pot, Kettle etc"

    Steve,

    Haven't we already had the "This forum needs a new name" post for this month?

    Franz."


    LOL. I'd go with it. Especially if the Etc. were part of the title!


    Return to posts index

    Gustavo Bermudas
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Dec 2, 2012 at 11:57:50 pm

    At the end of the day, FCX is for kids than when they grow up they'd like to be editors (and for that I mean cutting features in AVID)


    Return to posts index

    Charlie Austin
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Dec 3, 2012 at 6:52:19 am

    [Gustavo Bermudas] "At the end of the day, FCX is for kids than when they grow up they'd like to be editors (and for that I mean cutting features in AVID)"

    Thanks for that clever observation. Very helpful!

    -------------------------------------------------------------


    ~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


    Return to posts index

    Steve Connor
    Re: The NLE that keeps moving forward?
    on Dec 3, 2012 at 8:09:57 am

    [Gustavo Bermudas] "At the end of the day, FCX is for kids than when they grow up they'd like to be editors (and for that I mean cutting features in AVID)
    "


    Very funny, although you have to wonder, bearing in mind their current financial state, if there will even be an Avid when these kids grow up :)

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


    Return to posts index

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