FORUMS: list search recent posts

Interesting little series...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Charlie Austin
Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 9:05:04 pm

Probably he's not really a pro, ;-) but this looks to be an interesting series of articles.

http://www.moviemaker.com/diy/movies-better-fcp-x-red-feature-film-workflow...

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 9:33:16 pm

Without the Red workflow, I literally just wrote that same thing up a few weeks ago.

Weird: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/48396


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 9:34:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Without the Red workflow, I literally just wrote that same thing up a few weeks ago."

Great minds think alike. Or something like that... :-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 9:40:15 pm

I have no affiliation with Sam, but I found his tutorials on RED and FCPX to be among the best out there, beating a lot of tutorials that are paying. They are not too simple, and focus on some professional workflows.

His article here is indeed very interesting, I look forward to reading the next entries.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 10:31:06 pm

the footage organisation possibilities presented by X's tagging pool are inarguably rather seriously sexy. I had OCD thrill moments reading through there.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:01:32 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the footage organisation possibilities presented by X's tagging pool are inarguably rather seriously sexy. I had OCD thrill moments reading through there."

I'm tellin' ya Aindreas, That alone makes X so much more... productive for me than anything else. I know you hate the timeline, but it's really way closer to the "legacy" timeline than Avid or Pr. If they get Roles worked out for better visual organization I'll be a happy camper.

If nobody for whom you freelance uses it, so be it. You know how to use other tools. At the very least I think you'd enjoy cutting personal stuff on it though if you'd just grit your teeth and dive in. Let the magnetic TL do its thing. After a while, you'll wonder how you ever worked without it.

I'll use whatever I get paid to use. I still cut a lot on 7, and have been diving back in to MC and Pr just for giggles. When I open up X, warts and all, I feel like I've come home. :-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:22:00 pm

[Charlie Austin] " I know you hate the timeline, but it's really way closer to the "legacy" timeline than Avid or Pr."

Dear sweet god - Charlie man, with the best will in the world... how do you keep a straight face on that one?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 12:05:53 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Dear sweet god - Charlie man, with the best will in the world... how do you keep a straight face on that one?
"


Look, I know magnetism is maddening at first, and I know they need to do more work on Roles. Hell there's a lot they need to sort out. No deal breakers, just feature parity (which is close) and polish/optimization. But man, I started cutting a spot in Pr the other day and It was driving me crazy. Not the fact that I don't have all the KB shortcuts worked out or whatever, but all the stuff I just couldn't do easily. Like change a clips volume? Fcp 7 and X hit CNTRL + or -. Pr? Head to the effects tab?! And the tracks. Not the fact it has tracks, but choosing mono, or stereo, or hybrid, and oops! my stereo clip is dual mono... so I need 2 mono tracks and I then need to figure out where to put them etc etc. Stuff I never had to think about in 7, and don't have to in X. Lot's of little things like that. you're using Pr now, you know what I mean. The beauty of FCP "classic" is that you can do stuff in the timeline really easily. No opening tabs/bins/mixers whatever. And the same is true of X. Even more so really. Ya just gotta get to the point where it "clicks".

Now, if you can't find work using it, then I totally understand why you'd not want to bother. But once you get used to the timeline, (and I don't mean that in a bad way) X reminds me more of working in "classic" then Pr or MC. No question.

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 1:07:26 am

[Charlie Austin] "But man, I started cutting a spot in Pr the other day and It was driving me crazy"

what was the spot? I'm surprised to hear you casually recall bashing out paying jobs in PPro only days ago - you generally refer exclusively to X.
Not calling wolf or anything just wondering :)

[Charlie Austin] "Like change a clips volume? Fcp 7 and X hit CNTRL + or -. Pr? Head to the effects tab?! And the tracks. Not the fact it has tracks, but choosing mono, or stereo, or hybrid, and oops! my stereo clip is dual mono... so I need 2 mono tracks and I then need to figure out where to put them etc etc. "

yes indeed Charles that is the common knowledge drum to beat on PPRo, even if one were to have just read about it and then regurgitate it
- I'm going to be honest, it hasn't tripped me up yet.

[Charlie Austin] "And the tracks. Not the fact it has tracks, but choosing mono, or stereo, or hybrid, and oops! my stereo clip is dual mono..."

again this feels like copypasta to me - I'll tell you what PPro has Charlie - tracks - they are amazing.

It's just the best thing.


[Charlie Austin] "The beauty of FCP "classic" is that you can do stuff in the timeline really easily. No opening tabs/bins/mixers whatever. And the same is true of X."

yes, I really do love working with audio in X, so.. as much as you are of course knee deep with audio in PPro - how about say breaking out the audio in X, and finding those lovely sync indicators? - because that leads to fun.

Also - how is Magic Bullet working for you? for the last month or two?

Because I use MB all the time.

[Charlie Austin] "But once you get used to the timeline, (and I don't mean that in a bad way)"

there is no bad way - its a ridiculous timeline Charlie. Every single second of the day, it makes FCPX even more of a white elephant than it has been in paid editing for the last coming on two years.

that is an empirically observable truth Charlie - because. there. are. no. jobs.

sincerely tho - enjoy it all will :) - please consider it a personal hobbyist pursuit.

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


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 2:17:41 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "[Charlie Austin] "But man, I started cutting a spot in Pr the other day and It was driving me crazy"

what was the spot? I'm surprised to hear you casually recall bashing out paying jobs in PPro only days ago - you generally refer exclusively to X.
Not calling wolf or anything just wondering :)


Uh... sounds like calling wolf to me. Shall I list all the gigs I've cut in X and finished broadcast/theatrical projects for? lol
I refer to X hereabouts because it's an X forum. I've got a staff gig. Everyone here is still on 7, so when I'm on a project where I need to (easily) play nice with others, I cut in 7. When I'm on a "solo" gig, i cut in X. And lately I figured I'd dive into MC and Pr because, uh... I can. :-) I dove out of Pr and back to 7 on this last one because of the stuff I mentioned below.

[Aindreas Gallagher] ... yes indeed Charles that is the common knowledge drum to beat on PPRo, even if one were to have just read about it and then regurgitate it
- I'm going to be honest, it hasn't tripped me up yet.
....again this feels like copypasta to me - I'll tell you what PPro has Charlie - tracks - they are amazing.
It's just the best thing.


No, tracks are annoying. To me. When I'm cutting.

So, it's not copy paste/regurgitation. Sorry. It is my opinion though. It was slowing me down to the point of madness, so I popped back into 7 (because i needed to share the project with others here) to finish it up.

I'm not saying Pr sucks, it doesn't. The timeline functions are similar to 7, but it's not the same as 7. At all. I need to be able quickly "mix" as i go along with a keystroke. Not grabbing keyframes or going to some random tab. Neither Pr or MC let me do that. 7 and X do. I'll keyframe stuff for "fine tuning" but not while I'm trying to crank something out. It's my style. Obviously others work differently.

[Charlie Austin] "The beauty of FCP "classic" is that you can do stuff in the timeline really easily. No opening tabs/bins/mixers whatever. And the same is true of X."

[Aindreas Gallagher] yes, I really do love working with audio in X, so.. as much as you are of course knee deep with audio in PPro - how about say breaking out the audio in X, and finding those lovely sync indicators? - because that leads to fun.

I always break out audio in X. It's not hard to stay in sync if you know what you're doing.

[Aindreas Gallagher] Also - how is Magic Bullet working for you? for the last month or two?

Because I use MB all the time.


Don't use it. Dunno if this can be totally blamed on X or the OS, but it sucks for those who do.

[Charlie Austin] "But once you get used to the timeline, (and I don't mean that in a bad way)"

[Aindreas Gallagher] there is no bad way - its a ridiculous timeline Charlie. Every single second of the day, it makes FCPX even more of a white elephant than it has been in paid editing for the last coming on two years.

that is an empirically observable truth Charlie - because. there. are. no. jobs.

sincerely tho - enjoy it all will :) - please consider a personal hobbyist pursuit.
"


Meh. There are plenty of people getting paid to cut in X. When I use it, I get paid. :-) honestly, the same was true for FCP classic. Keep banging the drum though. :-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 11:56:33 am

[Charlie Austin] "tracks are annoying. To me. When I'm cutting"

mmm. I see. A commonly held view amongst editors there. But do enjoy FCPX :)

[Charlie Austin] "I need to be able quickly "mix" as i go along with a keystroke. Not grabbing keyframes"

because keyframes are hard. I find they give very exact control to the roll off coming off b-roll into an IV - I don't understand how people can just go with dissolves.
I'm always using three keyframes at the break to bring the track down and then give it a long roll off into underscore. Dissolves don't do it for me - never have.

[Charlie Austin] "Because I use MB all the time." - Don't use it."
you really should try it (well if you could actually get it to function in X) - its indispensable sauce for spots. Don't leave home without it.

[Charlie Austin] "Meh. There are plenty of people getting paid to cut in X."
No Charles, there really aren't.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 6:35:40 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "[Charlie Austin] "tracks are annoying. To me. When I'm cutting"

mmm. I see. A commonly held view amongst editors there. But do enjoy FCPX :)


Gosh Aindreas, thanks for your sincere good wishes. I do enjoy it!

[Aindreas Gallagher] [Charlie Austin] "I need to be able quickly "mix" as i go along with a keystroke. Not grabbing keyframes"

because keyframes are hard. I find they give very exact control to the roll off coming off b-roll into an IV - I don't understand how people can just go with dissolves.
I'm always using three keyframes at the break to bring the track down and then give it a long roll off into underscore. Dissolves don't do it for me - never have.


I'm talking about keyframes in the sense of needing to carefully grab a little volume adjuster in the clip and drag it, or open another tab, or click on a fader every time I want to change it's overall level. I use keyframes if I need to, as in your second case above, but not to raise or lower an entire clips level. Also, fade handles in X are way faster than keyframes for the first case you describe.


[Aindreas Gallagher] [Charlie Austin] "Meh. There are plenty of people getting paid to cut in X."
No Charles, there really aren't."


OK, I qualified that. *I* get paid to cut in X. And 7. and potentially MC and/or Pr. I prefer X, and for the most part have the luxury of not having the tools I use chosen for me.

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 6:04:42 pm

[Charlie Austin] "There are plenty of people getting paid to cut in X. When I use it, I get paid. :-)"

And they are specifically asking you to cut in X, or just paying you to cut and don't care what you use? I think it's slightly disingenuous to be referring to the latter.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 6:13:27 pm

[Gary Huff] "And they are specifically asking you to cut in X, or just paying you to cut and don't care what you use? I think it's slightly disingenuous to be referring to the latter."

Fair enough. How about *I* get paid to cut in X. :-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 7:10:09 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Fair enough. How about *I* get paid to cut in X. :-)"

How about, "I get paid to cut...I choose to do it in X"?


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 7:43:05 pm

[Gary Huff] "[Charlie Austin] "Fair enough. How about *I* get paid to cut in X. :-)"

How about, "I get paid to cut...I choose to do it in X"?"


six of one... etc. If the point you're trying to make is that there are limited freelance gigs that call for X, then perhaps you're right. All I'm saying is that, for me, X is faster, easier to organize and find material, and honestly more fun to work with. I find the trackless timeline, imperfect as it is, much quicker to cut in. I'm really not trying to change anyone's mind. The only reason I started posting here was to point out that X is a perfectly viable NLE for professionals to use. I did the same thing when FCP 1 came out, but there weren't any blogs like this to post on, so I just started using it. After a while, so did everyone else. ;-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 8:13:48 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I did the same thing when FCP 1 came out, but there weren't any blogs like this to post on, so I just started using it. After a while, so did everyone else. ;-)"

I did the same thing when Discreet *edit came out and then a few years later Autodesk killed it without a warning and now nobody uses it. The past as prologue has many variations, we only know which one fits after the future becomes the past.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 8:22:59 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The past as prologue has many variations, we only know which one fits after the future becomes the past."

Heavy... :-) But you're right for sure. And I'm not putting all my eggs in one basket by any means. Apple have said they have a 10 year plan for X and i've got no reason not to believe them, so I'm giving it a shot. Maybe that plan doesn't include adding or beefing up professional features, but so far it seems like it does. I guess we'll find out at some point. :shrug:

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 11:07:18 pm

[Charlie Austin] "And I'm not putting all my eggs in one basket by any means. Apple have said they have a 10 year plan for X and i've got no reason not to believe them, so I'm giving it a shot"

I think one of the biggest obstacles that FCPX will have to overcome in getting into large or mid-sized production houses in the future: the fear that apple will pull the rug out from under them.

After years of carving a place in the editing world, FCP Legacy was EOL'd after years of hard-fought acceptance with-in the editing mainstream. A lot of folks had invested time, machinary, and loads of bucks into creating FCP-based editing houses (and if you look at it, it wasn't that big of a time window from FCP Studio to FCPX).

Once burned, twice cautious. I think that one of the big fears of such facilities is that Apple might just scrap their current editing software with a newer shinier version like FCPXX (a complete new paradigm that does not work with FCPX), and render their investment useless.

Maybe Bill is right and the future of editing is leaning towards smaller or one-man type of operation. Still, there were always be a need for the larger houses (no matter how much of their market share may decline). I think Apple has a long hill to climb to build trust with such operations. The folks at Cupertino may not think it is the worth the trouble.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 2:05:31 am

[Clint Wardlow] "Maybe Bill is right and the future of editing is leaning towards smaller or one-man type of operation."

But this is mis-reading my thinking. I don't see the big change as a migration "towards smaller or one-man type operations" at all. I can see why people THINK that from my arguments, but honestly, it's an understandable miss-reading. What I DO see is that even if you have 25 editors working on a project, they are 25 individuals who need tools that empower them EACH to be as productive as possible.

Editing itself is fundamentally NOT a group task. It's an individual task. Somebody has to choose whether it's better to tighten or loosen the cut. And that has to happen in ONE editors brain whether that cut is one of a hundred being generated by a team of editors - or my personal edit on my laptop.

In an ad agency environment (the one I'm most personally familiar with) It's completely common to have more than one person doing editing. But that doesn't mean they're all working on the same project (or even type of project) or for the same client.

Single monolithic projects (movies or TV shows) are the exception in editing, not the norm.

For each project with that as the goal, there's likely a thousand other projects being done this week for use next week that will NEVER see a big screen and NEVER justify a workflow where there are 50 folks in seats all working on putting out ONE project.

Empowering EACH editor to match the tool to the task is WAY more efficient than simply sayin "we're an AVID shop, therefore you have to cut on AVID. I get why that happens. But the new reality is that for the first time in history, the best tools for content creation (both hardware and software) are so affordable that it's no longer very necessary for the EMPLOYER to provide the tools to enable the worker to be tremendously productive.

I mean really, an NLE system is NOT like a CNC machine.

And that changes everything. Literally.

What I'm finally seeing is that X editors are actually spending as much time in the database as they are on the timeline. That's another thing that changes the game.

Pretty soon, your facility with taxonomy might be as important to your success as an editor as your familiarity with J and L cuts.

Which is cool because it's organizational tools like the database that makes a thing like FCP-X a more efficient tool than an NLE without as modern an approach to content search and manipulation.

(I know, I know, Harlan, OTHER software programs have fine media management tools too. That's NOT the point here. Debating which approach is superior is a different conversation. ; )

What's undebatable is that the industry is changing. More content, more often, more source files, and more complexity to be managed.

These are BIG changes.

So it's NOT about "one man band" editing verses facility editing.

EVERYONE is a one man band when they have their fingers on the keyboard.

They might have a dozen or a single person directing or contributing to their work, but they're the one with their fingers on the keyboard.

And I've kinda never seen anyone successfully do "team typing."

FWIW.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:09:16 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the footage organisation possibilities presented by X's tagging pool are inarguably rather seriously sexy. I had OCD thrill moments reading through there."

I have never been able to have every single select and scene available at one time on a timeline as I had with my first spots I edited for broadcast with fcpx.

FCPX allows this.

It is fast, it is highly creative, it is flexible. A director over my shoulder was amazed at how many options we could crank through in very little time.

You could not do this type of editing very well without the magnetic timeline, just sayin'.

Also, this:




Turns in to this:



And what I can't show you is all of the Auditions splayed out. What is very cool to me, as editor, is the sheer amount of creative edit options at my fingertips.

I know you say Apple is destroying the art, I would beg to differ.

But, I am also weird.

I am also constantly writing these posts with an overly conversational tone so I constantly have to come back and edit for posterity. Apologies.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:18:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I know you say Apple is destroying the art, I would beg to differ."

just think of me as an extremely over the top devils advocate. there are a lot of things I like about X, (sans the ludicrous auto connect timeline),
but its a grunt climb to get on board, and when you do - there are no jobs posted for it. And no houses are running it in production.

that is an existential problem.

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


Return to posts index

Jordan Mena
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:28:36 pm

I think you'll change your mind in the next year and a half as FCPX starts adding more features and editors have more time with it. A couple of weeks ago FCPX finally just clicked for me. Know FCP7 and Avid seem like such Dinosaurs. In the next couple of months I'll be asking the house I work for to invest in FCPX because I know I can already do %90 percent of their workflow on X. For broadcast!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 10:54:59 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "just think of me as an extremely over the top devils advocate. there are a lot of things I like about X, (sans the ludicrous auto connect timeline),
but its a grunt climb to get on board, and when you do - there are no jobs posted for it. And no houses are running it in production."


I see. Because you don't want to (or can't, or isn't worth to) put the time in and grunt climb, it's an Apple fail to the entire history of editing.

Existential indeed!


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 12:42:47 am

I think you misunderstand - let me make this more clear for you :)

it is hard to justify the time and effort when there is no professional or financial reward - there are no jobs or freelance gigs posted for it.

that is an existential problem for the software.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:01:04 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I think you misunderstand - let me make this more clear for you :)

it is hard to justify the time and effort when there is no professional or financial reward - there are no jobs or freelance gigs posted for it.

that is an existential problem for the software."


It's an existential problem for your relationship with the software.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:25:35 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's an existential problem for your relationship with the software."

yes exactly - for anyone's relationship with the software jeremy - why train yourself on software that is not being used by any employers, and that is not posted for any gigs.

you understand that right? this isn't a hobbyist pursuit, and there is a lot of software and training competing for finite time.

Why learn quite non-standard, one off organisational editing software that has no professional benefit? that no houses are using and no jobs are posted for?

Try and think about it clearly - how is that not an existential problem for this software?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:37:31 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "yes exactly - for anyone's relationship with the software jeremy - why train yourself on software that is not being used by any employers, and that is not posted for any gigs."

I mentioned that in one of my posts. For you and your needs, it might not make sense (won't, can't, or not worth putting in the effort).

But that does not mean that the entire editing industry a nosedive to hell as there are editors that are making money on it, perhaps just not on any "job posts".

I get that it doesn't make sense for you.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 2:04:04 am

[Jeremy Garchow] " there are editors that are making money on it, perhaps just not on any "job posts"."

ah yes - the hidden multitude who walk silently among us.. :)

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 8:57:08 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "ah yes - the hidden multitude who walk silently among us.. :)
"


I wouldn't say Bill was exactly silent

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 1:56:07 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Why learn quite non-standard, one off organisational editing software that has no professional benefit? that no houses are using and no jobs are posted for?"

I'm not sure why I bother, I guess I like a challenge but...

You're probably correct when you say no houses are using it and no jobs are posted for it right now. But, and I can't speak for London here, there are people using it here in LA. Maybe not a lot, but they're getting paid to use it. I'm pretty confident that we'll all be using it where I work sooner or later. And I know we're not the only folks dipping our toes in it. So, eventually, there will be jobs calling for it. Maybe not at the "big" houses for now, but it's gonna happen. Mark my words. Please. Copy this and tuck it away for... let's say a year.

Anyway... A clever freelancer who knows a variety of NLE's might also want to become proficient in X because, since everyone hates it so much and won't learn it, that clever editor would have whatever jobs pop up all to themselves. Just saying...

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 9:00:25 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Try and think about it clearly - how is that not an existential problem for this software?
"


Plenty of Avid jobs around, LOTS of Post Houses using it, yet it has an existential problem as well doesn't it? There are no Vegas jobs yet that carries on, same was true of PPro for years as well.

I know you REALLY want it to die, but it's not going to I'm afraid.

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 2:46:47 pm

[Steve Connor] "I know you REALLY want it to die, but it's not going to I'm afraid."

Well, no reason not to try.

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


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:42:54 pm

Totally agree. Being able to cycle through options so rapidly is fantastic for agency sessions. And Agency creatives love love Auditions. Plus, with the vast amounts of footage that is now the norm on any halfway decent shoot the tagging etc is a godsend.

I got on board at version 10.04, so I guess I missed a lot of the angst that came before. The timeline doesn't bother me, t's quirky but I'm ok with those quirks.

I like FCPX.


Return to posts index

Jok Daniel
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:42:43 pm

The database features do sound stellar and very very useful, but is there any way to organize clips spatially in fcpx? In other NLEs, I like to use the layout of the clips in the bin for organizational and creative purposes, can I do that in fcpx?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 1:19:25 am

[Jok Daniel] " but is there any way to organize clips spatially in fcpx? In other NLEs, I like to use the layout of the clips in the bin for organizational and creative purposes, can I do that in fcpx?"


Nope. one cramped Avid super bin/scrubbing exposure area.
Apple, in their wisdom, decided to make editing a GTD (get things done) tagging application ala evernote say, with one exposing area for the keywords - clips and subclips are categorised into a semantic word tagging pool on the left event area, and tag queries are exposed, one at a time, at the event or keyword level, in the event browser on the right.

it looks, and sounds, just super clever. It's actually, possibly, fundamentally dumb with regard to an editor's cognitive and spatial appraisal and understanding of the various assets, but Apple themselves felt very, very clever when they decided to do this.

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 2:08:05 am

I never look for keywords in the Event browser anymore. It's way too easy to just type in a couple of search strings to get to a clip or group of clips in an Event of 1000s. Or of course you can set up a smart collection for any search you'll be visiting frequently.

I've also really taken to the method described recently where you tag elements in their name, such as JohnQuinLower3rd.GFX. By setting up a smart collection looking for the search string "GFX", you instantly create a watch folder for any GFX element you import.

Love media management in X. LOVE. IT.



Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 7:01:27 am

It's actually, possibly, fundamentally dumb with regard to an editor's cognitive and spatial appraisal and understanding of the various assets,

This is very harsh and totally disregards the fact that plenty of us find this not to be the case. There was a thread on here earlier which highlighted the different ways in which people like to work, so if your argument is that X doesn't have the same flexibility that editors are used to, then that's something I'd certainly agree with it.

But characterising the underpinnings of X as being fundamentally dumb is very dismissive of the real innovation that does exist within the software.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 11:48:14 am

[Sandeep Sajeev] "But characterising the underpinnings of X as being fundamentally dumb"

absolutely not - there are tons of deeply smart things going on - I am only suggesting that opting for a non visual, non spatial semantic tagging pool for all your various video assets may in fact not be the most useful thing for an editor.
That no matter how smart and well thought through the execution, it might have been a dumb decision to begin with.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 9:29:04 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I am only suggesting that opting for a non visual, non spatial semantic tagging pool for all your various video assets may in fact not be the most useful thing for an editor. "

And until you live with the new approach, your suggestion is based on theory and supposition, not on fact.

You may be conditioned to the NLE equivalent of not being happy unless all your postcards are thumbtacked to a huge physical bulletin board so you can "visually locate" the ones with PINK in them. And that might have satisfied you in the past and you might be stuck thinking that taking away your ability to do the visual choice will impede your editing.... BUT....

After learning X, you discover it's trivial to just VISUALLY select every scene with PINK in it - and drop it in a PINK keyword collection.

X is built around the idea that ANYONE can understand keystroking R then E - and before you even type anything else, you're given an instant VISUAL view of every clip with PINK in it. So there's no need to constantly search the HUGE visual field unless you elect to.

But the serious thing that many editors overlook is that the amount of visual material we have to deal with is INCREASING quite rapidly. The "pin it to the bulletin board" idea simply doesn't work if you have tens of thousands of post cards. It's simply impossible to resolve information within that large a database. So you MUST learn tools that solve those problems if you want to remain relevant in a future where restricting your view to ONE "bulletin board" manageable project might not be even possible in a media saturated future.

X is, IMO, a precursor to industry CHANGE that is real, inexorable and unstoppable. More stuff we need to work with. More complexity. More potential disorganization. It's not a few cameras or a few audio sources, it's potentially arrays of cameras and arrays of mics (not to mention arrays of still shots and smart phones and crowd sourced content, etc, etc, etc.)

It's going to increasingly be "organize or die" in the media future.

So an editing approach built around organizational tools that are designed for the tools and processes we have now, rather than those designed back when film came on physical film came on reels - kinda makes sense to me.

But whatever.

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 10:09:28 pm

[Bill Davis] "But the serious thing that many editors overlook is that the amount of visual material we have to deal with is INCREASING quite rapidly. The "pin it to the bulletin board" idea simply doesn't work if you have tens of thousands of post cards. It's simply impossible to resolve information within that large a database. So you MUST learn tools that solve those problems if you want to remain relevant in a future where restricting your view to ONE "bulletin board" manageable project might not be even possible in a media saturated future.
"


totally, totally valid counter, but tens of thousands is rather an outlier - also to my understanding the entire event and project library becomes increasingly sluggish at those loads in X - its been said on here a bit.

In point of fact - the only editing system I know that flies at the kind of count is Avid.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 4:59:55 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "it looks, and sounds, just super clever. It's actually, possibly, fundamentally dumb with regard to an editor's cognitive and spatial appraisal and understanding of the various assets, but Apple themselves felt very, very clever when they decided to do this."

Spacial organization — manual spacial organization, at least — largely falls apart as the number of items to be organized rises. This is probably why you've seen the spacial metaphors of the 'Classic' Mac OS finder fade away as well.

But perhaps Apple should look at ways to automatically create trees or clusters of clips laid out in 2D space based on metadata. Apple recently acquired a bunch of patents related to 'axis-based user interface' that could be relevant here.



(Although my suspicion is that their primary relevance is to some post-hierarchical file system scheme Apple is working on for iOS.)

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Jok Daniel
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:39:24 am

[Chris Kenny] "Spacial organization — manual spacial organization, at least — largely falls apart as the number of items to be organized rises. "

True, and that's why any half-decent NLE is built on top of a robust database. But these features hardly supersede or obsolete spatial organization, at least not in my workflow. Sure, I am dealing with much more material today than I did five years ago (approx three times as much, since the switch from film to digital formats), and these features are more useful than ever.

But when I am working on a specific scene, the clips I need at hand are rarely too many for a spatial approach. And to me, it's a crucial part of the process. Diving in and getting to really know my material. Knowing where everything is, and where to look for that shot that could save a scene.

FCPX emphasizes tagging, "skimming" (i.e. browsing your footage without actually engaging with it) and "smart" collections at the expense of more spatial and tactile approaches. It seems to promote database queries instead of true familiarity with your working materials. Not sure that's a good thing.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 3:41:30 pm

[Jok Daniel] "FCPX emphasizes tagging, "skimming" (i.e. browsing your footage without actually engaging with it) and "smart" collections at the expense of more spatial and tactile approaches. It seems to promote database queries instead of true familiarity with your working materials"

As a longtime user of FCPX I disagree with that assertion completely.

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 4:04:56 pm

[Steve Connor] "As a longtime user of FCPX I disagree with that assertion completely."

maybe expand that a fraction - what is the basis for your disagreement?

"It seems to promote database queries instead of true familiarity with your working materials. Not sure that's a good thing."

is this statement incorrect? Feels right to me.
Isn't this the exact trade off with X? greater speed in appraisal, but with some associated, real, cognitive shortcuts?

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


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 4:31:28 pm

"It seems to promote database queries instead of true familiarity with your working materials. Not sure that's a good thing."

is this statement incorrect? Feels right to me.
Isn't this the exact trade off with X? greater speed in appraisal, but with some associated, real, cognitive shortcuts?


I think this depends on how you like to work. If you're used to associating footage with Bins, and that's been your pre-cut process, then Keywords etc are a refined progression of that concept and make it very clear exactly where you're at, if that makes sense? Add in Ranges, Favorites, and NG's and it's a very streamlined package.

However if you're used to working through your selects etc in the timeline, it's probably not as useful.

The inability to manually arrange your clips within these Collections can also be an issue if you like to storyboard your edits before you cut them in. I know lots of editors who like to this, hell when I sit on Smoke, this is how I like to operate as well. So yes, while there are some real issues that it can throw up, it seems to be, in my opinion of course, dependent to a certain degree on how you like to work.

To me, this is the one major shortcoming that Apple needs to address; the program needs to be adaptable to different modes of working.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 9:31:32 pm

in the end - I think a footage item is an object, I think I am required at the outset to develop fundamental familiarity with the assets available - the argument proposed is that proliferating material and cheap DSLRs makes that an unsustainable proposition. I don't think thats true.

Let me make an argument - I had to do a piece for a sports brand there nine months ago (I need to update my stuff - its not the most recent thing!), where they had shot a total of nearly 24 hours of rushes across nearly a dozen cameras at SXSW - the finished piece was a high level pitch for their engagement (they had spent a ton on brand presence) the finished piece was to be two minutes, but had to hit a million little points.

the wind up to editing was three and a half days days - so that was footage review, naming and marking in the day date camera original bins, then taking those master bins, with all the clips keyword named (with some tagged markers per clip), and then judging a whole new set of bins - crowd react day, different sport items, timelapse, different music acts, evening events - basically figuring the ideal number and nature of the final edit bins to work with -and then going through and populating all the clips into those new category bins.

then I made select sequences for all the major tasty stuff in each new category bin.

the great thing is that at the end of that - you really, really know what the hell is going on. And when the client comes back and says that the third aerial skateboard overhead is a bit meh - you have multiple redundant avenues of organization to explore - the original camera day date bins (which are all still down the bottom quietly in a master bin), the category bins that you put everything in, and the prime cut selects for each category bin.

When it come to the sharp end, having been through all those bins, and skimmed all those selects - you get a deeply, deeply trustworthy understanding of the assets.

things go a lot quicker at the end: you can move very nimbly at the most important time, and as Jok points out - you have intimate spatial understanding of where every single body is buried.

for the curious - this was the piece:

I think X's stuff is dead smart, but there is no way it is not meant to cognitively hopscotch over initial footage analysis - superquick skimming and tagging is the order of the day.

not my own cup of tea.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 9:42:12 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I think X's stuff is dead smart, but there is no way it is not meant to cognitively hopscotch over initial footage analysis - superquick skimming and tagging is the order of the day."

That's simply down to how you use it, somehow suggesting that the software aims to limit familiarity with footage is simply ludicrous.

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:03:42 pm

then why is it that the footage item has exactly one route? it routes only into semantic tags on the left. It one step diffuses footage into an undifferentiated database tag query.

FCPX is only left right Steve - there are no places. there is an event containing database tags - and one viewer to see those tags exposed: the event viewer.

A lot of people on here remark on its speed - give me at least the point that I have mucked around pretty extensively with the software - I've even mocked up alternative keyframing apparatus for God's sake. I am aware of the fundamental speed up in the event area tagging.

that system which Apple are employing is intended to short circuit a lot of the classical footage interrogation steps - you rapidly diffuse all the footage into a database set of tag queries - the argument is that you are in fact, by limiting it to this - one step, make a tag database, and then view those tags in the viewer -fundamentally limiting spatial and cognitive understanding of the assets at hand.

Steve - i actually kind of think this could be true. I'm not saying this for argument giggles.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:28:14 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Steve - i actually kind of think this could be true."

and as I keep saying, based on nearly 20 years of editing experience and nearly two years of actually using the software, it's not true. It certainly does it differently but it absolutely does not limit the edit process.

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:38:10 pm

but steve - I have some idea what I'm doing too - and I've got a decade and a half (sort of, he said brushing mograph and 3D eras under the rug)

[Steve Connor] " It certainly does it differently but it absolutely does not limit the edit process."

you can say it doesn't - but your professional experience doesn't exclusively validate your position.
I'm looking at the exact same thing - and I really think it may have inherent cognitive limitations and drawbacks.

our positions, as they say, differ.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 11:05:54 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you can say it doesn't - but your professional experience doesn't exclusively validate your position.
I'm looking at the exact same thing - and I really think it may have inherent cognitive limitations and drawbacks.

our positions, as they say, differ."


That's true, I'm coming from the position of liking and using the software and you're coming from a fanatical hate with a little bit of tinkering around with it :)

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:49:07 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that system which Apple are employing is intended to short circuit a lot of the classical footage interrogation steps - you rapidly diffuse all the footage into a database set of tag queries - the argument is that you are in fact, by limiting it to this - one step, make a tag database, and then view those tags in the viewer -fundamentally limiting spatial and cognitive understanding of the assets at hand."

Here, have some more sauce.

Seriously though, it's starting to devolve in to insanity, comments like this.

Because of this:

[Aindreas Gallagher] "footage review, naming and marking in the day date camera original bins, then taking those master bins, with all the clips keyword named (with some tagged markers per clip), and then judging a whole new set of bins - crowd react day, different sport items, timelapse, different music acts, evening events - basically figuring the ideal number and nature of the final edit bins to work with -and then going through and populating all the clips into those new category bins.

then I made select sequences for all the major tasty stuff in each new category bin."


If you replace the word "bins" with keyword collection or other FCPX conventions, you easily could have been discussing FCPX. I thought you said you have used FCPX? Once you start adding your favorites, which is the real interrogation process, or range based keywords, you know exactly where that footage is and most likely what is in it.

There is nothing stopping you from watching the blasted footage in FCPX, and organizing it, either to memory, or to a "place".

Also, being able to preorganize and label of the audio channels before editing, being able to setup a smart collection to organize your footage by date (or day, or hour, or angle, or whatever you'd like) allows you to actually get to watching the footage without having to run it through the sifter to make the existing flour in to more useable flour just to bake a cake. Have more footage that comes in later? Import it and FCPX sifts it so you can keep making cakes. What makes more money, sifting flour or selling cakes?

Why the hell did I bring baking in to this?


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:58:05 pm

I think perhaps we're misunderstanding what Aindreas is saying?

As an aside, it would help if the FCPX training that is out there actually consists of projects that are halfway representative of real world projects that editors get.

The Ripple Re-enactment Fighters deal and Larry Jordan's Garden Gnome and talking head are so far removed from reality to be ridiculous.

When I was learning Mocha through Curious Turtle, they weren't dicking around, it was proper problems with proper solutions.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 11:36:44 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Here, have some more sauce."

gentle there Garchow - ala Tim's admonition - ad hominem attacks are somewhat off the menu, and I am, as we speak, cutting a client piece late here.

you really do run quite a line in overt agression when it suits you.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 11:55:08 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "gentle there Garchow - ala Tim's admonition - ad hominem attacks are somewhat off the menu, and I am, as we speak, cutting a client piece late here.

you really do run quite a line in overt agression when it suits you."


For telling you to drink some more of my crazy FCPX Kool-Aid sauce?

How is that an attack on you? I was attacking myself. If you are trying to help me by saying that I am being overly aggressive towards myself, well, then, you may have a point.

I figure, at this point, my comments are largely ignored as I post too much about how FCPX actually works in a professional environment, and I how I actually think there are aspects of it that help me get my job done better (not just faster). That's all I really care about. I am sure you could care less about any of that.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 9, 2013 at 12:01:03 am

mmm. sure.

just as an example - your three blind mice piece always stuck in my head.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 9, 2013 at 1:21:22 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "mmm. sure.

just as an example - your three blind mice piece always stuck in my head."


I have no idea what you are talking about.

Care to enlighten?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 9, 2013 at 3:47:31 pm

you made aggressive derogatory remarks abut people on the cow who had supported piops.

in it you took to referring to them as the three blind mice. your language was very aggressive. the cow chose to delete that entry. I could see why.

I'm sure you don't remember this.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 9, 2013 at 4:08:04 pm

Are you referring to this?

It wasn't me: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/45138


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 9, 2013 at 4:56:28 pm

Your response: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/45154


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 9, 2013 at 5:12:20 pm

oh dammit i'm terrible - sorry garchow.

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


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 10:46:59 pm

I guess I'm not understanding. How does X hamper your workflow? Because it sounds to me almost exactly like mine, and I find that I work a lot quicker and more efficiently without compromising on my familiarity with the footage.

A recent example: I was working on a series of Digital Cinema spots for a sportswear brand. Multiple cameras shooting all around the world, 15 shoot days with 3 cameras a day, sometimes 4 or 5 if production went in for specialized rigs. Sound recorded separately.

I'd get the footage in at the end of the day on hard-drives. Bringing them into X was painless, fast and I was able to start going through the rushes right away. Syncing sound was a breeze, as was syncing clips with multiple angles.

The time spent going through the material was the same, because that's not something that you can speed up, if you're conscientious. But skimming helps - it's less clicking and when dealing with vast amounts of footage, personally it makes a big difference to me. Keywording and Smart Collections help in rapidly organizing the material - I have for instance a Collection set up for very specific 'high speed action shots with good hair', as that was in the mood board. And I can instantly reference that in the session.

I can also go through and stabilize certain shots that may need it, so that when I put them in my 1st cut to present to the agency, the Creative Director doesn't say "Hmmm it's nice but is there something without the jerk".

I can line up various takes in an Audition and we can cycle through at the click of a button until we find something that makes someone happy. Or when someone says "I thought we had that on one of the takes toward the end" I can reference it instantly and play it in context.

I find that the features in X help me, not edit better, but make better use of my time as an editor.

In fact on another series of spots that we worked on, (we were producers and post was handled by an in house agency team) I'd come back at the end of the day, feed the footage into X, sync sound etc and be done in a couple of hours at the most. The agency team had assists come in at night and work through until the morning syncing, sub-clipping etc so that the editors could start around noon.

And then they start going through the footage. So there's a significant difference.

My take on spatial awareness in the NLE, is knowing where that clip you liked on that scrub through a couple of hours ago is. At least for me, sometimes it takes time for the significance of something to register. And it's easier now to just tag something that's not Key, but might be nice to work in maybe as a jump cut or an element comped in somewhere, and know where it is and be able to access it quickly.

This is why I find it hard to understand how people work through the Finder - I'd be lost inside the NLE in that case.

Perhaps I'm missing the point though?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 11:29:23 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "Keywording and Smart Collections help in rapidly organizing the material"

that is the same as it ever was. One thing I find funny is this overemphasis on smart collections - a browser search on 7 presents a persistent bin containing the search query for instance. Although yes - it is a search return - it will not populate future similar items.

And yes - ok - audio sync is nice, but to my understanding, X is not in a position to assemble a grab bag of multiple rushes and multiple wavs? Maybe thats out of date, but my understanding was that it was not pluraleyes.

[Sandeep Sajeev] "I can also go through and stabilize certain shots that may need it,"
again that seems tangential - and warp stabiliser beats it into a bloody pulp.

[Sandeep Sajeev] "I can line up various takes in an Audition"
the rippling effect on the timeline with multiple takes of different lengths seems extremely disadvantageous to me.

[Sandeep Sajeev] "My take on spatial awareness in the NLE, is knowing where that clip you liked on that scrub through a couple of hours ago is. At least for me, sometimes it takes time for the significance of something to register. And it's easier now to just tag something that's not Key, but might be nice to work in maybe as a jump cut or an element comped in somewhere, and know where it is and be able to access it quickly."

ok - but this in no way answers the fact that you have exactly a one step process - footage to tags. you have an event and its viewer - you can open no bins, you can develop no familiarity with those bins, you cannot choose at certain points to arrange those bins of familiar material on a second screen.

look - that is not old hat.

Exactly all you have is an event with semantic sub tags - and a single event viewer for those keyword tags.

As Bill rightly points out - there are limits to colour coded postcard bulletin boards.

But (A): in personal experience with very contemporary footage volume workflows - we haven't reached it.

and (B): the absence of that intimate differentiated footage item awareness space (literally space) has costs.

You have exactly two things: an event with keyword tags, and a viewer to view them in - one at a time.

that feels highly restrictive.

there are no multiple sites at once, there is no cross examination, there is no spatial recall - there are a lot of memory paths cut out there - a lot of what we do relies on us making spontaneous links at critical junctures, we need to reach somewhere to do that - is that a single list of semantic tags to click?
half the reason why I, or anyone, has over-elaborate set up routines is to allow the possibility of that potential memory link to bed in.

I literally over organise to get a pay off.

X, in my view has cut beyond organisational fat into marrow - I need spatial stuff. I need places and other places where things once were.
we virtualise clips into the select sequences anyway.

the whole editing game, to some degree, is finding a way to allow associative recall at a critical juncture - sure aren't all memory feats built on the construction of virtual rooms? Derren Brown is extremely interesting on that point. He constructs incredibly spatial memory awareness constructs to allow card count recall.
Quite literally rooms with objects in them - its worth looking up. Spatial awareness constructs harness memory to an incredible degree.

there is a reason editing systems have historically had rooms, and folders, and bins, and attics (seriously - think about that - classic lightworks had attics).

but as the man says - I'm sure Apple felt very, very smart when they decided to do this tagging malarky. I'm just not sure they did their intellectual homework.

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


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 9, 2013 at 12:07:53 am

Ok, I can see where it is lacking for you. Thanks for the detailed response.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 9, 2013 at 12:30:16 am

pretty detailed indeed :) - but in general terms, spatially aided memory is basically true - as editors we are largely engaged in an associative memory recall process.

the issue would be that apple thought the whole gig could be closed down to a locked event and viewer tagging process, with one set of tags to the left, and one single viewer for those tags. Apple might have actually miscued basic editing cognitive requirements here.

Garchow scoffing aside - there might be some fundamental problems in X.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 8, 2013 at 5:34:17 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "maybe expand that a fraction"

That I will

[Aindreas Gallagher] ""It seems to promote database queries instead of true familiarity with your working materials. Not sure that's a good thing."

is this statement incorrect? Feels right to me.


It's completely incorrect, although if you read Bill's post you might imagine the first part of the statement is true. The excellent database structure is there if you want to use it, but it doesn't force you to in any way.

I know it may be heresy for some but I DON'T USE KEYWORDS! Well that's not entirely true I use them in the same way as I used bins in FCP Classic, I'll occasionally keyword the odd specific shot but that's about it. In fact I cut a whole freaking movie that way. I'm all about immersing myself in the material I have and the skimmer gets me through it very quickly. Yes I know you can drop all your footage on a timeline and sometimes I still do that in FCPX.

I also like to be tactile on my timeline, I like throwing footage on the timeline and to play around with different assemblies until I start to "feel" the edit starting to come together, which despite the lack of tracks you can actually still do in FCPX. I can't work edits up in the browser at all, I'm just not that organised.

So despite not actually using many of the excellent features that FCPX offers, I still think it's the fastest NLE I've ever used and we're not even at the first point revision yet.

Obviously this is just my personal experience of using it Professionally for close on two years and I can understand if it doesn't fit other Editors style of working, but to say it hinders familiarity with your materials is completely wrong.

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:04:42 pm

I highly recommend a recent iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, or the latest version of the Mac Mini. For feature films, you should have at least 16 gigs of RAM and the best graphics card that’s available to you.

Then why suggest the latest version of the Mac Mini with it's Intel 4000 GPU?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Interesting little series...
on Mar 7, 2013 at 9:38:11 pm

[Gary Huff] "Then why suggest the latest version of the Mac Mini with it's Intel 4000 GPU?"

If I was responsible for off-loading the footage from a dozen cameras - I bet half a dozen minis loaded with ShotPut Pro attached to modest rez racked LCD monitors would ROCK for a DIT. Manage the keywording via a laptop running X - but assign the transcoding and proxy generation to Mini's and I bet productivity would skyrocket.

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

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