FORUMS: list search recent posts

Progress!

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 3:59:37 pm

Yes, the "traditional professional way" is valuable and useful.

Yes, new technology can make it easier to achieve more with less.

Yes, experience and talent is also valuable and can often overcome many prior limitations when used by people of imagination and ability.

Maybe the best of both worlds takes place when people who've been schooled in the traditions, adopt the newer simpler modes of expression, embrace technology that drives complexity OUT of creation - and use a combination of new and old tools to create excellent work.

Today's example...







What once took a world class studio and dozens of pros and tens of thousands of dollars to realize, can be successfully re-imagined by a couple of older guys with serious chops and who aren't afraid to use the technology that's evolved over time.

Rock on.

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: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 4:27:46 pm

That is no way compares to this. Sorry. this is gold, don't kill my vibe:







;)

Honestly, though, I don't get your point. A couple of musicians with some talent, a few mics, and acoustic guitars is new school all of a sudden?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 4:28:53 pm

Nice piece. I get your point. A nice acoustic cover hardly makes a good example of that point, since they didn't actually replicate the original result.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 4:56:21 pm

If your standard is "replication" then nope.

But what if your standard is "access to satisfying entertainment at an affordable price."

I literally cannot go see Toto do this live. And if I could, it would likely cost me far upwards of $100 per ticket if I could even get access to them. (actually, from what I know about the god awful state of the ticket industry these days there's actually almost no way I could get a decent ticket to a Toto reunion show unless I held the "proper" colored credit card and/or had inside connections. Supply and demand has kinda ruined the concert industry for all but those with major disposable incomes in the modern world - but that's a discussion for another day.)

If I'd wandered into that Pizza joint, it looks like I would have had free access to a wonderfully entertaining experience that embodies a HUGE and satisfying helping of the original work - for the price of a pizza.

And sorry, but that those guys even COULD create a "sound" that aligns that well to a record that took huge investment of time and expertise to originally create is pretty amazing.

My hope is that it means that guys like these will develop enough of a following so that they can try to do something original with their talents. Or maybe not. Maybe they're just doing it out of LOVE for the music and the internal satisfaction of doing something they love - really well.

The important thing in my mind isn't how it compares to the original - it's how valuable the work is on it's own. And I think these guys did VERY valuable work - and I'm delighted to be living in a connected era where there's finally an accessible infrastructure in place so that there's a way I can enjoy a couple of guys in a pizza joint in Utah KILLING a cover of a song I love.

Nothing else really matters.

Art and effort has new ways to find an audience. Good.

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: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:01:57 pm

[Bill Davis] "But what if your standard is "access to satisfying entertainment at an affordable price.""

Then you have poor standards.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:12:18 pm

I live in Westchester, the northern suburbs of NYC. On any given Wednesday nite I can go to one of a dozen places within ten miles of my house and hear guys of this equivalent talent playing live, not for the cost of a pizza, but with the pizza itself. Why would I want to reduce the beauty of a live performance with a youtube recording?

World class recordings exist to replace the value of "live" when you're stuck sitting at home. Sitting at home to listen to guys like this only works if one of them is your kid.

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:18:03 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Why would I want to reduce the beauty of a live performance with a youtube recording?
"


Yeah!

Screw those guys on PBS and Bernstein and Tosconnini, and all the other traitors who did visual recordings of music that we all know must be seen live in order to be valid.

The dolts.

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: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:21:09 pm

[Bill Davis] "Screw those guys on PBS and Bernstein and Tosconnini, and all the other traitors who did visual recordings of music that we all know must be seen live in order to be valid."

That was a really nice strawman you made there. Quite a striking likeness!


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:55:51 pm

[Bill Davis] "Screw those guys on PBS and Bernstein and Tosconnini, and all the other traitors who did visual recordings of music that we all know must be seen live in order to be valid. The dolts."

What is it Bill, you having problems reading English today.

I specifically said that it order to make up for missing the "live"ness of a performance you have to have world class recordings. It's really a simple pleasure equation: live performance with average musicians = recorded performance with great musicians. Best of all is live performance with great musicians, but for that you have to give up the pizza.

And yes, live is better than recorded in most circumstances, be it music, dance or baseball. That doesn't mean I'm against broadcasting Yankee games, but it does mean there's no TV in the world that beats going to a playoff game at Yankee Stadium at nite.

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


Return to posts index


Craig Alan
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 11:47:05 pm

Depends. Have had good/bad experiences with each - live and recorded. Variables: acoustics, scope, company, atmosphere, talent, and type of compositions. Live performance and recordings are not the same. There have been great records and great performances. Recorded live is not the same as a live performance.

I agree that being at Yankee Stadium is an over-priced trip worth taking. I love sitting mid-way up behind the catcher. You don’t miss a thing except an accurate view of a pitch being high or low. Baseball is often beatifically telecast however. You often don’t miss a thing from several angles. Not so with hockey or figure skating where the speed and dimensions of the ice are not well translated to the screen.

There are performers that are just better live – they project both near and far into the hall. James Earl Jones, Maggie Smith, Nicol Williamson, are all great on screen but once in a life time live; Al Pacino and many other movie stars play better on screen, less is more. A lot of live concerts do not sound as good as a good recording played through quality speakers. Sure you can’t beat the sound of an acoustic guitar played in a living room with no need for mikes or speakers. If I had to choose between my favorite recordings and some mediocre cover band at the local tavern (not that we need to choose) but if I had to … I’m going with the originals.

Live shows are becoming multi media. Hard to tell what’s real and what’s recorded. Michael Jackson was considered one of the greatest live performers of his era. But I’ve talked to people who worked with him and they say there was no way he could sing and dance through many of the numbers. Now he did record the songs, but it was not all live.

As an old teacher of mine once said over and over till I got it: it’s not a matter of either/or; it’s both/and. Of course this is self contradictory because there are times you have to make a decision. Whose side ya gonna be on?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:15:55 pm

[Bill Davis] "If your standard is "replication" then nope.

But what if your standard is "access to satisfying entertainment at an affordable price.""


Recording on a cell phone and posting it to the web aside, what action in that video couldn't be done 20 years ago in 1993?

Seriously, I'm curious.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:26:40 pm

Seriously,

I could never have stumbled across it burried five layers deep in the comment section of a non-related Reddit post (reddit didn't exist 20 years ago) - I wouldn't have been schooled that there's little or no penalty to take a moment from my busy day to click and follow that link and enjoy the music.

I wasn't on Creative Cow 20 years ago, so I couldn't have shared the link.

Plus, 20 years ago, I wouldn't have been doing my work from my own studio - making possible a situation where I don't have to sit in someone elses office following their rules for how I spend my time.

So if your point is that the creation tools are functionally no different - then OK. I can accept that since I don't know enough about music performance to know whether the duo was using tech that wasn't readily available to guys in bars 20 years ago to affordably re-create the sounds that took a million dollar studio back in Toto's era of prime popularity. . But literlly EVERYTHING else about how this discussion is taking place supported by new methods of social interaction and data plumbing that were's pervasive 20 years ago.

So that may be seen as progress. At least by me.

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: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:57:53 pm

[Bill Davis] "But literlly EVERYTHING else about how this discussion is taking place supported by new methods of social interaction and data plumbing that were's pervasive 20 years ago.

So that may be seen as progress. At least by me."


I am just wondering what the "Progress!" you are trying to point out exactly, using the cover band as an exmaple. In 1993, you could have put this on CompuServe or AOL?

YouTube went online 7 years ago. Yes, the internet has grown up a lot since the 90s and since 2005.

There is no doubt that fundamental methods of communication are changing since I can instantly show you where I am, instead having to describe it in a letter and you read it a week later, is that what we are really talking about here?

1993, you could have a cover band at a pizza joint so we can't really be talking about the obvious. Ironically, YouTube started in offices above a pizza joint.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 6:35:58 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "In 1993, you could have put this on CompuServe or AOL?"

Well, having been on Compuserve in that era (any other CB Simulator users out there?)

I doubt anyone would have enjoyed the experience very as a 160x120 10fps mpeg1 file!

FCP was NAB 1999. So seven years earlier would have been what? Macromedia Director? Early Amiga? Maybe something like Videoworks? Can't remember that far back with much clarity.

I was probably doing commercials at the local TV station on BetaSP and renting an EVO-9700 to start to learn camcorder editing at home.

But the guys in the labs of the time would certainly have passed a music clip or two around via Usenet.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:19:52 pm

[Bill Davis] "If I'd wandered into that Pizza joint, it looks like I would have had free access to a wonderfully entertaining experience that embodies a HUGE and satisfying helping of the original work - for the price of a pizza."

Good grief! That's the standard by which you are making a judgment? And then somehow extrapolating that to software? By that yardstick cat videos on YouTube are an equal quality measurement.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:47:43 pm

[Oliver Peters] "By that yardstick cat videos on YouTube are an equal quality measurement."

Well yes.

Some of the cat video on YouTube are actually kinda wonderful. Not all, but plenty. And so wha'ts your point? that because it's a cat video it therefore must be viewed as crap?

Wow to that view. Heck, IMO, Nyan Cat is no less culturally potent than other huge swaths of artistic work over time. And like it or not, Grumpy Cat more money (and WAY more people smile) than any of us managed to over the past year.

Hell, The Monkees were important to their audience in their heyday at a level close to that of the Beatles. But remember, that the Beatles achieved massive popularity at a time when they weren't particularly artistically potent at all. I Want to Hold Your Hand wan't exactly musical Proust - but it still struck emotional chords in human beings that resonate to this day.

I actually don't think you or I or anyone else is particularly qualified to tell anyone else what constitutes a "quality" entertainment experience for them.

In some of the seminars I did on video production back in the day, I would commonly to argue in FAVOR or the need to edit something like a wedding video (a form I never participated in, sadly, but one for which I have a lot of respect) very differently from a typical video work - precisely because the primary audience for that work would have a massive internal dialog taking place when they watched it. And what would seem to be an massively overlong slow pan of the crowd - one that would bore a typical audience to death - would NOT bore the audience that the video was addressing. They'd be saying "oh, look - there's Uncle Jim - before he lost all that weight" and a thousand other internal references that meant something to that viewer that would escape another one.

I don't enjoy the old song "Louie Louie" because it was great musical art. I enjoy the hell out of hearing it because it reminds me of an era and a set of feelings that make me smile. I remember being a little kid and trying to hear the "dirty" lyrics. With my friends. After school.

And you can argue the simple chords, inarticulate phrasing and dismal production values all you like - but it's a BETTER piece of lasting work for me than a hundred Montivanni recordings done in Capitol Studios with the finest orchestral contractors on the planet.

We're all snobs about stuff.

What's tiresome is never coming to understand that the stuff we're snobs about isn't necessarily the stuff that other people are snobs about. And presupposing that our brand of snobbery is superior to theirs.

And Yep, that's me as much as anyone else.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 6:00:29 pm

Bill,

You are arguing quality, entertainment and content. All very valid points and I agree. I'm merely pointing out you seem to be trying to extrapolate that to X versus 7 and there simply is no connection. At least not that I can see, nor most of the other folks who have replied here. That's all. And yes, it was entertaining - at least to me.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 6:23:12 pm

One of the best covers I have seen of Toto's Africa was during a live karakoe session at a bar in Chicago.

It was absolutely fantastic. It was the tightest live karaoke band I have ever witnessed, and the audience volunteer had the voice of an angel. I also had some merlot beers, so perhaps it was just entertaining for the moment, and to the people around me sharing the moment.

I do not mind Real Toto and Toto Proxies as entertainment. I am just looking for "Progress!" to be an FCPX update, or a Pr update that includes an offline/online transcoding workflow.

I guess we all need different things.

Bill, I kind of enjoy your posts most of the time, I just want to still believe that you know that live music in a Utahn pizza joint in the year 2010 might not rewrite history.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 6:55:57 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Bill, I kind of enjoy your posts most of the time, I just want to still believe that you know that live music in a Utahn pizza joint in the year 2010 might not rewrite history"

Look, if you don't find anything worth noting about what I posted that's fine. (for everyone)

I didn't post it because it was life altering or transformative.

I posted it because the expeirence of it crossing my radar was enjoyable and I wanted to share that with people who might appreicate it. I liked that I sit at a desk where I can stumble across stuff like this that while not momentous, is worth sharing.

We're having a pretty terrible day today here in AZ. After monitoring the fire news last night I came across this stupid little video that made me smile and thought it would be cool to share it.

It really doesn't have to represent any more than that.

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: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 7:05:45 pm

I'm sorry, Bill. I didn't realize this was stemming from a bad day. I read about the fires in AZ, especially the hot shots, and it is a tragic event.

I enjoy Toto as much as the next guy which is why I posted back.

Hopefully tomorrow will be a better day.

In the mean time:







Jeremy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 8:17:39 pm

Appreciate that.

We had a cabin in Prescott when I was a kid. Used to drive up Yarnell Hill in my dads old ford with a sisal waterbag hanging over the radiator so the car woudn't overheat.

I'm no more personally involved than any other Arizonan today, other than having done some video work last year for the 100 Club of Arizona (first responders local charity) but yeah, it's a kinda a sucky day around here.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 6:02:06 pm

[Bill Davis] "I don't enjoy the old song "Louie Louie" because it was great musical art. "

But it is great music - the art part I leave to others. If I had to pick one song to describe rock and roll to an alien it might well be Louie Louie - let's not demean it.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 6:14:06 pm

See kids...

Its quite possible to argue differing points of view - even forcefully - and at the end find common ground and come away enlightened by the experience.

"every night at ten, I'd (garbled) (still garbled but maybe "her"???) again..."

Some things are, in fact, timeless.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 6:32:37 pm







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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 4:51:08 pm

Aside from the fact that the singer has a nice voice, the overall performance is as average as bar musicians get, horrible acoustic tone, no bass tone to speak of and no serious playing chops.

Yeah, I'm a singer, player, producer, but like most of us I spent years performing. I know a lot of guys playing similar small venues that could cop the original sound with the same minimal setup.

I get your basic point, but this is hardly an exemplary example of what two or three musicians can do with todays technology.

What I can say is that when I was producing music for TV and radio twenty years ago, I needed a very big studio, with miles of cabling and racks and racks of very expensive gear. Today my home studio consists of a 27" iMac, and a Focusrite input device. Everything else exists within Digital Performer or other supporting applications and plug-ins.

The only thing that's the same from the "old days" are the guitars surrounding me, my baby grand/midi keyboard, and a pair of Neumann microphones.

It's almost identical to how my TV/film studio has evolved since then, except my input devices - cameras - unlike musical instruments and mics, continue to change as quickly as the surrounding studio gear.


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 4:55:54 pm

What a caterwauling racket!

Or as Miles Davis said " Don't play what's there, play what's not there"


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:02:58 pm

[Mark Dobson] "What a caterwauling racket!"

Proudly said by parents about the music that makes people other than them happy - for the past 1000 years.

And still going strong today, I see.

Now lets debate whether Miles was more accomplished at using musical "space" than Schoenberg, Messien or Eric Satie. Shall we?

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: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:07:44 pm

[Bill Davis] "when people who've been schooled in the traditions, adopt the newer simpler modes of expression, embrace technology that drives complexity OUT of creation - and use a combination of new and old tools to create excellent work."
"Newer and simpler": You are not thinking about FCPX, don't you?
Imagine that to play an electric guitar or a synthesizer you have to forget all what you knew about acoustic guitar or piano: That's FCPX.
rafael


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:15:21 pm

[Rafael Amador] "Imagine that to play an electric guitar or a synthesizer you have to forget all what you knew about acoustic guitar or piano: That's FCPX."

What an excellent week!

In one thread a guy tells me off saying that I'm wrong because X is nothing special since it's "really no different than any other NLE"

And in another one, a guy tells me that I'm wrong because with X, one must "forget all that you knew" in order to use it

Consistency is a cruel mistress, huh.

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: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:45:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "Consistency is a cruel mistress, huh."

I'm not sure what "consistency" has to do with comments from two different people.

And you don't have to "forget what you know"...FCPX does the same things in a slightly different way.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 6:18:49 pm

But that's not what Rafael says...

Imagine that to play an electric guitar or a synthesizer you have to forget all what you knew about acoustic guitar or piano: That's FCPX.

According to him, X is so radically different that you have to jettison all your prior training in order to use it.

Which is it?

Can it be both "not very different at all" (your contention) yet require one to "forget all what you knew about" before (his contention)

People come here to be enlightened about where X fits in.

How can these offered views be anything but totally confusing?

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: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 7:26:27 pm

[Bill Davis] "According to him, X is so radically different that you have to jettison all your prior training in order to use it."

Well, he is wrong. And your analogy isn't close at all.

How can these offered views be anything but totally confusing?

I will agree they are, but here's the difference.

FCPX's key difference is a database for the Bin (similar to how Lightroom/Aperture will organize your photos), and the magnetic timeline, which is essentially an "always on" Ripple Delete (unless you change to the Position tool).

Everything else is simple window dressing.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 7:51:35 pm

[Gary Huff] "Everything else is simple window dressing."

Not sure I'd buy that.

I've often noted that I think the Project Library and the structure of X storing all of your mounted projects in a live, scrubbable and launchable display is as important to X workflow as magnetism.

And the Share plumbing circumventing the traditional processing of needing to create "a single disconnected master" is also evolutionary in general video editing.

That's just two additional areas of note.

It could also be argued that ditching Quicktime for AV Foundation was a pretty transformative part of the X puzzle. As well as how X lets you take the same timeline full of editor decisions and switch between proxy and full rez underlying clips via metadata, makes for some interesting future possibilities.

It;s pretty easy to imagine cameras that shoot RAW but simultaneously auto-apply an "editors look" via background processing, allowing the editor to work with the smaller reference files at first, and only re-link to the RAW files when it's time for finishing and grading.

That's the kind of plumbing that's already built into X, And I think it's design philosophy goes well beyond just a different timeline and database approach.

But we'll see in 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

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 9:54:11 pm

[Bill Davis] "I've often noted that I think the Project Library and the structure of X storing all of your mounted projects in a live, scrubbable and launchable display is as important to X workflow as magnetism.

So when you boot up X, you see every single project you have ever done in it currently? I doubt most people are setting it up that way. It gets unwieldy with that many projects, plus, for those single freelancers working off of a laptop (as you like to tout as the "new way") how are they going to be connected to so much storage necessary for that on a routine basis?

[Bill Davis] "And the Share plumbing circumventing the traditional processing of needing to create "a single disconnected master" is also evolutionary in general video editing."

You need to explain this in explicit detail, because my initial reaction is that you don't really know what the "Share" function does. The only thing interesting about it is that you can use it to upload to Vimeo/YouTube when it's done exporting. It's simply window dressing, something other NLEs should copy, but not exactly "revolutionary". All it's doing is exporting H.264 like normal, then using APIs to send it to the online service of your choice which it supports.

[Bill Davis] "It could also be argued that ditching Quicktime for AV Foundation was a pretty transformative part of the X puzzle."

I doubt that. QuickTime was aging, and AV Foundation took its place to finally catch OSX's A/V functionality up with the current decade.

[Bill Davis] "As well as how X lets you take the same timeline full of editor decisions and switch between proxy and full rez underlying clips via metadata, makes for some interesting future possibilities."

Well, that's nice, but not that revolutionary (you can already utilize proxy media in other NLEs with a minimum of fuss), and I don't see much proxy use in these one-man-on-a-laptop-future-of-editing kind of "shops" that you tout as the future. The hardware is powerful enough that most of the editing in my neck of the woods is all online. Nice for RedCode, sure (as long as you have a Rocket!), but I see it having very limited usefulness for a lot of editing (though that may change as raw video grows).

However, I did a project using ProRes transcoded media and would like to re-do it so that it references the original AVCHD footage. FCPX won't do that, according to what I've been told in the Techniques forum, and yet I was able to have Premiere replace the footage in a previously Cineform AVI sequence with the original H.264 QuickTimes from a DSLR. Which is more advanced and "revolutionary" now?

[Bill Davis] "It;s pretty easy to imagine cameras that shoot RAW but simultaneously auto-apply an "editors look" via background processing, allowing the editor to work with the smaller reference files at first, and only re-link to the RAW files when it's time for finishing and grading."

Step 1: Ingest video raw footage
Step 2: Wait for transcode
Step 3: Wait for transcode
Step 4: wait for transcode
Step 5: Start working.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 10:07:41 pm

[Gary Huff] "However, I did a project using ProRes transcoded media and would like to re-do it so that it references the original AVCHD footage. "

FCPX does not work with native AVCHD media, it is rewrapped to mov.

You can use the smaller h264 rewraps instead of the ProRes "optimized" media if you'd like by simply deleting the optimized transcodes.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 10:14:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can use the smaller h264 rewraps instead of the ProRes "optimized" media if you'd like by simply deleting the optimized transcodes."

Except I did the transcodes in 5DtoRGB, so apparently that will not work.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 11:12:51 pm

[Gary Huff] "Except I did the transcodes in 5DtoRGB, so apparently that will not work."

I think I remember this now...


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 11:13:57 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think I remember this now..."

I didn't look, but I was totally like, "I think Garchow was the one who responded to my question on Techniques!"


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 5:28:44 pm

Umm, it's a couple guys doing an acoustic cover. What technology are you talking about? Other than the video quality and a decent recording, this was being done by countless cover bands the week that song first hit the charts...

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


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


Return to posts index

Jacob Brown
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 6:37:44 pm

not to toot my own horn, but i think some of the vids i've done for Vogue with a similar setup and a higher aesthetic/talent level better illustrate Bill's point...which is a good one besides his odd example....

these are done on two 5D cameras, edited and color corrected in FCPX. audio recorded externally, mixed, and then dropped into FCPX








Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 6:45:51 pm

Hey stop it.

Someone's gonna pop up and get pissy because she's only playing a few separate notes.

Which will cause me to invoke BB King and yell about how the number of notes you play is meaningless.

Which will lead to a terrible diatribe from the "note-ists" (who will promptly invoke the spirit of Alvin Lee)

And then all hell will break loose.

And we should avoid that and get back to work.

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

Jim Giberti
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 7:31:05 pm

Bill, I'm pretty sure this is what happened: you made a point and no one else got it.

It's OK, you make a lot of points.
Statistically, some of them are bound to be less than resonant.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Progress!
on Jul 1, 2013 at 7:45:58 pm

My 2 cents. Nothing beats the original but I always loved this guys cover.







John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Progress!
on Jul 3, 2013 at 2:39:51 am

Bill,


If I were to think of X in terms of being revolutionary, I would say it would be it's ability to close the learning curve on high end editing.

It's simplicity.


It has power, but yet I can see Children on youtube putting up tutorials on it. (children, not even teenagers)

It's competitors are great, but they have the same learning curve as they have had for some time.
That's not a knock, just different.



I jumped on X early because for one, I predicted that young folks would take to it and I didn't want them knowing something I didn't know. But then I liked it : )

When I was cutting on CMX in the 80's, little kids where not using the same tools as me.



The fact that they are now, is…let's face it, a huge change in the industry.

In the past, if you didn't know what you were doing, you would be hard pressed to put something out that looked professional.

Now, I think that's changed.



I wonder if you would agree : )


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 3, 2013 at 3:45:24 am

[tony west] "If I were to think of X in terms of being revolutionary, I would say it would be it's ability to close the learning curve on high end editing."

What is "high end" editing?


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Progress!
on Jul 3, 2013 at 3:53:14 am

The kind of work that Tsui Hark does would be an example.

I'm sure others have their own, but he would be mine.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 3:21:11 am

[tony west] "The kind of work that Tsui Hark does would be an example."

What kind of work does Tsui Hark do that is explicitly "high end"? Compared to what you would describe as "low end"?


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 12:11:13 pm

[Gary Huff] "What kind of work does Tsui Hark do that is explicitly "high end"?"

You're not familiar with his work?

You don't respect it?


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 3:02:12 pm

[tony west] "You're not familiar with his work?"

I am not. But I would be interested to know the specifics of what is "high end" about it, outside of simply the way it's shot. I could go shot the most interesting stuff and shoot it in such a way that the edit is simply stitching clips together.

So just because something looks nice, doesn't necessarily mean the edit is "high end"...unless by "high end" you mean high paying editing jobs, regardless of doing anything more than stitching Alexa ProRes 4444 clips together.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 4:45:07 pm

[Gary Huff] "I am not. But I would be interested to know the specifics of what is "high end" about it,"

Quality for one.


But who decides that?

I say his peers. That's why I asked you if you knew of his work.


Editing is like art in a sense that it's subjective to a point.

The other aspect is technical, which is less subjective. Is the sound mixed well and such.

Another aspect is impact on the audience.


I was working for the St. Louis Cardinals years ago and I cut a video for the video screen.
We were playing the Dodgers, and Vin Scully was calling the game. He saw my video on the screen and walked down to the control room and asked for it for their broadcast.

He said he was so moved by it that he wanted everyone to see it.

I'm sure he had seen a million baseball videos. This one stuck out to him.

To have a Hall of Fame'r in your peer group give you that kind of nod, and your co-workers come up to you and say "dude, that was f ing awesome"

That's kind of what it means to me.


Peers


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 7:57:33 pm

[tony west] "To have a Hall of Fame'r in your peer group give you that kind of nod, and your co-workers come up to you and say "dude, that was f ing awesome""

Which has absolutely zero to do with FCPX, MC, or Premiere. None of those is going to get you a single half-step closer to achieving that feeling.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 8:43:43 pm

[Gary Huff] "Which has absolutely zero to do with FCPX, MC, or Premiere. None of those is going to get you a single half-step closer to achieving that feeling."



Back when I did that video it was in a room that cost almost a million bucks to build.

Full of expensive equipment that most folks couldn't afford. That limited access.

When it got down to a laptop and a couple of hundred bucks, who can't get in.

But back to the OT


I remember when you did a green screen shoot and you had to make sure you lit it even.
You wanted all the wriggles out.

With X, it will cut dang near any green out wriggles and all. It's an excellent keyer. That task doesn't take as much skill as it used to now with that program.

X will try to fix your audio for you if you want it to.

I don't think it does a good enough job for me (yet) and I would rather use something like Izotope.

But……..thats the first step. It try's

Then next year maybe it gets better at it. Then next better. Until you just click and fix audio that took more skill to fix in the past.

Back when I was in that control room there was no…………Can I fix that for you?

It was all me.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 10:23:00 pm

[tony west] "I don't think it does a good enough job for me (yet) and I would rather use something like Izotope."

I have used both and iZotope is definitely better.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 10:51:08 pm

Gary,

It may be "better" from your perspective. Not necessarily from a universal one.

And sorry, but you are cluelessly missing the point of Tony's story. He's relaying an anecdote from his career in the upper echelons of sports broadcasting. It goes to his credentials. It says "people who have seen my work KNOW I can edit to reveal a powerful story through editing."

You can disbelieve him. Which on the Internet is fair. But at some point the aggregate of what a person postts here and elsewhere in this era where everything lives on the net persistently -reveals whether they are what they say they are or not.

Tony has long since revealed himself to be what he purports. A professional working in sports broadcasting.

So his opinion gets more weight in my book - whether I agree with him or not. Same with everyone else here from Herb to Jeremy to Walter.

You get the same treatment.

Some of us have a long history of seeing FCP-X positively (I'm probably at the very front of that line) - and as months go by I'm happier and happier that that's the position I arrived at so early.

Yours has long been that X is a troublesome mess that you barely tolerate and complain about constantly.

Your welcome to maintain that position. But dissing other pros opinions in order to maintain it is silly IMO.

My 2 cents.

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: Progress!
on Jul 5, 2013 at 4:22:25 pm

[Bill Davis] "You can disbelieve him. Which on the Internet is fair. But at some point the aggregate of what a person postts here and elsewhere in this era where everything lives on the net persistently -reveals whether they are what they say they are or not."

Not at all, but I think we need to be aware of when we created a story out of nothing from editing, and when we simply got out of the way as an editor.

I'm just trying to understand what the idea of "high end" editing is (outside of having a great DP who delivers astounding footage in the first place).


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Progress!
on Jul 5, 2013 at 5:47:11 pm

I think this raises what should be a broader discussion. If you look at the history of filmmaking, the creative process starts on the page, is interpreted by the director and creative team, and assembled and enhanced in post. All three stages could in different hands be art, and/or craft, and/or neither.

It is my belief that the long standing disrespect for the writing stage is responsible for the large percentage of films that are neither artistic nor well crafted, even when technically state of the art.

As editing has taken on god like abilities, this process has become even more imbalanced and corrupted.

Obviously if an editor does not have to cut around poorly executed shots, it makes life easier. But literally writing the story in post from a collection of even very beautiful shots is a very different art than the one that starts on the page.

I actually like this new way of working in certain types of documentary or documentary style filmmaking. I see this as picking a subject, using a video camera like the traditional film camera, and letting the subject tell the story - like finding the sculpture in the rock you are carving.

But for narratives, I think creating scripts that are both artistic and well crafted and using them as blueprints is the far better way to produce a film. Making it up as you go along often looks the part.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV30/40, Sony Z7U, VX2000, PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Progress!
on Jul 3, 2013 at 6:02:13 am

[tony west] "In the past, if you didn't know what you were doing, you would be hard pressed to put something out that looked professional.

Now, I think that's changed.
"


I think the ability to put something out is certainly easier, but if you don't know what you are doing it will most likely fall short of professional. That doesn't mean it can't be entertaining, but there's a reason why no-budget indies (even no budget indies that have some talented crew) typically stick out like a sore thumb if compared to their studio/network competition. On a different scale, I hit up YouTube for DIY home repair vids somewhat frequently and 90% of them are technically lacking in just about every capacity but if they info is communicated clearly enough that's all that matters.




Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Progress!
on Jul 3, 2013 at 12:39:12 pm

Right on the money, Andrew! That's why a lot of the industrial video work is going away. Because it's content-driven, the companies producing it in-house now don't care, or don't know, about production values. If you're just doing a video about installing your software, if the viewer gets it, it doesn't matter whether it's served on a silver platter or a paper plate...

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Progress!
on Jul 3, 2013 at 1:48:33 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I think the ability to put something out is certainly easier, but if you don't know what you are doing it will most likely fall short of professional."



Maybe. Each situation is different.

In the past if you didn't know how to do motion graphics you had to learn or you didn't have them.

Now you can just drop somebody else's pre-made motion graphics in your timeline.

Does it look more professional? Most likely.

Here you go, just use one of these many pre made templates. Does it look more polished?

What we deem as"professional" really doesn't matter if whoever is paying the bill at the end of the day accepts it as such.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 3:25:04 am

[tony west] "Maybe. Each situation is different."

I don't see how that applies that a certain situation could allow for polished results when someone isn't competent. Can you "accidently" stumble upon polish?

[tony west] "In the past if you didn't know how to do motion graphics you had to learn or you didn't have them. Now you can just drop somebody else's pre-made motion graphics in your timeline."

Yes, you and hundreds of others, so congratulations, unless you're the first use of that template, your viewer has now recalled something entirely different while viewing...perhaps even from competition.

[tony west] "Does it look more professional? Most likely."

Only if the entire piece was motion graphics. Then, if you don't know shooting or editing, everything else that you can't template in now sticks out. And, of course, there's the copycat issue I mentioned above.

[tony west] "What we deem as"professional" really doesn't matter if whoever is paying the bill at the end of the day accepts it as such."

I would agree with that, but is it an excuse? "Well, I don't need to learn motion graphics, or even how to significantly tweak these templates because the work I do is good enough."

I hope so. That gives me less competition.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 12:55:24 pm

[Gary Huff] "Yes, you and hundreds of others, so congratulations,"

Congratulations to you also, unless you designed AE yourself, you're working off somebody else's

work.


[Gary Huff] "I don't see how that applies that a certain situation could allow for polished results when someone isn't competent. Can you "accidently" stumble upon polish?"

They don't have to stumble on it, they could just buy software that helps their work look more polished.

[Gary Huff] " if you don't know shooting or editing, everything else that you can't template in now sticks out. "

Nope. They hire somebody like me to shoot it, and hand over good looking video that has good sound that they don't have to fix.

Plus, you are assuming the corp hiring for the job even gives a rip that it "now sticks out"

That's been the trend with a lot of corporations. Spend money on a crew to shoot it and then take in-house and cut it themselves.



[Gary Huff] "I would agree with that, but is it an excuse? "Well, I don't need to learn motion graphics, or even how to significantly tweak these templates because the work I do is good enough."

I hope so. That gives me less competition."



Don't get it twisted, I'm not saying anybody is going out of work anytime time soon. It's going great for me and I'm sure you also.

But unless you live on another planet, big corps LOVE to save money on this one.

If they can get someone to get closer (they don't have to beat you) to your work for CHEAPER,
That's your competition.


They don't have to be better or as good as you. Somebody just has to want to save money.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 3:04:45 pm

[tony west] "Congratulations to you also, unless you designed AE yourself, you're working off somebody else's work."

Doesn't quite follow, so I'm not sure why you thought it appropriate to make that comparison. That's like saying using the same hammer means you build a house that looks exactly the same, when we were talking about pre-fabs in the first place.

[tony west] "Plus, you are assuming the corp hiring for the job even gives a rip that it "now sticks out""

No, you are correct. Most of the corporate video is embarrassingly bad. And, hey, I've been there (have definitely put plenty of lipstick on pigs). But I don't see much response from the public on these to the point where even having video content at all seems like a waste of time and money. If you're trying to produce cheap content just to have content, and no one watches it, then is it even worth the cheap rates they're already paying?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 3:14:44 pm

[Gary Huff] " If you're trying to produce cheap content just to have content, and no one watches it, then is it even worth the cheap rates they're already paying?
"


At some point I hope people will realise that it isn't. My experience is at the moment many large Companies I do work for think it's fine to put self shot crap up on their YouTube and corporate sites despite the fact these videos don't get many views at all.

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 3:39:35 pm

[Steve Connor] "At some point I hope people will realise that it isn't."

I share in that hope as well. For me personally, as a viewer, if you put up an embarrassingly amateurish video, then I wonder where else your business chose to cut corners as well.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 4:09:44 pm

[Gary Huff] "Doesn't quite follow,"

Sure it does.

AE, MB Looks, Fx Factory it's all software with the same end game. To make it easier for the editor to get the look they are trying to create.

Somebody can use AE but not Fx Factory? What difference does it really make?

It's just semantics brother.



[Gary Huff] "If you're trying to produce cheap content just to have content, and no one watches it, then is it even worth the cheap rates they're already paying?
"


What do you mean if no one watches it?

When I broke into network news 20 years ago you had a top notch experienced Shooter and sound tech bringing it home.

Now, I saw some footage on AF one that was so bad that they had to put up subtitles on the screen for the viewer.

That was unheard of before. Your audio is so bad we got to put up titles? Come on now!

Yet there it was on air on the evening news.

People didn't turn off the news because of that. They accept it. Somebody one day said "nobody will turn off our show if we cut the sound guy"

I'm not promoting it. I'm just dealing with it.

Just one of the reasons I drifted more into sports. Either you have the ball going over the wall or you don't.

If you don't, you won't be back.

At least, not at the World Series level.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 4:27:03 pm

[tony west] "Somebody can use AE but not Fx Factory? What difference does it really make?"

FX Factory is not a template, nor is After Effects. Unless you meant something completely different when you said, "template". Did you mean "plugin that makes effects easier to use" or "pre-packaged motion graphic template a la Digital Juice". If the latter, then your comparison is woefully mismatched.

[tony west] "Yet there it was on air on the evening news."

Remind me again on which direction ratings are going for local news programs?

And, yet again, a second comparison that doesn't match up. News happens when it happens. You get no do-overs. So if some video of a single instance news event is completely botched, well, that's all you got. Unless you're talking about some reporters' standup. That would be inexcusable.

Seriously, Tony, it strikes me that your "If A, than B" needs a lot of work.

"[I]f you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does."


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Progress!
on Jul 4, 2013 at 5:02:17 pm

[Gary Huff] "FX Factory is not a template, nor is After Effects. "

I didn't say they were.

I said they are programs that make it easier for you to do your work. You don't like it because you want to look down your nose at people using programs that you may not approve of.




[Gary Huff] "Remind me again on which direction ratings are going for local news programs?
"


Local news? who said anything abut local news. I was talking about NETWORK news. I have never done local news.


Who sends out a 2 man crew to cover local news? You should have known better than that, dude.


And Air force one means the President of the United States. Get the sound right.

But it would be easier if you don't cut corners on sound.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Progress!
on Jul 5, 2013 at 5:43:58 pm

[tony west] " You don't like it because you want to look down your nose at people using programs that you may not approve of."

Where is that idea even coming from? Do you understand the difference between After Effects and a Digital Juice motion graphics template, or are you just trying to be difficult?

[tony west] "Local news? who said anything abut local news. I was talking about NETWORK news. I have never done local news."

You actually never specified exactly, so I merely made an assumption. A poor assumption, but frankly, that was just a snark and not the crux of my dismissal of it.

[tony west] "Who sends out a 2 man crew to cover local news? You should have known better than that, dude."

Not sure where that's coming from...I guess you easily get confused between conversations with different people? You keep alluding to things that were never said or expressed. I said that poor audio on a standup would be inexcusable, but I don't see how that equates to "Local news sends out a 2 person crew to cover local stories."

[tony west] "And Air force one means the President of the United States. Get the sound right."

Sorry, if you're too lazy to write out "Air Force One" and instead call it "AF one", I have no idea what you're talking about, nor will I care. But if you're going to be that specific about it, then perhaps a link is in order.

I would suspect that the actual video will be understandable in its poor production values, thus rendering your entire point ridiculously absurd.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Progress!
on Jul 6, 2013 at 12:38:45 pm

[Gary Huff] "Do you understand the difference between After Effects and a Digital Juice motion graphics template, or are you just trying to be difficult?"

After Effects makes it easier for you to do effects than before after effects came out.

That's why they put it out. After effects gives you way more control to build from scratch but it still makes building effects EASIER than before.

DJ you could argue makes it even easier.




[Gary Huff] "I guess you easily get confused between conversations with different people? "

It wouldn't be if you weren't too lazy to just scroll back up and read what I wrote.





[Gary Huff] "You keep alluding to things that were never said or expressed. "

See the above comment.





[Gary Huff] " perhaps a link is in order."


Gary, what's the matter with you? There is no link because I saw it on TV. That's the whole point of what I was talking about. TV over the air is a higher standard. Yet it went out anyway.

That wasn't tolerated when I first broke into NETWORK news. Now it is.

The whole point was that standards have dropped to save money.

Who doesn't know that who works in the biz?

Come on now


Return to posts index

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