FORUMS: list search recent posts

An editors two cents

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Nelson Torres
An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 2:46:24 am

The main problem with the new version of Final Cut Pro as I see it is that Apple does not consider the craftsmanship and talent of the professional editor. Instead they assume that editing is just slapping a bunch of shots together and using some really cool plug ins. I come to this conclusion after looking at this new Magnetic Timeline nonsense. To me in hinders my organization and workflow, but it's there to make it easier for the novice. All seasoned editors have mastered the relatively easy use of the traditional timeline. FCP is just a tool. It won't do anything you don't tell it to(well, most of the time anyway ;) Just because you have access to a powerful tool doesn't mean you're going to come out with something brilliant. As a matter of fact an amateur will most likely come out with the exact opposite. Look at vimeo & YouTube. Most of the videos are banal, unskilled attempts at storytelling, shooting some idiot jumping off his roof or a moron's skateboarding accident. Plus you have a plethora of gavones ranting at their cameras. iMovie is sufficient for this type of filmmaking. Dumbing down a piece of software to appeal to these people is ludicrous. In order to achieve true artistry in editing one must study & practice constantly. One has to learn the language of film before he can succeed at communicating with his/her audience. How many short films make absolutely no sense or don't affect you one way or another? For all FCPX wants to be it will never be able to apply a cathartic moment into a piece. Making editing more available to the public will just produce more junk. Years ago no one could afford a flatbed or Movieola to have at home. Yet editors developed, why? Because they had a desire to do what they do. Many like myself started as an apprentice syncing mag track to picture all day(and night). Because of the difficulty in the process we learned how to edit scenes in our heads before collecting massive amount of clips off of a phalanx of bins lined up down the long, dark, hall. Making the process easier just makes the editor lazier, and a lazy editor is an unimaginative editor, who in turn is an unemployable editor. Sure many places need to make clip reels or archive stuff, but is that what the definition of Pro has transpired to?

Excerpt from the Third Man-"...You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."


Return to posts index

Russell Lasson
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 3:28:10 am

I completely agree!

Russ

Russell Lasson
Colorist/Digital Cinema Specialist
Color Mill
Salt Lake City, UT
http://www.colormill.net


Return to posts index

Tangier Clarke
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:20:26 am

I agree on many points, but on most I disagree; particularly that making something easier makes people lazy. Obviously that's an opinion and one that's subjective. I am no novice. Changes in technology of all sorts in history does not necessarily create laziness, but rather becomes a catalyst for people to change the way they think about the work they do and presents a new set of challenges while making things, in fact, easier.

Win NLE systems arrived on the seen many film editors preached the same message. Yet soon after it was realized that NLEs didn't necessarily make things easier because there were then an abundance of choices and decisions to be made and could be undone that made things in it's own unique way, more difficult. With video form tape to SD cards we've been expected to manage significantly more amounts of content because it's cheaper to shoot. Then of course there's the "we'll fix it in post" mentality that NLEs and video catapulted into the lexicon of post-production possibilities.

I love FCP X. I am excited about the direction and what it's doing for me already despite my disappointment with what's missing and the realization of how it could impact my profession. I have FCP 7 as well (for now at least :))

Even the shovel was an amazing technology at one point; the steam engine, the calculator, the gun, etc. were in some regard revolutionary technologies that didn't make people necessarily lazy, but gave endeavors and industries new methods to interact with and progress our world (albeit for better or worse and yet even that is subjective).

There's always opportunity in chaos. Innovation that makes life easier does not make people lazy. It makes us experience a new reality in the way we perceive the way we do and did things. Our inability or rather unwillingness to adapt and strive I suppose could be perceived as laziness. I will agree that perhaps we don't like being pushed into something we don't want, didn't expect, or doesn't conform to what we're used to.

I hope FCP X flourishes over time. I look forward to being right there with it, exploring something new. If it dies a horrible death. I'll keep telling stories another way and yet be all the better and wiser for what experience I did get from the innovations and faults of Final Cut Pro.

Just for clarity, by the way - I am not angry so please don't take this as such. Amidst all of the comments about FCPX I suspect many posts are taken out of context because the emotion in our writing isn't always conveyed and perceived int he way it was intended.

Tangier


Return to posts index


Stefan Buhrmester
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:38:34 am

Hm... Actually I really dig the new timeline in FCPX. But that's about the only thing I dig about FCPX.

Over the past years I have learned how to use the traditional editing tools to get the results I want. With FCPX the results that I want do not change, but the way to accomplish them changes. The paradigm of the new timeline speeds up most of these ways. Let me try that again: Tt provides short-cuts to the results. And it still provides all of the traditional tools, but they are accessed in a different way.

I am extremely angry at Apple for this release and all their FCPX sh*t, but the timeline aint one of the reasons. It's really good.


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 2:55:00 pm

[Nelson Torres] "I come to this conclusion after looking at this new Magnetic Timeline nonsense. To me in hinders my organization and workflow, but it's there to make it easier for the novice."

I don't understand this claim at all. The new timeline, with clip connections, storylines, and compound clips, is actually more complicated than a bunch of generic stacked linear clip containers (i.e. a conventional multitrack approach), and I think it will take novices a longer time to figure out. Rather than being intended to make things easier for novices, I think this approach is intended to allow people who understand it well to work faster (the app can do more for them because it understands these relationships) and manage complex sequences better (because things can be grouped, collapsed, etc.).

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 3:22:21 pm

No. Its designed to connect things for you without you asking, it's labelled with moronic fisher price terms like 'primary storyline', the default behavior of clips is that they are indestructible, the default behaviour of the timeline is that things get out of each others way either vertically or horizontally - if this thing had any more collison detection, and auto behavior you could just sit back and watch the wanky animations as the timeline jumped up and down and slid around itself. It's a timeline for morons.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Chris Kenny
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 3:30:53 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Its designed to connect things for you without you asking"

This is not really a meaningful statement. When you place a clip above another clip in FCP X, you are asking for it to be connected. That's what performing that action means if FCP X. All you're really saying here is that the FCP X timeline doesn't do the same things in response to the same actions as the FCP 7 timeline, which is not inherently a bad thing.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the default behaviour of the timeline is that things get out of each others way either vertically or horizontally "

Because the app now understands the relationships between clips, it can make more intelligent decisions when clips are moved around. What's supposed to be bad about this? Why should the software make you do something manually if it has enough information to do it for you by default? This is a particularly good idea if it also offers a way to bypass that automated behavior, which in this case it does (the Position tool).

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 3:37:42 pm

Oh for the love of Pete - chris, can you honestly tell me that you think it is a good idea, that when I place a clip on V2 that it glues itself immediately to the clip below? Because, and here's my personal take on this of course, it's not a good idea Chris, it's a shite idea, it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in many a goodly long aeon. It's such an indescribably shite and pompous decision Randy made there that I actually think he has been programmed by adobe like the manchurian candidate to wreak Final Cut - you're having a laugh mate - Pro.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 3:51:08 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Oh for the love of Pete - chris, can you honestly tell me that you think it is a good idea, that when I place a clip on V2 that it glues itself immediately to the clip below?"

There is no V2. Your problem is that you're thinking of FCP X as a traditional multitrack editor that's broken, when it's not actually a traditional multitrack editor at all. I think you need to try harder wrap your head around the conceptual model of the timeline FCP X uses, and give it a fair shot on its own terms.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 3:58:34 pm

No no Chris - FCP7 wasn't a multitrack editor, Chris - editing is a multitrack operation.

The hubris and pomposity of the "solutions" proposed by Randy in this ludicrous piece of software just about take my breath away.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:06:20 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "The hubris and pomposity of the "solutions" proposed by Randy in this ludicrous piece of software just about take my breath away."

You haven't actually advanced a substantive argument here. All you've done is point out that it's different, and claim that it's worse without explaining why.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:31:02 pm

I gave you a very specific argument Chris, you failed to notice it, I'm going to repeat it.

FCP7 wasn't a multitrack editor, editing is a multitrack operation, editing systems are an expression of that truth, or they were until that intergalactic moron Randy wrote the words 'primary storyline - rad!' drunk on a napkin and had the insight of his life, in how he might go about making another infinite loop revolution to sweep up the world, or to look at it another way, he dissapeared up his own fundament and destroyed a piece of software we all rely heavily on.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Chris Kenny
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:42:00 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCP7 wasn't a multitrack editor, editing is a multitrack operation"

I disagree with this statement. Editing is the process of arranging a series of shots to tell a story. Sometimes for organizational reasons it's useful to be able to have two shots that overlap on the timeline (so that, for instance, you can keep cutting away to one of them, with the main shot showing through gaps between the cutaways), and it's also necessary to be able to layer shots in order to create certain effects.

Tracks are merely one way of doing this. They are, perhaps, the most obvious way, but the most obvious way to do something is frequently not the best way.

[Aindreas Gallagher]
Yeah and you know what, that is all dumb as crazy town dumb. How in the hell am I supposed to work with a single track of video sliding around itself and a secondary track that attaches to the clip below it the minute I lay it down?


This is what I mean when I say you're not really making an argument here. All you're doing is asking a question. You think the answer is self-evidently "You can't be expected to work like that; the FCP team was full of idiots who designed a timeline that's impossible to edit with". But this is not actually self-evident.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:47:20 pm

Oh absolutely - what were we all thinking? Multitrack, it's so obvious, we must be mad. You're kind of funny dude, you really are.

And yes, you're bang on Chris:

"You can't be expected to work like that; the FCP team was full of idiots who designed a timeline that's impossible to edit with"

You're spot on there man, that statement is right on the money, fair play to you.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:48:56 pm

You're not even trying to have an actual discussion at this point.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:52:15 pm

'Multitrack' man, just keep saying multitrack to yourself, roll it around on your tongue and keep looking at FCPX - at some point you're going to stop and shout - hang on! I've had an insight! This software is total bollocks! What the hell is going on!??!

It'll come - I swear it to you.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Dan Hayes
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:56:39 pm

[Chris Kenny] "Tracks are merely one way of doing this. They are, perhaps, the most obvious way, but the most obvious way to do something is frequently not the best way."

How is the FCPX better in your opinion?



Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 26, 2011 at 1:25:04 pm

Quick question: Why does Photoshop have "layers"?

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 3:59:47 pm

[Chris Kenny] "I think you need to try harder wrap your head around the conceptual model of the timeline FCP X uses, and give it a fair shot on its own terms."

If people don't like the way it does things, why is the response always "they just don't get it"...?

"Try harder!" Try harder...?

wow.


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:04:49 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "If people don't like the way it does things, why is the response always "they just don't get it"...? "

He was explicitly using terminology that demonstrated he was thinking of FCP X as a traditional multitrack editor, which it's simply not. It wasn't "You must not understand this if you don't like it", it was "You must not understand this because you're talking about it in terms that seem to demonstrate you don't understand it".

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:15:46 pm

Oh give me a break. Chris, in reference to V1 and V2 I am never Chris, never do you hear me, never going to refer to them as primary and secondary storyline. If I did, I would have to walk up to a mirror and punch myself in the face. What's V4 anyway? Postscript? What's A4? Whispers off stage?

The software is full to brim with the most stupid, stupid shite.

And so again, having V2, that's right, I'm going to marker it directly onto the LCD, having clips laid onto V2 glue themselves to clips on V1, that's right - V1, having the software gluing stuff together for me, the guy holding the mouse trying to have a think, is stupid, grandly pompous of randy, horribly misguided, deeply annoying and yes, it is truly, truly dumb.

I'll say it again Chris and I want you to think about it: FCP7 wasn't a multitrack editor, editing is a multitrack operation.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:25:57 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Oh give me a break. Chris, in reference to V1 and V2 I am never Chris, never do you hear me, never going to refer to them as primary and secondary storyline. If I did, I would have to walk up to a mirror and punch myself in the face. What's V4 anyway? Postscript? What's A4? Whispers off stage?"

Now you're simply writing as if "storyline" is the new word Apple is using for "track", tracks and storylines are equivalent, and I'm giving you a hard time merely just for using the wrong synonym. But this is not true. The area above the primary storyline (what you're calling V2) is not the secondary storyline; it's an area for things that are linked to clips on the primary storyline. Those things can be secondary storylines (which are basically nested sequences that can be edited inline), compound clips (nested sequences that aren't edited inline), normal clips, text generators, etc.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 4:36:03 pm

Yeah and you know what, that is all dumb as crazy town dumb. How in the hell am I supposed to work with a single track of video sliding around itself and a secondary track that attaches to the clip below it the minute I lay it down?

So I'll say it for the third time Chris: FCP7 wasn't a multitrack editor, editing is a multitrack operation, all editing systems are an expression of that essential truth. Or they were until the grinning idiot of all time Randy walked in the room.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

John Godwin
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 5:24:58 pm

Have you downloaded and tried FCP X yet? I find the more I work with it and wrap my head around a different way of doing things the better it looks.

Best,
John


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: An editors two cents
on Jun 25, 2011 at 5:11:45 pm

Fair enough. Aindreas here has been articulating the why's much clearer than most. And has made some exceptionally valid points.


Return to posts index

Jeff Wingo
Re: An editors two cents
on Jul 4, 2011 at 12:22:40 am

I am just learning FCPX. I got stumped with what I think is the simplest of tasks in FCP7.

Try this at home and see if you can figure it out.

Goal: a segment that has a talking head interview with a cutaway to another shot of the things he is talking about. The trick is that you want to fade into the shot of the cutaway items and crossfades between the items and crossfade back to the talking head. Remember the talking head continues to speak under the cutaways.

Figure this one out in FCPX. I can do it in FCP7 in a heartbeat.

Jeff Wingo
http://www.jwingo.com


Return to posts index

John Godwin
Re: An editors two cents
on Jul 4, 2011 at 4:03:38 am

It's late and I just got home from an early 4th of July party. But.

You should be able to drag the b-roll and place it where you wish over the soundbite. The b-roll audio should appear under the soundbite clip. Once you get the b-roll placed highlight it and make it a compound clip, then add dissolves to your hearts' content. Easily move the entire compound clip or step into it and easily adjust individual items.

There are at least 2 other ways to do this, I think. Working a few of the free tutorials on the web can help get you up to speed pretty quickly.

Best,
John


Return to posts index

Jeff Wingo
Re: An editors two cents
on Jul 4, 2011 at 7:02:14 am

That was a great idea, but what I got when I tried it was a cut to black and then a fade at the beginning. It was a fade to black at the end of the b-roll clip.

What then worked was having no transitions at the beginning or end of the b-roll clip, but instead using keyframes and opacity to accomplish it.

Thanks for the tip on composite clips. I am still working through the tutorials.

Jeff Wingo
http://www.jwingo.com


Return to posts index

Jeff Wingo
Re: An editors two cents
on Jul 4, 2011 at 7:10:56 am

That was a great idea, but what I got when I tried it was a cut to black and then a fade at the beginning. It was a fade to black at the end of the b-roll clip.

What then worked was having no transitions at the beginning or end of the b-roll clip, but instead using keyframes and opacity to accomplish it.

Thanks for the tip on compound clips. I am still working through the tutorials.

Jeff Wingo
http://www.jwingo.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: An editors two cents
on Jul 4, 2011 at 9:08:37 am

Hi Jeff

You would be better off making the cutaways into a secondary storyline (Cmd/G) rather than a compound clip - that way you can quickly apply fades to either end (Cmd/T) and you can create a dissolve in between your two cutaways just as easily.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeff Wingo
Re: An editors two cents
on Jul 4, 2011 at 11:02:55 am

This creates a cut to black before the crossfade.

Jeff Wingo
http://www.jwingo.com


Return to posts index

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