FORUMS: list search recent posts

The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Franz Bieberkopf
The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 5:45:12 pm

There have been a few (very few) updates from some participants on where they stand on the "post-revolutionary" landscape and choosing the NLE that they work in. I thought I would add my own brief contribution (as I approach a thousand posts here in the forum).

It's been over 5 years since Apple's last major update to the old FCP, and over three years since Apple redefined "end-of-life" by announcing end-of-development and crossing its anthropomorphic fingers. I'll start by stating first my surprise that I'm still entertaining answers to the question of "what next".

This past year, however, I've had an opportunity to do a bit more in terms of trying out options. It should go without saying (but I'll state it anyway) that the following is my considered opinion reflecting my own subjective technological, workflow, and creative needs, and what I observe professionally and creatively.


Adobe Premiere Pro CC
I used PPro CC to do some short work; I still haven't attempted longer, more involved projects and it's difficult to find any reports of larger projects (with many sequences). The software seems quite promising and recent developments continue to suggest real potential. (Someone on the design team even decided that displaying clip codecs was worthwhile in 2014!)

The rental scheme is onerous and keeps me from commitment to Adobe, and I continue to warn those I advise away from their software for this reason.


Avid Media Composer
I finished some longer work in Avid Media Composer (6.5.3 I believe). I hadn't seriously used the software for something near ten years and was optimistic about my return (particularly in light of recent comments by Chris Harlan and others). It was an incredibly discouraging experience. I was amazed at the robust effort and fine attention to detail that the designers continue to put into frustrating the user. Aside from the frustrations of user-interface (modes, toggles, exceptions abound), AMA playback was abysmal and native MXF only a bit better. Bugs persist that should have been addressed long ago (odd incomplete display of selections in the timeline, random one track exceptions to deletions, etc.). No doubt some of my frustration was due to user error, but much was not. I achieved my results in spite of the software.

The future Avid as a company is still a mystery, though they've recently announced they will file 2011-2014 financial statements in September. I'm discouraged that the consensus here seems to be that Avid is consolidating their position as the NLE of choice in certain niches of post (N.Y. and L.A.). If there is any evidence of the need for a revolution, this is it.


Final Cut Pro X
I collaborated for some time on a longer project cut in FCP X, on which I did very little operating. (It was primarily a creative collaboration.) While there are aspects of X that seem well designed - and notably even aspects of the audio handling - many design choices seem unfortunate (I'll leave it at that - except to note that the cutesy animations become an annoyance fairly quickly). I found the few but regular beach-ball interruptions on longer timelines annoying (my collaborator referred to them as FCP X "thinking") and we experienced (on the only occasion we had access to it) unsolved playback problems on a new Mac Pro and AJA box. The lack of a dedicated mixing interface (beyond the timeline) is a major lapse.

The larger issue with X, however, continues to be the question of Apple's reliability as part of my work. Their history in this field (and software features in general) continues to give pause. Further, their (hard to justify?) insistence on annual OS updates seems more annoyance than benefit - and I say this as someone who updated regularly from 10.0 through 10.6 (because I saw value).


Resolve & Lightworks
I have to admit that I've only opened these to tinker, but in both cases I was immediately put off by poor audio features in the timeline, including the near-unusable playback issues in Resolve. I'd give either of these another try, but only after reports of how wrong I might be or the addition of new features to address audio.


The Present

I recently started a feature project - in Final Cut Pro 7. It was the choice that made the most sense. The major strengths are flexibility, speed, robustness, and design, as well as familiarity. The major drawback comes down to rendering times. (In a project where all material is transcoded to an editing format, real time playback of various sources is of lesser value.)

It's a longer schedule and it will likely take me into the new year. … which means FCP 7 in 2015.

My choice seems quite common in the circles that I'm aware of.

Reflecting on the Apple user numbers (that I posted last week), I was struck by the momentum of FCP adoption in the final year or two of FCP 7. It suggests a potential that is very different from where we are 3 years later. I'll take the opportunity to reiterate that I think the change that Apple ushered in with their "revolution" was the shift away from editors who worked with one NLE of their choice to a post landscape where editors have to be more flexible about the software they use (even if they have a primary preference).

This is also interesting if you think about those 2 million and more users of FCP 1-7. How many of them are still weighing the options against the value of the incumbent?

My comments above may sound a bit negative, but broadly I think all the options have improved in many ways over the past 3 years (and FCP7 has held up surprisingly in the face of all that.) That's important because at some point, when it becomes the weaker option, I'll have to move on from FCP 7. And I want great options.

Congratulations to Apple. End-of-Life has never been so good.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 6:16:21 pm

So basically, unless Adobe change their model, you don't have a favoured replacement

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I recently started a feature project - in Final Cut Pro 7. It was the choice that made the most sense. The major strengths are flexibility, speed, robustness, and design"

Faster it isn't!

No sig on my posts as it's apparently very old fashioned


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 6:50:57 pm

After reading the original post, I agree with very much everything that was said.

Was hoping that Resolve would be a serious contender but it still needs work. Have not yet tried Lightworks, been curious about it but don't know much about the software either. For now FCP X is my editing software of choice. Yes, there are a few things that need improving but I see value on the software. I am hopeful with the next OS X release that FCP X will see some useful improvements, to media management (vastly improved since initial blunder of a release), curves for color correction, and better keyframing. Prefer the small stuff be addressed then talk about super cool features at a later time.

On the motion graphics side, for me, Motion is a top notch program. I do not use complex or high end effects, and my work does not call for it. I am more of "less is more" approach, preferring practical effects over plug-ins for practical reasons (no pun intended). Only thing I would like to see added are expressions, which are much more flexible. I do prefer groups over a pre-comp any day.

I did love Adobe products at one time, and still like them very much. Just really don't care for the subscription only model based on principal. Still no off ramp, or exit strategy as there is no rent-to-buy option available. My other fear is that rent can go up, services or certain software will be cut. Just not a "risk" I am willing to take.

camera operator | editor | production assistant


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 6:52:23 pm
Last Edited By David Roth Weiss on Aug 31, 2014 at 6:57:53 pm

Steve,

Faster for you most likely does not mean what it does for Franz and many others - as they say, it's all relative, and that can be to one's familiarity with the software, complexity and length of the project they're editing, etc.

So, while you and others might find X faster for short form projects, many may argue that it's not necessarily so fast when working on long form projects, such as feature films. Some of that difference might be chalked up to user error or experience, but some may be directly attributable to issues with the app.

In any case, if an editor feels they can spend the majority of their time making creative decisions with any particular application rather than tinkering with the underlying application, and they feel that app is most likely going to get them to the finish-line faster, regardless of all other considerations, then that's the fastest NLE for them.

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com

Sales | Integration | Support

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 6:57:33 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "n any case, if an editor feels they can spend of their time making creative decisions with any particular application, and that app is most likely going to get them to the finish-line faster, regardless of all other considerations, then that's the fastest NLE for them."

True. For me that's FCP X, and I work in mostly short form. Anecdotally X is great and or not so great for long form, there's evidence for both results. I do still use others, mostly 7, some Pr. But as you say, whatever you feel best working in... use that. ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 7:15:39 pm

[Charlie Austin] "True. For me that's FCP X, and I work in mostly short form. Anecdotally X is great and or not so great for long form, there's evidence for both results. I do still use others, mostly 7, some Pr. But as you say, whatever you feel best working in... use that. ;-)"

I always chuckle when this X is faster discussion arises - an F-22 Raptor is certainly faster than a Volkswagen, but if you're a good driver and are comfortable operating a Volkswagen, you'll get to your destination a lot faster in your Volkswagen that you would in a Raptor if you first have to learn how to fly.

So, while the continued evolution of X over the last three years may be wonderful for some users, for many others whose primary focus is creative decision making and storytelling, the evolution of the product has meant a continuous and arduous learning curve, one that interferes with their creative process instead of speeding it up. And, that evolution continues, meaning good things to some, but maybe not for others.

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com

Sales | Integration | Support

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 7:20:56 pm

[David Roth Weiss] " for many others whose primary focus is creative decision making and storytelling"

Isn't that the primary focus for ALL Editors?

No sig on my posts as it's apparently very old fashioned


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 8:04:13 pm

[Steve Connor] "Isn't that (i.e. creative decision making and storytelling) the primary focus for ALL Editors?"

Well, you would think so, but there are just as many technicians, finishing editors, news cutters, sports cutters, VFX and Mograph pros, etc., to whom the connotation of speed may mean many different things.

The Adobe Suite for example, with dynamic linking to an entire set of apps, might make Adobe much faster for some editors than any other differences in speed you might be thinking of that exist with FCP X.

The bottom line is, any valuable discussion of NLE speeds is going to require a complex breakdown of each editor's individual needs and workflows. There is no one size fits all discussion of NLE speed.

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com

Sales | Integration | Support

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 1, 2014 at 2:49:54 am

Communication, yes. Storytelling, no. I equate storytelling to editing reality TV, a feature film, news interviews. For the rest of us in the corporate world, we're experts at communicating information. Occasionally it falls into the storytelling realms, but so often it's training, employee communication, b2b, marketing, press releases, or consumer focused productions. I'd call us communicators. An extension of graphic and motion design with the added element of full motion video. So there's a lot of crossover, but a storyteller is glamorizing what I do. In the last few weeks I edited a corporate music video parody and 10 how to videos. Earlier this year some news spoofs communicating employee benefits. All high end, but storytelling? Nah.


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 1, 2014 at 8:39:59 am

[Bret Williams] "Communication, yes. Storytelling, no. I equate storytelling to editing reality TV, a feature film, news interviews. For the rest of us in the corporate world, we're experts at communicating information. Occasionally it falls into the storytelling realms, but so often it's training, employee communication, b2b, marketing, press releases, or consumer focused productions. I'd call us communicators. An extension of graphic and motion design with the added element of full motion video. So there's a lot of crossover, but a storyteller is glamorizing what I do. In the last few weeks I edited a corporate music video parody and 10 how to videos. Earlier this year some news spoofs communicating employee benefits. All high end, but storytelling? Nah."

But presumably you do apply creative decision making to these? I actually try to apply the rules of story to the Corporate Comms work I do as well, it doesn't always work but I find it's a good starting point!

No sig on my posts as it's apparently very old fashioned


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 7:31:44 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "but if you're a good driver and are comfortable operating a Volkswagen, you'll get to your destination a lot faster in your Volkswagen that you would in a Raptor if you first have to learn how to fly.

So, while the continued evolution of X over the last three years may be wonderful for some users, for many others whose primary focus is creative decision making and storytelling, the evolution of the product has meant a continuous and arduous learning curve, one that interferes with their creative process instead of speeding it up."


Absolutely true, at least the good driver part. I really think that if people spent time actually working in X, they'd be just as fast as they are in anything else. Having been cutting in FCP "classic" since version 1, I can work ridiculously quickly, and I put the same effort into learning X as I did 7. (or MC before FCP or Pr when FCP X (which I didn't like very much at the time) appeared…) As a result, I can cut in it just as I do in 7. Fast.

The X "evolution" hasn't really affected the fundamental way the timeline works, that's been pretty much the same since it came out. It's a complex NLE. Learn it, and you're good to go. The same learning curve argument applies to people moving from FCP 7 to MC. That's why Pr is popular with switchers I think. It's the closest approximation of FCP classic there is. ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 1, 2014 at 7:04:49 am

[Charlie Austin] "I really think that if people spent time actually working in X, they'd be just as fast as they are in anything else."

Did they put Replace on Playhead into one of the updates? If they did I might consider spending time learning it.


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 1, 2014 at 5:30:06 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "[Charlie Austin] "I really think that if people spent time actually working in X, they'd be just as fast as they are in anything else."

Did they put Replace on Playhead into one of the updates? If they did I might consider spending time learning it."


Yeah, that's still missing. Also, reading my quote above it sounds like an admonishment, and it wasn't meant to be at all. As some other threads here show, I guess wee need to choose our words as carefully as politicians now, lest we be misunderstood. ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 6:53:11 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Sep 3, 2014 at 6:56:36 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Did they put Replace on Playhead into one of the updates? If they did I might consider spending time learning it.
"


I hear this all the time. The idea that "there's this thing that I do all the time that is so important to me that it prevents me from making a change." And I understand the concept. But I also challenge it's effectiveness as a decision point.

Traditions are often about holding onto the way we solved problems in the past. The big deal is that they've proved to be effective solutions. The problem is that so long as we stick with them - we're not exploring whether or not there may be more effective solutions out there. Or whether or not the problems we're solving now are always going to be the most critical problems.

If you reduce any NLE to "does it do THIS process the way I'm used to?" then what you're saying is that you are only willing to change only on YOUR terms.

I get that, but in an environment of rapid change, I think it's potentially dangerous.

Serious change - that can provide serious benefits - often come by way of BIG transformations that require you to re-think what's actually important.

Replace on Playhead. Frame Matchback. Dynamic Trimming. - I hear editors all the time who just will not give up on these and other items they love and depend on, and never consider that while these things have been crucial to effectiveness in traditional timeline editing, they might NOT be as critical in a new editing environment unless the editor is bound and determined to edit in the new system in precisely the same way they edited in their old system.

And please, I'm NOT saying these things aren't important or that X shouldn't add these to it's mix. Of course it should if it can without breaking other things.

All I'm suggesting is for some traditional editors to open their thinking to the question of if the new era might make some of these things less important in some editing contexts? What if in 10 years you're editing differently, and these things that are "mission critical" to you are less important to how you will be working then? If, for example, you're editing less dialog driven scenes, and more information exposition? That stuff happens. And X might be a better tool for that. Maybe.

The best example I can think of is how my attitude to audio changed between the era when I worked in Radio compared to the era when I started working in Audio for Video.

In my audio era, a precise signal to noise ratio and purity of sound was job ONE. I'd accept nothing less than the best I could achieve and I'd work hard to make every track PERFECT.

Then when I started working with audio married to video - I started understanding that if the viewer could not just hear but SEE a person talking, the viewer could easily extract perfect meaning out of less than perfectly recorded audio. Background sounds, or room reverb that would have been totally unacceptable in my audio work, suddenly wasn't the holy grail it was before. Because I was playing a different game.

All I'm saying is that the problems you fix with any of the above techniques are real and important. But they might not be the MOST important problems you'll be solving in the future.

Or maybe they still will be. It's hard to say.

Just food for thought.

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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 7:29:55 pm

[Bill Davis] "All I'm saying is that the problems you fix with any of the above techniques are real and important. But they might not be the MOST important problems you'll be solving in the future. "

If you reduce editing to which shot comes after which the tools you listed are irrelevant. If editing is still about what happens exactly when those tools are indispensable. That's why editors keep asking for them. Ranges vs In-Out is in the same spirit. There are dozens of uses for In and Out points in everyday editing work ranges simply can't be used for. As for Replace on Playhead it is different. There are two or three "Replaces" in FCP X and none is remotely useful in real editing situation. That's not "this app is designed for different style of editing". This is "this app is designed by someone who never edited even his vacation video".


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 7:45:40 pm

[Bill Davis] "Replace on Playhead. Frame Matchback. Dynamic Trimming. - I hear editors all the time who just will not give up on these and other items they love and depend on, and never consider that while these things have been crucial to effectiveness in traditional timeline editing, they might NOT be as critical in a new editing environment unless the editor is bound and determined to edit in the new system in precisely the same way they edited in their old system. "

Bill, as you know, I'm a big FCP X fan, and while I sometimes feel you are a little um... let's say strident, ;-) I do agree with a lot of what you post here and elsewhere.

But a match frame replace function really is something that FCP X needs desperately. It has nothing to do with "a new editing environment" at all. It's a feature that is missing. Yes, you can work around it, but it sucks to have to. I find replacing clips in X to be really easy and fast. Unless I need to do a match frame replace, which I quite often do, then everything comes to a screeching halt.

It's pretty basic function in any NLE, and there's stuff in the guts of X that indicate it was/is a planned feature. A lot of stuff people "miss" does fall into the "stop trying to do it like (insert other NLE here). Not this. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 8:26:11 pm

[Charlie Austin] "It's pretty basic function in any NLE, and there's stuff in the guts of X that indicate it was/is a planned feature. A lot of stuff people "miss" does fall into the "stop trying to do it like (insert other NLE here). Not this. :-)"

Seconded.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 8:37:14 pm

[Charlie Austin] "It's pretty basic function in any NLE, and there's stuff in the guts of X that indicate it was/is a planned feature. A lot of stuff people "miss" does fall into the "stop trying to do it like (insert other NLE here). Not this. :-)"

[Simon Ubsdell] "Seconded."

Charlie, Simon,

So, what's the criteria for categorizing "basic, necessary functions" vs. "different priorities, different approaches"?

Franz.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 8:41:06 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "So, what's the criteria for categorizing "basic, necessary functions" vs. "different priorities, different approaches"?"

Hopefully for those of you who want the replace clip feature the longest response doesn't carry the most weight with Apple.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 8:42:16 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "So, what's the criteria for categorizing "basic, necessary functions" vs. "different priorities, different approaches"?"

I can only talk about the absence of true Replace Edit which makes a lot of my day-to-day work very difficult indeed - if I happen to choose to work in FCP X. There is no quick and easy way of executing a similar function as things stand and yet I need to be able to do this quickly and easily on a regular basis.

In the last two weeks, I have had four jobs where this function was essential and where the turnaround time meant that I wouldn't have been able to deliver had I been stuck with X. As it happens I was working in FCP7 and got all the jobs done in time.

No doubt Apple with all their prescience have foreseen a future where I won't need this function - but that future hasn't arrived yet.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 8:54:55 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "So, what's the criteria for categorizing "basic, necessary functions" vs. "different priorities, different approaches"?"

For me, it just comes down to being able to do something just as easily as in anything else. If I have to do it in a different way, that's fine, as long as, once mastered, it's easy. The X timeline for instance. For me, my workflow, magnetism and lack of tracks makes no difference. I can accomplish the same thing as in another NLE just as easily. It's different, but who cares. I really like it. However, there is no "different" way to do match frame replace. You can work around it, but you shouldn't have to. It's a basic feature and it's missing.

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

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 9:05:51 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] " There is no quick and easy way of executing a similar function as things stand and yet I need to be able to do this quickly and easily on a regular basis."

[Charlie Austin] "However, there is no "different" way to do match frame replace. You can work around it, but you shouldn't have to. It's a basic feature and it's missing."


Simon, Charlie,

Yes, I would agree. It's just that this measure is pretty subjective.

I suppose "most requested" and general popularity of feature applies.

I don't use this function much, so it doesn't have much impact on me. But others dismiss, for example, an audio mixing interface (outside the timeline) as essential - because they don't use it. To me, it's basic.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 9:15:01 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Sep 3, 2014 at 9:30:55 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Yes, I would agree. It's just that this measure is pretty subjective.

I suppose "most requested" and general popularity of feature applies.

I don't use this function much, so it doesn't have much impact on me. But others dismiss, for example, an audio mixing interface (outside the timeline) as essential - because they don't use it. To me, it's basic."


You can work around the absence of a mixer prettily easily - indeed there's a good case to be made that using a mixer in an NLE is a slower more cumbersome way of working than the alternatives.

If you can't actually deliver the job quick enough because of the absence of a particular function, in this case the absence of a true Replace Edit option, then it's a really big deal, whether or not that's a niche requirement for the vast mass of editors out there.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 10:42:06 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "You can work around the absence of a mixer prettily easily - indeed there's a good case to be made that using a mixer in an NLE is a slower more cumbersome way of working than the alternatives."

Simon,

For some work, undoubtedly that is true. For other work the mixer is much better (complex real-time keyframing on more than one track at a time is a breeze with a mixer, particularly when you can leave the mouse behind and put your hands on faders).

It will depend on the editor and the work.

As to alternatives:

[Charlie Austin] "You can work around it, but you shouldn't have to. It's a basic feature and it's missing."

The point that gets lost every time these discussions come up is this - what is crucial for one person is trivial for the other. Insisting on one perspective or dismissing the other doesn't do much to move the conversation forward.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 11:01:36 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "The point that gets lost every time these discussions come up is this - what is crucial for one person is trivial for the other. Insisting on one perspective or dismissing the other doesn't do much to move the conversation forward."

I agree that one man's steak is another man's cardboard, but to Charlie's point gaps like these can only be filled by Apple (or whomever makes the NLE) and first and foremost NLEs should be strong editors. Audio mixing, color correction, compositing, motion gfx, etc., can all be handled by outside applications or augmented by 3rd party plugins if what's offered by the NLE isn't strong enough but the same can't be said when it's an editing feature/function that's lacking.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 11:04:31 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 3, 2014 at 11:07:35 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Audio mixing, color correction, compositing, motion gfx, etc., can all be handled by outside applications or augmented by 3rd party plugins if what's offered by the NLE isn't strong enough but the same can't be said when it's an editing feature/function that's lacking."

Andrew,

Mixing is editing.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 11:15:45 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Andrew,

Mixing is editing.

Franz.

"

All due respect, in my opinion as a former mixer... not really. Unless you mean getting a good temp mix. :-) There isn't an NLE on the planet, with or without faders, that I'd use for a final mix.

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

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 11:58:59 pm

[Charlie Austin] "All due respect, in my opinion as a former mixer... not really. Unless you mean getting a good temp mix. :-) There isn't an NLE on the planet, with or without faders, that I'd use for a final mix."


Charlie,

Yes. Getting a good temp mix. (Or further sometimes.)

In the same way that an NLE has to get good temp colour. (Or further sometimes.)

... or good temp graphics. (Or further sometimes.)

... etc.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 1:32:10 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Charlie,

Yes. Getting a good temp mix. (Or further sometimes.)

In the same way that an NLE has to get good temp colour. (Or further sometimes.)

... or good temp graphics. (Or further sometimes.)

... etc.
"


Fair enough. :-) I'm in the "don't need faders to do that" camp, but I can understand how one would prefer them.

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

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10:59 am
Last Edited By David Lawrence on Sep 4, 2014 at 12:24:02 am

[Charlie Austin] "You can work around it, but you shouldn't have to. It's a basic feature and it's missing."

Same with select/copy/overwrite paste in the primary. There's no reason this simple function should be missing.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 1:39:13 am

[David Lawrence] "Same with select/copy/overwrite paste in the primary. There's no reason this simple function should be missing."

Again, don't use that really, but yes, it should be there in the primary at least. There probably is a reason, but they need to fix/work around whatever it is... ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 6:53:27 am

[Charlie Austin] "But a match frame replace function really is something that FCP X needs desperately. It has nothing to do with "a new editing environment" at all. It's a feature that is missing."

Well, I thought I was being clear in supporting that.

My point was NOT that the three functions I called out are unnecessary or even not extremely valuable to the constituency that relies on for efficient editing. And I said that up front.

I've just argued time and time again, that there are LOTS of constituencies for LOTS of different types of features in any NLE.

I too gave up lots of things I had come to "rely on" for editing when I switched to X. Some have come back. (Multicam) and some have not. Some (were given then taken away by X itself! (I loved the original Project Library layout format, for instance, and still miss it!)

But I"ve never lost sight of the fact that *I* am a subset of the FCP X target audience. And so is everyone else here. It's not that they're ignoring me. Or you. Or the class of "professional editors." It's that they were totally up front about the goal here. Re-think things. And based on the development, they're still doing precisely that.

Some people like Michael A feel totally stymied by X because it doesn't have what they feel they need to edit effectively.

I still maintain that they may be missing the forest because they're standing with their nose pressed up against ONE tree - but I could certainly be wrong.

It does seem odd however, that so many other pro editors in all sorts of facets of the overall editing community worldwide - including more and more at the very top end of the pro spectrum - and many here specifically, like you Charlie - are managing to successfully edit with X with the same "missing" pieces that are stopping others cold.

Curiously how many pro editors can see the same set of features, some finds them interesting and are willing to work around the limitations in order to enjoy the benefits - the other swon't consider it until it checks ALL the boxes on their list.

Such is life, I guess.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 7:02:27 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Faster for you most likely does not mean what it does for Franz and many others - as they say, it's all relative, and that can be to one's familiarity with the software, complexity and length of the project they're editing, et
"


Not having to transcode is a big timesaver to start with and the general speed of the software is faster than 7 as well. Of course you are faster on the NLE that you know, but if we all thought like that then we would never move on.

[David Roth Weiss] "So, while you and others might find X faster for short form projects, many may argue that it's not necessarily so fast when working on long form projects, such as feature films."

Having cut a feature on FCPX as well as a number of 100 minute plus event documentaries on it then I would argue, from experience, that it is faster than FCP7 on long-form. But of course only if you are familiar with the software.

[David Roth Weiss] "In any case, if an editor feels they can spend of their time making creative decisions with any particular application, and that app is most likely going to get them to the finish-line faster, regardless of all other considerations, then that's the fastest NLE for them."

I agree 100%

Nice to see you back on here David!

No sig on my posts as it's apparently very old fashioned


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 7:05:51 pm

I'm also cutting a 100 minute event documentary on PPro CC2014 at the moment and that is also much faster than FCP7 on a long form project.

No sig on my posts as it's apparently very old fashioned


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 7:27:23 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Aug 31, 2014 at 7:45:06 pm

[Steve Connor] "Faster it isn't!"

[Steve Connor] "... the general speed of the software is faster than 7 as well."

[Steve Connor] I would argue, from experience, that it is faster than FCP7 on long-form."

[Steve Connor] "... PPro CC2014 ... is also much faster than FCP7 on a long form project."

Steve,

As I've argued elsewhere speed is a reference to certain features - certain functions can be timed and compared between different software implementations. Without naming the specific functions, things get pretty vague and subjective (which is also fine) and on that count Final Cut Pro 7 is fast, and perhaps the fastest. (Your experience may vary here.)

Through my experience on the project cut in X, I can say that nothing fundamentally made a difference to the speed in execution of that project (on either micro or macro levels) except the background transcode. In a project with assistants prepping (including among their tasks, transcoding) this is of lesser impact.

I'll also state that part of my frustration with Media Composer (the part that was user error, no doubt) was the constant feeling that I was not operating as fast as I could think and respond.

I have no doubt that you experience your editing as "faster" with FCP X and I have no reason to question that.

[Steve Connor] "Not having to transcode is a big timesaver to start with ..."

The issue of transcoding only saves time if your workflow is better without an editing ("mezzanine") codec. There are workflows that are better if you transcode and it is not a given that every project should be editing in camera formats.

Transcoding media is still a viable (and in some cases preferred) workflow.


Franz.

Edit: for clarity, I take the speed question to be quite a separate issue from being "up to speed" (ie. learning the software) which is where these comments seem to be leading.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 5:14:32 pm

It kind of seems like the market place would determine speed, at some point.

If a client is paying by the hour, and they are paying more because a editor is using a program that is not 64 bit, seems like they would complain. Or just go someplace else.

I can see if they don't have anything to compare it to, but at this point there are plenty of houses with choices.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 6:16:06 pm

[tony west] "If a client is paying by the hour, and they are paying more because a editor is using a program that is not 64 bit, seems like they would complain. Or just go someplace else."


Tony,

First, the review (still needed in 2014) of the benefits of 64bit:
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/44437

If work bogs down, people want to know what it is that causes delays.

Outside of specific tasks (ie transcoding) I've never had producers aware of what software or hardware might be faster or slower. If we talk about "editing", software almost never comes up. I have heard producers talk about "fast" or "slow" editors, but even then that's pretty rare.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 9:17:07 pm

By far the slowest part about editing is decision making. Assembly is a breeze. Trying to find a shot amongst thousands can be the culprit, or indecision. So often the first cut goes quickly, but changes, approvals and general red tape can take twice as long. I'd definitely rather have skimming at my disposal when looking for a clip vs the old "load into viewer, scrub, repeat" method.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 10:40:35 pm

[Bret Williams] "I'd definitely rather have skimming at my disposal when looking for a clip vs the old "load into viewer, scrub, repeat" method."

Bret,

FCP X certainly seems to have streamlined certain processes for those who use browser-based editing.

One of the advantages of sequence-based editing is that it leaves behind the "load clip into view, scrub, repeat" action that browser-based editing relies on.

In that respect, it was possible to leave behind that process a long time ago, depending on your preferences.

[Bret Williams] "By far the slowest part about editing is decision making."

I would agree in the sense that you can only think so fast. That's why I think any discussion of "faster" editing needs to be qualified by a clear sense of what aspects you're talking about. On the whole, editing involves a lot of processes.

Franz.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 4:53:33 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "First, the review (still needed in 2014) of the benefits of 64bit:"

For me, it's pretty simple. In Legacy, if you were cutting, say a doc and just grab a photo and drug it into the timeline you would have to wait and render that.

I don't in X I just keep working.

If I were a producer and I was paying by the hour and handed somebody a bunch of photos and sat there waiting for the render, I would walk out of the edit : )

In X you can hover over an effect to show the client what something is going to look like before you add it.


Those are just the simple things


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 12:41:30 pm

[tony west] "they are paying more because a editor is using a program that is not 64 bit"

[tony west] "In Legacy, if you were cutting, say a doc and just grab a photo and drug it into the timeline you would have to wait and render that."

Tony,

Claiming that producers pay more for work done on 32 bit software is different from discussing what features you find better in one NLE vs. another.

I agree that stills are a bit of pain in FCP7.

But since we still seem to be stuck on the idea of speed, I'll try to clarify further. The only "speed" that matters really is from shoot to picture lock (or others would say delivery). During that time there are many complex interrelated tasks. It's one thing to discuss and compare certain tasks. It's another to claim that you can get from day one to picture lock faster.

I have no doubt that for certain types of work, the difference in certain tasks makes a marked difference in overall "speed". But it is pointless to talk about that unless you give the context. One size does not fit all.

It's important to remember too that speed isn't a priority in all work. Some will have other priorities.

It seems to need repeating that all editors do not do the same kind of work. All editors don't work the same way. Editors have different needs. Those needs will be reflected in features and aspects they are attracted to in the tools they use.

For those interested in something other than scoring points, a discussion of the workflow and how software helps may be of benefit to others.

My intention wasn't to convince anyone to use one NLE or another. It was simply to give a reflection on my own choices after three and a half years. That may be of use to some, and not to others.

Franz.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 1:13:51 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "It's important to remember too that speed isn't a priority in all work. Some will have other priorities."

Indeed,

I thought you were asking for specific tasks that would make working with a 64 bit program faster than that of a non 64 bit program.

I thought I was answering that with the example of a still because in a doc (as you also discussed) folks use a great deal of pics. Having to look at that red bar slows things down.

I'm not really trying to convince you.

At the end of the day I'm gonna use what I want to use and so will others. I was just trying to answer your question.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 1:33:56 pm

[tony west] "I thought you were asking for specific tasks that would make working with a 64 bit program faster than that of a non 64 bit program."

Tony,

I'm not convinced the implementation of stills in FCP 7 is necessarily a result of 32 bit limits. I think it's just a poor implementation. I'd be interested if you know otherwise (speculation aside).

Franz.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 11:45:04 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "
I'm not convinced the implementation of stills in FCP 7 is necessarily a result of 32 bit limits. I think it's just a poor implementation. I'd be interested if you know otherwise (speculation aside)."


I'm not sure either Franz, I'm just glad to not have to deal with it anymore.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 12:00:22 am

FCP7 wasn't bad at animating stills because it was 32-bit. It was bad at animated stills because it was designed to edit video, not animate.

For comparison, 32-bit Motion had no trouble at all animating stacks of stills (with effects & lighting) in real-time.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 1:41:31 am

Yeah, this is the part that matter to me


[Walter Soyka] "It was bad at animated stills "


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 1:17:10 pm

[tony west] "Yeah, this is the part that matter to me"

Tony,

Yes. This was my point.

There is a difference between talking about features that matter to you and claiming that 32 bit software is more costly to producers.

The first is useful to discuss the benefits or drawbacks of various NLEs. The second is obfuscation, and in the case of FCP 7 stills functions, wrong.

Franz.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 7:37:35 pm

[Steve Connor] "Nice to see you back on here David!"

Thanks Steve, I appreciate hearing that.

While we've certainly had our differences on various topics and on our modus operandi, it's always refreshing to see that over time all of us can manage to come back and discuss just about anything.

BTW, though I hardly ever have much time to write these days, according to the Cow Hall of Fame, I'm still the #5 poster of all time on the site. That's scary...

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com

Sales | Integration | Support

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 4:31:31 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "So, while you and others might find X faster for short form projects, many may argue that it's not necessarily so fast when working on long form projects, such as feature films."

The design of X is meant to cull through massive amounts footage. The more footage a project has the better X is at doing what X does.

In no way does this entail anyone has to use it for their work or that anyone must like the design.

I would be curious why folks think it is not faster for a feature or a documentary.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 4:52:53 pm

[Richard Herd] "The design of X is meant to cull through massive amounts footage."


Richard,

It's generally true that NLEs are designed with this in mind.


[Richard Herd] I would be curious why folks think it is not faster for a feature or a documentary."

The inverse question is at least as interesting - why do you think other systems would not be faster?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 6:14:58 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[Richard Herd] "The design of X is meant to cull through massive amounts footage."


Richard,

It's generally true that NLEs are designed with this in mind.


[Richard Herd] I would be curious why folks think it is not faster for a feature or a documentary."

The inverse question is at least as interesting - why do you think other systems would not be faster?

Franz."


It's impolite to answer a question with a question :)

What I said has nothing to do with any other NLE: The more footage a project has the better X is at doing what X does. The argument that "X is for small projects and therefore large post projects should avoid it" is the last bit of the older argument that X is not for pro work. My bit of negation here is the more footage you throw at X the better X is and therefore it can be used on large projects.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 6:21:46 pm

[Richard Herd] "What I said has nothing to do with any other NLE: The more footage a project has the better X is at doing what X does."

Richard,

This may or may not be true, but it does not follow that this makes FCP X "faster" than other NLEs. (If you were not comparing it other NLEs then you need to explain.)


[Richard Herd] "... the more footage you throw at X the better X is and therefore it can be used on large projects."

I'm still waiting for reports of performance under load. Someone said they had about 60 sequences at some point but I've not read reports of more than that. Clips and sequences seem to stress NLEs in different ways and the design has to accommodate high numbers of both for my workflow.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 6:37:35 pm

Here's the quote: [David Roth Weiss] "So, while you and others might find X faster for short form projects, many may argue that it's not necessarily so fast when working on long form projects, such as feature films."

Imagine a scenario where a post supervisor is figuring out the details of a particular feature. They may investigate many software packages. While there may be some reasons to avoid X, one of those reasons is not "the project is long form."

Now to repeat myself: The line of reasoning raised in the DRW quote is the last bit of an older argument: X is not for professional work.

On small projects, there is no need for keywording because there is nothing to keep track of. The larger the project gets the better X is at doing what it does best. Strike that, what it is designed to do. I see the confusion is that "best" can be construed as "better than PP" or "better than Avid." But I'm talking about the best feature of X is its keywording.

To be fair, Adobe needed Prelude for a similar task. If/when I move to LA or NY, then I will re-learn Avid--haven't used it since 2003 and I opened up the trial versions in 2010, but I was under dead line and because I needed AE/AI/PS in the work, I just moved over to Premiere.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 7:44:58 pm

[Richard Herd] "I see the confusion is that "best" can be construed as "better than PP" or "better than Avid.""

Richard,

I see. To be clear, I understood "best" as meaning it is FCP X's best feature. (I'll leave others to brew that controversy.) And I'll leave DRW to respond regarding his own statements, but I was responding to this:

[Richard Herd] "I would be curious why folks think it is not faster for a feature or a documentary."

"Faster" is a comparison. What are you implying it is faster than?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 4:28:29 pm

I don't imply that. My question is not rhetorical.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 6:12:01 pm

[Richard Herd] "I don't imply that."

Richard,

I am not following then.

"not faster" than what?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 9:16:07 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I am not following then."

Yes, we agree, then!



[Franz Bieberkopf] ""not faster" than what?"

I don't know. That's why I asked!







Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 5:06:57 am

[Richard Herd] "On small projects, there is no need for keywording because there is nothing to keep track of. The larger the project gets the better X is at doing what it does best. Strike that, what it is designed to do. I see the confusion is that "best" can be construed as "better than PP" or "better than Avid." But I'm talking about the best feature of X is its keywording."

I agree here Richard.

For me, I don't see a better use for X than a documentary.

1. Skimmer lets you fly throughout tons of footage.
2. tagging helps you find surf quickly
3. In many doc you are constantly making moves on pics and that KB set up is fast
4. In a doc it's not scripted so you may get whole section complete and then find another interview and have to make room for it. That timeline lets you pic up whole sections in a simple drag and just drop it in.


People always talk about building. For me it's the corrections that really fly. When you have to go back into the edit to make changes. That timeline is made for that.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 8:40:03 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'm still waiting for reports of performance under load. Someone said they had about 60 sequences at some point but I've not read reports of more than that. Clips and sequences seem to stress NLEs in different ways and the design has to accommodate high numbers of both for my workflow.

Franz."


Re: "Performance under load" you might want to read this.

Or perhaps 64 streams of full HD being run simultaneously isn't "under load" in your thinking?

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1472-building-a-64-layer-chessboar...

And the article writer from the largest creative shop in Denmark clearly says that if he had to do anything remotely this complex again, he'd absolutely do it again in FCP X rather than the other tools the shop uses which include both AVID and Premier.

Just saying'

I hate these articles. Over and over it's the rest of the world and NOT US editors that appear to be open minded and ready to move forward rather than sitting back and waiting for some earth shaking consensus to form before they adopt new thinking.

It's kinda depressing, actually.

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

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 12:31:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "Or perhaps 64 streams of full HD being run simultaneously isn't "under load" in your thinking?"

Bill,


This is certainly one way of describing capabilities, and certainly you could call this "under load".

Also, it is not what I was talking about. I thought it was clear, but my interest is in how it can handle many many sequences.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 7:41:22 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Also, it is not what I was talking about. I thought it was clear, but my interest is in how it can handle many many sequences.

Franz."


OK, then refine "sequences? for me if you will.

Are we talking about what in the past Legacy systems called "timelines."

I ask because in X's referential system - you can have 30 distinct Projects (Timelines or actually Storylines in X parlance) that refer only to a small pool of resources and in that case, the number of them really will have little or no impact on system performance.

Or are you talking about what X designates Events - or maybe Libraries?

Each of these organizational abstracts reacts differently to overloading. And because of that, there are differing solutions that depend on the size and structure of the media you're managing - and how the shop chooses to manage it.

Peter Wiggins has a piece on FCP.co about how they managed the footage library for ITV4s coverage of the Tour de France, and it appears that they were doing real-time access to a pretty massive amount of historical footage from TdF's back to the 1980s and accessing it all via a pretty robust FCP X system.

The conclusion appears to be that it worked just fine.

I also suspect that NEXT YEAR, they're going to be REALLY happy, since they can start up with the current Libraries already formed, and just incrementally add new stuff to the big existing library bringing all the assets they created this year into the mix as needed.

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

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 12:59:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "the number of them really will have little or no impact on system performance."

Bill,

... so 10,000 sequences, for example. No problem?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 3:31:02 pm

Can FCP7 handle 10000 sequences?


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 3:46:19 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Can FCP7 handle 10000 sequences?"

Jeremy,

I haven't seen anyone claim that it can. I certainly don't make any such claim (though I've never tried).

Bill, on the other hand, claims theres no limit in FCP X.

[Bill Davis] "... the number of them really will have little or no impact on system performance."

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 4:37:29 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Jeremy,

I haven't seen anyone claim that it can. I certainly don't make any such claim (though I've never tried)."


I haven't either. My guess is that it would be very slow. Any NLE will be very slow with 10000 sequences, wouldn't you think?

The Tour de France article is pretty good proof that X can handle lots and lots of media.

I, personally, have only gone up to just under 100 Projects in a single Library in X, and I didn't notice any system hang ups.

As with other NLEs, the library takes a little longer to open, but that's about it. 10.1.3 has been a great update for me, and the beachballs have flown out to sea.

BTW - We are finally migrating the rest of the office to X. It's going to be a slow process, but it's happening! :) With the new library/cache structure, I feel comfortable letting everyone else knock it around without a lot of hand holding.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 4:55:21 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 4, 2014 at 4:57:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Any NLE will be very slow with 10000 sequences, wouldn't you think?"


Jeremy,

Yes. At some point. That's why I'm surprised by the claim that FCP X doesn't have these limitations. You seem defensive that I would question it, but seem to agree it's a questionable claim.

[Jeremy Garchow] "The Tour de France article is pretty good proof that X can handle lots and lots of media"

Media and sequences are different things. Sequences seem to be more taxing on any given NLE. I suspect it's ultimately harder to quantify, which is why it's good to get reports from the field.

Defensiveness about your chosen NLE aside, I'm just asking for experiences with large numbers of sequences.

Whenever I ask about this I typically get answers about vast amounts of media (in which I'm also interested) and little about sequences.

(Example)
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/71327

[Jeremy Garchow] "I, personally, have only gone up to just under 100 Projects in a single Library in X, and I didn't notice any system hang ups. ... the library takes a little longer to open, but that's about it."

A number! An experience! Thanks. This is helpful.

It's also lower than the typical number of sequences I have in any given project, but it's a data point.


Franz.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 5:14:40 pm

Wow average over 100 sequences in any given (FCP 7) project? that's a lot. What sort of duration is each sequence out of interest?


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 5:18:37 pm

[James Ewart] "What sort of duration is each sequence out of interest?"

James,

Source sequences will be anything from 10mins to 6 hours or more depending on the shoots.

Selects and collection sequences vary as well, really anything from 10mins to a couple hours or more.

Cuts vary depending on the stage, but again 10mins to maybe half hour or hour so for assemblies, and full cuts ranging from about 3 hours down to 90 mins or so.

Franz.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 5:24:31 pm

Would it be nosey to enquire as to the genre of programme you are making?


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 5:32:41 pm

[James Ewart] " Would it be nosey to enquire as to the genre of programme you are making?"

James,

I try to do a range of different sorts of things; most work I would describe as unscripted non-fiction, long form. But, for example, I work the same way with scripted or performance material.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 5:28:15 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Yes. At some point. That's why I'm surprised by the claim that FCP X doesn't have these limitations. You seem defensive that I would question it, but seem to agree it's a questionable claim."

I'm not being defensive, I just want to know. I know that you constantly ask about sequence quantity in FCPX, and I would think that it would be totally insane to have 10,000 sequences in any NLE, and I was wondering if you'd tried that with 7. That would be impressive!

X certainly has limitations. It's not a golden god, but it's also not a pariah anymore, it's an NLE. There are limitations to everything. You will never see me say that X has no limits.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "A number! An experience! Thanks. This is helpful."

It was something like 94 Projects, and it was in version 10.1 (before the Great Cache Divide™).

[Franz Bieberkopf] "It's also lower than the typical number of sequences I have in any given project, but it's a data point."

How many do you typically have?

Going back to another taking point about selects sequences (or pancakes, or whatever the kids are calling them these days), I used to do this in 7 all the time. Every project has not only the working edit sequences and versions, but a huge list of selects reels. Because the FCP7 browser isn't very good, this is a really easy way to group certain clips together and even though its' probably not by "design" per sé, the FCP7 method supports this method very well (having multiple timelines open). In X, I find I don't need those sequences anymore, and all of my Projects and really only edit versions. Also, with Audition clips, compound clips, secondary story lines, and connected clips, I find that I can store a lot more decisions in one single timeline than I do with other NLE's. I also use the Browser to group clips because it's so damn good at it, and then add skimming on top of that, and for me, it's way more visual and creative than selects reels.

Another difference in the way I work in X, is that I typically have one sequence open per "version" of what I need to deliver (if I have three commercials to deliver, I will have three separate timelines to keep versioning) and with FCPX's snapshot system, I typically don't make new versions of the Project. In 7, I would duplicate the current sequence, rename it the dupe to title_version#+1, close title_version#-1, and then open title_version#+1 (or some combination of those steps). In X, I simply keep the current version open, and snapshot different versions for later retrieval. It doesn't seem like a big difference, but in practice, it's a huge difference in focus. When I need to switch to a different commercial, I open that Project, and snapshot that one to "save as I go".

But, this is all very subjective. I find that it has helped me in my work. It won't help for everyone.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 5:59:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Because the FCP7 browser isn't very good, this is a really easy way to group certain clips together and even though its' probably not by "design" per sé, the FCP7 method supports this method very well (having multiple timelines open)."

Jeremy,

Yes, if you're using sequence-based editing only because the browser isn't very good, as I have said elsewhere I feel FCP X is designed for browser-based editing and will probably prove a better match than FCP 7.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, with Audition clips, compound clips, secondary story lines, and connected clips, I find that I can store a lot more decisions in one single timeline than I do with other NLE's."

I'm aware of these functions and I like aspects of them. I'm not sure they would change much of the way I work though. (They didn't in the one project I collaborated on in X.)

[Jeremy Garchow] "In X, I simply keep the current version open, and snapshot different versions for later retrieval. It doesn't seem like a big difference, but in practice, it's a huge difference in focus."

I'm not familiar with the snapshot function in practice - is there a difference in terms of how you retrieve these to screen or recover all or part?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 6:18:14 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Yes, if you're using sequence-based editing only because the browser isn't very good, as I have said elsewhere I feel FCP X is designed for browser-based editing and will probably prove a better match than FCP 7."

But my argument is that sequence based editing is necessary in FCP7 because it's really the only good way to do it.

You can also do it in X, there's nothing stopping you.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'm aware of these functions and I like aspects of them. I'm not sure they would change much of the way I work though. (They didn't in the one project I collaborated on in X.)"

Well, yes. You didn't do the organization right? The first project I did in X, Itried to make it work just like I did in FCP7. Now, after three years (sheesh), I don't work like that anymore. X takes more than one project to get used to, as does any new NLE no matter any similarities.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'm not familiar with the snapshot function in practice - is there a difference in terms of how you retrieve these to screen or recover all or part?"

You just double click it and it opens the sequence at the time you took the snapshot.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 6:26:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can also do it in X, there's nothing stopping you."


Jeremy,

This would be true if FCP X can handle hundreds of sequences per project.

Have you heard of such reports?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 6:28:16 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Have you heard of such reports?"

I think someone said they had 10,000!


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 8:13:51 pm

[Richard Herd] "The design of X is meant to cull through massive amounts footage. The more footage a project has the better X is at doing what X does. "

[Aindreas Gallagher] "How has it been logging? if you're not making monster timelines do you like the performance?"

There's no question in my mind that X is a fast and efficient logging tool. Really the best I've ever used and excellent for larges amounts of footage.

Unfortunately, I still find the timeline unusable for my specific tasks. Not because I haven't spent time learning it or don't understand it. It simply doesn't do basic things I need it to do. Not that you can't get the exact same results in X, the problem is the needed workarounds make it much less efficient.

It's all about the right tool for the job, right? I'm very happy with X for logging. For cutting I go elsewhere.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Aug 31, 2014 at 6:53:36 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Congratulations to Apple. End-of-Life has never been so good.
"


FWIW, you'll probably be able to update to the latest greatest OS if you like, and still use FCP 7. After that... ???

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

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


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 1, 2014 at 1:35:17 pm

Yeah... what you're saying is a common one: Premiere Pro seems to ride the best balance between convention and new technology. Not quite sure how us other editors can genuinely add to your discussion. It seems you've thoroughly investigated and made a well balanced opinion.

I began my career on FCP7 and often wished for the death of Avid. Then I switched to Media Composer and funny enough, I prefer it now (probably due to the disproportionately high amount of training I received on it, versus the competition). However, I'm also editing a series on Premiere Pro too: great software. Their trim mode is so damn Avid-like now. As an Avid user... I feel very comfortable on the new CC 2014 version.

That being said, now that I've been using it frequently I am realizing that once the project size gets fairly large, the speed advantages of the engine start to dissipate (to be fair, we're editing native AVCHD and H264... unheard of for Media Composer) ... but... I guess the point I'm trying to make is that many of the speed advantages in all the NLEs starts to fade a bit into the background as the daily grind of editing just takes its course, until it doesn't really become a topic of contention anymore.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 1, 2014 at 11:58:35 pm

[Daniel Frome] "probably due to the disproportionately high amount of training I received on it, versus the competition"

ok - seriously - for kicks:

the keyframing? as you highlight the marker in the monitor for some reason to make it pink to then alter the keyframe in the panel? can we have a moment of sanity? or the fact that the effects nest? or the fact that you can't operate any slip slide tools on the video object?

It's more the sense that avid is going to continue dragging its horrible, modal, over engineered trim mode nested effects two minute start up insanity for all human eternity that would depress a soul.

I get that avid software can't be killed by conventional field weaponry or SEC investigations - but why and how is the avid timeline, project structure and keyframing still alive? are they actual cousins to rasputin?

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


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 3:02:39 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "or the fact that you can't operate any slip slide tools on the video object?"

theres slip and slide in Avid.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 12:28:45 pm

I know - but its only inside that mega trim mode right? you have to access it via the cut points? It's not really a thing - I just like to have a slip tool I can act on the video object. unless I've got this wrong.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 1:35:19 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I know - but its only inside that mega trim mode right? you have to access it via the cut points? It's not really a thing - I just like to have a slip tool I can act on the video object. unless I've got this wrong."

There are keyboard shortcuts for slip outside of the trim editor


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 2:42:57 pm

oh i take it all back so - no wait I still hate it.

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


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 2:48:38 pm

With your timeline being the active window, use the trim keys (without being in trim mode) and they act as slip-mode. If you select a clip (either by clicking on it, or by using the 'select' function) then the trim keys act as slide-mode.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 5:35:04 am

Oh, dear! Sorry if I steered you in a wrong direction, there, but I still truly enjoy working with MC. If I had to choose one, it would probably be Pr, though. For the record, I'm not having the kind of problems you seem to be having with AMA. I find AMA on MC7 really effective, though I work almost exclusively with ProRes when using AMA, so that might have something to do with it. I just cut an entire season of promos (23) entirely with AMA, never transcoding at all. My playback, off a MacBook Pro, and out over tBolt to multiple monitors was stellar, and trim mode was very responsive. And, of course, I work exclusively within that Los Angeles environment you are talking about, so MC skills are pretty much required whether you like it or not.

As to the Modes, I used to agree with you and absolutely hated them. Once I absorbed the concept, however, I ceased to notice them, and now sort of miss them when I'm in Pr.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 12:22:46 pm

[Chris Harlan] " I just cut an entire season of promos (23) entirely with AMA, never transcoding at all. My playback, off a MacBook Pro, and out over tBolt to multiple monitors was stellar, and trim mode was very responsive."

Brave man. Even Avid folks suggest that AMA is best used to just choose selects then transcode.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 2:52:07 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Brave man. Even Avid folks suggest that AMA is best used to just choose selects then transcode.
"


He used Prores. That's like...cheating! ;) Whenever you AMA link a quicktime file with a native Avid codec (DNxHD, ProRes, etc) the AMA performance is very, very good. The horror stories happen with non-native formats -- DSLR and GoPro, etc.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 3:02:14 pm

Hardly! As, I said I was using proRes, which Avid works with really, really well.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 3:05:19 pm

[Chris Harlan] " I was using proRes, which Avid works with really, really well."

If every camera shot a version of Pro Res wouldn't life be grand?

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com

Sales | Integration | Support

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 3:56:58 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "If every camera shot a version of Pro Res wouldn't life be grand?"

If ProRes were an open standard, yes. I'm not comfortable with the degree of industry reliance on proprietary Apple technology.

In other news, GoPro's CineForm is now SMPTE VC-5.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 5:30:15 pm

[Walter Soyka] "In other news, GoPro's CineForm is now SMPTE VC-5."

Cool!


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 6:12:38 pm

[Walter Soyka] "In other news, GoPro's CineForm is now SMPTE VC-5."

Great news. CineForm is awesome.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 8:18:36 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If ProRes were an open standard, yes. I'm not comfortable with the degree of industry reliance on proprietary Apple technology.

In other news, GoPro's CineForm is now SMPTE VC-5."


You see though, I am all for making things better, and maybe easier. Truly.

But what does Cineform as VC-5 truly get me? And by me, I mean us.

Avid has a SMPTE approved format, and it means almost nothing, in practice to me and everyone I work with.

GoPro says this:

"SMPTE standardization of the GoPro CineForm codec as the VC-5 standard now means the professional production and post production community can access SMPTE-standardized codec technology for presenting high resolution imagery with a high speed, low-compute intensive workflow. The new VC-5 standard will provide a more efficient, cost effective and higher-performance workflow, delivering an 8x performance boost over the current JPEG 2000 format with higher resolution."

Is this better than a ProRes file that everyone seems to accept, understand, and receive?

ProRes isn't a formal standard, but somehow it's an industry standard. Why is that, and how did it become to be?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 8:54:33 pm
Last Edited By Walter Soyka on Sep 2, 2014 at 8:59:00 pm

ProRes is great, but if you got to wave a magic wand and choose a standard for our entire industry to use to store our moving images on disk, would you really pick a closed and largely platform-specific codec if there were a comparable and more open one available?

Apple wields ProRes like a weapon. First they have chosen to basically disallow PC encoding to ProRes (a few niche packages excepted). Now, with AV Foundation not currently allowing third-party codecs (does this change in Yosemite?), they are strongly discouraging Mac encoding to anything else... 1990s Microsoft would approve!


[Jeremy Garchow] "But what does Cineform as VC-5 truly get me? And by me, I mean us."

You can freely encode it on systems other than Macs. (It's available on Windows and Mac. There's no current Linux software implementation, but there is a Linux SDK.)

CineForm offers many of the same perks as ProRes -- different bitrates, YUV and RGB pixel formats, alpha support, and resolution independence.

It also does a few things that ProRes doesn't. I'm sure no one here cares that it has brilliant native stereoscopic support, but because it's wavelet (not DCT-based), it can kind of self-proxy, saving cycles by decoding a lower-resolution version of the original frame.

Most germane to this conversation that touches on acquisition: CineForm does 12-bit color filter array Bayer RAW compression.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 9:17:48 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm sure no one here cares that it has brilliant native stereoscopic support, but because it's wavelet (not DCT-based), it can kind of self-proxy, saving cycles by decoding a lower-resolution version of the original frame."

I'm currently posting a 3D-stereoscopic short and this is exactly what we're using CineForm for. CineForm's active metadata for stereo is an elegant and powerful way to work with 3D. In fact, CineForm active metadata is just great in general. I haven't used it for grading yet but it does that too.

It's not all rainbows and unicorns. The actual CineForm software is really buggy on the Mac. I can crash it just looking at it the wrong way. Converting our files from native .mts to CineForm FS1 was a huge challenge that involved hours of tech support and many hoops jumped. But once I had all the masters converted, it's been nothing but smooth sailing. I don't think this project would be possible on my system without it. I hope it continues to grow and gets more vendor support.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 9:54:07 pm

[Walter Soyka] "ProRes is great, but if you got to wave a magic wand and choose a standard for our entire industry to use to store our moving images on disk, would you really pick a closed and largely platform-specific codec if there were a comparable and more open one available?

Apple wields ProRes like a weapon. First they have chosen to basically disallow PC encoding to ProRes (a few niche packages excepted). Now, with AV Foundation not currently allowing third-party codecs (does this change in Yosemite?), they are strongly discouraging Mac encoding to anything else... 1990s Microsoft would approve!"


But there are more open and less platform specific options available. For some reason, none of them stick, so they must not be that open or easy? In 5 years, do you think, we will all be using Cineform?

As far as Apple disallowing PC encodes, and putting more restrictions on 3rd party codecs (there are still third party codecs, they just aren't as easy to use, and really, the biggest place they are missed is during Quicklook), there has to be an IP line drawn in the sand somewhere. And this bring me back to the original point of "standards". Codec, wrapper, and platform parity It's a very utopian idea, but let's be realistic. MXF is also a standard, but it can be "proprietized" very quickly, and it can also limit capabilities due to the standard (like bigger than 4k rasters, etc).

So yes, for Apple, ProRes is certainly a weapon. For better or worse, codecs are still differentiators, and acquisition companies (that is camera companies) all have their own recipe. At the root of it, the formats differentiate themselves from others and offer different selling points. The motivation seems to be to sell more product, or sell a certain type of workflow, or have an open standard and really cheap hardware to sell out in volume (so that you don't have to support a systemic workflow, you leave it up to others, i.e. CinemaDNG). I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is what it is.

If stereoscopic 3D and 12 bit CFA RAW compression is what you need, then yes, a specialized system may work for you, but for the rest of the broadcast world?... It's just another format that all the NLE companies will have to sort of support to get it to work well enough for most people in most situations.

Again, I'm not trying to down play standards, in certain instances standards have a huge necessity.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 12:47:25 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "But there are more open and less platform specific options available. For some reason, none of them stick, so they must not be that open or easy?"

ProRes is as dominant as it is today because it is a) good, and b) the only practical codec you could/can use with FCP. It's not because other formats are bad.

(Well... maybe DNxHD is bad. [Sorry, Chris.] Avid was dumb to hard-code HD resolutions instead of striving for resolution independence after getting caught with their pants down for having hard-coded SD resolutions. [Sorry, Tim.])


[Jeremy Garchow] "In 5 years, do you think, we will all be using Cineform?"

I'm not sure I think anything 5 years out in post... but I think it's a pretty safe bet that barring Apple acquiring GoPro, you will not be using CineForm.

Whether you should be or not is a separate question!


[Jeremy Garchow] "As far as Apple disallowing PC encodes, and putting more restrictions on 3rd party codecs (there are still third party codecs, they just aren't as easy to use, and really, the biggest place they are missed is during Quicklook), there has to be an IP line drawn in the sand somewhere."

I'm not saying Apple should have given it away. I would gladly pay Apple for a QuickTime ProRes encoder. If such software were available, Apple probably would have had my money instead of GoPro.

AV Foundation not supporting third-party codecs, though... that piece of non-development is straight from the dirty tricks department.


[Jeremy Garchow] "So yes, for Apple, ProRes is certainly a weapon. For better or worse, codecs are still differentiators, and acquisition companies (that is camera companies) all have their own recipe. At the root of it, the formats differentiate themselves from others and offer different selling points. The motivation seems to be to sell more product, or sell a certain type of workflow, or have an open standard and really cheap hardware to sell out in volume (so that you don't have to support a systemic workflow, you leave it up to others, i.e. CinemaDNG). I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is what it is."

I totally agree that it is what it is. I was just suggesting that DRW's fantasy where we could all only use one codec would be better with an open standard instead of a closed one.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 1:09:30 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not saying Apple should have given it away. I would gladly pay Apple for a QuickTime ProRes encoder. If such software were available, Apple probably would have had my money instead of GoPro."

The software you want does exist Walter, however, Episode Engine is tres expensive, and for a reason, Telestream has had to pay Apple a hefty license fee to enable Pro Res functionality on the Windows platform. FYI, the MSRP on Episode Engine is $5,994.00.

[Walter Soyka] " I was just suggesting that DRW's fantasy where we could all only use one codec would be better with an open standard instead of a closed one."

Simply stated, Pro Res is a "high-performance codec," and it has been chosen as an acquisition codec by a number of camera manufacturers, such as Arri, because it performs well when implemented in both hardware and software applications. DNX is close, but it's not nearly as popular as Pro Res, even though it's cross platform. That seems odd, at least it does to me.

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com

Sales | Integration | Support

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 1:15:12 am
Last Edited By Walter Soyka on Sep 3, 2014 at 1:15:56 am

[David Roth Weiss] "The software you want does exist Walter, however, Episode Engine is tres expensive, and for a reason, Telestream has had to pay Apple a hefty license fee to enable Pro Res functionality on the Windows platform. FYI, the MSRP on Episode Engine is $5,994.00."

I should clarify... what I really wanted was a system codec so I could have worked directly in ProRes.

Episode Engine would require me to actually work in some other codec, then transcode to ProRes at the end of the workflow. It makes what should be a mezzanine codec into a delivery codec. (I did exactly this for a while, with Adobe Media Encoder running on a Mac in my office with a watch folder kicking out ProRes encodes.)

Also, ProRes encoding on Engine requires Windows Server 2008, presumably as a condition of their licensing agreement to prevent ProRes encoding on the PC desktop:
http://www.telestream.net/pdfs/datasheets/Episode6_Format_Support.pdf

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 1:37:31 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Sep 3, 2014 at 1:38:00 am

[Walter Soyka] "Also, ProRes encoding on Engine requires Windows Server 2008, presumably as a condition of their licensing agreement to prevent ProRes encoding on the PC desktop:"

Scratch does pro Res now as well, but it's not cheap. They do have a subscription option though, or you can rent it for a single day if needed. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 1:58:29 am

[Charlie Austin] "Scratch does pro Res now as well, but it's not cheap. They do have a subscription option though, or you can rent it for a single day if needed. :-)"

I am aware [link]. For the unlicensed route, there's Miraizon and ffmpeg, too.

But this is all beside the point. Wouldn't it be nice if you could output Apple ProRes (TM) from Avid or Premiere?

I'm glad ProRes was reverse-engineered. With a working open source implementation in the wild, at least it won't ever go the way of Sheer or Microcosm...

I'm working on a project now that involves a piece of gear that uses a well-documented but somewhat esoteric image format. I have hired a developer to write an importer/exporter for After Effects so we can work with it directly -- but I could never do this with a closed format like ProRes.

We are all well-served by having a commonly accepted codec like ProRes, but can you think of something more important to properly standardize than your mastering and delivery codec?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 2:33:38 am

[Walter Soyka] "We are all well-served by having a commonly accepted codec like ProRes, but can you think of something more important to properly standardize than your mastering and delivery codec?"

Agreed. And now that Apple is all open and friendly,maybe just drop a note in their suggestion box. That should do it. :-)

FWIW, and this is a wild-ass guess, likely wrong... I can see AVFoundation working with 3'rd party codecs at some point. Like FCP X, Pages, etc etc., I think Apple is more concerned with getting the re-written-from-scratch stuff working properly before they bolt things on. It took 'em until Yosemite to allow OS extensions again, but apparently they will. So who knows?

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"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: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 12:00:59 am

[Walter Soyka] "
We are all well-served by having a commonly accepted codec like ProRes, but can you think of something more important to properly standardize than your mastering and delivery codec?"


But this is kind of my point, Walter. There are already standardized formats available for deliveries.

Not very many people seem to enforce them.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 12:06:06 am

[Walter Soyka] "ProRes is as dominant as it is today because it is a) good, and b) the only practical codec you could/can use with FCP. It's not because other formats are bad.
"


Not, but you can export ProRes and transcode to something other "standard" for delivery. Why haven't the SMPTE approved formats been adopted industry wide?



[Walter Soyka] "
I'm not sure I think anything 5 years out in post... but I think it's a pretty safe bet that barring Apple acquiring GoPro, you will not be using CineForm.

Whether you should be or not is a separate question!"


[Walter Soyka] "I'm not saying Apple should have given it away. I would gladly pay Apple for a QuickTime ProRes encoder. If such software were available, Apple probably would have had my money instead of GoPro.

AV Foundation not supporting third-party codecs, though... that piece of non-development is straight from the dirty tricks department.
"


If Telestream can license it, why can't anyone else? If 5 years isn't enough time to make a standard, who is going to spend all the development time and money to come up with yet another standard, just so that it sits there, used by few.

I'm also with Charlie that AV Foundation will probably take 3rd party codecs one day. For now, it's a security and bandwidth issue, or you have to know Apple to get on the approved vendor list. FCPX uses third party codecs natively and even considers them "optimized". It can't be that far away for the OS.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 1:22:48 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Not, but you can export ProRes and transcode to something other "standard" for delivery. Why haven't the SMPTE approved formats been adopted industry wide? "

They're not SMPTE, nor should they have to be SMPTE specifically -- but we do use proper standards like MPEG-2 and H.264 industry-wide, arguably more broadly than ProRes.

We also take openness for granted in our image and sound file formats.


[Jeremy Garchow] "If Telestream can license it, why can't anyone else? If 5 years isn't enough time to make a standard, who is going to spend all the development time and money to come up with yet another standard, just so that it sits there, used by few."

Telestream's license was very narrow. Although Engine runs on desktop Windows, ProRes encode was specifically only allowed on Engine running on Windows Server 2008.

If you look in adjacent spaces in DCC, you'll see competitors coming together in the last few years to build standards like ACES, Alembic and OpenEXR. We are trending as an industry toward openness right now, with Apple as a very notable exception.

Apple has participated in standardization before: the MPEG-4 container standard IS QuickTime.

Keeping in mind that Apple also controls a huge distribution channel, the potential for the abuse of ProRes's dominance is huge.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm also with Charlie that AV Foundation will probably take 3rd party codecs one day. For now, it's a security and bandwidth issue, or you have to know Apple to get on the approved vendor list. FCPX uses third party codecs natively and even considers them "optimized". It can't be that far away for the OS."

I sincerely hope it does, but if this were the plan, there may never have been a need for QT Movie Modernizer.

I don't see how a plugin to decode an image buffer is a security issue. Did you view QuickTime components as a threat?

Doesn't the idea that a developer might have to be some "approved list" to develop a codec give you a little pause?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 4:31:29 pm

[Walter Soyka] "They're not SMPTE, nor should they have to be SMPTE specifically -- but we do use proper standards like MPEG-2 and H.264 industry-wide, arguably more broadly than ProRes."

I am now getting confused as to an "open" standard.

This conversation started with CineForm becoming SMPTE ratified. Is this what you consider open? Or a standard? Or an open standard?

The problem with open standards, is that you need someone to implement them in whatever it is you need to do, like, make a plugin to export to AS-11, or wrap your finished movie in MXF with a codec, or transcode then rewrap, and usually you have to either pay someone to do it, or pay some sort of fee like a subscription to CC or a purchase of a piece of software, in order to make these things happen. Sometimes, companies are generous (like Sony) and make plugins that are available to you for free, so that you will buy their hardware that supports the required delivery format. But then, you also have to rely on Sony to update everything when the OS/NLE/ gets an update.

[Walter Soyka] "Telestream's license was very narrow. Although Engine runs on desktop Windows, ProRes encode was specifically only allowed on Engine running on Windows Server 2008.

If you look in adjacent spaces in DCC, you'll see competitors coming together in the last few years to build standards like ACES, Alembic and OpenEXR. We are trending as an industry toward openness right now, with Apple as a very notable exception.

Apple has participated in standardization before: the MPEG-4 container standard IS QuickTime.

Keeping in mind that Apple also controls a huge distribution channel, the potential for the abuse of ProRes's dominance is huge."


The openness you mention is usually reserved for the very high end of workflow. In those situations, there are usually teams of people that are part developer and artist, that can use those open standards and develop internal tools to leverage the capabilities. Me, as a layman, it truly means nothing. I don't have the time, gumption, or capability to try and make my own tools based on an "open" standard. A lot of deliveries that I make to media companies don't want something that is that complicated, either. They need to accept formats that most people can deliver, and they need a format that can played almost anywhere.

Anyone could have stepped up and made this work, and given away lots of development for free in the name of openness, but I just don't know who that would be?

[Walter Soyka] "I sincerely hope it does, but if this were the plan, there may never have been a need for QT Movie Modernizer.

I don't see how a plugin to decode an image buffer is a security issue. Did you view QuickTime components as a threat?

Doesn't the idea that a developer might have to be some "approved list" to develop a codec give you a little pause?"


It doesn't really matter of I view QT components as a threat, it's up to Apple. Apple, I think, does a lot for security. One of the reasons of getting rid of reference movies was supposedly, to close a security risk. Is that an exaggeration of the truth? It could be, I don't know, and probably will never really know.

And the "approved list" doesn't surprise me at all for Apple. They approve everything. For example, Sony and Panasonic formats are "native" to FCP7 and X, in that the codec is the same codec shot in cameras. With an import plug-in, I can use camera native files in an MXF wrapper. I choose to pay for these service as it helps my work.

Adobe handles all of this internally with their own media library. I am sure that they go back and forth with camera companies in order to gain support. You can't simply start using a brand new format in any Adobe product without that capability being built in to the software, and with CC, you will have to constantly pay for that service. Since this is the case, we all need to pause, and Apple is not the only weapon wielding dominatrix, right?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 5:17:11 pm
Last Edited By Walter Soyka on Sep 4, 2014 at 5:19:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am now getting confused as to an "open" standard. "

Fair! Maybe I'm not using the right language.

I don't care if a standard is free (to implement or to use), but it should be documented, and where IP is concerned, it should be able to be licensed in a non-discriminatory manner.

Control should exist with a consortium or NPO, not a specific company.


[Jeremy Garchow] "The problem with open standards, is that you need someone to implement them in whatever it is you need to do, like, make a plugin to export to AS-11, or wrap your finished movie in MXF with a codec, or transcode then rewrap, and usually you have to either pay someone to do it, or pay some sort of fee like a subscription to CC or a purchase of a piece of software, in order to make these things happen."

For me, that's the benefit of an open standard: that you CAN pay someone to implement them. Again, this is something I'm actually doing right now.



[Jeremy Garchow] "Apple, I think, does a lot for security. "

Well, maybe that's good [link]. (I think that Kaspersky exaggerated.)


[Jeremy Garchow] "One of the reasons of getting rid of reference movies was supposedly, to close a security risk. Is that an exaggeration of the truth? It could be, I don't know, and probably will never really know."

QuickTime was a multimedia framework that did so much more than AV Foundation does. You could open web pages and run Flash and do all kinds of other stuff from within QuickTime, so a reference movie could hypothetically point to a payload that the local system couldn't vet.

AV Foundation is a much simpler framework that drops all the multimedia stuff that nobody used since authoring CD-ROMs was cool. It's kind of automatically more secure. A codec has to receive binary data from the image stream and return an image buffer in a pixel format already known to the system. This can be aggressively sandboxed and doesn't present the same kind of security risks that even AppleScript does.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Adobe handles all of this internally with their own media library. I am sure that they go back and forth with camera companies in order to gain support. You can't simply start using a brand new format in any Adobe product without that capability being built in to the software, and with CC, you will have to constantly pay for that service. Since this is the case, we all need to pause, and Apple is not the only weapon wielding dominatrix, right?"

Adobe has an SDK available. You can write your own importers/exporters. When I launch the Keen Cinema Camera, I could also publish plugins to let you access Keen Cinema footage in Adobe software.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 5:27:32 pm

[Walter Soyka] "When I launch the Keen Cinema Camera, I could also publish plugins to let you access Keen Cinema footage in Adobe software."

And of course publish the specs so you could write your own!

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 6:13:30 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I don't care if a standard is free (to implement or to use), but it should be documented, and where IP is concerned, it should be able to be licensed in a non-discriminatory manner.

Control should exist with a consortium or NPO, not a specific company."


But this goes back to what was said earlier. MXF is an open standard that can be propritized rather quickly, or have a proprietary element (such as a codec) in it. In these cases, who really has control? I just can't see consortium control actually working or being a benefit other than in where there is a measurable benefit, perhaps I am too naive.

[Walter Soyka] "For me, that's the benefit of an open standard: that you CAN pay someone to implement them. Again, this is something I'm actually doing right now."

I understand. And just for reference, why do you have to do that instead of using something else? I'm (naturally) curious.

[Walter Soyka] "QuickTime was a multimedia framework that did so much more than AV Foundation does. You could open web pages and run Flash and do all kinds of other stuff from within QuickTime, so a reference movie could hypothetically point to a payload that the local system couldn't vet.

AV Foundation is a much simpler framework that drops all the multimedia stuff that nobody used since authoring CD-ROMs was cool. It's kind of automatically more secure. A codec has to receive binary data from the image stream and return an image buffer in a pixel format already known to the system. This can be aggressively sandboxed and doesn't present the same kind of security risks that even AppleScript does."


I get it. But you said it, it's more secure by default, even if some of the capability is taken away. Now that it's been taken away, can't it be added back in? And yes, Apple now has to play with the security big boys due to the success. I don't know if it's good or bad, again, it just is.

[Walter Soyka] "Adobe has an SDK available. You can write your own importers/exporters. When I launch the Keen Cinema Camera, I could also publish plugins to let you access Keen Cinema footage in Adobe software."

And I assume that this is going to record CineForm RAW? ;)

I'm not up to speed on the state of third party import and export for Pr. What is being done in third parties that Adobe isn't handling natively?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 6:59:46 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "But this goes back to what was said earlier. MXF is an open standard that can be propritized rather quickly, or have a proprietary element (such as a codec) in it."

But... then it's non-standard.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I just can't see consortium control actually working or being a benefit other than in where there is a measurable benefit, perhaps I am too naive."

H.264 just works, and that's because of the Motion Pictures Experts Group (in conjunction with their ITU collaborators whose name escapes me at the moment.)

Remember when distributing screeners meant making Sorenson MOVs and Windows Media WMVs? We don't have to do that anymore because H.264 has a standard implementation that just works everywhere.

Consortia and NPOs manage all kinds of standards we use every day, like SDI, DVI, HDMI, Ethernet, OpenGL, OpenCL...


[Jeremy Garchow] "And just for reference, why do you have to do that instead of using something else? I'm (naturally) curious."

Maximum display performance with minimum workflow hassle.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Now that it's been taken away, can't it be added back in?"

Sure, it could be, and I hope it will be, but honestly I could see this going either way.

I think that third-party codecs were taken away because AV Foundation started life on iOS, where limiting media types as a design choice makes a lot of sense. That's less true on the desktop, though, and the degree to which Apple wants to fragment their frameworks for their different devices remains to be seen.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm not up to speed on the state of third party import and export for Pr. What is being done in third parties that Adobe isn't handling natively?"

To bring this full circle, CineForm offers import/export plugins. Because they plug right into MediaCore, they feel native.

(They also have separate plugins at the OS-level frameworks as QuickTime components and DirectShow filters, so they're also accessible via QuickTime and AVI respectively, presumably with some feature limitation.)

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 7:10:09 pm

maybe we've beat this to death.


[Walter Soyka] "H.264 just works, and that's because of the Motion Pictures Experts Group (in conjunction with their ITU collaborators whose name escapes me at the moment.)

Remember when distributing screeners meant making Sorenson MOVs and Windows Media WMVs? We don't have to do that anymore because H.264 has a standard implementation that just works everywhere.

Consortia and NPOs manage all kinds of standards we use every day, like SDI, DVI, HDMI, Ethernet, OpenGL, OpenCL..."


I get it, and this is exactly where standards are very great, and that's mostly to do with hardware.

But just because h264 is a standard, doesn't mean it's created equally, or freely. You pay for it, eventually.

[Walter Soyka] "Maximum display performance with minimum workflow hassle."

And this couldn't be done without open source products? I am generally asking, not dismissing.

[Walter Soyka] "To bring this full circle, CineForm offers import/export plugins. Because they plug right into MediaCore, they feel native.

(They also have separate plugins at the OS-level frameworks as QuickTime components and DirectShow filters, so they're also accessible via QuickTime and AVI respectively, presumably with some feature limitation.)"


And how much do you have to pay for it?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 9:12:55 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "maybe we've beat this to death."

That's kind of the thesis of the Jeremy and Walter Show, though, isn't it? Some of my favorite conversations here!


[image]

Maybe we misunderstand each other here? I like ProRes, I just think it would be even better if it weren't proprietary. My appeal for open standards are not about being free as in beer. They are about maximizing interoperability and reducing single-vendor dependence.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 4, 2014 at 10:12:30 pm

One of my favorite gifs.

[Walter Soyka] "Maybe we misunderstand each other here? I like ProRes, I just think it would be even better if it weren't proprietary. My appeal for open standards are not about being free as in beer. They are about maximizing interoperability and reducing single-vendor dependence."

No, I get what you're saying and it makes sense. I just would like to see more implementation if this is the case. Supposedly, FCPX has an SDK too, and it seems to work, but I just don't see enough support, or really, not enough places that accept deliveries (broadcast or other) are clamoring for the open source, 'consortified' format.

Until then, I guess Apple laughs all the way to the bank:




Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 5, 2014 at 12:56:05 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Until then, I guess Apple laughs all the way to the bank:"

That's a good GIF, too.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I just don't see enough support, or really, not enough places that accept deliveries (broadcast or other) are clamoring for the open source, 'consortified' format."

ProRes is workable. It's a de facto standard. It's just that relying on it is a bad choice that we are collectively making. Kind of like developers relying on the QuickTime framework on Windows. Eventually, Apple moved on, and if you were counting on QuickTime to power your application, you had to move on, too.

I'm not saying something bad is going to happen if we all stick with ProRes. I'm just saying that it'd be better for the industry if ProRes became VC-6.



[Walter Soyka] "Maximum display performance with minimum workflow hassle."

[Jeremy Garchow] "And this couldn't be done without open source products? I am generally asking, not dismissing."

Coming back to this... it's not an issue of open source (although we are open sourcing the plugin when it's complete).

There's a specific image sequence format that we want to use for performance reasons on a specific playback device, but said image format can be neither read nor written by common apps. We currently have to render image sequences in a more common format like TIFF, PNG or TGA and batch convert them. Having just suffered through this batch workflow with a quarter million frames, we were looking for ways to speed up the process, so we're cutting out the intermediate.

If the format spec were not available, we couldn't build this solution and we'd be stuck with our slow and painful batch workflow.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 5, 2014 at 1:50:28 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not saying something bad is going to happen if we all stick with ProRes. I'm just saying that it'd be better for the industry if ProRes became VC-6."

I want to believe.

Without being able to create my own media library, I have to rely on purchasable formats that work.

ProRes has been amazing in that regard. Almost anyone, from "high-end" to "low-end" knows what to do with a ProRes file.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 5:28:44 pm
Last Edited By Chris Harlan on Sep 2, 2014 at 5:31:12 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "If every camera shot a version of Pro Res wouldn't life be grand?"

Or DNx. I do get h.264 from time to time, but that's usually for the sake on high capacity Internet delivery, and its something I always transcode to whatever I'm natively working in. But, yeah.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 1:30:49 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 2, 2014 at 1:32:11 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I still truly enjoy working with MC."


Chris,

Of course, I posted the above knowing full well that there are those using it daily and enjoying it. No doubt some (but by no means all) of my issues would have been soothed by habit.

For me, it was a constant aggravation, relieved only by the promise of invoking the literary wrath of Aindreas.

Franz.

Edit: (to paraphrase the dystopia) I was quit when I came in here; I'm twice as quit now. Even if it means being one of the little people.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 2:58:43 pm
Last Edited By Chris Harlan on Sep 2, 2014 at 3:05:53 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Chris,

Of course, I posted the above knowing full well that there are those using it daily and enjoying it."


Certainly, Ulysses. But since I was apparently one of the sirens that brought you to the island, I felt an obligation to sing a bit.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 8:11:44 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I felt an obligation to sing a bit."


Chris,

In the spirit of soothing the hangover with narcotics, can you summarize the features or aspects of MC that you feel are strongest or that you miss while working in other software?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 8:23:03 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] " can you summarize the features or aspects of MC that you feel are strongest or that you miss while working in other software?
"


I fear I don't really have the time to detail it today, but have done so elsewhere. Trim mode, once you really get the hang of it it, is a very nice thing. And the Source Timeline--that's probably my favorite Avid exclusive. In fact, yes, that's the thing I miss when I'm using Pr.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 8:32:12 pm

[Chris Harlan] "And the Source Timeline--that's probably my favorite Avid exclusive. In fact, yes, that's the thing I miss when I'm using Pr."

Have a tasty pancake! ;)



_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 8:36:08 pm

[David Lawrence] "Have a tasty pancake! ;)"

Oh dear! I feel scorned--and yet eloquently so.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 8:51:42 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Chris Harlan] "And the Source Timeline--that's probably my favorite Avid exclusive. In fact, yes, that's the thing I miss when I'm using Pr."

Have a tasty pancake! ;)
"


So, just to be clear... In FCP X, if I create a compound clip rough cut of all my selects, and use that as the source... Isn't that essentially the same thing as a source timeline (MC) or pancake timeline (Pr). I guess I can't drag clips from one sequence to another. And at some point I have to break the clips apart. Other than that, what's the diff? 3 NLE's, 3 different ways to accomplish the same thing.

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"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: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 8:57:11 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Other than that, what's the diff? 3 NLE's, 3 different ways to accomplish the same thing."

I'm so glad someone else said this, because I'm not seeing a huge difference, either.

Also, making Auditions out of separate takes (for narrative) makes X so much faster. And even if you want to make changes later, or check out a different take when someone else is in the room, it's so easy and it's all right there stored in your current timeline. There's no hunting, pecking, duplicating, and completely rearranging your timeline to make room for a new take, simply select the next Auditioned clip, and go.

I have not found any action that is similar or is as easy as X to do this type of editing.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 9:06:57 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "makes X so much faster"

Choose your words carefully Jeremy. If you use terms like "faster" or "better", you will be attacked from one camp. Words like "destroying" or "killing" will provoke attack from another. Best not to use any adjectives or verbs at all when discussing FCP X. ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 9:08:23 am
Last Edited By David Powell on Sep 3, 2014 at 9:23:19 am

Pancaking in FCPX is awful (I'm doing it right now). If you're trying to make a highlight out of a large live sequence (multi cam), there is no fast way to do this in FCPX. Browser based editing is the only only way to gain speed in X. Now if a nest could retain markers from the sequence, and you could cut into the timeline without having to go the extra step of breaking apart a clip every time, we'd have something comparable. Btw, if you nest a multi-clip and cut it back in from the browser, the clip loses it's angle. Huge pita.

One thing that drives me crazy is that in every other NLE, I can use I/O points to quickly jump from anywhere in the timeline back to where I was cutting. So if I have a string out and want to pull something from later in the TL, I just set an in point, go find my clip and "go to in" (if I was not pancaking/Avid source side sequencing). Since we lost I/O for range, there's no way to do this. So big sequences become huge hassles. Also if there were a way to make a secondary retain position (like a track) and all clips could be turned off at once, this too would help and could be possibly used as a faux pancake technique.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 9:02:38 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Chris Harlan] "And the Source Timeline--that's probably my favorite Avid exclusive. In fact, yes, that's the thing I miss when I'm using Pr."

Have a tasty pancake! ;)"


I'm am happily pancaking on CC2014 as we speak, very useful!


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 10:08:32 pm

Ah!

Now, I see. Yes, I "pancake" all the time. Hadn't heard the term before. It's one of the best things about FCP Legacy, and one of the main reasons I'm a big fan of Pr.

The primary difference between the source timeline and another open timeline is that the source timeline is tied directly into the insert functions of the NLE, which can make it a bit more immediate than drag and drop or cut and paste from another timeline.

[Steve Connor] "[David Lawrence] "[Chris Harlan] "And the Source Timeline--that's probably my favorite Avid exclusive. In fact, yes, that's the thing I miss when I'm using Pr."

Have a tasty pancake! ;)"

I'm am happily pancaking on CC2014 as we speak, very useful!"


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 6:05:09 am

After all these years I had never, before today, explored the notion of having two timelines open at the same time and using one as a source. Never seen that way of working before. Makes me feel ridiculous - what planet have I been on? What's even more annoying is I think I like it!


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 2:23:22 pm

[James Ewart] "I think I like it"


James,


One school of editing can be described as "sequence-based" (in differentiation from "browser-based"). The distinction can be thought of in terms of the tool or place you do your main organizing.

We've discussed it before here - some references:
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/71347

Franz.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 3:06:58 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Sep 3, 2014 at 3:24:38 pm

Hi thanks fort that interesting to read.

I've been in the habit of chucking stuff that I know I want but don't know quite where I want it down the end of the timeline since I started eating (editing even!) my own stuff (can't believe it's over ten years now) but it never occurred to me to use a separate timeline for the first assembly so to speak. The more I think about it the more I think one timeline is enough for me. I would get muddled but it's an interesting workflow/solution.

Best regards


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 3:06:45 pm

My old piece of advice still seems, IMO, to hold up: the best NLE (for you) is the one you are most comfortable with; the one you love learning and working with daily to the point of mastery. Mastery of a slower, less-capable machine often matches or beats a faster machine with an operator who only knows the basics. Choose based on what you need it to do, obviously, but also on how well it matches the way YOU want to work. because you will spend so many hours chained to the thing, you really want to pick one that keeps you happy and works the way YOU like to work.

I've had FCP7 for many years at work, but can't ever say I feel I've "mastered" it, having never had real, formalized training in it. I still learn things I didn't know about 7 on a weekly basis, by following you folks on the COW. I knew 4 linear edit systems and 2 previous NLE systems (Postbox, Discreet Edit*6), and with those in my experience base, did OJT learning of FCP6 and 7 in the course of daily work. Am I fast in FCP7 now? I think so, fast enough to work at about the speed i can think, but probably not as fast as many more of you out there.

Then I did formal training on FCP-X, before really getting my hands on it. I had some trepidation about X and avoided it for a long time. That training made a huge difference, in that, when I did finally start cutting a project, there was very little of what I call "guess-and-press". That, plus the transcoding in the background, made the first project come together with surprising speed. Granted, I didn't ask for too much compositing or complicated graphics. Still, it seemed spooky-fast to me. I no longer fear it. Now I choose between working in 7 and x based on the needs of a particular project and not because of habit or phobias.

And I think that confirms my opening thesis: it's about familiarity with the interface, and being comfortable with a way of working. Then re-enfoircing that training with regular practice, and pushing a little harder each time, trying one new little trick, each time you work on something. It's to a large point, psychological, as much as it may be technological.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 6:23:42 pm

[Chris Harlan] "And, of course, I work exclusively within that Los Angeles environment you are talking about, so MC skills are pretty much required whether you like it or not"

Which brings up a slightly off topic question, if you don't mind.

How is the deliverable working between editor and post house? Are they putting clauses in the contract that say: here is the footage. Deliver an Avid project file. I guess I don't understand if the place says deliver a thing why they also require a route to get there.(I get it if you're working in a studio/workflow that has their media on their network on their systems. They want you to sit down and work, in their office and in their way.)

This is also relevant in another capacity mentioned here http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/17/880228 If someone is saying "cut on my machine, my way, on my dime, during these hourse" then is the editor really a freelancer/contractor or an employee?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 7:54:28 pm

I'm not quite sure I understand your question or questions. But, I--as many who work like me--wear many hats. Sometimes I'm sitting in someone else's chair, sometimes my own. Sometimes its my equipment, sometimes it belongs to them.

Tape is no longer a de facto delivery format, and source files are most readily available as either DNx or ProRes HQ, though other formats are sometimes available. Similarly, delivery requirements are usually one or the other above formats. Some deliveries will require project files, some will not, but if a major studio is making that request, then you are expected to deal with it.

Things are very project, season, or show based. A large number of people are often involved at a variety of different levels. You may have to take snippets of someone else's work, or plug into someone else's group project. Perhaps its better to think of Avid as a shared language rather than an NLE. If you can't speak that language, there are a whole lot of things you may not have access to.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 4:30:04 pm

Thank you! That makes a lot of sense, vis a vis "a shared language."


Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 2, 2014 at 9:32:56 pm

[Richard Herd] "Are they putting clauses in the contract that say: here is the footage. Deliver an Avid project file. I"

Yes, that is EXACTLY what can happen. Look at some of the delivery requirements from just about any network, and you'll find that there are are specific references to AVID project files, preferred codecs etc.

Network delivery specs are usually YEARS behind technological developments. For example, their references to LTO archives often ask for "TAR" format… something that is being eclipsed by NTFS used by many vendors to create a "NAS on a tape".

Trying to swim against the tide of "accepted" Post technology is never easy, but it can be done. Pick the best tool for YOU, and make it work.



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 4:31:56 pm

Thanks for the taking a moment to respond. I am/was genuinely curious!


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 6:03:34 am

For those who do promo work outside the networks, but for the networks, delivery usually means sending a rough cut and the accompanying project file to the network for online/finishing. Like it or not, if you cut promos for NBC, you're going to have to cut in Avid and send them the projects. ABC gets FCP7, at least until they switch to Premiere (he says as tears begin to fall...).

Amusingly enough, even when the source material for the rough cuts is the same hi-res footage as what is back at the network, the finishing is always done there, even if it's just tweaking the color and doing the audio sweetening. Plus versioning, of course.

So I'll probably never get to cut anything for the networks on FCP-X, even though it's far and away my preferred NLE. A shame, since this stuff is always flat fee, not hourly, so there's no benefit in taking longer with Avid.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: The Question - An Update On My Choices In NLEs
on Sep 3, 2014 at 4:33:00 pm

Thanks for taking the time to answer an off topic question :)


Return to posts index

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