FORUMS: list search recent posts

Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Steve Connor
Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 5, 2014 at 6:27:53 pm

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet





Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 5, 2014 at 7:20:45 pm

It's been all over the major FCP X sites for the past week.

As much as I love the debate here,, this forum has a bit of a reputation for trashing X, so the eyeballs of the active FCP X user community have largely moved elsewhere.

Multiple front page stories on FCP.co and most of the major Facebook pages related to FCP X.

Again, as I've pointed out here over and over - X is gaining a sterling reputation in Europe and the wider world outside the US. It's just here in the US that the industry can't seem to let go of the anti-X attitude.

When THE BIG MOVIE comes out, and the team responsible are no longer under those iron clad Hollywood NDAs - I suspect the story you'll likely be hearing from Mike and others is that X truly is faster and more efficient when cutting a big feature than the other alternatives. He's said as much publicly, particularly on the FCP Virtual Users Group he and I appeared on together for PixelCorps. It's no surprise that Alex Lindsey moved the time up to accommodate the European audience. It's kinda where all the action is right now.

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

Neil Goodman
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 5, 2014 at 7:54:27 pm

Its been said here a bunch of times that FCPX is great for front end - AE type of work. Dailies, organizing, conforming, etc. No ones argues that and this video solidifies it in the motion picture world. Thats great

I want to know how the timeline helped make the film, and if it was indeed faster in the creative part of the process. How did they share the media and sequences between different editors, how did FCPX boost the collaborative effort that film editorial is?

Again, all the organizational tools in X are great but motion picture editors generally don't touch that part of the process at least on the studio level.



BTW - homeboy kinda said he'd like some sort of tracks in there or a better way to manage everything on the timeline other than roles. ;)


Return to posts index


Ronny Courtens
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 7:53:48 am

Mike is finishing a book about his experience with FCP X on this 100 million dollar movie. I'm sure we will find out much more about his workflow when it gets published. Should be an interesting read.

From the conversations we had he would like to see a better visual representation for audio stems based on Roles, something we agree upon. Tracks is something he has not missed at all, also something we agree upon.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 5, 2014 at 8:37:24 pm
Last Edited By David Mathis on Oct 6, 2014 at 6:11:56 pm

[Bill Davis] "As much as I love the debate here,, this forum has a bit of a reputation for trashing X, so the eyeballs of the active FCP X user community have largely moved elsewhere."

I agree and disagree at the same time. I do feel that FCP X needs some improvement, it is not perfect, then again no NLE is. I nearly threw up when it first came on the scene but decided to give it a try. Started in around version 10.0.6, since then it has become a very good competitor.

A few basic features in FCP 7 and versions prior are still missing but I have found a few workarounds. I also don't mind adding some other applications to the mix. I have 7 to X, Media Info and a few other tools in the box.

I use Motion to create custom built effects, generators and so on. One example was making a fade in / out effect. This way I can have a clip fade in, fade out or both by applying the effect built in Motion. Saves time and key frames. Just a couple of adjustments and presto!

I find that being able to create custom built stuff from scratch can save time and money. Besides it is fun, the most important aspect. The money saved can be used for a new set of lens, a lighting kit or more storage. That is my take on it.



Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 12:18:03 am
Last Edited By TImothy Auld on Oct 6, 2014 at 12:19:19 am

You can cut a feature on an RM-440. But, like you, I cannot wait until all the NDA's are over (which they almost never are, by the way - if you sign an NDA they usually have your balls for life) and the curtain is rolled back to reveal FCPX as the new feature editor of choice. Unlike Premiere and the many, many features currently being cut on it, and the many, many other features (still) being cut on FCP 7, and the (vast majority) of features being cut on Avid.

Tim


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 2:46:27 am

[Bill Davis] "As much as I love the debate here,, this forum has a bit of a reputation for trashing X, so the eyeballs of the active FCP X user community have largely moved elsewhere."

Hey Bill, 2011 called, it wants its putdowns back.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 3:12:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "As much as I love the debate here,, this forum has a bit of a reputation for trashing X, so the eyeballs of the active FCP X user community have largely moved elsewhere. "

To a certain point, I agree. The "debate" is over and this forum has become more about entertainment than about real usable information.

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 6:52:05 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "The "debate" is over and this forum has become more about entertainment than about real usable information."

This forum was NEVER about usable information. I was always shocked at the amount of usable information here. LOL Entirely by accident, and never our intent. This is a DEBATE forum.

For getting actual work done, we have the FCPX Techniques forum, and it is indeed one of our most popular. We also have a tremendous amount of FCPX-related discussion in other forums that touch on FCPX for other parts of workflow, including Resolve, After Effects, camera forums and others.


[Gary Huff] "Hey Bill, 2011 called, it wants its putdowns back."

Thank you. I couldn't have put it better. LOL

Just for grins, I thought I'd check our numbers for this summer, vs. the summer of 2011.

I know that you geezers will remember the chaos of those days. It was overwhelming. On Day Zero, June 21 2011, we had 12-15 posts going up every MINUTE. Absolutely staggering. Over 500,000 page views on that single day.

I haven't counted today, but I believe that the pace of posting in this forum is now somewhat less than one every 4 seconds.

But the argument is that PEOPLE have abandoned us. So, what's the number of PEOPLE in the summer of 2014, vs. the summer of 2011?

The number of PEOPLE coming here is UP by 37%!

Now, when I say "up 37%," what am I talking about?

Over 1.8 million unique people every month.

A number of individuals have obviously, and in some cases, quite loudly, shifted their online energies elsewhere. Not a debate.

But I don't want to hear for a single second that "people" "no longer" views us as a -- if not the single biggest -- center of gravity for FCPX information and conversation. Likewise, not a debate.

Not that we've ever needed even vaguely debatable topics to have a debate. LOL


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 7:43:38 pm

[Tim Wilson] "
This forum was NEVER about usable information. I was always shocked at the amount of usable information here. LOL Entirely by accident, and never our intent. This is a DEBATE forum.

For getting actual work done, we have the FCPX Techniques forum, and it is indeed one of our most popular. We also have a tremendous amount of FCPX-related discussion in other forums that touch on FCPX for other parts of workflow, including Resolve, After Effects, camera forums and others."


Useful information? What is that? LOL I have always felt this forum was more about entertainment value then anything else. ;-)

I probably visit this forum the most, followed by the "FCP X Techniques", and, yes, the "Adobe CC Debate". That one seems to have slowed down a bit as well. Another forum of interest is Blackmagic Design and Resolve. Just waiting for a Fusion forum to make its way back into the mix.

Now, for the serious side of me, I do find these forums informative.
Sure, there are a few jokes and laughs involved. I probably visit the COW at least 3 times a day looking for entertainment but really stuff that is informative. Stuff that will allow me to have a better workflow strategy along with useful little tidbits never considered before.

Tim, you really need to make more posts. :-) I find great value in them.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:00:45 pm

[Tim Wilson] "[Gary Huff] "Hey Bill, 2011 called, it wants its putdowns back."

Thank you. I couldn't have put it better. LOL"


Wow, talk about making a longtime contributor feel unwelcome.

I posted much of this based on a conversation on one of the Private FCP X boards where this particular CC forum was getting TRASHED as one huge "insiders" mess where FCP X gets belittled at every turn. A conversation NOT in 2011, but last week.

That was the perception inside that private Facebook group - and I defended "or not" pointing out the popularity of this Cow forum and put up a pretty spirited defense of it.

Now I'm kinda wondering why I bothered.

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

Mitch Ives
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:18:08 pm

[Bill Davis] "Wow, talk about making a longtime contributor feel unwelcome.
"


Just remember Bill, that you've made a habit of lecturing people who were here LONG before you. I'm one of them.

That doesn't mean I don't read your posts with interest, it just means there's a lot of experience on this board that pre-dates you. And more to the point, some of us might actually have some merits in our posts.

That shouldn't stop you from posting... but it wouldn't hurt if you skipped the "Enron thing" and remembered you're not the only one with knowledge here. You may recall I've been subtlety suggesting that for some time.

It would be tragic if you stopped posting, even though I've taken quite a few arrows from you... I look forward to more... :-)

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:37:08 pm

Anybody who comes into Creative COW belittling its place in the world can expect a strong response, ESPECIALLY when it's absolutely, flatly, objectively wrong. It's silly to expect anything else.

Frankly, it's just plain rude posting how poorly we're regarded by the TRUE faithful, because of course the TRUE faithful have already left.

Now, complaining that we're a big bag of dicks, well... LOL

In addition to the nonsense of the faintest suggestion that we're declining in significance, complaining that we complain about X as our primary position is demonstrably false.

In 2014. In 2011, well....LOL

But that was a starting point. Since then, the stance toward X has evolved even more quickly than X itself has evolved to meet the VERY objections stated here.

And as has been pointed out on another thread, the wishlist here is very nearly identical to the one from my old friend Steve -- with the added benefit of pointing out some better approaches than the limited ones he cited. In other words, the members here pointed out at least one problem of his that the experts here don't find to be a problem at all when approached from a rationally different direction.

All of which goes to account for our growth by over 500,000 people per month since then.

Do those other sites have 500,000 visitors/month AT ALL? Because, again, that's just our delta since 2011. Our X community is doing fine, thanks.

That said, to echo Mitch, post on.

Mitch, you're a month away from your TWELFTH anniversary: November 7, 2002. I think that counts as "a long time."


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:50:03 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Frankly, it's just plain rude posting how poorly we're regarded by the TRUE faithful, because of course the TRUE faithful have already left."

Speaking as a truly faithful X user, what you say Tim, is true. ;-) Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but I'm still cutting in X. :-p

That said, today is all about Adobe! The new version of Pr has blue highlights now! And a flat UI! And Smart Folders! Still has tracks though. booooo. LOL

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 10:18:57 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Anybody who comes into Creative COW belittling its place in the world can expect a strong response, ESPECIALLY when it's absolutely, flatly, objectively wrong. It's silly to expect anything else.

Frankly, it's just plain rude posting how poorly we're regarded by the TRUE faithful, because of course the TRUE faithful have already left."


I was REPORTING things said about this forum in another, private one. Reporting involves taking something and reflecting it accurately. That's what I did. If people here have no interest in what's said elsewhere, fine. Personally, I find it useful to hear criticism because I've been taught it represents the MOST valuable feedback any individual or operation can get.

My post in that "other forum" was in response to someone wondering "how they survive" (Meaning this board, specifically) - and discussing the names of some of the higher profile folks in the FCP X community who no longer participate in the Cow Forums - figuring it might provide a tiny insight into how some other communities view what happens here. Plus, you'll notice I'm defending the cows success with metrics, not "belittling" it in ANY sense ---

I wrote there: "Creative Cow is among the top 5000 most visited sites with a quite powerful 4,521 Alexa ranking. Participate or not, (referring to the complaining poster) the Cow has a formula that attracts a LOT of global eyeballs."

I was arguing In Favor of Cow participation for that individual. Hardly the stance of someone who "belittles" something.

Next, Tim, my "bunch of dicks" comment was in another forum and applied to corporate behavior - NOT to individuals.

I did NOT call anyone at that company (with the arguable implied exception of the Executive team!) and certainly no-one at the Cow "a dick." In fact, every single time I take a certain revenue model to task, I'm scrupulously careful NOT to imply that this reflects on individuals other than those in the Executive Suite who make corporate policy. And golly, they can surely take some criticism in exchange for their astonishing salaries and stock options. If I'm mistaken about my separating the people from the company, I'll make a public apology in an instant.

Bottom line. This is a debate place, or it's not.

You're in charge, Tim.

So it's your call to make.

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


Tim Wilson
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 11:33:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "Bottom line. This is a debate place, or it's not. "

And indeed, this has been a place for healthy debate for 19 years.

The only two things I said were beyond the scope of reasonable debate are that a tiny handful of people who used to post here are gone (which is true), or that it reflects any kind of general exodus (false), or any significant reduction of the relevance of Creative COW as part of a rounded diet of FCPX-ness web-wide (likewise, false).

My comments about 2011 were in response to Gary's riposte, which I took as no more than playful. But in stating the general calm now now, I felt it would be disingenuous of me to fail to acknowledge that things were in fact a bit of a zoo here at the time.

It was a reasonable point of reference. Somebody who bailed a while back necessarily has a false view of the current state of things. FCPX has changed, and so have we.

Perhaps for some people, neither has changed enough. LOL That's one thing. To extrapolate from a handful of people to "PEOPLE" is another, especially when the number of PEOPLE coming here is growing so much.

I certainly apologize for the suggestion that YOU used the word dicks or anything of the sort. I never thought that you did. Absolutely not. That was all me.

It was my obviously misguided attempt to keep a playful vibe moving forward for that part of the conversation, acknowledging that I'm sometimes as bad about stirring things up here as anyone else. Being a dick and all. LOL Which I know I can be.

The rest, I was fully serious about.

I'm flabbergasted by the suggestion that I'm shuttering debate because I'm unwilling to let a baseless canard ABOUT the COW stand unchallenged IN the COW. My response was solely to falsehoods that didn't exist here until you brought them unbidden.

I don't care if it was quoted by you from sacred scrolls or from a bathroom wall. Bring bad information about the COW into the COW, and I will refute it.

For the rest, play on.

As we veer further off topic on this, I've said my piece. I'll let anyone else who wishes to have the final word do so. I heartily invite anyone who's interested to engage me further to contact me directly. I always love hearing from people actually doing work, rather than people like me who mostly just talk about it. LOL


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:53:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "I posted much of this based on a conversation on one of the Private FCP X boards where this particular CC forum was getting TRASHED as one huge "insiders" mess where FCP X gets belittled at every turn. A conversation NOT in 2011, but last week."

thats a little bit of an exaggeration no? I see plenty of people going to bat for FCP X here and the flat out "it sucks" comments havent been around for ages.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 10:34:43 pm

[Neil Goodman] "thats a little bit of an exaggeration no? I see plenty of people going to bat for FCP X here and the flat out "it sucks" comments havent been around for ages."

On that private board, the discussion about this board had been seen for a long time as a place for "insiders," and had a lasting impression of a place where anything positive said about X would be belittled by a very vocal core of those who were either negative or simply dismissive of the program.

Again, I'm reporting what I read. I defended this board since I've always enjoyed the "robust" debate here.

For years, there were only a small handful of those of us here who argued FOR the software.

And even today, THIS FCP X board is as likely to see posts about Premier Pro as about X. Even tho three's a host of boards dedicated to Adobe offerings and they're clearly a significant board sponsor. Yet when I go to the Premier Pro boards (including it's "Or Not. variant" - and talk about FCP X. It appears to ruffle feathers.

Such is life, I guess.

I'm probably woefully politically insensitive about all this stuff. I just enjoy robust debate, my goal is NOT to cause trouble. Ever. It's not in my nature. I like sparring, but when blood shows, I happily back off. So I'll let this cool for a while before I pop up again. And see how things sit.

And so it goes.

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 11:19:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "And even today, THIS FCP X board is as likely to see posts about Premier Pro as about X. Even tho three's a host of boards dedicated to Adobe offerings and they're clearly a significant board sponsor. Yet when I go to the Premier Pro boards (including it's "Or Not. variant" - and talk about FCP X. It appears to ruffle feathers. "

The posts about PPro, such as this one, fit in with the theme of this forum though. FCP X or Not? If 'not' X then what? PPro? Avid? Resolve? Lightworks? FCP Legend? Much of the talk in this forums is about which NLE will 'take over' the space vacated by FCP Legend so I think it's on topic to bring up various NLEs in here.

The Adobe CC: The Debate forum is similar nature yet different in focus in that it's not about NLE's but about business models (subscription vs perpetual license). Posting about FCP X being used by a post house covering the Tour de France isn't really applicable but posting about how Avid MC now has both subscription and perpetual licensing options is.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 11:24:32 pm

If this forum was JUST about FCP X then it wouldn't get the traffic that it does, it's much broader at times and that what makes it so interesting.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:01:09 am

[Andrew Kimery] "he Adobe CC: The Debate forum is similar nature yet different in focus in that it's not about NLE's but about business models (subscription vs perpetual license)."

Huh?

So FXP X or not .. Fine to Bring up Premier or other NLEs.

But Adobe CC or not ... can't talk other NLEs only "business models" ???

IF Adobe Premier was still a standalone software package that MIGHT make sense since the program and the "business model" could be conceivably seen as two different things.

But that's NOT the case any longer. IF you wish to use Adobe PP, you MUST use CC.

Essentially, access to the program and acceptance of the cloud model are one and the same business decision by Adobe's design.

So I'm gonna kinda call FOUL on requiring them to be treated different - when they're really NOT.

Fair is fair. And if OR NOT means Adobe discussions in X forums, then OR NOT kinda has to suppose that X discussions in Adobe Forums are fair too. (I'm pretty sure this all falls under the transitive property of equality - but I was sick that week in High School, so I might be wrong about that. )

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:22:19 am

[Bill Davis] "Fair is fair. And if OR NOT means Adobe discussions in X forums, then OR NOT kinda has to suppose that X discussions in Adobe Forums are fair too."

It's not like it's against the rules to post about "Or Not" software in the CC Debate forum. It's just that the community there tends to talk about subscription software.

It's a pity that people hold such an outdated view of this group. Why, it's almost even as unreasonable as someone clinging to a 3-year-old view of FCPX!

I haven't done any kind of formal study, but it seems to me that this forum is now largely pro-FCPX. This mirrors my experience in real life where FCPX was treated with suspicion at first (rightfully, just as early versions of every NLE ever have been) but that people have come around as the application has matured and met the early, reasonable objections.

This place still has some of the most interesting general post-production discussion anywhere.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:41:10 am

[Bill Davis] "Huh?

So FXP X or not .. Fine to Bring up Premier or other NLEs.

But Adobe CC or not ... can't talk other NLEs only "business models" ???"


I'm not sure what's so confusing. It's a debate forum centered around Adobe Creative Cloud and the change in business model that it introduced. FCP X or Not is a debate forum centered around the change that FCP X introduced. Look at other threads in the Adobe CC debate forum and you'll find mention of Smoke, Avid, Resolve, Lightworks and even FCP X but it's all within the context of the business model being employed. Subscription only, perpetual license only, subscription or perpetual license, free/low cost as long as you buy first party hardware, etc.,.

Just look at the recent forum topic in the Adobe CC debate forum:
How moving to subscription only has impact Adobe's quarterly numbers.
A he said/she said SNAFU where students thought they had perpetual licenses to their software but Adobe and the University are saying they only had temp licenses.
How subscription only software can change the playing field for small shops.
Blackmagic buying Eyeon Fusion (and if it will get the same price drop and free version like Resolve).
A thread called "The modern corporation".

I've got it turned on to the 3-month view and while they are a handful of threads about specific pieces of software the vast majority of threads are more business-centric.

[Bill Davis] "So I'm gonna kinda call FOUL on requiring them to be treated different - when they're really NOT."

Um, okay, you can do whatever you want but individual forums are kinda self correcting which you've already experienced apparently. If the community at large thinks something is too OT they'll say so, ignore the thread and/or ask the thread to be moved to a more appropriate forum.

For example, this very topic (PPro being used on Gone Girl) was posted in the Adobe CC Debate forum too and not a single person has replied to it. And I'm not surprised because it's not the type of thing that typically gets the regulars over there talking.

[Bill Davis] "Fair is fair. And if OR NOT means Adobe discussions in X forums, then OR NOT kinda has to suppose that X discussions in Adobe Forums are fair too. (I'm pretty sure this all falls under the transitive property of equality - but I was sick that week in High School, so I might be wrong about that. )"

So you want to troll Adobe forums with unrelated FCP X posts just because you are upset that NLEs other than FCP X are being talked about in a forum that was created for people to debate the merits of various NLEs? Knock yourself out man and post whatever you want wherever you want but don't be surprised if you hear crickets while talking about football in a baseball forum (hey, sports are sports, right).


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 5:18:44 pm

[Bill Davis] "On that private board, the discussion about this board had been seen for a long time as a place for "insiders," and had a lasting impression of a place where anything positive said about X would be belittled by a very vocal core of those who were either negative or simply dismissive of the program. "

Maybe you could tell them that just because we are honest about it's shortcomings doesn't mean we're dismissive. If I was dismissive I wouldn't have it open every day, and I sure as hell wouldn't have bought a $7,600 MacPro to give FCP X and Motion as much help as possible...

Just a thought...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:11:15 pm

[Tim Wilson] "This forum was NEVER about usable information. I was always shocked at the amount of usable information here. LOL Entirely by accident, and never our intent. This is a DEBATE forum."

That may have been the design (hard to imagine), but I also find it full of useful information. That's why I visit it daily. The names on this forum are some real long-time members, like myself. I've been here since virtually the beginning (according to Ron), and I'm here because there are a lot of "qualified opinions" here.

I count you in that Tim... ;-)

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 3:32:27 pm

[Bill Davis] "It's been all over the major FCP X sites for the past week.

As much as I love the debate here,, this forum has a bit of a reputation for trashing X, so the eyeballs of the active FCP X user community have largely moved elsewhere. "


Ouch! So I guess this isn't a major FCP X site, then?

I don't believe the second part... I think the eyeballs are looking in all the same places that they have since day one...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 5, 2014 at 9:33:21 pm

Yeah. I agree with his assessment. If I could have a more mappable version of roles and a slightly more user definable UI, I'd start playing with it again.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 1:15:28 am

There are a zillion different ways that editors and directors approach the workflow of cutting a feature film. Some editors do extensive temp mixes, while others keep the timeline very sparse. Some rely on tools like ScriptSync and others never touch them. Some feature films could and are cut on simple systems like laptops. Others require a whole arsenal of workstations.

FCP X has been used on several features worldwide, but there's no given that it would work for all. It really comes down to the working style of the director and editor. Read through the film stories on my blog and you'll get a sense of that.

If you look at all the press about "Gone Girl" a key reason they picked Premiere Pro was due to the tight integration with After Effects for in-house VFX and finishing. On the flip side, if you listen to Mike's presentation, he mentioned their in-house temp VFX were done on Nuke. This means less dependence of which NLE is used. In fact, ClipExporter gets you from FCPXML to Nuke.

So, just like "Cold Mountain" didn't flip the whole film world to FCP "legacy", I doubt "Movie X" or "Gone Girl" will shift film editors to FCP X or Premiere Pro. However, in both cases, it does the crack the door a bit wider and show the industry that these can be industrial-strength tools.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 2:49:21 am

[Oliver Peters] "So, just like "Cold Mountain" didn't flip the whole film world to FCP "legacy", I doubt "Movie X" or "Gone Girl" will shift film editors to FCP X or Premiere Pro. However, in both cases, it does the crack the door a bit wider and show the industry that these can be industrial-strength tools.
"


At least we know Gone Girl is Premiere. The film in question is apparently Focus, which is an R-rated Romantic Comedy being dumped out to theaters in February.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 6:09:18 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 6, 2014 at 6:57:49 pm

[Gary Huff] "The film in question is apparently Focus, which is an R-rated Romantic Comedy being dumped out to theaters in February."

Ah... so it doesn't matter then? :-/

FD... I think it matters about as much as it does that GG was cut in Pr. Which is to say, you can cut a feature using (insert NLE here) if you want to.

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

~ 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

Marcus Moore
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 7:55:15 pm
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on Oct 6, 2014 at 7:55:35 pm

Sorry Charlie, it doesn't matter if people are cutting features in X, it only matters if they're NOT.

Wait... what?!


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:56:40 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Sorry Charlie, it doesn't matter if people are cutting features in X, it only matters if they're NOT.

Wait... what?!
"


Working on something that's prestigious and well received will always get bonus points when it comes to PR, but people that actually care about editing and workflow won't be distracted by the Rotten Tomatoes' score. The was a COW interview/article with the editor of Sharknado 2 not to long ago and a couple posters were completely dismissive of it because it was Sharknado 2 (which is unfortunate because they missed out on an interesting article).

What's funny is that while some overzealous PPro and X supports will keep jumping up an down going , "Hey! Hey! PPro/X just edited a Hollywood feature film! Look at us! Look at us!" they will ignore that Avid has been used to edit so many feature films that it's just assumed that if it's a big Hollywood movie then Avid was used to cut it. If that fact is brought up then it immediately turns into Avid only gets used because of fear of change, gear-nepotism, conspiracy theories, etc.,. and the fact that Avid MC might actually be a worthwhile NLE never enters their brain.

Lunatic fanboys make their own reality.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:00:05 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Lunatic fanboys make their own reality."

Actually, that was my point in my original response above. ;-) No matter what NLE/OS/Automobile etc the lunatics are fans of.

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

~ 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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:03:59 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Actually, that was my point in my original response above. ;-) No matter what NLE/OS/Automobile etc the lunatics are fans of."

Yeah, Just riffing on what you started. Creative COW word Jazz.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 5:14:25 am

I was at LAFCPUG presentation. Having seen that I wouldn't even think about starting a feature film in FCPX without Sync-n-Link and a bunch of other apps.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 7:35:27 am

I you have ever cut a feature film you know you need a bunch of apps and utilities, no matter what NLE you use. Sync-N-Link X is a very robust and fast tool for synching up TC-jammed video with external audio, and it integrates perfectly with the FCP X metadata workflow. Saves you tons of time and money.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 7:41:02 am

I cut a few in FCP. All I needed was Cinema Tools to make cut lists. As for Sync-N-Link X, it is to make FCPX to use track names in BWF–poly as subroles.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 1:40:26 pm

That's the inherent nature of FCP X. The app is cheaper and more streamlined, so you have to augment it as needed, based on your workflows.

For most feature film jobs, you'd need Sync-N-Link X, EDL-X and X2Pro. Sync-N-Link X isn't essential, but speeds up syncing of double-system audio jobs, however, only if camera and sound have common TC. EDL-X is needed if your DI/grading house requires EDLs, which is nearly all of the top ones.

If you look at Avid, there are helper apps made by Avid that are included with Media Composer, such as EDL Manager and Film Scribe. A lot of editors and assistants also make great use of Filemaker Pro databases.

So you are never going to get away from needing some extra software, besides the core NLE.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 3:57:51 pm
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on Oct 6, 2014 at 3:59:19 pm

Sync-N-Linc's own Philip Hodgetts recently revealed that his Change List tool was used as part of the post process on the PremierPro edited GONE GIRL.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:51:55 pm

Cool. FCP7 can do change lists.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:54:57 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Cool. FCP7 can do change lists."

I wasn't trying to start a pissing contest, just clarifying your point.

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:20:33 pm
Last Edited By Michael Aranyshev on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:24:39 pm

Feature film editing is relatively obscure corner of the industry. Few people know what exactly in an NLE is for feature film.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:49:31 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Sync-N-Link X isn't essential, but speeds up syncing of double-system audio jobs, however, only if camera and sound have common TC"

Sync-N-Link X is essential if you wan't to give your sound department each lav mic on its own track which is something they expect you to do.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:51:13 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Sync-N-Link X is essential if you wan't to give your sound department each lav mic on its own track which is something they expect you to do."

You can do that without Sync N Link.

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

~ 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

Oliver Peters
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:54:50 pm

[Charlie Austin] "You can do that without Sync N Link."

Agreed. Besides, I've turned over multi-channel jobs to audio from out of Media Composer and FCP 7 that were split out by mic and they never had "roles" info. Plus, if you don't have matching TC, like in an actual film shoot, Sync-N-Link X doesn't work.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:57:43 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Sync-N-Link X is essential if you wan't to give your sound department each lav mic on its own track which is something they expect you to do."

Sorry, but this isn't true. Sync n link makes a lot of things easier, but it doesn't make multichannel export or interchange out of X any more or less possible.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:00:27 pm

It reads track names in BWF-Poly files and convert them to subroles.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:14:24 pm

Yes Sync n Link makes good use of metadata, and places it in useful metadata sections in X.

This doesn't extend any functionality of X, but uses fcpxml to organize audio and video in X very easily.

Are you saying subroles aren't possible without sync n link, because it's not true.

You can give the sound dept each lab on its own "track" without sync n link, it will just be less convenient. That is to say, you can assign roles and subroles in X without sync n link.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:22:26 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "That is to say, you can assign roles and subroles in X without sync n link."

Could you please describe your approach to assigning roles to individual lavs in a few thousands production sound takes?


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:29:08 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:31:07 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Could you please describe your approach to assigning roles to individual lavs in a few thousands production sound takes?"

I can't speak for Jeremy, but I'd buy Sync n Link. ;-) Having said that, I don't generally need to do that, so the tools in X are just fine. I don't need the kitchen sink built in, and If I do, it's easily available to me.

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 9:53:29 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Could you please describe your approach to assigning roles to individual lavs in a few thousands production sound takes?"

I would do it just like X allows me to do it. How would you do it?

I would first import the audio.

I would reference the log and then select all and name the components something meaningful (like character_lav, character_boom) to as many clips as it made sense to do so.

I would then assign a Role to the overall audio segments that made sense.

I would then assign more meaningful Roles and subroles as the edit progressed.

I then export an XML and AAF using X2Pro, or use EDL-X, or whatever else made sense for that project.

Then, for the next project, I would buy Sync N Link for $199.

Sync N Link makes this much easier as it automates this extremely manual process. It is well worth the money.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 10:19:03 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "How would you do it?"

I frankly have no idea. I'll probably have to go through all clips naming individual tracks and muting all except the production mix. Charge the producer an extra week or two. There're usually 4 to 10 tracks in production audio. A boom, a few lavs and a production mix. You're going to use the mix for your edit. It is pretty decent most of the time. The order they come in a BWF-P is the same for a single production. With a track-based NLE you just mute the tracks unneeded mics fall to and go ahead. Then it's time to export you unmute all tracks and you're done.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 10:42:28 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 6, 2014 at 10:44:06 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "With a track-based NLE you just mute the tracks unneeded mics fall to and go ahead. Then it's time to export you unmute all tracks and you're done."

I don't deal with production audio much, but I do deal with multichannel sources on everything i cut. from 4-8 channels usually, sometimes more if it's a surround source. In any case, even if you never assigned Roles you could do the exact same thing in X. Disable un-needed channels, Cut, re-enable and export. The nice thing is that in X, you don't have 4-6 or more disabled channels littering the timeline. And if you do assign Roles, you can do lots of other useful things globally.

Different tools, same result. X is "cleaner" to me, but it all depends on how you like to work really.

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 11:11:48 pm

[Charlie Austin] "you could do the exact same thing in X. Disable un-needed channels, Cut, re-enable and export."

I wasn't clear enough. In a track based editor I don't disable and enable channels in individual clips. I mute tracks on the timeline (once) and set track arming in such a way that channels I don't want to hear are edited to the muted tracks. Then I unmute (once) before export.

Look, people, you must have titanium wrists with kevlar nerves to do so much mouse–clicking.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 11:16:04 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "[Charlie Austin] "you could do the exact same thing in X. Disable un-needed channels, Cut, re-enable and export."

I wasn't clear enough. In a track based editor I don't disable and enable channels in individual clips. I mute tracks on the timeline (once) and set track arming in such a way that channels I don't want to hear are edited to the muted tracks. Then I unmute (once) before export.

Look, people, you must have titanium wrists with kevlar nerves to do so much mouse–clicking."


LOL. I'd agree, except for the fact that it's the same in X with components. If ch-1 is the mix, you select every audio clips (thousands if that's the case) and disable everything except ch-1 Same amount of clicks as doing so with tracks. Cut. When you're done, select all multichannel audio in timeline, re-enable it all. done.

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:04:42 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "Look, people, you must have titanium wrists with kevlar nerves to do so much mouse–clicking."

Naw, with X we're generally getting our work done much faster so we're spending more time at home with our familes- so overall, far less wrist stress.

; )

(that and the 300 keyboard shortcuts and customizing system that's built in for more!)

(sorry, I just could't resist.)

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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:12:10 am

Really? So how many keystrokes it takes to sync a single take with corresponding production sound when you don't have matching timecode nor the on-camera sound ?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:25:03 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "Really? So how many keystrokes it takes to sync a single take with corresponding production sound when you don't have matching timecode nor the on-camera sound ?"

Do you have a clapper? If so, mark the video clap, mark the audio clap and sync to markers. This isn't magic, this is real work that need to be done in any NLE.

If you do have guide track audio, you simply synchronize clips.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:31:25 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "Really? So how many keystrokes it takes to sync a single take with corresponding production sound when you don't have matching timecode nor the on-camera sound ?"

Two?

The synchronize clip process is a menu selection. It has a tiered sync process that yes, allows clips to sync via TC, but if TC is not available NOR audio waveforms, you just place markers for something like a GoPro in a waterproof housing with absolutely no scratch track for syncing. Markers are, of course, a single M keystroke like all other NLEs. One on the video, One on the audio track, and menu to "Synchronize Clip" Thats about it.

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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:41:40 am
Last Edited By Michael Aranyshev on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42:20 am

So first I need to scroll the list for my picture, click on it and play to the where sticks hit and put marker. Then I have to go back to the list and scroll for my sound and click on it. Play to the clap and put another marker. Then I have to scroll back to my picture and command click on it to select both sound and picture and right–click to call up synchronize dialog (yes, there is a shortcut but since I grabbed the mouse it is faster to right–click), select the right options (all right, the dialog remembers the last settings) and click OK. Then I have to scroll to wherever the synchronized clip is in the list to play it. That's more than 2.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:50:19 am
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:52:30 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "So first I need to scroll the list for my picture, click on it ...That's more than 2"

That's what assistant editors are for. How do you think it was done for years in film transfer rooms or in Avid systems? Again, referring to audio and video without common TC.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:54:26 am

I know how I've been doing it in FCP since 1999 and it's completely different.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:56:23 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "I know how I've been doing it in FCP since 1999 and it's completely different."

How?

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:15:21 am

I won't play cheap tricks of omitting the necessary steps so description will be long:

Make sure you have enough "dummy" audio tracks with your picture. In the old days you'd digitize your dailies from BetaSP with Audio enabled and ended up with two silent tracks. Select all picture clips, copy, paste into the empty timeline. They will be pasted in the same order they were sorted in the bin so use it to your advantage. Starting from the beginning JKL to the first sticks hit. Go to Browser, the Production Audio bin. Unless it was recorded to DAT the best sorting order is Date Created. Select the first clip, hit Return, JKL to the clap, F11. Hit play to check sync. Fast forward to the next sticks, Command-4, Down Arrow, Return, JKL, F11. Repeat until there is no more clips.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:49:55 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "I won't play cheap tricks of omitting the necessary steps so description will be long"

It's definitely more than 2, but It's really not all that different. Sort A/V in Browser in whatever order works. Time, take name number, whatever. Set synchronize prefs to use first marker in clip. Skim to clapper in pix, L/R arrow to check the frame, mark. Skim to clapper in audio, check frame, mark. select both and right click or KB shortcut to synchronize. New clip uses pix name unless you change it. Rinse repeat.

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 3:10:28 am

It is different. I use keyboard and go down the timeline and down the list of clips. You use mouse and zigzag all over the place.

[Charlie Austin] "Sort A/V in Browser in whatever order works."

The only order that works, ie. reliably interleaves picture and sound in the list is TC Start provided there is matching timecode. But in this case the point is moot. Date created won't match with any picture codec FCPX doesn't support natively. Basically picture and sound are always miles apart in the list.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 3:27:35 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 7, 2014 at 3:35:57 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "It is different."

Yes, it is.

[Michael Aranyshev] "You use mouse and zigzag all over the place."

No, I don't. I prefer to skim because it's easy and I don't need to press anything, but one could just as easily use arrows and JKL.


[Michael Aranyshev] "Basically picture and sound are always miles apart in the list."

If the clips have random names I guess they would be. It's really not too difficult to fix that, especially if you're charging the client for an extra week! :-) It wouldn't take a week and then you could take a vacation. :-D

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 5:28:52 am

[Charlie Austin] "If the clips have random names I guess they would be."

The names aren't random. They are the names the recording device gave the footage. Like AA019701_140727_0121_0000000.rmf or A001_C014_0306YU.0000000F.R3D or REEL012_SCENE080_1_camA_TAKE_006_0189238.dpx and 024001.WAV.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 5:40:03 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "The names aren't random"

I mean random relative to pix. If, as you said earlier, "...the best sorting order is Date Created." in 7, why wouldn't that work in X. In any case, are you not being provided with sound reports? Unless I'm misunderstanding it seems that this process, where it appears you have to guess what audio goes with what pix, would be a nightmare in any NLE.

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 5:55:52 am

[Charlie Austin] "If, as you said earlier, "...the best sorting order is Date Created." in 7, why wouldn't that work in X"

Because in 7 my picture is on the timeline and my sound is in the bin. Two separate lists. In X they are in the same lists named according to different conventions and with different creation dates, because even if the clock on all devices was set to the same date and time, ARRIRAW or something recorded in RAW on Odyssey has to be transcoded for X and so will have another creation date.


[Charlie Austin] "are you not being provided with sound reports?"

Look, it is not about syncing a couple of takes. It's about hundreds and thousands. I'm provided with sound reports most of the time but usually I need to check it just at the beginning of the session. Then it is just a conveyor belt.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 3:45:23 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Look, it is not about syncing a couple of takes. It's about hundreds and thousands. I'm provided with sound reports most of the time but usually I need to check it just at the beginning of the session. Then it is just a conveyor belt."

I do this with scene/take. You sort everything by scene/take, and it should line up in the browser close enough to start making Syncro'd clips

Then if you need to match by hand, you simply open the syncro'd clip and slip what you want to slip (audio or video). Syncrho'd clips now carry tc as well.

You can then choose to batch rename based on common metadata, or whatever you want.

I know it doesn't look or feel like fcp7 and sync n link does an amazing job of automating a lot of the boring tasks, but you can get work done in X pretty easily and efficiently.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 6:14:03 pm

Michael, you are trying WAY to hard to dislike X here..

X has an unbelievable metadata based batch re-naming system built in that quite likely can solve all your objections if you'd just be open to it. .

When you import ANY card or drive or whatever the field guys have stored stuff on, you take an extra 15 seconds and simply batch re-name stuff to your standards.

The original names are still there, it's camera metadata after all and X is BUILT to preserve it.

You can use a sort code in the renaming process to match up date/time data from the video files and the audio files and everything matches perfectly at time of sync.

Bingo. Problem solved.

Stop looking for ways to imagine that X can't work. In some narrow cases, YES, it doesn't work for some users. But far too many people approach it like you do - with the presumption that it's NOT going to work for them - then they go to huge lengths to prove themselves correct.

All you gain that way is the loss of a tool that might actually make your life easier. Or not. But you'll NEVER know with the attitude you're displaying here.

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


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 6:41:25 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "In X they are in the same lists named according to different conventions and with different creation dates, because even if the clock on all devices was set to the same date and time, ARRIRAW or something recorded in RAW on Odyssey has to be transcoded for X and so will have another creation date."

Agreed.

What I do then is Keyword/Smart Collect using picture/sound logs to filter my rushes into manageable groups and then work from there.

This isn't a criticism of your issue btw - just sharing.

S.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:02:28 am

You can also grab the two clips, synchronize them, and then find the sync point later.
At any rate, it's completely possible in X, and yes, it's completely different than 7. It's more than two clicks in 7 too.

And just to keep things completely on topic in this thread, I'd like to bring up another subplot.

#Bendghazi2014, horsesh*t or serious sh*t?

Discuss!


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 5:20:25 pm

So first I need to scroll the list for my picture, click on it and play to the where sticks hit and put marker. Then I have to go back to the list and scroll for my sound and click on it.

If your Camera and Sound crews set the clocks on their equipment properly before starting production, you can sort your footage in the Event Browser using Content Created - this puts the video from however many cameras are running alongside the audio from however many mics were running, right next to each other.

I use this all the time.

S.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 6:08:56 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "If your Camera and Sound crews set the clocks on their equipment properly before starting production, you can sort your footage in the Event Browser using Content Created - this puts the video from however many cameras are running alongside the audio from however many mics were running, right next to each other.
"


Me too. In fact, some bids are based on this requirement or the price goes way up. Works very well.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 6:18:50 pm

Michael's point is that sometimes, if you can't import the native footage and receive transcodes from outside applications, creation date is divorced from the original footage.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 7:37:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Michael's point is that sometimes, if you can't import the native footage and receive transcodes from outside applications, creation date is divorced from the original footage."

Then just take the 15 seconds in the clip re-naming module to replace the Creation Date info.

What's the big deal?

It's a database, for heaven's sake. WITH robust renaming so that you can batch tag incoming groups of assets to make the database work anyway you could possibly want.

If the incoming tags don't suit your purposes - you just CHANGE them. By Batch. Largely Automatically.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 8:16:20 pm

[Bill Davis] "Then just take the 15 seconds in the clip re-naming module to replace the Creation Date info."

I don't know what you're referring to here.

Renaming won't help as it will be based on the new (wrong) creation date of the transcoded material.

We were referring to actual creation date. If you sort the browser by creation date with the original audio, and the transcoded video, there's a chance they won't match, to Michael's point.

Michael's point is that he sometimes needs to sort out a big mess. He feels that he can do that on a timeline with FCP7 easier than he can in X.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 9:42:28 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Oct 7, 2014 at 9:49:18 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Michael's point is that he sometimes needs to sort out a big mess. He feels that he can do that on a timeline with FCP7 easier than he can in X."

What am I misunderstanding here, the files are coming in with existing numbering of SOME sort. That numbering will be sequential in the sense that it can be sorted largest to smallest, no matter what system created the original name tags. So it can certainly be sorted into a sequence of smaller to larger. Which is the order in which it was recorded.

That SAME process can be used on the field audio files. No matter WHAT system was used to name them originally.

in the naming suite in X, just create a renaming rule that uses an arbitrary Project ID, a 4 digit ID number (or a 5 digit if you're working with more than 1000 clips plus an appended A for Audio clips and B for Video clips.

Let X apply those new names for everything shot on that card or session AS you import it via the BATCH renaming. Result: Audio files in the EB sorted in chronological order ABC-0001A to ABC-1000A

Then do video files the same way, but simply re-tag them ABC-0001B to ABC 1000B.

Sort by name and what are you left with? ABC 0001A (the audio file) and ABC 0001B (the video file) adjacent to each other in the list view and ready to make a Synchronized File out of.

This is what databases DO.

Hey, want the comfort of working with virtual REEL info? Just add R01 to the name convention on each side and you can sync stuff a virtual reel at a time.

I still don't see the big deal here.

And I certainly don't see how it's possible for it to be easier to sort out a big naming mess using a system that does NOT have a robust re-naming process and a functional database - compared to a system that does.

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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 11:12:13 pm

[Bill Davis] "Sort by name and what are you left with? ABC 0001A (the audio file) and ABC 0001B (the video file) adjacent to each other in the list view and ready to make a Synchronized File out of. "

That will do the trick.


[Bill Davis] "And I certainly don't see how it's possible for it to be easier to sort out a big naming mess using a system that does NOT have a robust re-naming process and a functional database - compared to a system that does.
"


Sorry, what you don't see is that the contention is not about the underlying database but about the actual pieces of GUI on top of it.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:56:57 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "Sorry, what you don't see is that the contention is not about the underlying database but about the actual pieces of GUI on top of it."

THIS....




Is the custom naming system interface in X. It's drag and drop for heaven's sake.. It has the ability to generate your own custom text strings as PART of the naming suite and facility for accurate sort via leading zeros.

As a "UI" I simply can't conceive of anything simpler than selecting a zillion clips or audio tracks in the event browser that have been pre-sorted via whatever metadata they were imported with (and ALL modern cameras or decks generate at least BASIC metadata that can be used for sorting things) and using the X simple simple spreadsheet format and column sort to put them in order, then setting up the name I want in this - then hitting OK (one click!) and having the system auto-rename an unlimited number of clips with numerical increments.

What you're asking for is honestly insanely simple in the X database and metadata approach.

Honestly.

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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:12:46 am

Bill, please calm down. I said this is the solution as soon as you posted it.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 3:20:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "Sort by name and what are you left with? ABC 0001A (the audio file) and ABC 0001B (the video file) adjacent to each other in the list view and ready to make a Synchronized File out of.

This is what databases DO.

I still don't see the big deal here."


It's not always that simple, especially when other people rely on the logged file names (not the names made in X), and sometimes, many times, the files aren't in sequential order by name, or date. I take it you've never had to deal with a big wad of files that don't exactly line up.

Also, you don't have to convince me of the merits of FCPX.

I'm not the one raising the issue. I am also not one of the people who is in this forum that "trashes" X. I use X every day, and finally, with the library system, we have employed FCPX across all editors here.

I also don't live in Europe, and I speak about these things in a very public forum and not on private message groups. If I did speak about things in private, I'd keep it that way.

I constantly weigh the pros and cons of X and find valuable information on this board, and I use X everyday, and plan on using it until it doesn't make sense anymore.

I have no idea what an "insider's mess" is, and I don't know why this forum is belittled as such, and it's weird that you would say eyeballs have largely moved elsewhere when you don't even realize when people come to "trash" X there are also people that describe, sometimes in great detail, some of the mertis of FCPX, including this thread.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 4:19:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I have no idea what an "insider's mess" is, and I don't know why this forum is belittled as such, and it's weird that you would say eyeballs have largely moved elsewhere when you don't even realize when people come to "trash" X there are also people that describe, sometimes in great detail, some of the mertis of FCPX, including this thread."

I completely disagree with Bill's thoughts on this, I look at a lot of FCPX forums and I've never seen this mentioned, people on here don't needlessly "trash" FCPX anymore. They'll comment on missing features for their workflow but the days of talking about FCPX as "IMovie Pro" are gone.

The only thing left from those days is Bill's evangelical zeal for FCPX


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:13:01 pm

[Steve Connor] "I completely disagree with Bill's thoughts on this, I look at a lot of FCPX forums and I've never seen this mentioned, people on here don't needlessly "trash" FCPX anymore. They'll comment on missing features for their workflow but the days of talking about FCPX as "IMovie Pro" are gone.

The only thing left from those days is Bill's evangelical zeal for FCPX"


I'll just note your own phrase...
"people on here don't needlessly "trash" FCPX anymore." and point out the last word.

And then note that what I'm pushing back against in this thread is public discussions with an editor who doesn't use X indicating that the very REASON he doesn't use it is because it "fails" in a necessary operation - that I then pointed out that it actually handles that specific operation rather brilliantly.

I rest my case.

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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:24:58 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'll just note your own phrase...
"people on here don't needlessly "trash" FCP X anymore." and point out the last word.

And then note that what I'm pushing back against in this thread is public discussions with an editor who doesn't use X indicating that the very REASON he doesn't use it is because it "fails" in a necessary operation - that I then pointed out that it actually handles that specific operation rather brilliantly.

I rest my case."


Michael was unaware of a feature, I don't think he was needlessly "trashing" FCP X.

It's true after you shouted at him a bit then he realised that he could do what he wanted and that's exactly what this forum is good at.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:33:19 pm

[Steve Connor] "It's true after you shouted at him a bit then he realised that he could do what he wanted and that's exactly what this forum is good at."

OK that's fair.

After all these years, you'd think i would have learned that the overall internet convention is that CAPS indicate shouting rather than just emphasis. I don't know why I keep spacing on that and feeling it's OK to use CAPS for emphasis. Must be a part of my brain that just doesn't function properly.

Sorry.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:34:27 pm

[Bill Davis] "After all these years, you'd think i would have learned that the overall internet convention is that CAPS indicate shouting rather than just emphasis. I don't know why I keep spacing on that and feeling it's OK to use CAPS for emphasis. Must be a part of my brain that just doesn't function properly."

You should also quote the right person, as you quoted what I was saying, not what Michael was saying.

For everyone: to quote someone on the cow, select the text in their post and hit 'q'

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:48:52 pm

[Bill Davis] "And then note that what I'm pushing back against in this thread is public discussions with an editor who doesn't use X indicating that the very REASON he doesn't use it is because it "fails" in a necessary operation - that I then pointed out that it actually handles that specific operation rather brilliantly."

And that's fine Bill, even pushing hard. I think what people react to in your posts are statements like:

"...and therefore make editing much, MUCH easier for those who understand the new system."

"And the nomenclature had to change because the CONCEPTS behind the program had to change. Starting with a clean slate lets you start from scratch and use names that have meaning in the new system. Timelines were FIXED with a zero point and an unbreakable progression in time."

"the whine of "But I already KNOW words for this kind of stuff - don't make me learn any new terms." which is simply kinda LAZY IMO. "


Here's my opinion, feel free to reject it, :-) ...

There's no reason to insult people, (even if they deserve it lol). Facts help change minds, and you often present great facts. But when they're wrapped in indirect insults it hurts your argument.

And you sometimes offer your opinions, - such as the part above about names changing because concepts change - as facts. They're not. The names more likely changed because Apple's other apps use terms like Library and Project and Event. iPhoto, Logic, Motion. And sometimes you're even wrong... For example, timelines still are fixed with a zero point, and are still called timelines in X.. ;-)

I don't say this to pile on, but to maybe shed light on why people react to some of your posts the way they do. The high horse approach isn't necessary, and doesn't work. IMO of course. There are plenty of people who will never like X. Whether for a legitimate reason like it doesn't suit their workflow, or a dumb reason like they're mad at Apple for killing off older products. BFD.

Presenting info, as you have in this thread, about how X can work for someone is great. Pontificating about the inner workings of software you didn't write, and denigrating anyone who "doesn't get it" is counterproductive. Again... my opinion...

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:41:57 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Presenting info, as you have in this thread, about how X can work for someone is great. Pontificating about the inner workings of software you didn't write, and denigrating anyone who "doesn't get it" is counterproductive. Again... my opinion..."

Fair criticisms.

Points taken.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to share them.

And sorry for the tone. I didn't realize I was being so harsh. That was never my intent.

My apologies.

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:47:20 pm

[Bill Davis] "My apologies."

No need for apologies! And i hope I wasn't being too harsh. I really appreciate your observations and info. It just bums me out when it gets overshadowed by peoples reactions to your tone. Personally, I can understand how you feel. I really think I spend more time filtering my posts here for tone than actually writing them. And sometimes i mess up too. lol

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

~ 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

Mitch Ives
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 9, 2014 at 2:39:32 am

[Charlie Austin] "Presenting info, as you have in this thread, about how X can work for someone is great. Pontificating about the inner workings of software you didn't write, and denigrating anyone who "doesn't get it" is counterproductive. Again... my opinion..."

FWIW, I've known Bill for what must be 15-20 years now. He is a genuinely nice person... helps anyone who has ever asked, and actually has a very good sense of humor.

He and I have tangled quite a bit on this forum in recent years, which is odd, since we never have in person.

Bill is clearly very passionate about FCP X and I think it has affected his tone at times, but unless he has changed considerably, I don't believe any of it is malicious in nature. I believe he truly respects others, even when he's in complete disagreement with them.

Just my $0.02...

I'm Mitch and I approve this message...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 9, 2014 at 3:09:05 am

[Mitch Ives] "FWIW, I've known Bill for what must be 15-20 years now. He is a genuinely nice person... helps anyone who has ever asked, and actually has a very good sense of humor. "

I don't want to get into personalities here, I think it's again the law of the cow, but that is really very clear. As an early adopter and current fan of FCP X, I also understand the frustration one can feel here when confronted with, sometimes irrational, and often misinformed criticism. Especially when it seems like one's "professionalism" is being questioned. I guess I was giving advice I give myself from time to time. I suppose my point was basically "you catch more flies with honey". :-)

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

~ 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

Mitch Ives
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 9, 2014 at 3:25:16 am

[Charlie Austin] "I don't want to get into personalities here, I think it's again the law of the cow, but that is really very clear. As an early adopter and current fan of FCP X, I also understand the frustration one can feel here when confronted with, sometimes irrational, and often misinformed criticism. Especially when it seems like one's "professionalism" is being questioned. I guess I was giving advice I give myself from time to time. I suppose my point was basically "you catch more flies with honey". :-)
"


And I totally got that... wasn't directed solely at you...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 9, 2014 at 3:51:19 am

[Mitch Ives] "And I totally got that... wasn't directed solely at you..."

What's the "thumbs up" ascii emoticon? d= ??? Yeah, that's it... OK... Nevermind ;-)

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

~ 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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 9, 2014 at 5:36:21 am
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Oct 9, 2014 at 5:37:15 am

[Mitch Ives] "He and I have tangled quite a bit on this forum in recent years, which is odd, since we never have in person."

The Internet changes everything. If everyone was talking at a bar I doubt there would be any flare ups. I try and keep that in mind whenever I feel like someone is getting on my nerves.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 10:48:45 pm

Matzdorff noted in his LACPUG presentation that the audio handoff turned out to be not much of an issue on his feature work. They interfaced from X via ProTools plus he told me when we were driving around that when he realized what Roles were capable of he got pretty excited about where the database instead of tracks approach can potentially lead.

So I think this is one of those "mountain out of a molehill" things.

YMMV.

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 11:04:36 pm

[Bill Davis] "So I think this is one of those "mountain out of a molehill" things. "

Yes and no... exporting audio to protools, while it does require X2Pro, isn't really in question. In fact, it's really simple and powerful. In 7 or Pr or MC, I have spend a bunch of time properly splitting out my tracks for a mix. In a perfect world they'd all be organized as I cut, but that never happens here in "need it yesterday" land. With X2Pro and Roles, That work is done before I start cutting.

I think this is more about assigning Roles to components in many clips at once. Can't be done in the browser yet, to get to the components each clip needs to be opened in a timeline. So sync n link really is a huge timesaver.

But, you can rename Common components in as many clips as you want at once in the Inspector. Being able to assign Roles to common components in the same way would be really great. Send yer feedback! I have. ;-)

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 11:14:15 pm

The irony is track names in BWF files is metadata. It is there to grab and use for any app.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 6, 2014 at 11:19:33 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 6, 2014 at 11:58:14 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "The irony is track names in BWF files is metadata. It is there to grab and use for any app."

Not having one in front of me I can't be sure, but if the channels in the BWF use the track names, that would carry over to any exported clips as well. It won't change the roles, but the track name will show up on the exported clips in the DAW. Maybe... lemme dig up a BWF with named channels somewhere...

EDIT: Nope. the BWF Metadata isn't preserved, unless I'm missing something. Feature request time! :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:21:21 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "I frankly have no idea. I'll probably have to go through all clips naming individual tracks and muting all except the production mix. Charge the producer an extra week or two. T"

I would emplore you to take another look at how to do this in X. It does not take a week to turn audio components on and off. It's so easy in X and you don't have to rearrange the timeline to get a separate mix out.

If you had 1000 clips that were matching audio channels, you can name each audio channel at once.

You select all 1000 clips, command-4, click audio tab, name channel 1, name channel 2...channel 4. Done.

Those names will now follow those clips around until you change them.

If you assigned Roles/Subroles, you could eve assign exactly what channels make it out of the export, or do many different audio configs from the timeline.

You can also mute Roles/Subroles in the index or in the inspector. It does look like a track based system, but all of the capabilities you are talking about are possible in X. Sync n Link makes it even easier.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 1:49:25 am

I took another look. There is no way to assign different Roles to different tracks in the same clip in Inspector.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:12:08 am

[Michael Aranyshev] "I took another look. There is no way to assign different Roles to different tracks in the same clip in Inspector."

Nope, has to be done in a timeline.

Have you ever looked at an AAF from x2pro and a moderately organized X timeline in ProTools?


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:20:11 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Have you ever looked at an AAF from x2pro and a moderately organized X timeline in ProTools?"

Not in the real life.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:50:17 am

It's not a mess.

And if you go just a little further with Role organization, it's even better, add Subroles, it's even better.

I'm not saying you have to like X, you don't, but you can output exactly what you need in X without a whole lot of fuss.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 2:56:27 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's not a mess."

It most certainly is not. I've gotten compliments from mixers on the track organization of stuff I've sent to finish. These guys get stuff from MC, and 7 all day every day, and most of it is completely disorganized because you have to do it manually. These days, very few people bother anymore, so mixers spend the first part of the session cleaning stuff up.

Since I used to mix, I'm one of those who do split stuff out in 7 etc. However, I prefer doing it by simply pressing a button. :-)

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

~ 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

Chris Harlan
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 3:12:38 pm

[Charlie Austin] "These days, very few people bother anymore, "

Not that I've seen. People are expected to bother, and are castigated if they don't. I bother for other reasons, primarily because I get a lot more out of the timeline if I organize audio as I work. I didn't for years, and only after studio work forced me to, did I realize I was missing a valuable tool. Now, I organize my audio, whether anyone asks me to or not. I get a lot more out of it that way. And, I'd say that goes for the majority of the people I work with.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 3:54:53 pm

[Charlie Austin] "It most certainly is not. I've gotten compliments from mixers on the track organization of stuff I've sent to finish. These guys get stuff from MC, and 7 all day every day, and most of it is completely disorganized because you have to do it manually. These days, very few people bother anymore, so mixers spend the first part of the session cleaning stuff up. "

I think that might be more indicative of the level of professionalism and/or experience of the other editors rather than the software used. I've seen some ugly organization on very simple timelines so it's obvious that the editor either doesn't give a crap or, through inexperience, doesn't realize how much work it is for the mixer to sort everything out later. Either way, I'm someone is too lazy or ignorant to keep even the most basic of edit organized I doubt they would bother to use Roles either (assuming they even know what Roles were).

Every TV show and post house I've worked at had strict track assignments that every editor followed. The Post Sups certainly enforced the rules because having a mixer waste time cleaning up after a lazy editor was just money pissed away. The times I typically encounter lazy organization is either on independent projects or web-centric work. Typically these types of projects are done by self-taught people that have limited, if any, broadcast or collaborative workflow experience so they just kinda do whatever because they don't know any better.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 4:12:33 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I think that might be more indicative of the level of professionalism and/or experience of the other editors rather than the software used. I've seen some ugly organization on very simple timelines so it's obvious that the editor either doesn't give a crap or, through inexperience, doesn't realize how much work it is for the mixer to sort everything out later. Either way, I'm someone is too lazy or ignorant to keep even the most basic of edit organized I doubt they would bother to use Roles either (assuming they even know what Roles were). "

In X, the timeline is simply organized differently right from the start. Roles are great, I use them a lot because I am an organized person (and need multichannel audio outputs), but if you don't use Roles, X2Pro does a pretty good job of organizing the timeline for the mixer, even without touching a single thing.

What I like about FCPX is that, even if you have a really super basic organization plan, that organization pays dividends at the end of the project. That is to say, as soon as you import files, add a Role that makes sense, Dialogue is Dialogue, Music is Music, Effects are Effects, DoubleSystem is DoubleSystem, SOT is SOT, or whatever other convention makes sense. That organization and delineation will follow clips around where ever you put them, and then X2Pro can make sense of them (you can also decide which Roles to send or not, in the X2Pro interface). If you need more detail, you can of course add more detail, like Dialogue (Role) > Character (subRole), but I find that even the simplest of tagging right after importing helps a whole lot. i wish you could tag Roles right in the import window, it would be even easier.

While I am not advocating messy disorganization, I do think that FCPX can help unorganized people stay more organized in very simple and effective ways right from the beginning.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 4:57:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "While I am not advocating messy disorganization, I do think that FCPX can help unorganized people stay more organized in very simple and effective ways right from the beginning."

I'm sure it can, though there are people (and I have worked with some of them) that 1. love working in some sort of unorganized hell and 2. can't be bothered to follow even the simplest of direction. For example, I worked with one editor that didn't use bins in FCP 7. Everything from sequences to titles to SFX to raw footage was just hanging out at the root level of FCP's Browser window. When you asked him, "Hey, do you have clip XYZ" he would just scroll, scroll, scroll looking for it even though that took a million times longer than if he used the most rudimentary of bin structures.

On another project I worked with a guy that actually organized things in bins, but had audio all over the place and all we had to deal with was 7 tracks of audio (dialog, nat sound, music, VO) on 10 minute videos. Super simple yet sometimes music was on 2/3, sometimes it was on 11/12. Sometimes VO was on 1. Sometimes it was on 6. That's not "man, sometimes it's hard to do an insert edit when you've got 32 tracks of audio to deal with" that's "man, I just don't really give a crap."

If the mixer Charlie uses rarely gets organized timelines that's not an NLE shortcoming, that's an editor being unprofessional shortcoming. If you hadn't guessed, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Being lazy, ignorant and/or just plain unorganized makes other people's jobs significantly harder and it's just incredibly rude and unprofessional to pass the burden onto someone else like that.


/rant


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 5:46:15 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "If the mixer Charlie uses rarely gets organized timelines that's not an NLE shortcoming, that's an editor being unprofessional shortcoming. If you hadn't guessed, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine."

FWIW, it's not just one mixer, it's guys and gals at most of the post audio places in town. (LA) Trailers tend to be better organized, but when people are cranking out spots, all bets are off.

I also share your pet peeve, if for no other reason than I used to be a mixer and had to deal with it. Back in the dark ages of elements coming in on DAT with 2 pops or DA-88's or something, I think people were more careful, because they had to be. Now it's "here's the AAF, you deal with it." Another pet peeve of mine is layering 10 stereo effects or more when 3 or 4 would have done. I've deleted more superfluous tracks from preps than I can remember. And I say superfluous because, when the mix was done, nobody ever noticed. ;-)

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

~ 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

Shawn Miller
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:09:22 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " If you hadn't guessed, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Being lazy, ignorant and/or just plain unorganized makes other people's jobs significantly harder and it's just incredibly rude and unprofessional to pass the burden onto someone else like that."

This is a pet peeve of mine as well, even though I'm a one man band most of the time. I rarely have to deal other people's project files when editing, but I do have to use/fix AE templates and projects once in a while. Naming conventions or organization of any kind seems to be a mystery to some people. Nothing worse than opening an AE project to see an unorganized assembly of "comp 1-200", and 500 variously named solids; Light Gray Solid 1-75, Black Solid 1-100, White Solid 1-50, etc. And don't get me started on "Pre-comp 1, Pre-comp 1 Comp 1, Pre-comp 1 Comp 2..."!

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:11:54 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Nothing worse than opening an AE project to see an unorganized assembly of "comp 1-200", and 500 variously named solids; Light Gray Solid 1-75, Black Solid 1-100, White Solid 1-50, etc. And don't get me started on "Pre-comp 1, Pre-comp 1 Comp 1, Pre-comp 1 Comp 2..."!"

Yeah...our posts crossed paths.

Ae projects are a whole different level of disorganization.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:21:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Shawn Miller] "Nothing worse than opening an AE project to see an unorganized assembly of "comp 1-200", and 500 variously named solids; Light Gray Solid 1-75, Black Solid 1-100, White Solid 1-50, etc. And don't get me started on "Pre-comp 1, Pre-comp 1 Comp 1, Pre-comp 1 Comp 2..."!"

Yeah...our posts crossed paths.

Ae projects are a whole different level of disorganization."


Yeah, just saw that. FWIW, I would love to see the tagging and keywording capabilities of X in AE... batch renaming of assets would also be a welcomed addition.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:10:56 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Being lazy, ignorant and/or just plain unorganized makes other people's jobs significantly harder and it's just incredibly rude and unprofessional to pass the burden onto someone else like that."

Then I take it you don't get other people's After Effects project all that much? :)

I hear you, I like to stay organized too. I think by default, X's timeline organization is completely different than say, a track based program. And Apps like X2Pro, can organize the information from an unorganized person (potentially) better than a track translation. And even if you have to assign roles first, that can be a lot easier with the timeline index, rather than trying to go through a tracked timeline clip by clip and organizing the tracks that way.

You see, this is really hard to get across, but with trackless or Roles, or whatever you want to call it, you don't have to rearrange the timeline to get different output results. You simply reshuffle the information to way that suits the output. It's pretty nice like that.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:22:51 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You see, this is really hard to get across, but with trackless or Roles, or whatever you want to call it, you don't have to rearrange the timeline to get different output results. You simply reshuffle the information to way that suits the output. It's pretty nice like that."

I honestly feel this way about the timeline in general. I agree that some sort of visual cues (other than clip names) like color coding would be great. And I also wouldn't mind being able to group roles, as long as i could turn it off. I'm honestly not sure this would work well at all with multichannel/multi-Role sources. The "solutions people are offering are a kludge...

I do organize the X timeline in a "traditional" way where possible (DIA/VO more or less at the top, FX more or less in the middle, MX at the bottom) but because of the way the timeline/timeline index work, I don't care if things get a little intermingled. And It's really easy to separate things if I want with secondaries or a silent audio slug. FWIW, I didn't feel this way at all when I first started cutting in X, but I'm used to it now and it's perfectly fine. Again, Role colors, (and audio Role bussing of some sort) would be nice...

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

~ 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

Steve Connor
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 6:26:18 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I honestly feel this way about the timeline in general. I agree that some sort of visual cues (other than clip names) like color coding would be great"

Number 2 on my wish list!


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 10:58:02 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I agree that some sort of visual cues (other than clip names) like color coding would be great. "

This would most likely do it for me. If I could see blue sfx, red vo, green dialog, mauve music I could get a similar structural sense at a glance. It would take a bit of adapting to, but the same amount of info would visible, so I think I'd be fine with that.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 9, 2014 at 12:52:51 am

[Chris Harlan] "mauve music "

How fancy! ;)


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:34:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You see, this is really hard to get across, but with trackless or Roles, or whatever you want to call it, you don't have to rearrange the timeline to get different output results. You simply reshuffle the information to way that suits the output. It's pretty nice like that."

Although I haven't used X I understand what you are saying. My point is that even if FCP X takes less effort it still takes some effort and for many people some effort is still too much effort. ;) Like the AE example of getting Pre-comp 1, Pre-comp 2, Pre-comp 3, etc.,. If someone is too lazy to uniquely name a file they are too lazy to create Roles and assign them.

With regards to rearranging the timeline, I might be misunderstanding you, but in FCP 7 (and I believe Avid and PPro as well) you don't have to rearrange what's in the timeline to get different output results. For example, in FCP 7 you can map the timeline track to be whatever audio output track you want it to be (i.e. Track 1 in the timeline can be mapped to be Track 4 on output).


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:41:28 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "With regards to rearranging the timeline, I might be misunderstanding you, but in FCP 7 (and I believe Avid and PPro as well) you don't have to rearrange what's in the timeline to get different output results. For example, in FCP 7 you can map the timeline track to be whatever audio output track you want it to be (i.e. Track 1 in the timeline can be mapped to be Track 4 on output)."

You can. In FCP 7 at least, it is a giant PITA of carefully right clicking etc. If you have more than a dozen tracks it's really annoying, particularly if you have to do a few different iterations. (Stems, mix minus, mono split etc...) I thing Pr and MC act in similarly. Roles make it really really easy...

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:46:37 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Although I haven't used X I understand what you are saying. My point is that even if FCP X takes less effort it still takes some effort and for many people some effort is still too much effort. ;) Like the AE example of getting Pre-comp 1, Pre-comp 2, Pre-comp 3, etc.,. If someone is too lazy to uniquely name a file they are too lazy to create Roles and assign them. "


I get it, completely. It does take a bit of effort, but I would say in X, it takes even less effort. Once the organization is even ROUGHLY setup (ALL CAPS!), that organization follows that clip around until it's specifically changed. It is quite powerful, and is great for the disorganized because it takes all of one second to do at the very beginning of editing. With tracks, (and Ae) organization is a constant process. You are constantly renaming, retargeting, reshuffling to fit the organization and output. I apologize, it's very hard to explain over the interwebs, and it's also hard to explain without diving in to X.


[Andrew Kimery] "With regards to rearranging the timeline, I might be misunderstanding you, but in FCP 7 (and I believe Avid and PPro as well) you don't have to rearrange what's in the timeline to get different output results. For example, in FCP 7 you can map the timeline track to be whatever audio output track you want it to be (i.e. Track 1 in the timeline can be mapped to be Track 4 on output)."

Right, but what if you had music AND dialogue on the same track? You'd have to rearrange it.

If you need separate channel outputs, and you didn't have the tracks properly segmented, you'd have to rearrange.

If you need specific panning (L.R.whatver) you'd have to rearrange the timeline to make sure the panning is set correctly.

In the case of Pr, if you have a multichannel output (but want to monitor stereo) it is a huge PITA that requires a whole new sequence.

In X, all of this can be done in the export from the same timeline.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:50:02 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "In X, all of this can be done in the export from the same timeline."

Also, you can be exporting multiple different splits etc at the same time. Start one, set up the next with different output, start it, next, next, next. Very helpful.

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

~ 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: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 7:51:21 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Also, you can be exporting multiple different splits etc at the same time. Start one, set up the next with different output, start it, next, next, next. Very helpful."

Exactly. One timeline, no rearranging or duplicating.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 8:16:16 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I apologize, it's very hard to explain over the interwebs, and it's also hard to explain without diving in to X.
"


No, I get it. I just have a very low amount of faith in most people doing an ounce of 'extra' work even though it will save them and/or others a pound of extra work down the line. Part of me chalks it up to a cultural thing in America where prior planning of any sort is treated like some sort of burden.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Right, but what if you had music AND dialogue on the same track? You'd have to rearrange it.

Right, it's all contingent that the track assignments have been followed just like Roles wouldn't work if someone labeled music as Dialogue. And, yes, changing a Role is easier than finding all the instances of DIA being on the wrong track and moving them to the right track.


I'm not doubting the software, I'm doubting the human using the software.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 8, 2014 at 5:34:35 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I think that might be more indicative of the level of professionalism and/or experience of the other editors rather than the software used. I've seen some ugly organization on very simple timelines so it's obvious that the editor either doesn't give a crap or, through inexperience, doesn't realize how much work it is for the mixer to sort everything out later."

I think it's probably way more likely for people to do proper preps in scripted, and maybe agency-type advertising. And again, I'm not saying everybody does this at all. I keep stuff organized as much as I can as I cut, and then make it all nice when it goes to finish. So do folks I work with.

But, in talking to mixers, they get a lot of stuff that's a god-awful mess. And not just from inexperienced editors. I think there's more "not my problem" attitudes out there than in the past. And, at least in smaller places that do what I do, maybe less people who are strictly post supervisors. All anecdotal of course...

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

~ 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

TImothy Auld
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 7:10:53 pm

What's the difference between having roles and sub roles and having tracks that delineate what goes where? And my biggest pet peeve: Why does the nomenclature have to be reinvented?

Tim


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 7, 2014 at 7:47:56 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Oct 7, 2014 at 7:50:19 pm

[TImothy Auld] "What's the difference between having roles and sub roles and having tracks that delineate what goes where? And my biggest pet peeve: Why does the nomenclature have to be reinvented?"

Because the magnetic timeline allows assets to shift tracks to avoid clip collisions and therefore make editing much, MUCH easier for those who understand the new system. - the old fixed track system wouldn't work. Roles provide a way to group (and subgroup!) assets free of track position information and no matter where they move as you edit. It's hugely freeing to know that you can drop any clip anywhere in a primary or secondary and KNOW that you won't kill content (or the RELATIONSHIPS you've crafted between your storyline elements!) regardless of how new content lands or ripples.

And the nomenclature had to change because the CONCEPTS behind the program had to change. Starting with a clean slate lets you start from scratch and use names that have meaning in the new system. Timelines were FIXED with a zero point and an unbreakable progression in time. Storylines are NOT constrained like that. The zero point FLOATS as required and it's possible to assemble clips and clip groupings PRIOR to the zero point without having to shift anything. A storyline in X is a thing with NEW behaviors. So what' can possibly be wrong with giving it a new term?

The typical countervailing argument is the whine of "But I already KNOW words for this kind of stuff - don't make me learn any new terms." which is simply kinda LAZY IMO.

Want to learn the new system? Learn the new language. Simple as that.

The coldest splash of water for experienced editors coming to X is the hard realization that while you will still be an expert at EDITING, you are no longer an expert at running the editing software. Not until you put in the same time as everyone else to learn how it works.

It sets you back to square one. And that pisses people off. But it's what happens. No way to change it.

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 McGarrigle
Re: Cutting a major Hollywood Feature on FCPX
on Oct 10, 2014 at 10:53:10 am

A teaser trailer for Focus has just been released. Here's a link:http://youtu.be/A1PqBFHoeTA


Return to posts index

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