FORUMS: list search recent posts

Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 2, 2015 at 8:51:35 pm

The notable quote...

Glenn Ficarra "I could cut at least twice as fast if not three times as fast on Final Cut Pro X as I could on Avid."

You can find the comment in-context here:
http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1617-how-the-hollywood-feature-fil...

Let the screaming begin. And remember, this time it's NOT me saying this.

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

Shane Ross
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 2, 2015 at 9:18:43 pm

Yet it still took them 8 months or so to cut this. Same amount of time as on Avid. I guess they then have the ability to cut and recut scenes more times than they would on Avid? Instead of "how about this...or this...or this?" It's "How about this, or this, or this, or this, maybe this, or try this, how about this?" More time to look at options.

FCX always advertised that you could do all that swapping faster.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 2, 2015 at 9:31:40 pm

Which...BTW...was the big selling point of Avid originally. The ability to make changes to a scene more quickly. It took FOREVER to do it when you cut film. Want to know how long?

Damn..I can't find that Modern Romance clip with Bruno Kirby and Albert Brooks anymore...it's like it's vanished...

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 2, 2015 at 9:43:02 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Mar 2, 2015 at 9:46:22 pm

Its out there Shane.

Last I saw it was just a few months ago linked to someone's post.

Reminded me of the days flying to LA to sit in a coffeeshop outside PhotoKem while they did the Rank Transfer of my 35mm film for some commercial spots.

The good old days.

Actually, the story was most interesting to me by virtue of the value John Requa put on working with the final resolution files at EVERY stage of the workflow. That and the "moviemaking team" aspects where the lines between job responsibilities are more than a little bit blurred.

Things are definitely changing out there.

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

Shane Ross
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 2, 2015 at 10:14:13 pm

I've worked full res for years...nearing a decade now. About time they caught up. The only time I DON'T work full res is when I cut shows with multiple editors and TONS of footage...like docu-reality. Or full doc series where all the footage needs to be accessed for every episode. Barring that, I've been working full res on many shows, and have been since 2006. Feature film catching up to that I see.

Although now with the practice of shooting and shooting and shooting because it's not FILM, does tend to add to the footage, and the hours needed to watch it. And now store it.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 2, 2015 at 11:07:46 pm

[Bill Davis] "Glenn Ficarra "I could cut at least twice as fast if not three times as fast on Final Cut Pro X as I could on Avid.""

I hear this quite a bit - its faster, its faster, its faster..

No one ever says specifically what made it faster ?

Was it all the front end prep, was it the the actual timeline? What specifically?

It also makes me wonder because he says he had to do a lot less clicking around but in my experience you do way more mousing and clicking in FCPX than any other NLE.

Not trying to argue, but genuinely curious - whats so much faster?


Return to posts index


Trevor Asquerthian
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 2, 2015 at 11:46:24 pm

[Neil Goodman] "whats so much faster"

I'd guess quite a bit of it would be audio moving WITH video, without even thinking about it.

Linked selections don't work so well everywhere else, once you get beyond very rough assemblies.



Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 1:07:31 am

I move audio and video together all the time without even thinking about it. What's the big deal here? This guy can edit 2 to 3 times faster? Measured against what? This is completely marketing eyewash. No other way to characterize it.

Tim


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 1:29:23 am

[TImothy Auld] "This is completely marketing eyewash. No other way to characterize it."

I'd characterize it as someone's subjective feeling about how they perceive their performance working in one NLE vs. another. Why do people (not specifically you Timothy...) get so worked up when they hear stuff like this?

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

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


Return to posts index


TImothy Auld
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 1:43:13 am
Last Edited By TImothy Auld on Mar 3, 2015 at 1:45:28 am

I get worked up when people tell me things that are not quantifiable.

Tim


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 3:01:25 am

This whole Focus business has really brought out the judgmental side on this forum. Haven't seen this kind of heat in a year, at least.

The thing is, none of us knows the director in question, and none of us knows his skill level on Avid. He may be a relative Avid newbie, or maybe he just doesn't feel comfortable on Avid. So for him, he may feel that he's editing much faster on X. Absent any real evidence, why not take his word for it?

That being said, yes, the Apple marketing piece is just that - marketing. I personally find "2 to 3 times faster" a bit much, but whatever.

Still, I know I feel much more productive on many of my projects on X than on Avid, and I've used Avid since the 90s. I'd be willing to equate productive with fast in an overall sense. I'm pretty fast on Avid, but I'm kind of over it for most of what I do.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 4:02:19 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "This whole Focus business has really brought out the judgmental side on this forum. Haven't seen this kind of heat in a year, at least."

6 months at the longest. ;) The thread about the editor of Gravity (from late last year) started out as judgmental and never changed tone, and a few months before that there was a thread about the edit workflow on Sharknado 2 and that thread was pretty much nothing but bickering too.


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 12:22:15 am

[Neil Goodman] "No one ever says specifically what made it faster ?

Was it all the front end prep, was it the the actual timeline? What specifically? "


For me, it's never having to leave the "creative" mindset and think about anything technical, patching, collisions, am i selecting the right group of clips etc. Hard to explain but it really is different.

[Neil Goodman] "but in my experience you do way more mousing and clicking in FCPX than any other NLE. "

MC probably gives you more KB control, especially if you're good at it, but I click way less in X than I do in 7 or Pr. Honestly, using the skimmer negates the need to ever hold down the mouse button to scroll, scrub, repo the playhead in the timeline etc. it's a huge time/click saver.

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

~ 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 Gissing
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 1:41:45 am

Without a doubt the most significant thing that allows for speed is accuracy and comfort. And the best way to do this has always been for software to be smart but more importantly is the ergonomics of the edit. By this I mean control and comfort.

I do not believe for a minute that software alone makes as much difference as the means of control and the user comfort. Seating, control surfaces, ambient noise, interruptions to flow all make the real difference. I find the work I do on NLEs there is the major slow down of flow as keyboard & mouse based control is poor compared to a dedicated control surface. It is also software familiarity as I switch between Fairlight, Legend, Pr & Resolve.

Yes software matters but if X made it three times faster without any consideration given to ergonomics & control then the editor must have been really slow on any other NLE which defies logic.

Speed isn't the only arbiter of course, especially on a feature with a languid eight months to edit. On news sure. So if X really is the fastest gun, how is its news and current affairs penetration where that is a prime consideration?


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 4:39:41 am

Who cares! If anyone on this forum is cutting major studio release features or TV, you're likely using Avid. Because everyone else is, mainly. If you're cutting commercials, high-end, again it's likely Avid. If you're an indie fiction or doc person, a sole proprietor, an educator, or most of the rest of us who are not walking up to the podium to collect a gold statuette ... we can cut on anything we want, and the result will not reveal our preference.

Meanwhile I have a friend who is a corporate pharma shooter, and he says the staffers use Avid. Why? I'll give you a hint: the same reason we used to rent a Panaflex camera to shoot an industrial film 40 years ago. Because it made us feel like the "the big boys." Like we were shooting a Hollywood feature!

The real "FCPX or Not: The Debate" remains, in my opinion, the missing features and odd behaviors that sometimes trip up some of us, usually during a very specific workflow. The kind of thing Oliver Peters, who is pretty familiar with most of the NLEs, will post -- e.g. his audio is acting weird when he tries to export it out of X, and so on. If you need to do that specific workflow, and it's acting quirky or falling short, use PPro. I don't mind, really.

Most of the time, my moderate-to-low end docu work goes along nicely in X, so I like it. I only use Legacy when I dip into an older project, and don't really need to convert to X.

If I get a job that stumps my abilities in X ... it will probably be a complex enough project that I'm hiring a better editor anyway, and I'm the producer.

So he or she can cut on anything she pleases!

Doug D


Return to posts index


Brett Sherman
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 1:29:58 pm
Last Edited By Brett Sherman on Mar 3, 2015 at 1:31:13 pm

[Neil Goodman] "I hear this quite a bit - its faster, its faster, its faster..

No one ever says specifically what made it faster ?"


Keep in mind this is a director, not the editor. So undoubtedly speed advantages would be less so with an editor that knows either product in and out. But...

Here is the full quote, and I think it's fairly clear what he's saying:

"That’s when we noticed that it was designed to cut digital video from the ground up, not just made to emulate the film experience, it was really appealing. And then when we found how easy it was, it was amazing, I could cut at least twice as fast if not three times as fast on Final Cut Pro X as I could on Avid. There was so much less thinking and less clicking than that flatbed emulation."

On a more general note, I've outlined probably at least 5 to 10 times on this board what makes FCP X faster for my workflows. There have been hundreds of posts from others about this. So it simply is not true that no one ever says what makes it faster.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 2:42:00 pm

[Brett Sherman] "So it simply is not true that no one ever says what makes it faster."

I would think that people might trust the word of the many experienced Editors who post on here rather than the usual scepticism.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 3:49:28 pm

[Steve Connor] "I would think that people might trust the word of the many experienced Editors who post on here rather than the usual scepticism."

I still think big numbers deserve skepticism. I have no trouble believing that many editorial tasks are 2x-3x faster (or more), but it's not clear what exactly is said to be so much faster -- the whole process?

If FCPX really lets you cut "two if not three times as fast," then presumably FCPX editors have seen either their earnings or their output double or triple, or they have cut their workweeks down to two days.

If this is the case, I'll bet you can convert some holdouts right here in this thread. If this is not the case, then we need to approach the question of efficiency improvements with more granularity.

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

Bret Williams
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 1:24:06 pm

Why would anyone's earnings triple? I guess if all your work is flat rated, but don't most get paid hourly,daily or salary? A faster tool just means more work gets done.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 2:29:29 pm

[Bret Williams] "Why would anyone's earnings triple? I guess if all your work is flat rated, but don't most get paid hourly,daily or salary? A faster tool just means more work gets done."

If you can get three times as much work done in any given unit of time as your competition can -- in other words, deliver three times as much value -- why wouldn't you charge more?

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

Bret Williams
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 4:38:45 pm

New tech enables one to do things cheaper and faster and rates effectively go down as competition sets in.

We can now do immensely more in the same time than 25 years ago. Say for example 25 years ago the going rate was $300/hr just for a nice A/B roll Sony BetaSP with DVE linear suite. We don't get $900/hr just because we can work faster now. More like $100/hr for something that is ten fold faster and better.

BUT in the short run, I can see it happening on flat rate projects of course. If the going rate for a commercial is $9000, and you can now do three of them in the same amount of time, then yeah, you could triple your income.

Over the long run, competition will win out and commercials will lower to $3000 and those that can't
compete become dinosaurs. Like the million dollar suites charging $300/hr.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 1:48:45 pm
Last Edited By Brett Sherman on Mar 4, 2015 at 1:59:45 pm

[Walter Soyka] " still think big numbers deserve skepticism. I have no trouble believing that many editorial tasks are 2x-3x faster (or more), but it's not clear what exactly is said to be so much faster -- the whole process?"

I don't think the 2-3X faster is really a scientifically derived statistic. And no doubt is exaggerated. The way you might read it, is it "feels 2-3X faster". Which in itself is not insignificant, meaning anything that feels faster helps maintain focus and reduce burnout.

As you well know, time gets sucked up regardless of how efficient your software is. Remember when we moved from linear editing to non-linear? There were studies done that showed the time on editing did not decrease. However, the quality of the edit increased. There could be a similar effect here. There could also be the effect of reducing staff required for editing a video. Which also is not insignificant. Brooks Law suggests that fewer staff leads to more efficient outcomes. Something I've found matches my experience.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 2:31:08 pm

[Brett Sherman] "I don't think the 2-3X faster is really a scientifically derived statistic."

For me, it's not just the working faster part. I tend to believe the old "Good, Fast or Cheap: Pick Two" adage.

Edits seem to take the same amount of time. But it's how many different versions or ideas that can be produced in that time period that has increased. Personally, I have not reduced my rate at all in the NLE world. If anything, adding a $300 software to a MacBook Pro allows me to add more value. We still take about the same time to cut a series of spots. But the amount we get done in that time is far greater (plus the fact I don't have to be in a facility somewhere to do it).

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 2:46:49 pm

[Brett Sherman] "I don't think the 2-3X faster is really a scientifically derived statistic. And no doubt is exaggerated. The way you might read it, is it "feels 2-3X faster"."

This is exactly my point. If the claim that something is 2-3X faster is not demonstrably true, who can blame the skeptic for questioning the claim?

Incredible claims like this naturally invite skeptics to also question the totally credible claims. Haters gonna hate, but why give them a good argument to use? If the purpose is to help sell the real-world benefits of FCPX, it's a miss. And worst case, you're setting expectations that no one can reach.


[Brett Sherman] "There were studies done that showed the time on editing did not decrease. However, the quality of the edit increased."

In computer graphics, we call it Blinn's Law: "As processing power increases over time, render times remain constant." (Of course, I'm still peddling Soyka's Law, too: "Expectations rise at the same rate as capabilities.")

As I mentioned above, speed is a creative tool. I absolutely agree that you can capture some time savings and use them to drive quality -- this is one of the main working principles at my own little studio. But if you're spending your speed on quality, you're burying the lead; this isn't a speed story anymore, it's a quality story.

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

Richard Herd
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 4:40:53 pm

Here's an old response I had (when I was teaching) https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/57130

X is faster, especially if you don't have to "unlearn."


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 1:36:05 pm

[Neil Goodman] "No one ever says specifically what made it faster ?

Was it all the front end prep, was it the the actual timeline? What specifically? "



I think primary difference remains selection. In track based editing you must select things individually each time to move them. The app cannot read your mind. It has no idea what you want to move until you select it.

X assumes that you want the audio from the interview to go along with the video, and the majority of the time I do.

The video below shows exactly what I'm talking about. People get caught up in the "rippling'.
It's the connections more than anything. Keeping things in sync is just a bonus of that.

If you had to select 10 items that's 10 clicks. With items connected you are moving 10 things all at once.

It's just like when I go to the store. I don't want to move 20 items to my car individually, I want them in one bag.

I'm going to work hockey tonight and we will put a bunch of stuff on one cart and move it all at once.
We move a bunch of stuff at once every day in life. To me it's consistent with what I always do.

It's not consistent with how I used to edit but I can get past that.

Couple that with all the other things like that skimmer and I just prefer it. I prefer not dragging the playhead around the timeline anymore.

Apple! Get that skimmer in Motion. STAT


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 3:22:36 pm

To me, a big element is what Bill brought up, which is the "team" aspect of this. A director/teacher friend of mine is fond of saying that "filmmaking is team art". I think that's very applicable in how Ficarra, Requa, Kovac and the assistants approached this film. Not to say it couldn't have been done with something else, nor that others don't also do it. Nevertheless, there's an interesting style and that's fascinating in this discussion. That collaborative side of X is something that I hope Apple expands upon.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Sam Mestman
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 5:59:09 pm

As usual... leave it to Oliver Peters to say something smart.

Honestly, if there was one brilliant thing that was done as a part of the Focus process, it was bringing the departments (editorial, vfx, sound) closer together, and having them all working together under the same roof until it came time to close the show.

THAT IS THE REAL INNOVATION. You don't need a million people working in a million places to get something done.

Get your core team in a room, talk to each other, collaborate, tell your story, move forward. Edit, sound, color, VFX can all be done in the same place and in the same workgroup if you plan it out properly... and you can do it in a shared environment.

If nothing else, Focus will hopefully signal the end of the bureaucracy that currently plagues high end storytelling. The amount of work that a few competent people can get done in a room together has never been higher... regardless of what editing platform you choose.

On a side note... if you want to see the cage match that is FCPX Or Not: The Debate turned into a live setting... you should come hang out at the FCPWORKS Suite at NAB (we're going to have a bit of a special panel... and this is almost confirmed). Same goes for if you want to know more about the who, what, why, and how of Focus. Mike Matzdorff and I will be there talking about that as well.

Lot's of cool stuff coming down the pike. It's an exciting time to be in post production.

Sam Mestman
Workflow Architect - FCPWORKS
http://www.fcpworks.com
http://www.wemakemovies.org


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 2:13:16 am

[Sam Mestman] "Honestly, if there was one brilliant thing that was done as a part of the Focus process, it was bringing the departments (editorial, vfx, sound) closer together, and having them all working together under the same roof until it came time to close the show.

THAT IS THE REAL INNOVATION. You don't need a million people working in a million places to get something done."


There's a similar theme at Camp Fincher. The more that can be kept in-house, as a sort of filmmaking "collective", the more interactive and creative the process can be. It's just a matter of getting the right talent in. Not only is it more collaborative, but key departments, like sound, can contribute earlier in the process.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 10:30:39 am

[Oliver Peters] "There's a similar theme at Camp Fincher. The more that can be kept in-house, as a sort of filmmaking "collective", the more interactive and creative the process can be. It's just a matter of getting the right talent in. Not only is it more collaborative, but key departments, like sound, can contribute earlier in the process."

JJ Abrams's Bad Robot espouses this same "one-roof" philosophy.

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

Tracy Hern
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 5, 2015 at 12:02:18 am

I teach 3 day long Digital Storytelling Workshops, most often to people with no NLE experience and sometimes with no computer experience. In the old days, if we got to the 3rd day and somebody didn't have a rough cut on their timeline, I would walk out the door for a minute to catch my breath and maybe keep myself from puking, knowing it was going to be a frantic day. Further, there was no way I could handle a group of 5 or 6 people by myself. Now, I can do it by myself and if on the third day half the group doesn't have a rough cut laid out, I don't even sweat it as I know there is time to get it done and add traditions and music as well. The person who starts fine cutting on day 3 will have a better piece, but my goal is minimally to get everybody out the door with a story. I find, in particular that keyframing is faster, selecting a range for audio transitions is faster, working with images and music from built in browsers is faster, and the visual cues even make laying down the timeline faster. At least for neophytes, but also for me because I also know if somebody "freezes" and can't believe they could possibly edit, I can hop into a chair next to them and slam their story into the timeline Lickety split.


Return to posts index

Christopher New
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 2, 2016 at 7:08:35 pm

[Neil Goodman] "in my experience you do way more mousing and clicking in FCPX than any other NLE. "

You should try the keyboard shortcuts, Neil. My FCPX keyboard cover has easily upped my productivity by 25% alone (partly by showing me shortcuts that I may not have known were there). I know Avid & Premiere editors will say the same thing, but if you're just "mousing around," then you're leaving a lot on the table. (Oh, and get a trackpad instead of a mouse, too, for scrolling.)

Christopher New
Dallas Center, IA


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 6:03:19 pm

Glenn Ficarra "I could cut at least twice as fast if not three times as fast on Final Cut Pro X as I could on Avid."

And the faster you cut it the better the film for sure.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 6:12:44 pm

[James Ewart] "And the faster you cut it the better the film for sure."

I am actually a big believer that speed is a creative feature.

1) Any time you reduce the friction of performing a task, you keep the user focused on what they are doing something and why, not how. Distractions are the enemy of focus, and interruption incurs a real mental task-switching cost.

2) Operational speed (with non-destructive tools) leads to interactivity, interactivity leads to experimentation and iteration, and iteration leads to quality.

That said, your point is well-made. The tool or the process is not always the bottleneck. Our subconscious mind does real work, too, in the fullness of time.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 10:46:17 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[James Ewart] "And the faster you cut it the better the film for sure."

I am actually a big believer that speed is a creative feature.

1) Any time you reduce the friction of performing a task, you keep the user focused on what they are doing something and why, not how. Distractions are the enemy of focus, and interruption incurs a real mental task-switching cost.

2) Operational speed (with non-destructive tools) leads to interactivity, interactivity leads to experimentation and iteration, and iteration leads to quality.

That said, your point is well-made. The tool or the process is not always the bottleneck. Our subconscious mind does real work, too, in the fullness of time."




It's posts exactly like this that's always made me such a big fan of Walter.
(Even if he does cut on Premier too much!)
Well structured reasoning and big picture/small details balance as always, Walter.

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: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 10:38:12 am

[Bill Davis] "It's posts exactly like this that's always made me such a big fan of Walter. (Even if he does cut on Premier too much!)"

Ha, thanks! I'm not cutting all that much anymore, but you'd surely say there's hope for me yet: I've pushed FCPX onto a few projects for the FCPX/M5 integration, and I really like the magnetic timeline for cutting VOs. (But yes, for most of my work, I do prefer the well-rounded Adobe workflow.)

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 3, 2015 at 11:14:26 pm

[Walter Soyka] "2) Operational speed (with non-destructive tools) leads to interactivity, interactivity leads to experimentation and iteration, and iteration leads to quality.
"


This goes back to what Shane said in the second post of the thread. Cutting faster doesn't necessarily mean getting done sooner, but it could mean getting more iterations in the same amount of time. To Jame's point, that's no guarantee of a better end product, but generally speaking I think being able to get more looks at something is better than being able to get fewer looks at something.

On a related note, I came across an interesting interview yesterday with a former Disney animator that talked about the advantages of computer animation. Former Disney Veteran Explains Why Big Studios Have Abandoned 2D Animation

From the interview:
"I’ve worked on CG features and I’ve worked on hand-drawn features. And hand-drawn features are harder to make. Hand-drawn cartoons take a year to produce. Once you’ve produced sequences, it’s hard to change the work. You have to go back and do everything over.
.
.
.
But with CG, you can animate the movie in three or four months, change things close to the release date. You can’t do that in hand-drawn animation. If you find out the story doesn’t work when you’re two-thirds done, you’re stuck. With CG, we change the story and rework sequences until late in the process."


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 12:28:00 am

I would add to this thought...

Getting things done faster does not necessarily mean jamming more stuff into a day.

For me, being able to execute what I'm trying to do more quickly means more "down time" to think and contemplate what I've done and what I want to do. So the purported "edit faster" still generates better work, but not necessarily more work.


On a related note...

While I dig the massive tagging/metadata party that is X, I'm not a big logging guy. Never have been.

Much to the occasional annoyance of some of the promo houses I've worked for, I don't obsessively log and subclip source material. Partly because I can see the "bones" of the piece without having to write it all down. In terms of looking for b-roll and montage-y shots, I find that scrubbing the source on the way to one shot frequently yields several "happy accidents." Like when you see something better on the way to what you thought you wanted. Or you see some random shots in a random order and suddenly inspiration strikes. Always getting immediately to where you're going doesn't really allow for that sort of thing.

Not that everyone should work that way. And not that X doesn't have awesome metadata/tag/search capabilities. I love it. I just don't get that warm feeling about it, compared to skimming & connected clips, and seriously faster and more capable compositing (even if it is just temp), and way better audio capability.

As Bill says, just my 2 cents.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 1:57:30 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "While I dig the massive tagging/metadata party that is X, I'm not a big logging guy. Never have been.

I can understand this, as I don't log a lot of what I do in FCPX save for using keywording as bins mostly (i.e. my current FCPX project has keywords for each camera and element so I can quickly grab it, but if I was doing it in Premiere, it would be organized the same way just in bins).

I think the best example of what I would use (if I had an extra pair of hands with me) is with Lumberjack. If I could do it on set right then and there and come back and have it already logged for me, that would be incredibly useful.

But I can't monitor audio, video, and keep eye contact with the subject so they don't start looking all over the place and use Lumberjack. But in a situation where I have a producer who is comfortable with the app and will dutifully maintain it, that could be really nice, especially for longer pieces.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 2:08:00 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "For me, being able to execute what I'm trying to do more quickly means more "down time" to think and contemplate what I've done and what I want to do. So the purported "edit faster" still generates better work, but not necessarily more work. "

I think there are some areas where X is definitely faster, because it doesn't stop the timeline playback and, therefore, doesn't interrupt your flow. Premiere has a bit of that, too, but Avid pretty much stops with every click of something. For example, when cutting down interview soundbites that have been assembled into a sloppy stringout, X lets you play and mark in/out/delete on-the-fly without stopping playback. That's very fluid.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 1:54:06 am
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Mar 4, 2015 at 1:54:22 am

[James Ewart] "And the faster you cut it the better the film for sure."

Clearly why they opted to released it in February.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 3:42:53 am

Because the film was released at a time of year that is generally regarded as a dumping ground does not have a whit to do with the efficiency of the workflow.

Tim


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Woah. This time it's not me. It's the filmmaking team from Focus...
on Mar 4, 2015 at 1:29:35 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Because the film was released at a time of year that is generally regarded as a dumping ground does not have a whit to do with the efficiency of the workflow."

Woosh...


Return to posts index

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