FORUMS: list search recent posts

Focus - Light Iron videos

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 19, 2015 at 10:28:50 pm

Posted here:

http://postperspective.com/final-cut-pro-x-resurrected-focus-advanced-workf...

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 1:20:50 am
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Mar 20, 2015 at 1:25:13 am

some pull quotes for fun:

Final Cut Pro X is the first NLE designed around a data-centric ecosystem.
i'm not sure its column field entry is as malleable as avid AFAIK but ok. or if the data can reach into the script - that is apparently a thing.

"Previous NLEs were timeline-based systems that sat on-top of a database."
but databases are good things right? are databases bad?
this must now be an intellectual argument for events and projects. on shared storage. wait stop. for a year. and make a library. continue.

In addition, one of the biggest advantages of Final Cut Pro X is the ability to edit native 2K+ without the need to transcode to proxy or “offline” files.
and here finally you have to be joking me. FCPX has been slow to react on new camera native formats. there's plenty of it on this forum.
PPro generally has not. Adobe, for the time being, reacts like scalded cat. plus they own the open timeline. this line above reeks of bollocks.

Using Final Cut Pro X to edit Focus is about getting FCP X to explore an entirely new world of workflow potential and do everything better than other NLEs.”

from sharp previous ubsdell queries here: it's possibly about two directors making a sock puppet out of a previously unknown sacrificial nominated editor in order to allow them to run a film edit like over-aggressive ad directors run a suite in soho. only now they're not clicking their fingers, they're shoving pre-baked entire edit alterations onto the editor, who presumably has to be a largely domesticated bovine animal for that process to happen.

I guess that's the final nightmare of the FCPX project - breaking all the basic walls that surround the editor and allowing any director run amok with the moron's primary timeline auto-correct facility to crash directly into the process of the edit.
because, historically, the director and the editor might as well be the same person right? Or at least some horrible mish mash of the pair.
yay for the apple contribution here. this is a use case to sing of in storied time.

that people like bill dis-avowed the white tower, so fine, but that apple is now visibly entering it is as the wedge of anti-intellectual aggressive director lead break down of the editor role is weirdly depressing.

if you read it through, the process of focus is absolutely nothing with editing as a craft. It's not murch, it's not an edit exploration, it's directors plural, agressive DI people - it's in no way originating in editing. I'm not sure anyone involved gave a cr*p about the editor that ended up editing it, to the extent they did.

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 1:44:51 am

Aindreas the shift key is right over there. this reading like is watching Family Guy but of the flashback references none make sense did. i'm not sure they're if complete sentences they. I thin someone's had a pint! :)


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 3:00:45 am

ok there brett - i guess? I largely said what I meant though. I'm currently sat away from home viewing a dump truck of rushes from paris fashion week. I don't usually do that wearing a shamrock and a pint. It's not that I mind the characterisation - it's just a lot more irritating than you might think.

please enjoy milan below - the wipes are client lead.








that aside - the shift key remains lost in action. great to see dismissive ad hominem fires alive and well here.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 1:50:31 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the wipes are client lead."

IOW, the good part of the design is the client's idea. Isn't that exactly what you are complaining about - or alluding to - with "Focus"? Kind of ironic, don't you think?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:01:17 pm

but wait - you like the wipes? we fought against them quite hard. I was saying they were client lead because we proposed something different?

I, curmudgeon, believe split screen should have at least some negative space, and even skinny black breathing space here and there in the framing.
I'm old school on my splitscreens.

So HA HA - you're entire riposte came to nothing there Oliver. It is dust. boom.

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


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:32:39 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "So HA HA - you're entire riposte came to nothing there Oliver. It is dust. boom."

Actually my point is that just maybe, you were wrong and the client was right. Yet you executed the design at the urging of your client.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:34:33 pm

well they put me up in milan and paris. I felt it would have been rude.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 22, 2015 at 4:07:47 pm

Really nice job.

And you're right, the wipes are an abomination! Totally stylistically inappropriate and déclassé. And of course the split screens scream out for air, as you wanted them to have - the crowded feeling is just not pleasant or elegant.

Sometimes clients are right ... and sometimes they're not.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 9:18:51 pm

Aindreas -

Love the split screens, liked the wipes as well. Have always been a big fan of split screen technique, the master of which in the feature film domain was the great Robert Aldrich - who made a political thriller in the 70's called "Twilight's Last Gleaming" (unfortunately hard to find on DVD) which was the ultimate use of the technique.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 11:45:46 am

[Herb Sevush] "Love the split screens, liked the wipes as well. Have always been a big fan of split screen technique, the master of which in the feature film domain was the great Robert Aldrich - who made a political thriller in the 70's called "Twilight's Last Gleaming" (unfortunately hard to find on DVD) which was the ultimate use of the technique."

I think the Thomas Crowne Affair (1968) was one of the first movies to make great use of split screen. Previously more of a TV 'Batman and Robin' thing no? Great movie.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:23:05 pm

[James Ewart] "I think the Thomas Crowne Affair (1968) was one of the first movies to make great use of split screen. Previously more of a TV 'Batman and Robin' thing no? Great movie."

The original Thomas Crowne Affair made extensive use of split screens but was not nearly the first. "Indiscreet", a Cary Grant romantic comedy used them in 1958, but I think the modern use of split screens, to add excitement and tension into a an action sequence probably began with John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" in 1966. It's commonly believed that the appearance of split screens throughout the 60's was actually motivated by the IBM exhibit in the New York Worlds Fair of 1964 which pretty much introduced the world to multi-screen slide shows. The "Woodstock" documentary, 1970, also extensively used split screens and helped popularize them. By 1977, when "Twilight's Last Gleaming" came out to a pronounced thud at the box office, split screens were pretty much seen as a fad of the 60's and would fall out of favor in Hollywood. Too bad I say.

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


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:12:48 pm

[Herb Sevush] " IBM exhibit in the New York Worlds Fair of 1964 "

this is an entertaining thread. that's one of the charles/ray eames ones right? There's a decent doco on him and ray from 2011 - james franco narrates because james franco. that exhibit must have been utterly crazy to see at the time you'd think. also powers of ten for god's sake.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:43:02 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that's one of the charles/ray eames ones right? There's a decent doco on him and ray from 2011 - james franco narrates because james franco. that exhibit must have been utterly crazy to see at the time you'd think."

Yes it was designed by the Eames's. I was about 14 at the time and lived in NYC so I was at the fair literally dozens of times. The IBM exhibit was a big deal but the thing I remembered most about it was you could get a copy of the front page of the NY times from the day you were born - that impressed me a lot more than the huge egg shaped theater and the mutli-screen presentation.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 22, 2015 at 4:02:39 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The original Thomas Crowne Affair made extensive use of split screens but was not nearly the first. "Indiscreet", a Cary Grant romantic comedy used them in 1958, but I think the modern use of split screens, to add excitement and tension into a an action sequence probably began with John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" in 1966."

I've just got this feeling Hitchcock used them in a movie. Was it Vertigo? I can't remember and may be mistaken.


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:04:30 pm

I love a bit of split screen. We were super excited and I'd worked up some style samples - then they were all like - no negative space and ramp up the wiping please. so, you know, whatever, but fine. I just really wanted to do the thomas crown affair frankly, and we had 96 FPS models coming out our ears, so that really really could have happened.

oh well.. I'll definitely check out twilights last gleaming. If bieberkopf was still around he'd probably have some insane examples too...

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:35:27 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I love a bit of split screen. We were super excited and I'd worked up some style samples - then they were all like - no negative space and ramp up the wiping please. so, you know, whatever, but fine. I just really wanted to do the thomas crown affair frankly,"

I spent some of my earliest working years, this is back in the 70's, in a unique film animation studio that specialized in making films from stills and it also had a very primitive optical printer. We designed and animated split screens all the time, 4 screens morphing to 16 then piece by piece back to one and so on -- lots of fun.

[Aindreas Gallagher] " I'll definitely check out twilights last gleaming."

What made that application so great was the use of sound to direct your attention between the screens during a major crisis moment in the film - it doesn't have the visual look of The Thomas Crowne affair, if I remember correctly, it just kept multiple vantage points of the story going continuously over an extended period of time and used brilliant audio editing and mixing to keep the narrative flowing. Now that I think about it, I'm going to have to watch it again.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 8:24:33 pm

[Herb Sevush] " it just kept multiple vantage points of the story going continuously over an extended period of time and used brilliant audio editing and mixing to keep the narrative flowing."

mmm. yes please. that sounds great.

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


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 8:58:55 pm

second reply there herb -

what a cast?

It's fab - there's a crappy youtube copy? I'm ordering it on amazon.







but the mad thing is burt lancaster's speech at an hour and nine minutes? relative to bush, blair and Iraq - particularly blair's dodgy dossier - it's crazily on the nose. I actually just paused it to post. Lancaster really knows how to deliver a line as well.

"The doctrine of presidential credibility, by which I mean the license to lie at home and abroad, killed hundreds of thousands of people in a war that should never have been fought."

that is some line.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:30:31 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but the mad thing is burt lancaster's speech at an hour and nine minutes? relative to bush, blair and Iraq - particularly blair's dodgy dossier - it's crazily on the nose. I actually just paused it to post. Lancaster really knows how to deliver a line as well."

It's actually a fine movie, ignored in it's time for it's politics, which as you said are dead on accurate. The director, Robert Aldrich, while known for his action films - The Dirty Dozen - was very political in his own way. He made a "western" with Burt Lancaster called "Ulzana's Raid" which is a very thinly veiled allegory of the US involvement in Vietnam. It's also a great movie.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:55:57 pm

I do love aldrich. the killing of sister george to the dirty dozen is kind of hard to take in. Him and Nicholas Ray and all.
Also what in God's name is Glen Ficarra doing down here. We could have baked a cake, and I could have made slightly less dodgy arguments on the director editor relationship.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 22, 2015 at 4:06:46 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Aindreas Gallagher] " I'll definitely check out twilights last gleaming.""

And I hope you won't forget "Timecode" by Mike Figgis? Really interesting use. Four simultaneous stories that overlap.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:45:58 pm
Last Edited By David Lawrence on Mar 21, 2015 at 8:11:24 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "oh well.. I'll definitely check out twilights last gleaming. If bieberkopf was still around he'd probably have some insane examples too..."

This.

Mike Figgis' Timecode from PSP1 on Vimeo.



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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 8:19:58 pm

do you know - funny story - I went to a talk he gave about this at the guardian open weekend a while back. It was completely fascinating and the way he talked about preparing it like a music score was so madly interesting, and so nearly revelatory, I thought I had a handle on it in my head for around.. half an hour.

Also his hollywood anecdotes from his time there were utterly scandalous. lawsuit material as far as the eye could see. fantastic talk.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 11:38:39 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "please enjoy milan below - the wipes are client lead."

I think it works pretty well Aindreas. Out of interest how long to cut that piece? This is not a "ewww I could have done it quicker in FCPX" loaded question by the way. Just interested.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:09:22 pm

again - I'm really dis-avowing wipes. I think they're OK, and it wasn't as icky as I thought it's be but its not where my heart lies. I just posted that to push back against the man gargling pints thing brett lobbed at me.

- two days turnaround to first client review, with some help on shot curation - radio edit for the IVs over the tune and then a ton of stringouts for atmos, eyes, fashion talent etc. then lots and lots of cropping and wiping. then CC.

Milan is a pretty town but I didn't see a particularly huge amount of it.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 22, 2015 at 3:59:54 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] " two days turnaround to first client review, "

How long were those 'days'?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 1:59:13 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "from sharp previous ubsdell queries here: it's possibly about two directors making a sock puppet out of a previously unknown sacrificial nominated editor in order to allow them to run a film edit like over-aggressive ad directors run a suite in soho. only now they're not clicking their fingers, they're shoving pre-baked entire edit alterations onto the editor, who presumably has to be a largely domesticated bovine animal for that process to happen."

I think you're being a extremely unfair and insulting here. I've spoken with the folks involved and that's not the impression I got. I think Jan very definitely handled the creative edit in the same sense as any other film editor. While the initial desire might have been to edit the film themselves, that's not how it went down. However the three did trade scenes back and forth.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 2:56:24 am

[Oliver Peters] "I think you're being a extremely unfair and insulting here. I've spoken with the folks involved and that's not the impression I got. I think Jan very definitely handled the creative edit in the same sense as any other film editor. While the initial desire might have been to edit the film themselves, that's not how it went down. However the three did trade scenes back and forth."

I was at the event and I agree with Oliver. The team has worked together in the past and they are working together in the future so it's not like they just pulled an editor out of left field so they could manipulate him.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 3:30:36 am

ok fine - but in every way they publicly describe it - it involves their direct continuous involvement in the edit. they're cutting scenes, shoving them in and re-shaping.

bar me having a wild bret williams party here - I just took a position on this. I don't actually think this is an editorial craft development. It looks like ambitious process DI people on the make getting aggressively involved with directors keen to produce a scenario of their liking.

moron question round: would kirk baxter, and should kirk baxter, be happy at the sight of edited constructed scenes randomly appearing from david fincher as editor director. would that make sense. do other edit systems obstruct that scenario, or does basic sanity.

does the mecanno construction of FCPX allow for instant iterative lego editing such that you get old milk spoiling the directors point of first apprehension inside the editing room?

we're all editors so - isn't there supposed to be a demarcation of first apprehension? When the footage really hits you? the directors on focus kept going on about being plugged into metadata on possible alt takes throughout the process. What the hell was that about? It felt like they were selling a process vacuum cleaner.
Is that the classical scorsese directorial means to demark clean lines from shooting to the period of editing?

that said lets all have bret beers.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 4:49:59 am
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Mar 20, 2015 at 4:50:31 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] moron question round: would kirk baxter, and should kirk baxter, be happy at the sight of edited constructed scenes randomly appearing from david fincher as editor director. would that make sense. do other edit systems obstruct that scenario, or does basic sanity."

I dunno. You'd have to ask Fincher, Baxter and Wall (typically the other editor, but he wasn't available for Gone Girl) about the dynamic they have while cutting. Whatever the dynamic is though, it works for them so WTF does it matter what anyone else thinks?

What's the difference between a director sitting with you while you edit and giving notes on the fly vs a director watching a cut remotely and giving notes via email or phone vs a director having a copy of the footage and giving notes via sending the editor a sequence? The editor is there to serve the director's vision. The editor provides creative input, feedback, and should fight for what they think makes the best movie, but ultimately it's the director's movie, not the editor's.

Kirk on cutting Fincher's films,
"The beauty of the environment that Fincher sets up is it’s an illusion that I’m making a movie for one person, which is David. There is no other thing. I’m not concerned about an audience. I’m not concerned about a studio. I’m not concerned about anything except for pleasing David. David and the movie are one in the same thing. It’s an idyllic situation for a film editor."

http://postperspective.com/kirk-baxter-editing-david-finchers-gone-girl/


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 10:15:01 am

[Andrew Kimery] "The editor is there to serve the director's vision. The editor provides creative input, feedback, and should fight for what they think makes the best movie, but ultimately it's the director's movie, not the editor's."

Pop quiz, FCP fans. I know some of you will know this. Whose movie was Cold Mountain?

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

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 12:42:23 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Pop quiz, FCP fans. I know some of you will know this. Whose movie was Cold Mountain?"

Hey - just cos Minghella was British, that's no reason to have forgotten him already.

(And he directed some very good films besides Cold Mountain ...)

;-)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 6:43:58 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Whose movie was Cold Mountain?"

Annie Proulx.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 5:32:27 am

Jeez dude, it's like 2012 all over again. I mean it's not like virtually EVERY opinion you posted here for the first three years turned out to be almost entirely wrong. Oh wait. It did. Do you really want to do this all again? X is just a toy. Apple has abandoned the pros. It's incapable of anything beyond cat videos. Nobody serious will ever use it. Did you think nobody was still around who remembers you at all? It's over. Really. I can understand why you couldn't see it in 2012. But with NBC and Fox scrambling for X editors, the ship has not just sailed, it's reached its port, sold its cargo, and is returning with a new cargo and money in the bank. Give it a rest.

(Wow, posting that felt tres nostalgic!)
; )

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

Dennis Radeke
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 12:18:04 pm

Bill,

I tip my hat to you - I have more posts that I don't 'publish' in response to you than all others. This would be one of them... ;-)

Cheers,
Dennis


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 11:24:37 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Mar 20, 2015 at 11:32:50 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "Bill,

I tip my hat to you - I have more posts that I don't 'publish' in response to you than all others. This would be one of them... ;-)

Cheers,
Dennis"


Dennis,

I understand totally. When you work for a corporate entity, you at least partially speak for them and if I was in your shoes, I'd do precisely the same thing. Discretion is always the better part of valor in a large corporate setting.

But I'm not in that setting. So I don't have the same restraints. And thankfully, there are plenty of folks here with opinions that I'm sure mirror yours that are able to defend Adobe's honor vigorously the same way I've been able to stick up for the Apple vision for the past 4 years. God knows I've had plenty of folks here toss my writings back in my face, and then I get the chance to defend my positions.This is how quality learning takes place. Period.

With Aindreas, all I was doing was reflecting on the FACT that when he posted time after time after time about how X simply could not (and never would) become a NLE usable for anyone outside of the YouTube set - he was wrong. And he was. Even a cursory reading of his posts from 2011, 12 and 13 would reveal that as FACT. The landscape today is NOT as he envisioned it. In fact, it's pretty clearly closer to my wildest dreams.

And so it goes.

Lastly, in sympathy with your primary point that you don't get to post as freely as you like, you may have noticed that my contribution level to the CC or NOT forum is barely above non-existant. I've probably posted less than 6 total posts over there in the last year. That's by design. I figured that since I'm not invested in Premier (outside my Photo subscription) that I didn't have standing to bloviate there. But here, I honestly feel I do. Because agree with me or not, at least I've gone toe to toe with my detractors. And in doing that, perhaps people have had a chance to see both sides of the Or Not argument.

Hope you guys have a great NAB.

Peace.

Hey, BTW where are all the Adobe banner ads on the forum this week? They've all disappeared at least from my page loads. Getting ready for a big NAB splash?


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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56:34 pm

it's the reasonableness that kills me bill.

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


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 9:04:11 pm

[Bill Davis] "But with NBC and Fox scrambling for X editors"

"Scrambling" is a bit of a stretch. There was one post about NBC looking for editors for ONE specific project. Hardly means that there scrambling to do away with all the other NLE'S and Editors. As someone who has worked for both NBC and FOX recently - I can tell you Avid is still alive and well over there and from what i hear not going away anytime soon.

Is that a dig at X - not at all - Just giving you the facts which are sometimes absent from your posts.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 11:44:23 am

...and Neil has struck on the particular word that I was thinking about.

Perhaps as a person who must comment in a 'restrained' fashion, I am rather persnickety about words and as a very pragmatic person, I loathe hyperbole, even about the products I represent.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 1:57:10 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "moron question round: would kirk baxter, and should kirk baxter, be happy at the sight of edited constructed scenes randomly appearing from david fincher as editor director. would that make sense. do other edit systems obstruct that scenario, or does basic sanity."

I don't mean to insult you with this question, but have you ever been involved in a feature film edit? Every director is very different. Some are very involved in every aspect of the edit, including sitting over the editor's shoulder the entire time. Others give notes, walk away to let the editor make those changes, and then come back and review. Some, like Cameron, Rodriguez and Smith are hand-ons editors, operating the gear. So it comes in all forms. The fact that a director wants to be actively involved in shaping the edit is not unusual. How they do it all depends on their style, interest and abilities. After all, an editor is NEVER there to create the movie he/she wants. They are ONLY there to facilitate the director achieving their vision.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 12:26:51 am

Wow. Just, wow. Haven't seen a derp-fest like this in some time. Thanks, Aindreas!

So many calm and reasonable replies -- makes me want to jump right into the deep end (don't panic, Tim).

Oliver, your question isn't insulting. The premise and presumptions of the initial rant, however, are.
Been watching the videos. A couple of things stand out:

1. Michael Cioni is a really smart guy. With a really smart company. It's not all that hard to look past a certain amount of marketing-speak to get to the important points. Most of the reflexive pearl clutchers on this forum would do well to pay attention to what he has to say.

2. Directors are…well, directors. They live in a different world from you and me. Outside of their particular skill sets, most of what they say (and especially HOW they say it) is not to be taken very seriously. Especially by people who don't know them or their work or their working styles.

3. Bravo, Herb. Totally nailed the whole "auteur" thing. A widely misunderstood and misapplied concept - especially by directors and insecure editors. The real auteurs usually don't present themselves as such. Still, it's not wrong or uncommon to see directors who edit. Or directors who shoot.

4. Name one editor "auteur." . . . . . . . . . . . . Didn't think so. Films and television are group efforts. Always have been. Some film directors maintain a lot of control through post production. Others walk away. Only rarely does a TV director get anything more than a first cut (and often not even that). Instead, the producer runs the show. Editors are mostly hired hands. Their skills and contributions are important but mostly devalued. Only in motion pictures does an editor sometimes get to be a true collaborator. But it's not his movie. Ever. Unfortunately, the lower on the ladder the director, the more he usually blathers on about the extent to which he guides and brings his special magic to the entire process of filmmaking. Whatever.

5. DITs talk about DIT stuff. AEs talk about AE stuff. Sound talks about mixing. Directors talk about directing and everything else. That's why they're at event like this. How could anyone think a DIT talking enthusiastically and broadly about DIT workflow in general and a specific workflow in particular is being aggressive? It's his job. It's what I want to know about. What was different or special or unique or groundbreaking about this movie? Go ahead and exaggerate a little. I'm a big boy - I can figure it out. Just tell me something new and exciting. That's the point of the presentation.

6. It's been said before, but some apparently didn't get the memo: this is not about editing a feature on FCPX. It's about -finishing and delivering- a feature on FCPX. It's about demonstrating that FCPX can and does play nice with all the other departments. "They" said it wasn't possible. "They" were wrong. Move on. If you prefer Avid or Lightworks, great. They like you, too. Move on. Nothing to see here.

Unrelated to the videos, but regarding old tropes being trotted out yet again:

1. No widespread adoption of X in Hollywood. True. But slowly gaining ground. Yes, there's some wishful thinking going on here, but why so intent on pushing the NOBODY DOES OR WILL USE IT! meme? Why do you care so much? It'll get there without you. You're safe. Your job is safe. Take a deep breath.

2. Let's be clear about something. Mark Raudonis and some others jumped to Avid for very good, very specific workflow reasons that couldn't be addressed by X. Smart moves by smart people. On the other hand, NBC uses Avid out of inertia. So does CBS. ABC initially jumped to FCP because of cost and butthurt over Avid's lousy attitude. Now they use Premiere out of a combination of fear and inertia. I know these people. I work with them. It's not really about X's professionalism or suitability. Seriously, let it go.

3. I kinda like Bill. Yes, he's enthusiastic and sometimes hyperbolic. So what? Frankly, it's probably hard not to overcompensate in the face of the near constant onslaught of vitriol and mocking from the self-appointed keepers of the flame. FFS, people - move on. Talk about something useful.

Where's Bob Zellin when you need him?


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 4:18:23 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] " a combination of fear and inertia. I know these people. I work with them. It's not really about X's professionalism or suitability. Seriously, let it go."

Great rant. :-) This is exactly the case in the trailer world here in LA as well. FCP X can drive one batsh*t crazy at times like any NLE, but it's remarkably well suited for this niche, as myself and the 10 other people who use it regularly here can attest. ;-) In my almost 2 decades of doing this, I've never seen so many people making software decisions based on what companies they compete with are using. Go figure...

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

~ 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

Tim Wilson
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:03:38 pm

[Charlie Austin] "[Jeff Markgraf] " a combination of fear and inertia. I know these people. I work with them. It's not really about X's professionalism or suitability. Seriously, let it go."

Great rant. :-) "


My only issues with the rant are that it's really not very angry, and not all that long. Saddle up, son. LOL The longer and angrier the better. LOL

I do have a small issue with the use of "inertia" as a negative value. It's simply a fact of nature, as described in Newton's LAWS of Motion. It's not a good thing. It's not a bad thing. It's just a thing.

I love this take on Newton from NASA's website:

Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.


This quite easily applies to human nature as well, but as both a word and a concept, I think is generally used in exactly the wrong way. The key words are "unless compelled to change." What's the actual COMPULSION to change to FCPX? What's the external force that DEMANDS change?

Maybe it's the need to retool the working environment -- e.g., time for wholesale upgrade of all the facility's machines -- or some need to change software, or business model....but for most people, most of the time, there is no compelling reason to change ANYTHING

To more accurately apply any observations derived from Newton, we also have to address INTERNAL compulsion to change. Some people are inclined to it, some people aren't. Neither state is good or bad.

For example, I've moved 25 times in 30 years. I think I'm slowing down, but I've said that before, so who knows. I'm pleased to say that I'm 30 for 30. I've loved every place I've lived and wouldn't want to have missed a single one.

Four or five moves ago, I lived across the street from a woman who was born in that house, the same house her father was born in -- and still lived in with her. She was in her 50s, him in his 80s, and they both loved the arrangement, as did her husband, and the woman's kids, who loved growing up in the house with granddad. The kids moved away (it's a pretty small house), but if my friend the mom had had her way, her grandkids would be born in that house too. Nothing was more important to them than their roots and their family, which to them, was pretty much the same thing. They were obviously happy.

So which is good and which is bad? The desire for a rooted family, or the desire to reach past the next horizon, willing to leave other parts of the family behind? Human society would collapse without both. But both are unquestionably manifestations of INTERNAL compulsions.

Even if the house burns down, do you rebuild it, build another nearby, or take it as an opportunity to move across the country? The only important answers are INTERNAL.

This has been my issue with the whole concept of Luddites, Dinosaurs, "stuck in the old ways," or, worst of all "just doesn't get it." It fails to take into account the absence of EXTERNAL FORCES compelling change, or the absence of INTERNAL FORCES compelling change, not always, but sometimes purely for its own sake.

That is, we do a disservice to both "The Cold Mountain Moment" and "The Focus Moment" if we don't acknowledge that they were driven more by INTERNAL compulsion than anything else. "We're doing this because we WANT to do this." Good for them.

But if I neither NEED nor WANT to change, my reasons are 100% valid. Why? Because they're MY reasons, and my way is working well enough for me, even if YOU think I could or should do better. Stop making it all about you. LOL

Even for people compelled to change, X may not be the right choice. With apologies for dragging him into a rant of my own that he would never make, let's call it The Raudonis Protocol. Mark needed to retool -- the EXTERNAL compulsion. X wasn't the right choice, so he chose something else.


As Jeff puts it:


[Jeff Markgraf] "Let's be clear about something. Mark Raudonis and some others jumped to Avid for very good, very specific workflow reasons that couldn't be addressed by X. Smart moves by smart people. "

This is the sentiment I wish was more in evidence around here. An acknowledgement that there are good reasons to choose something other than X. The most vehement arguments here are usually that there's no such thing as a good reason not to choose X.

But I still think the key limitation of the use of the word "inertia" as a negative is that it fails to account for the lack of INTERNAL compulsion: if *I* don't have a reason to change, if over the long haul I value institutional expertise over opportunities for new efficiencies, *I* don't have a reason to change. No further discussion needed, no justification required.

Lord knows I'm a magpie, always looking for the next shiny thing. I'd tell anyone, "Move! Don't worry about what's on the other side! It has worked for me, every single time!"

And if someone replied, "I care too much about my family's roots in this place we've been for generations," they'd be right. But not right for me. But because of my INTERNAL compulsions.

So can we please please pretty please, nearing four years after Day Zero, acknowledge that sommmmmmme of the reasons people choose X miiiiiight have as much to do with their INTERNAL compulsions to use the newest thing as with X itself, and that some people have neither the INTERNAL personal nor EXTERNAL business/technology compulsion forcing them to even consider changing?

Or once more invoking The Raudonis Protocol, that they have compelling reasons to consider X AND compelling reasons to choose something else?

I'm not saying that nobody is doing this, including Jeff who I hope also doesn't mind being used to support MY rant disagreeing with parts of his. I fully acknowledge the strength and clarity of his observations.

I am, however, very definitely saying that it's easy to deny the INTERNAL forces -- personal preferences, emotional comfort, spiritual values, philosophical inclinations, you name it -- behind making or not making change. Until we bring that into the conversation and keep it there, we're leaving out what I think is MORE than half of the dynamic that drives choices.

And we can't have a MEANINGFUL conversation if we attribute negative values to people who choose differently for INTERNAL reasons as much as EXTERNAL ones.

I know I can do better than this for both length and anger. LOL I'm also a little embarrassed by how close this is to being on-topic. LOL I do hope I've been sufficiently Derpy.




Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:36:58 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Saddle up, son. LOL The longer and angrier the better. LOL
"


Well played sir, well played... :-)

[Tim Wilson] "This has been my issue with the whole concept of Luddites, Dinosaurs, "stuck in the old ways," or, worst of all "just doesn't get it." It fails to take into account the absence of EXTERNAL FORCES compelling change, or the absence of INTERNAL FORCES compelling change, not always, but sometimes purely for its own sake. "

Despite my occasional outbursts, I totally agree with you here. As you and Jeff point out, there most certainly are valid reasons not to use X, or any bit of software. Glens' "don't like it, don't use it" comment is dead on. One - problem in my little world - is that even when presented with real, objective evidence that FCP X is in many ways a better choice given our workflow, people refuse to even consider it due to some weird herd mentality. Additionally, many people who don't like X feel compelled to try to tell the people that do like it how foolish they are. To be fair, the compulsion to deride peoples choices comes from the X side as well. Mac vs. PC, iOS vs. Android etc. etc. My bone(s) of contention has always been with people that:

-Don't use X because other people don't use X
-Haven't cut more than 1 or 2 simple things in X and are suddenly experts in all the things you can't do, particularly when they are things you *can* do, just differently.
-Love to crap on any positive reviews, news etc about FCP X for no apperent reason.

Conversely, it drives me nuts when people who use X, but have very little experience in other NLE's are suddenly experts in all the the shortcomings of the NLE's they don't use. Examples of all these things are contained in this thread. :-)

IMO, the most valuable, honest opinions come from people who have actual working experience in all the NLE's we blabber about. If you don't use X, or Pr, or MC, what on earth makes you think you are qualified to tell anyone anything about X or Pr or MC? If you poke around here at the cow and elsewhere, the most reasonable posts come from people who fit that bill.

Well, except for me, I meet the qualifications, but I just like to hear myself talk. ;-)

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

~ 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

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:17:57 pm

Tim-

I guess as one of those old men who remembers 300 baud modems, I generally strive for brevity on teh interwebz. Suffice it to say I edited a lot out as I was writing. ;-)

[Tim Wilson] "the use of "inertia" as a negative value"

Meant to be descriptive, rather than negative, per se. A network promo operation has a significant investment in equipment and process. Especially with what was in the very recent past an expensive and mostly proprietary system: Avid/Unity or ISIS/Interplay. This is an investment from which one does not walk away lightly.

Inertia provides some protection from making ill-considered decisions. But it also provides refuge for small minds and vested interests. All of these things are at play at a network. We may disagree about the relative influence of small minds vs. rash decisions, etc. (Three guesses where I come down on this issue!)


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:16:24 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "Now they use Premiere out of a combination of fear and inertia"

this is what's worth mocking - as was pointed out - I really didn't make much bones around X itself at all in the post - and I don't post here half as much as I used to, but some of the language was so ridiculous I was moved to basically. And so again here.

[Jeff Markgraf] "Now they use Premiere out of a combination of fear and inertia"

This is the weird self aggrandising myth making of the X user. If you reverse that sentence the FCPX adoptee is thrusting, forward moving with courage and insight.

It's absolutely ludicrous - and this one did make me laugh out loud. I don't know where the moonieshine comes from, but the weird thing is, as the debate has largely died down, FCPX users mystical notion of their own courage and genius for using a particular piece of software seems as strong as ever?

It's really funny is all. Funny and a little, little bit sad. And really ripe for a p*ss take - which I suppose I couldn't quite resist?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:46:57 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "[Jeff Markgraf] "Now they use Premiere out of a combination of fear and inertia"

This is the weird self aggrandising myth making of the X user. If you reverse that sentence the FCPX adoptee is thrusting, forward moving with courage and insight.
"


I think you (and Tim) might be misinterpreting Jeff's meaning when he uses the word "inertia". I don't interpret it in the the way you do at all. Here's an example of inertia. People clinging to FCP 7, resisting learning Premiere, X, or anything. I live in this world.

Veering off topic but... For the love of Jeebus, let it go. It's dead. You don't have to use FCP X, but start using MC or Pr or fracking anything.

Especially because I can run these other NLE's at he same time as FCP X. This makes my life a lot easier. :-)

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It's really funny is all. Funny and a little, little bit sad. And really ripe for a p*ss take"

And... there it is. Classic. ;-)

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

~ 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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 8:08:32 pm

[Charlie Austin] "For the love of Jeebus, let it go."

As long as proponents don't come out with ridiculous language like the stuff that was in the article we're all good.

to make the point again - I never mentioned the usefulness of X - I acknowledged it was bang on for some use cases some time ago.

It's hilarious language like... oh I don't know let me see now.

it's right on the tip of my tongue. ah yes.

"I feel like I'm describing how the microwave works to my Grandpa."

You remember that gold right charlie? :)



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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 8:24:45 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "As long as proponents don't come out with ridiculous language like the stuff that was in the article we're all good."

Well, sure. But all proponents of anything sometimes come out with ridiculous language. Marketing baby! :-)

[Aindreas Gallagher] "it's right on the tip of my tongue. ah yes.

"I feel like I'm describing how the microwave works to my Grandpa.""


Oh, I remember it well. ;-) Thing is, I feel that way when trying to explain to people why they should at least move from 7 to Pr FFS, let alone X. When, for example, people think it's better to crop every single clip in a cut, rather than use an adjustment layer, It kind of boggles my mind... Hell I've had an "adjustment layer" crop (.png with an alpha cutout) in FCP Old for years. They still won't use it. It's not what they're used to.

Inertia. Fear. :-)

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

~ 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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 8:40:30 pm

[Charlie Austin] "better to crop every single clip in a cut, rather than use an adjustment layer,"

mmm. possibly. depends how you're handling transforms and push pulls on the shots you're cropping? In that instance it's maybe best to nest and use the crop on the nest and then swap out the shots you're faking little moves on inside the nest. when you have multiple rounds of revision that can be a tremendous time saver. horses for courses if ever there was one!

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 8:56:44 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "it's maybe best to nest"

Don't you mean use a Compound Clip? :-p

But you're right, in some cases that's a better fit. I'm talking about a very basic use though... Our sources are all cut features or dailies with burn in's in the cropped area. If you resize or reposition clips you want the crop to be consistent over the whole cut, including masking out the burn in shots that haven't been transformed. Adjustment layer is the way to go.

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

~ 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

Tim Wilson
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 22, 2015 at 12:37:36 am
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Mar 22, 2015 at 12:43:14 am

[Charlie Austin] "I've had an "adjustment layer" crop (.png with an alpha cutout) in FCP Old for years. They still won't use it. It's not what they're used to.

Inertia. Fear. :-)"


Which is my problem with this use of the word "inertia." The speaker's value judgement that the reason people keep doing things the same way is because they're afraid to consider alternatives.

To flip this the other way: words like "consistent" and "persistent" = fear? Which equals something like "doesn't get it," "dinosaur," "Luddite," or however else you want describe it...

...and which may not be true at all. "I want to keep doing things my way" could just as easily mean "You haven't persuaded me that your way is better," or "not enough better for me to bother with."

So maybe YOU'RE the problem for not explaining it well enough. LOL

Not referring to you personally, Charlie. You're a fantastic explainer. I want more articles out of you dammit. LOL

(Everybody needs to read Charlie's fantastic Creative COW article, "Don't Fear The Magnetic Timeline.")

But it keeps coming back to the same place. Again overstating rhetorically, it comes down to "People don't take up X because they're afraid to change." Or maybe more simply, "They're afraid of X."

People with this perspective aren't allowing that there are other perspectives as valid as their own. Maybe it's a business reason ("I don't need to buy new software or new computers it's optimized for"), but yeah, maybe it's a personal inclination, which is still straight up legit.

Do people value roots in the community where their family has lived for generations out of fear? Is fear the reason for driving the same car for 10 years? Does someone become a regular at the Starbucks near their house because they're afraid to get coffee anywhere else?

No, no, and no.

Although hey, maybe yes to all three. I've got mental health issues. I'm afraid of almost everything that doesn't involve typing on the internet. LOL

But I think anyone who says "inertia = fear" is telling me more about themselves than they are about the other guy or FCPX.

AND THAT'S FINE. I'm certainly not questioning the validity of the inclination to change, or to push limits, or to bleed on the edge. So why question the validity of practiced refinement, or valued expertise, or simply not buying that the other way is better?

My only point is that at some point, we have to acknowledge that the reasons why people choose or don't choose FCPX are at least partly rooted in personal dynamics, and calling out the integrity of the other guy's choice is, at the very least, unfair.

I'd say something about walking a mile in the guy's shoes, but the only thing I'm more afraid of than walking a mile myself is YOU walking a mile in MY shoes. Stay away from my damn shoes you ppl. LOL

Look, I think it's interesting to talk about the software. I post in this forum more than the others because I enjoy talking about it and its uses. Irrespective of specific tools, I love talking about people's projects most of all.

I'm less interested in plumbing the depths of the other guy's personal motivation unless personal motivation is the actual topic, and my own personality quirks are on the table. Because casually ascribing the OTHER guy's motivations as SURELY lesser than mine begs the question of MY motivations, and how they might be negatively described by someone else -- which of course assumes that I've looked at the PERSONAL motivations behind my BUSINESS choices.

We've all got 'em. So why are we only talking about the other guy's motivation, and why is it usually negative?



Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 22, 2015 at 7:44:25 am

Tim-

Just to be clear, I used those words specifically and separately. In one case, inertia. In another case, inertia and fear. I haven't conflated inertia and fear. They're two different things.

Also, inertia is not to be confused with caution or with being methodical.

I suggested inertia is a primary factor in NBC's staying with Avid. It's not about not choosing FCPX. It's about them not choosing anything. I doubt anyone there was much thought given to the new NLE wars. But I don't think it's a case of choosing to stay with Avid. I don't think there's any "choosing" going on at all. Inertia. Sorta moving forward but not by active choice.

In ABC's case, I quite specifically added fear into the mix, along with inertia. They needed to choose a new NLE. In many respects, choosing Premiere was the path of least resistance - it is, by general consensus, the most FCP Legacy-like. Easy choice. Not really much of a choice. Inertia. The fear is from a group of people there who are incredibly resistant to change, to the point of fearing it. They were late to give up CMX, late to incorporate Avid for finishing, etc. FCP was mostly about money, and partly a thumb in Avid's eye. X would have been a perfectly good choice. There's no legacy infrastructure (as there often is with Avid). Premiere is just less scary.

So I think you're constructing a bit of a straw man argument here. No thoughtful person on this board has seriously suggested that anyone who doesn't get with the X program is afraid of it. That's a dumb trope that's demonstrably not true. Even so, there are some who are, in fact, afraid of X. Even hostile toward it. I know a few. It's hard to have a serious conversation with them.

Fortunately, many more of the naysayers I've come across are merely ignorant of X. I've got a couple of managers at the network-that-must-not-be-named's digital group who have been standing over my shoulder, watching with delight as I work with X on some important projects that have until now been done strictly on Avid. It was like pulling teeth to get them to let me use X. Now they can't wait to learn it themselves. Yet a couple of the Avid guys from net promo still like to come up and pontificate on how unsuitable X is for professional work. Not that they've used it. They just know. I'm inclined to call fear masquerading as arrogance. And I'm not casually impugning these guys' motives - I'm quite intentionally calling BS on them and their motives. Nothing casual about it. And so it goes...

I could write more, but I have to leave something in reserve in case Aindreas pops back in. ;-)


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 22, 2015 at 5:08:46 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "like to come up and pontificate on how unsuitable X is for professional work. Not that they've used it. They just know."

This is exactly the attitude I'm encountering... The way I see it is:

If someone learns X, really learns it, and just doesn't like it... fine
If someone has a workflow requirement X isn't suited for... fine
If someone messes with X, doesn't bother to learn how it really works, and then proclaims it unsuitable and backs their opinion up with anecdotal opinions from other people who don't use it... I get all pissy. ;-)

In my very specific case, X could conceivably give us an edge on our competition. We could make changes faster with the client looking over our shoulders, the GFX guy wouldn't have to waste time constantly making revisions to titles and other temp GFX stuff, lots of little things like that add up. Many things that are of course do-able in other NLE's, but they really do take longer and/or look worse.

But no... nobody uses X, the end. :-/

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

~ 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: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:42:41 pm

[Charlie Austin] "
I think you (and Tim) might be misinterpreting Jeff's meaning when he uses the word "inertia". I don't interpret it in the the way you do at all. Here's an example of inertia. People clinging to FCP 7, resisting learning Premiere, X, or anything. I live in this world. "


You know you are still using inertia in a negative way right? ;) Associating it with people clinging to something. There are certainly people like that, but there are also places where the investment in time, resources and money was so heavy in the old FCP that

For example, a buddy of mine works at a large facility that uses Fork as their DAM and they have custom code that bridges the gap between Fork and FCP 7. Just going from FCP 6 to 7 was delayed because the custom code had to rewritten due to some under the hood changes in FCP. I'm taking a wild guess but I'd say the company has hundreds of thousands of hours of footage (some going back nearly 100 years) in their DAM, it's a year round operation (with daily broadcast deadlines), and they have a decent sized roster of editors. That's inertia.

I've worked at a number of large facilities like this (some of them owned by giant parent companies) and things move at a glacial pace for a variety of reasons. Maybe it's the editors not watching change. Maybe it's the boss not understanding the new tech. Maybe it's multiple layers of red tape at corporate HQ that your capital expenditure request has to survive before you are okayed to make the purchase. Who knows. That's inertia.

How do you bridge the gap between the thousands of FCP 7 projects sitting in archive and the new projects? Many times I would pull an old FCP project from the archive and repurpose those assets in a new project. What's the cost of training everyone on the new system? If you need to expand or replace people how deep is the local talent pool? Find a seasoned editor in LA that knows the of FCP or Avid? Easy. Find a seasoned editor in LA that knows PPro or X? Eh... not so easy. That's inertia.

Some shops are like smaller ships that can dart around pretty quickly and some shops are like oil tankers that have to plan each move miles in advance.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:09:18 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "You know you are still using inertia in a negative way right? ;) Associating it with people clinging to something. There are certainly people like that, but there are also places where the investment in time, resources and money was so heavy in the old FCP"

Point taken, I guess I was editorializing. :-) "Still using" would have been more balanced... lol And I am talking about people like that, I get that there are situations like you point out..

[Andrew Kimery] "How do you bridge the gap between the thousands of FCP 7 projects sitting in archive and the new projects? Many times I would pull an old FCP project from the archive and repurpose those assets in a new project."

Honestly, that's really not a big deal any more. Old FCP projects run through 7 to X open up just fine. In way it's less of a headache going from 7 to Pr due to the dual mono vs' interleaved audio thing. But point taken..


[Andrew Kimery] "Find a seasoned editor in LA that knows PPro or X? Eh... not so easy. That's inertia."

True, but seasoned editors can easily learn either of those NLE's if they choose to. And if I were a seasoned editor I would certainly think that doing so would be good thing. Oh... wait.. ;-)

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

~ 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: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 11:58:31 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Honestly, that's really not a big deal any more. Old FCP projects run through 7 to X open up just fine. In way it's less of a headache going from 7 to Pr due to the dual mono vs' interleaved audio thing. But point taken.."

I should have expanded on this point. I agree that it's doable to varying degrees of success (even into Avid if you want to involve Automatic duck or Resolve) but w/all the previous versions of FCP it wasn't even something you had to think about as old FCP projects would open up in new versions of FCP. Now it's just one more variable someone has to consider as they are attempting to divine which NLE to move to and very likely live with for at least the next 5 years.

I guess my overall point is that many times it's not a single, big sticking point that keeps 7 in place, it's many smaller sticking points that add up.


[Charlie Austin] "True, but seasoned editors can easily learn either of those NLE's if they choose to. And if I were a seasoned editor I would certainly think that doing so would be good thing. Oh... wait.. ;-)"

They can, but what's the motivation? I know some editors that probably haven't touched any NLE besides Avid. They get paid to be editors, not technologists, and they make good money working on high profile projects so why learn an NLE they don't need to know as opposed to enjoying a hobby, spending time with the family or going on vacation? 15 years ago MC was too expensive to have just sitting in your living room but FCP was only $1000 so many people used it for home setups/side work and that helped build the user base. That's obviously not the case these days as those massive price discrepancies don't exist any more.

Any NLE not named Media Composer is stuck with a chicken/egg problem right now. Eventually one side will hit the tipping point that will make it attractive to the other side, but it will take time.


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The Derp Fest (long and cranky)
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:35:33 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX users mystical notion of their own courage and genius for using a particular piece of software seems as strong as ever?"


Gee. Project much? Now you're just making stuff up.

Anyone who chooses an NLE, or any other software, as a political or personal statement, is a moron. Period. Full stop, as you Europeans say.

Conversely, trashing or refusing to acknowledge new or different software for the same reasons is equally moronic.

I know the people who made the software decision at ABC. The choice for Premiere resulted from a long-considered and politically fraught process dominated by fear, personal preference, anger, internal politics, a certain amount of laziness, and not a little desire to make a statement.

But that decision says absolutely nothing about you or any others who have embraced Premiere over the last couple of years. Nor does it say anything about those who have embraced FCPX.

I love mockery, at least when it's well-deserved. But the funny think about mockery is that it requires a firm foundation upon which to stand. Now might be a good time to check.


Return to posts index

Ty Vann
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 4:53:40 pm

Directors should find some on this thread insulting. Directors hire editors, not the other way around.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 5:28:16 pm

[Ty Vann] "Directors should find some on this thread insulting. Directors hire editors, not the other way around."

And producers hire directors.

(Auteur that!)

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

Ty Vann
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 6:46:54 pm

[Walter Soyka] "And producers hire directors.

(Auteur that!)"


Producers don't hire directors, directors don't hire editors.

(Auteured it!)


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 10:28:56 am

[Oliver Peters] "I think you're being a extremely unfair and insulting here. I've spoken with the folks involved and that's not the impression I got. I think Jan very definitely handled the creative edit in the same sense as any other film editor. While the initial desire might have been to edit the film themselves, that's not how it went down. However the three did trade scenes back and forth."

Presented for conversation, not as analysis. (This might be a fun topic to bat around at your FCPWORKS debate, Noah.)

Apple's marketing message for FCP Legend was, "You don't need AVID to edit a film. Forget that niche hardware and software." You could believe them because they paraded a big name feature editor.

But now, they're parading the directors (and dichotomizing the creative and the technical). What is the marketing message expressed here for FCPX? "You don't need an editor to edit a film. Forget that niche specialty."

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 3:28:34 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What is the marketing message expressed here for FCPX? "You don't need an editor to edit a film. Forget that niche specialty.""

It's a good question to kick around. I think it's more, if you had not been as involved in the hands on end of editing in the way you wanted in the past, maybe you might want to with this product.

I noticed that when she asked the director what's next, he said to go and get Jan for the next one.

He didn't say, after using X I don't need him anymore.

It's like the analogy he used with the DP of film. You had to trust him more in the past but now he can see more of what the shot is going to look like on a monitor, but that doesn't mean they don't need a good gaffer on set anymore.

As X has simplified some of the nuts and bolts of editing, you still will need top end talent to cut. People who that's their main thing.

There are still a great deal of nuts and bolts to editing and things that you come across if you are not a full-time editor that will trip you up. There are still parts of editing that people just don't want to do.

I think they will say, "you can do this part" for years to come : )


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 5:35:26 pm

[tony west] "As X has simplified some of the nuts and bolts of editing, you still will need top end talent to cut. People who that's their main thing."

I pretty much agree with Tony.

Apple made a much more approachable NLE in FCP X and that jives with their goal of aiming for a broader market. More video content is being created now than ever before and the vast majority of that content is being cut by people that do not edit 10hrs a day, every day.

The message, to me, isn't You no longer need a full time Editor. The message is, You no longer need to be a full time Editor to effectively wrap your head around an NLE.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 5:43:20 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "The message, to me, isn't You no longer need a full time Editor. The message is, You no longer need to be a full time Editor to effectively wrap your head around an NLE."

YOU get that message. But there are many out there that feel that the only thing the editor contributes is knowing the complex NLE. Many feel that with the NLE being easily understood, that editing itself...the storytelling aspect, must be easy too. So why hire an expensive editor when I have FCX? I can do it myself?

Until they really see how tough it is.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 5:57:17 pm

[Shane Ross] "YOU get that message. But there are many out there that feel that the only thing the editor contributes is knowing the complex NLE. Many feel that with the NLE being easily understood, that editing itself...the storytelling aspect, must be easy too. So why hire an expensive editor when I have FCX? I can do it myself?

Until they really see how tough it is."


Agreed, it's a progression through a rough spot, if you will, but other industries (and aspects of our industry) have gotten through it and so will editors. Some people will experiment with editing and find that they kinda suck at it, or it takes them too long or whatever and will go back to hiring full time editors and have a greater appreciation for the job. Other people will experiment with editing and find they can meet their own needs. Others still will land someplace in the middle (they'll do some of their own editing but still hire editors for bigger projects).

It's kinda like home improvement. Anyone can go to Home Depot or Lowes (and boy do those TV commercials make you feel empowered) and buy/rent all the tools and materials they need to take on projects big and small, yet there is still a big market for professionals. And even within that pro market you have some guys that are do a little bit of everything (like a handiman) and some guys that are very specialized (only do tile or framing).


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 6:34:12 pm

I feel accomplished when I can hang a mantle on my own! But yeah, major home repair...I call in the professionals.

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 6:58:29 pm

[Shane Ross] "[Andrew Kimery] "The message, to me, isn't You no longer need a full time Editor. The message is, You no longer need to be a full time Editor to effectively wrap your head around an NLE."

YOU get that message. But there are many out there that feel that the only thing the editor contributes is knowing the complex NLE. Many feel that with the NLE being easily understood, that editing itself...the storytelling aspect, must be easy too. So why hire an expensive editor when I have FCX? I can do it myself?

Until they really see how tough it is."


I've found that to be very true in my work. Over the years, I've been involved in a number of projects where I've gotten a bunch of footage and a vague description of what the project owner wanted me to do with it. I would then cut it together, get some unhelpful feedback and then refine the edit. Afterwards, all praises would go to the project owner, and they would be lauded for their creativity... same thing with a number of motion graphics projects I've been involved in. Obviously, some producers are better than others, but there is certainly a class of people who see production and post production folks as uncreative button pushers, and not much more.

Shawn



Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 1:04:55 pm

I found these videos really interesting.

I remember early on, one of the knocks on X was that you supposedly couldn't collaborate with others with it. I found it ironic that the main reason they picked X was because they all wanted to work together.

What was supposed to be X's down fall was to them, it's strength. I was just wondering if anyone else picked up on that irony.

As always, some are looking for that magic bullet that separates X from other NLE's and as many have said on here before, and is said in the videos by the guys who pulled this off, it's not one thing.

What X has that is so alluring to many, is that it does so many things right all at once.
It's not just one thing.

I saw Tim discussing what the director was saying and that' fine, but I wanted to focus (no pun intended :)
on what the editor Jan had to say. Since, he is a top end editor and hard to argue that he doesn't know what he is talking about at this pint in his career.

I watched some of his work flow and listened to what he had to say. It was not much different from what many have said on here for a while, when it came to what he liked.

Something that he mentioned that gets lost on here is the concept of staying put.

When X came out it was clear that they wanted to keep you inside the app for as much of the work as possible. listening to Jan, that seemed to work great for him. He talked about mixing his audio, visual effects and titles all in X

X is built around staying inside it as much as possible(with help from 3rd party apps that I saw him using) but saving time by not going outside.

The only thing faster than round tripping is no tripping.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:44:58 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:46:19 pm

[tony west] "X is built around staying inside it as much as possible(with help from 3rd party apps that I saw him using) but saving time by not going outside.
The only thing faster than round tripping is no tripping."


Please explain how this is different from other NLEs. We have been able to do VFX, mixing, graphics, and color correction inside FCP 7, Premiere Pro, Media Composer/Symphony, Avid DS, Smoke and other NLEs to varying degrees for years if not decades. I'm not knocking X, just that I don't see how one is staying in X anymore than you'd stay inside any of the other apps.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 8:05:41 pm

They got rid of Color for one and moved it inside of X

They want you to do much of what you might have done in Color inside X

I lot of people write about sending to audition for their sound mixing.

He didn't mention any of that. He looked like he was mixing inside of X instead of sending it out.

I remember many saying X was hurt by not having a mixer. That didn't seem to hurt Jan at all.

Once again, don't ask me, ask Jan

That's what he is talking about in the video that YOU posted.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 8:20:17 pm

[tony west] "They got rid of Color for one and moved it inside of X"

OK, that's not even remotely close to true. Color is still a vastly superior grading tool to what can be done inside X. But yes, I agree that Apple wanted to give you a "good enough" tool to stay inside X. However, what you can do in X today, as far as color correction, could have been done in 7 with the 3-way and 1 or 2 free plug-ins. Full features have been graded in FCP "legacy" as well as Avid Symphony or DS, and they will also be done in X, if not already.

[tony west] "I lot of people write about sending to audition for their sound mixing."

You mean in Premiere? It's an option of course, but today, I still have superior audio mixing capabilities inside Premiere Pro than I do in X.

[tony west] "I remember many saying X was hurt by not having a mixer. That didn't seem to hurt Jan at all."

Mixing for a temp mix for screening is commonly done with every NLE used in post. Avid editors and FCP "legacy" editors had always done that. Just look at any of Murch's timelines. In fact, what he has done on some films inside FCP 7 are actually premixes that get sent to Pro Tools for the final mix.

But, the point isn't whether these options exist in X or not. I just don't see how X keeps you in the program any more than any other NLE does. Heck, why is everyone so jazzed about Resolve roundtrips? Maybe some functions are more elegant in X or better suited to the likes of some editors. No problems there - it's all good. Just that you aren't pointing out anything that's especially unique to X, regarding what you can do inside the program. That's all I'm saying.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:54:56 pm

[Oliver Peters] "OK, that's not even remotely close to true."

What's not true about it?

Those "looks" that are in X were not in legacy. Are they still updating color? What are you talking about?

[Oliver Peters] "You mean in Premiere? It's an option of course, but today, I still have superior audio mixing capabilities inside Premiere Pro than I do in X."

Yes, but it appears he cut a superior film than you have cut without it.

[Oliver Peters] " I just don't see how X keeps you in the program any more than any other NLE does. "

Then you need to ask him that. Because that's what he said. Why do you think he said that?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:13:18 pm

[tony west] "What's not true about it?
Those "looks" that are in X were not in legacy. Are they still updating color? What are you talking about?"


It's not true that Color is inside of X. Template looks may or may not have been similar, but if anything, those are Motion looks and not Color looks. But color correction/grading has nothing to do with template looks and the toolset from Color doesn't exist inside of X. There may certainly be some underlying architecture derived from Color, like GPU-based performance acceleration, but not the actual grading tools. Certainly the color board is about as far away from Color's tools as you can get.

[tony west] "Yes, but it appears he cut a superior film than you have cut without it."

I'm not sure what that comment refers to. The film was not mixed in X.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:25:24 pm

"Has Apple’s Color Been Merged Into Final Cut Pro X?"

This is the question that was being asked by Patrick Inhofer on a blog post back in 2011

"I’ve decided to frame this initial review this way: Has FCPx absorbed the color correction tools of Apple Color (which seems to have been End Of Life’d) and are they faster and more powerful than those of FCP 7?"


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:40:05 pm

[tony west] "This is the question that was being asked by Patrick Inhofer on a blog post back in 2011"

Your point?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:41:45 pm

That I wasn't the only one saying that


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:46:48 pm

[tony west] "That I wasn't the only one saying that"

I didn't say you were. A lot of people asked that. That doesn't mean the answer is 'yes'. At least not in anything other than a philosophical sense.

If your point was that the 'essence' of Color - i.e. a few looks and a way to layer corrections - was copied from Color into X - then I would agree with that. It you mean that literally the tools from Color were put into X, then no, I don't believe that's true. Certainly not to anyone who has ever used Color.

But going back to your earlier point, the level of color correction that you can do in X were possible in FCP 7 and are currently (and in the past) possible in Premiere Pro and Avid. As elegantly? That's a matter of how much you do color correction.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:49:44 pm

[Oliver Peters] "If your point was that the 'essence' of Color - i.e. a few looks and a way to layer corrections - was copied from Color into X - then I would agree with that."

Then we agree

[Oliver Peters] "But going back to your earlier point, the level of color correction that you can do in X were possible in FCP 7 and are currently (and in the past) possible in Premiere Pro and Avid."

I didn't say they weren't


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:30:49 pm

[tony west] "Once again, don't ask me, ask Jan"

I've actually had that conversation and his response was that X "keeps you in the zone" when you are editing. I completely agree with that and see it myself when using X. I'm not sure that's exactly the same thing as meaning that you can stay in X to do mixing or color correction, but you can't in other NLEs.

Remember, this is feature film editing we are talking about, so mixing and color correction is only temp. Certainly you *could* do finishing, just like you *could* do it in other NLEs. The way modality is designed in X, many of these tasks are more fluid to access and perform than in some other apps. In X, you are not straying too far from the editing task at hand, when you quickly duck volume or brighten exposure, for example.

However, this is a very subjective point-of-view, as editors who favor other options will say much the same thing about their choice. These are just tools and some fit better with some folks and other tools better for others.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:52:58 pm

[Oliver Peters] "his response was that X "keeps you in the zone" when you are editing. I completely agree with that and see it myself when using X. I'm not sure that's exactly the same thing as meaning that you can stay in X to do mixing or color correction, but you can't in other NLEs. "

I concur, with both Jan's statement and your last sentence. As to the first, I've been working in Both X and Pr side by side lately. Literally CMD TAB-ing between the two cutting different spots for the same movie. It's subjective, but there is a huge difference in "feel". And while you can of course accomplish the same tasks in both, for me, X just gets you as good or better results (effects, audio adjustments and other clip manipulation, not "editing") faster, with way less fiddling around. Not to say the opposite isn't sometimes true... it is. But in general, for what I do, my focus (see what I did there?) remains on the cut more in X than in Pr. (or 7 for that matter). I think that's where some of the intangible "faster in X" mindset comes from...

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

~ 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

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:01:19 pm
Last Edited By tony west on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:10:03 pm

"without ever stepping out of your work space"

That's what he said exactly.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:29:54 pm

[Oliver Peters] " X "keeps you in the zone" when you are editing. I completely agree with that"

Why isn't this statement subjective? You seem inconsistent on what is subject and would is not.

If I had wrote that you would be right on here saying "that is subjective"


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:38:11 pm

[tony west] "Why isn't this statement subjective? You seem inconsistent on what is subject and would is not."

Huh? It is subjective. I said so at the bottom of the post.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:39:54 pm

Huh?


You said you agreed with it


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:41:17 pm

[tony west] "You said you agreed with it"

Of course I agree with it. My opinion is just as subjective as anyone else's! How is that inconsistent? ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:44:15 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[tony west] "You said you agreed with it"

Of course I agree with it. My opinion is just as subjective as anyone else's! How is that inconsistent? ;-)"


Because you should have said that you didn't agree with it. Because it was "subjective"

You tripped yourself up


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:49:23 pm

[tony west] "Because you should have said that you didn't agree with it. Because it was "subjective"
You tripped yourself up"


Huh? I'm not sure what you mean I said I disagreed with it. What are you talking about? Saying something is subjective has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. What's your beef?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:53:08 pm
Last Edited By tony west on Mar 21, 2015 at 11:09:48 pm

Huh?

X "keeps you in the zone" when you are editing. I completely agree with that and see it myself when using X.


what do you mean you "completely agree with that"

X keeps you in the zone is subjective.

I don't mind you being subjective, I mind you whining about other people being subjective while being subjective


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 11:20:08 pm

[tony west] "X keeps you in the zone is subjective."

Which i freely admit and have admitted. So what?

[tony west] "I mind you whining about other people being subjective while being subjective"

Whining? Hardly. Damn, you're touchy. I've merely pointed out when statements are subjective, while some on this list seem to view them as gospel. We are all just talking about how we and others perceive the tools we use. It's all subjective. That's the very core of this forum!

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 11:23:58 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[tony west] "X keeps you in the zone is subjective."

Which i freely admit and have admitted. So what?"


So stop whining about other post being subjective.

Or stop being subjective yourself.

Btw, explains what that means exactly

"X keeps you in the zone"


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 11:25:35 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Mar 21, 2015 at 11:26:05 pm

[tony west] "Btw, explains what that means exactly"

Tony, I'm done here. I don't feel like continuing a conversation with anyone that chooses to consistently twist my words.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 11:26:31 pm

hahahaha

Good day then


Return to posts index

Glenn Ficarra
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 5:53:01 pm

David Lean, Stuart Baird, George Lucas, Scorcese all were editors as well as directors. Cameron, Rodriguez, are hands on in the edit room as well. I do not put myself on a par with these stellar talents, but I was a workaday editor in a former life, and my partner and I have been making movies since we were ten years old and edited them as well. As a writer director producer and editor, I am entitled to use the tool of my choice and collaborate with whom I deem artistically compatible. Why is this such a radical concept worthy of so much bile? This is a collaborative medium and I was interested in exploring new technology, not making some comment on the creative process. Calm the heck down folks. We tried it, we liked it, we're using it again. Plain and simple. Why overthink this? It's just a tool and it's not for everybody nor do I think it should be. There is a lot to admire in x as well as cutting on a moviola. I have used both and everything in between and this is tool I see potential in and it serves our collaborative workflow extremely well. If you don't like it, don't use it.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 6:03:17 pm

[Glenn Ficarra] "If you don't like it, don't use it."

lol Welcome to the thunderdome Glen. ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:02:38 pm

[Glenn Ficarra] "This is a collaborative medium and I was interested in exploring new technology, not making some comment on the creative process."

I think the collaboration element enabled by the technology is the one of the most interesting parts of the story: specifically the blurred lines in the dynamic with two directors and an editor, all cutting together. If you are open to the discussion, is this how you've always tried to work? Do you specifically divide responsibilities, keep it totally loose and organic, or somewhere in between? How do you resolve creative differences, especially with co-equal partners?

Thanks,

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

Glenn Ficarra
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 7:48:28 pm

We were able to exploit the ease of x with "trying instead of talking". we were able to illustrate notes and ideas hands on instead of exclusively trying to convey them verbally. All ideas were welcome and used. But that's not exclusively how it worked. Sometimes jan would cut according to storyboards or the script and we would give notes. Sometimes we'd take a pass after his pass. Sometimes I would cut the first pass with John and give a scene the rough shape we "intended", then pass it to Jan to get his interpretation of it. Sometimes john would work with jan poring through takes and honing tone and performance while I was cutting a montage. Etc, etc. all in all the process was a fluid conversation between us. There were zero fights because we were able to iterate quickly and go with what was best which I believe was the reason editors switched to NLEs to begin with. It was a terrific process but it was ours, not the only way.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:14:25 pm

First off, thanks for chiming in Glenn.

[Glenn Ficarra] "We were able to exploit the ease of x with "trying instead of talking". we were able to illustrate notes and ideas hands on instead of exclusively trying to convey them verbally."

A few times in the past I've worked with producers or directors that had an editing background and they would take stabs at things and pass them along to me for us to both look at. I usually found this a better use of time than having them try to describe what they want orally or in writing. Sometimes they tried things on their own and would be like "Nope, that doesn't work" and that's time and energy saved by not having me run it up the flag pole.

It doesn't work for everyone but I've had decent luck with it in the past.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:31:20 pm

last bit: I guess my curiosity is whether, given the previous pieces on this, the team pushed to have FCPX as the primary editing software initially because of workflow potential? Whether the production was married to process and input and an editor that could fit? that's cool, and as Oliver pointed out, I know zero about feature editing bar that it involves functioning relationships. I just wonder if the pre-requisite was a relationship that allowed primary scene handling outside the editor.

I made a cheap crack about Soho and commercial rooms relative to this, but I have a child like notion of the dialectic exchange between the feature director and editor, I had not previously factored in an editor so unmanned that scenes could or could not originate with him or her, or changes that would arrive pre-baked completely outside him. literally inside the software as opposed to discussion. People have made reference to directors who edit directly. Grand that's true. Sure directors can get thrown out of edit rooms by edward norton. But those are violent moments and I can't recall such a machined scenario in terms of software strings that take can take the editor's hands off the keyboard inside the software.

I'm curious, up there in the god's, where people go to the oscars, exactly how many editors would be willing to swallow what is the equivalent of a software engineer taking over their screen to direct their tool?

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


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:49:39 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I just wonder if the pre-requisite was a relationship that allowed primary scene handling outside the editor."

My impression from reading/hearing the directors & editor is that they liked X and wanted to use it. They then jumped through a lot of hoops to get the studio to sign off on its use. I don't get the sense that the software was chosen specifically to facilitate the directors' being able to edit. Indeed, Ficarro (sp?) describes himself in this very thread as having been a "workaday editor" in a past life. Meaning he surely knows Avid well enough to edit anything he wants to. He just likes X and wanted to use it on his movie.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "cheap crack about Soho and commercial rooms"

Been there, done that on many a commercial edit. Surely a little level of hell that Dante forgot about. If I could have thrown them all out, I would have. It wasn't collaboration, it was second-guessing and back-stabbing and ass-covering of the worst sort. I doubt editing Focus was anything like that.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "how many editors would be willing to swallow what is the equivalent of a software engineer taking over their screen to direct their tool?"

See, here's where I think you're going off the rails. Why does it have to be one or the other? Being able to turn to the director and say, "show me what you're thinking" and having him do just that strikes me as a good thing. I would certainly expect to look at his cut and either tell him "it sucks, go away," or put my interpretation of what he did into my cut. If we disagree so often or he trusts me so little that I'm relegated to button pusher, then I'm outta there like a shot. Life's too short.

That said, people in this town will swallow a lot to be involved in a potential award-winning movie. Sad to say.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 9:37:42 pm

I feel I should point out now, yes overall now is the point I think - that I was just rabble rousing old X canards from the cheap seats here?

er. What the hell is the directorial team from the studio feature Focus doing here? Is there any kind of easily available back exit I could use? Bueller?

anyway - crazy to see a descent from the gods - also fierce interesting reply to walter there. So X is great, everything is great, and if everyone would look to their left there is a giant moose... and I am neatly gone stage left by god.

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


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:16:21 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I am neatly gone stage left by god.
"


Please don't go. Seriously.

Yours has been one of the most provocative and entertaining voices on this forum since it started. Lots of good thoughts and lots of challenging people to put up or shut up. I, for one, have always found your threads to be one of the main reasons to read this forum.

I've kind of assumed your absence of late has been a result of too much work to do or just wanting to spend time with your new Premiere/After Effects relationship and not enough time left for us. It was heartwarming to see you back. I mean, Charlie is entertaining and all, but no one quite has your way with words.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:24:32 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "I mean, Charlie is entertaining and all, but no one quite has your way with words."

Hey! :-) I'm an Amurican, I can't compete with A's mastery of the mother tongue. 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

Scott Witthaus
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 12:53:54 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "PPro generally has not. Adobe, for the time being, reacts like scalded cat"

But then you would have to edit with Premiere.....ugh....

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 2:10:16 pm

I know everyone wants to beat up on the FCP X and editorial aspects of the story, but be sure to watch all of the videos. Part 3 talks a lot about how the camera media was handled. Although what they did was not unusual for commercial, corporate, TV and indie films outside of the studio system, it certainly was different for Hollywood. It's my contention that the media workflow (IMHO as much or more so than FCP X) contributed to the speed and fluidity of the post process on this film. It's not to be overlooked in the discussions around FCP X. And yes, there are parts of X - like built-in Log-C correction - that also played into this.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
on Mar 20, 2015 at 4:17:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] " It's my contention that the media workflow (IMHO as much or more so than FCP X) contributed to the speed and fluidity of the post process on this film."

Perhaps, but that's very different than the claims presented in the videos, which are riddled with factual errors and philosophical leaps that are based on facts not in evidence, but rather an "everything is awesome" enthusiasm that's engaging, but doesn't actually move the discussion forward at all.

Now if YOU had been making the presentation, Oliver, it would have been both more accurate and more helpful to X's cause.

I think Aindreas's post above is on the mark. The part that's very 2012 isn't the post itself, which is quite precisely rooted in actual words that are being spoken.

The 2012 aspect is that any post that questions the speaker's grasp of facts is making a criticism of FCPX. Are we truly still in a place where enthusiasm unfettered by fact is the only acceptable response in any discussion of X? I didn't think so, but I'm apparently mistaken.

In fact, other than disagreeing with the speaker about the speed of FCPX's support for camera formats, Aindreas makes no observations about FCPX AT ALL. He's calling out the speaker for enthusiasm that's stated in ways that aren't in evidence from the presentation, or are just plain wrong.

To summarize:

Final Cut Pro X is the first NLE designed around a data-centric ecosystem.
I agree with Aindreas. Few people who use Media Composer would agree with this. FCPX different? Yes. Better? Perhaps. First? No.

But there is no criticism of X either stated or implied in challenging the author's claim about X being first.

  • "Previous NLEs were timeline-based systems that sat on-top of a database."

Wait a minute. Timeline, obviously true, but I thought databases were data-centric. In any case, what's wrong with databases? Does FCPX not use databases? If not, then where is FCPX's data-centric data contained? Is FCPX's data-centric approach so data-y that it transcends the idea of a database altogether?

In any case, this is a value judgement by the speaker based on wobbly understanding of how data works and is stored. There's no evidence given that databases are somehow incompatible with data-centric models.

Again, an overreach by the speaker that implies no criticism of X.

  • "Using Final Cut Pro X to edit Focus is about getting FCP X to explore an entirely new world of workflow potential and do everything better than other NLEs.”

  • Again agreeing with Aindreas that the emphasis on new workflow potential ACTUALLY SHOWN had to do with things that Oliver notes -- bringing client-driven agency-style ROOM dynamics into a feature film edit suite -- that have more to do with the relationship between the director and the editor, than between the editor and the software.

    "Everything better than other NLEs" is a stretch. EVERYTHING? Really? I don't know that there are really that many of X's most enthusiastic fans would agree. But again, little evidence of it in the presentations.

    The "discussion of limitations = disrespect" dynamics that still pop up in this forum notwithstanding, pretty much every thread here has more insight than is provided here.

    It's especially disappointing to see after the raves for the event from those who attended. Again noting that I was among FCPX's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters, I'm left mostly annoyed and exasperated after watching these.


    [Walter Soyka] "What is the marketing message expressed here for FCPX? "You don't need an editor to edit a film. Forget that niche specialty."
    "


    And here we come to the crux of the biscuit.

    This forum's earliest roots are in Media 100. I think this is the historical fact almost entirely overlooked. FCP's original growth among pros was not at Avid's expense. It was an opportunity provided to find safe haven for a vast sea of Media 100 users who knew their ship was sinking, and had been for years. But FCP was only a safe haven with meaningful support for third party SDI I/O.

    I bring this up because any former Media 100-er here will remember the exact point at which that company started its irreversible decline: the "Kill The Editor" campaign. The intent was sort of noble. It was an anti-Avid sentiment, a rejection of the old "over-the-shoulder" dynamic that manifested and reinforced the dichotomy between creative decisions and the mechanical button-pushing that those boring old Avid editors did. Instead, Media 100 closed the gaps by making button-pushing accessible to creatives.

    The idea wasn't wrong, but the messaging was incredibly tone deaf. It came exactly at the point that Media 100's feature set was a more than credible replacement for Media Composer that offered significant advantages. It came at exactly the point at which Media 100 EDITORS could position themselves as 100% as professional as a Media Composer EDITOR.

    It emphasized that the truly unbridgeable gap was between the vision and aspiration of the company and the user. Over time, that proved to be exactly the case.

    I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE THIS TIME. None of this is a mission statement from Apple. The one thing that I most loudly and repeatedly emphasized from the very first days of X is that "Apple abandoning pros" is nonsense. I still feel that way.

    However, I don't see anything in these videos offering the incontrovertible proof that FCPX is what feature editors have been waiting for. I didn't see anything to support the claim that X does everything better than other NLEs. I didn't see the unprecedented workflows that X enables.

    Nor for that matter did I see that the director had a very clear understanding of NLEs in general. That certainly accounts for his overstatements and misstatements.

    None of which have ANYTHING to with FCPX. It has everything to do with frustration that he is in fact stuck in 2012.

    Unbridled enthusiasm doesn't have to be rooted in facts. It doesn't have to be based on a full understanding of the limitations of FCPX, or acknowledgement of the workflow advantages that other NLEs do in fact offer.

    But boy howdy, it'd sure be nice.


    I still come back to the reality that "the Cold Mountain moment" was for users. "Hooray! My faith in this tool is validated!" "The Cold Mountain moment" was also nearly 100% responsible for Avid still being the major player in feature and episodic workflows. It dramatically underscored the extent to which FCP didn't provide a viable alternative.

    I don't see much different about that here. Yes, the presentation was validating for fans. Yes, it offered clearer insights into the specifics of how this film was constructed. It offered plenty of "okay, THAT's cool" examples that surely made some naysayers say, "Okay, you're right, it's not a toy. It's going to have a huge impact on how a lot of people work."

    But I didn't see ANYTHING that would have made me say, "Holy COW, I need to use this instead of the POS I've been using!"

    I did however see plenty that made me think, "Wow, this guy has no idea what he's talking about. I sure don't see any advantages that demand that I change what I'm doing now."

    Especially for someone as enthusiastic about X as I have been for so long, this presentation was nearly a wall-to-wall disappointment for me. I found it depressing, not invigorating.

    I'm glad other folks enjoyed the event though, which on the whole, was surely different for folks in the room.

    I'm also VERY glad you posted the videos here, Oliver, if for no other reason than that they have already engaged a discussion more insightful and nuanced here than anything I see in them.


    Return to posts index

    Oliver Peters
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 20, 2015 at 4:51:20 pm

    [Tim Wilson] "I think Aindreas's post above is on the mark. The part that's very 2012 isn't the post itself, which is quite precisely rooted in actual words that are being spoken. "

    I'm really not quibbling with Aindreas' questioning of FCP X or the claims made for it. My response had more to do with what I felt and still feel are unfair characterizations of the director/editor dynamic. After all, was Aindreas a "sock puppet" when he was doing his fashion edit? ;-)

    - Oliver

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


    Return to posts index

    Shane Ross
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 20, 2015 at 5:06:30 pm

    I'm only here to comment on this line:

    "Using Final Cut Pro X to edit Focus is about getting FCP X to explore an entirely new world of workflow potential and do everything better than other NLEs.”

    "New world of workflow potential." GAG!! What complete Silicon Valley PR babble techno-speak. Seems as if it came from a Corporate BS Generator:

    http://www.atrixnet.com/bs-generator.html

    WORLFLOW POTENTIAL? Lordy. So, it's not a new workflow...but a POTENTIAL workflow? What a load of PR hackery...

    Sorry, that line just made me throw up in my mouth a little.

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


    Return to posts index

    Andrew Kimery
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 20, 2015 at 5:21:35 pm

    [Shane Ross] ""New world of workflow potential." GAG!! What complete Silicon Valley PR babble techno-speak. Seems as if it came from a Corporate BS Generator:"

    Everything has flowery language like that though. I hate going to demos or reading behind-the-scenes PR pieces from any company because it's 80% PR crap and 20% useful information. Whenever a new version of a production drops I might hit the manufacturers page to see the bullet list of new things, but I'll always wait for more hands on accounts from guys like Scott Simmons or Oliver Peters (or you Shane) to see how well the new features really pan out.


    Return to posts index

    Jeff Markgraf
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:03:39 pm

    Shane -

    Totally agree that marketing-speak is a pox upon our industry. No matter who spouts it. The crap I've waded through in articles and press releases and reviews of products from Avid to Adobe to Apple to makers of archive systems to raids is mind-numbing.

    I tend to look at presentations like this one with a fair amount of skepticism. Somewhere underneath all the babble may be some good information. I still think Cioni is onto something really good and certainly evolutionary, if not revolutionary. But like Evan whats-his-name in New York, he's doing a lot of marketing during his talks. I get it, and I'm happy to look beyond it to get to the good stuff.

    It's unfortunate that so much discussion of X is overlaid with the need to defend it against the "it's not professional" meme. What a waste of time. So much more interesting to focus on HOW X can be integrated into a professional workflow that WHETHER it can or how great it is or whatever.

    - Until 8.3, Avid really couldn't deal with large frame sizes effectively. X and Premiere always could.
    - Until X2Pro, X couldn't really output audio in a modern industry standard format for mixing. Avid could for a very long time.
    - Until Premiere got it done, no one could do an open-format timeline. Avid still can't really do it effectively. X mostly does.
    - Interchange of media and sequences between NLEs is a manufacturer-created and curated nightmare.

    These are things worth talking about, without PR bullshit.


    Return to posts index

    Charlie Austin
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:21:17 pm

    [Jeff Markgraf] "It's unfortunate that so much discussion of X is overlaid with the need to defend it against the "it's not professional" meme. What a waste of time. So much more interesting to focus on HOW X can be integrated into a professional workflow"

    +1 or something.. :-)

    [Jeff Markgraf] " Interchange of media and sequences between NLEs is a manufacturer-created and curated nightmare. "

    Yeah, can we got this sorted out please? MC is kind of an island unto itself... EDL?!?! Pr can send a nice sequence to FCP 7, but bringing things into Pr using old fcp 7 XML is an audio mess. Using IA's tools, going from X to 7 or 7 to X works really well, but X to Pr still uses the fcp 7 xml, so we're back to messy. Be nice if there was a standard. hahahahahah ;-)

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

    ~ 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: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 20, 2015 at 11:46:12 pm

    [Tim Wilson] "But there is no criticism of X either stated or implied in challenging the author's claim about X being first.

    "Previous NLEs were timeline-based systems that sat on-top of a database."
    "


    Uh, I believe the quote from the seminar was more like:

    Previous NLEs were timelines that sat on top of a database... While FCP X is a database that sits on top of a timeline.

    When I heard that line I agreed fully. It was the ELEVATION of the database (that ALL NLEs have to have to manage assets) toward parity if not downright superiority with the Timeline, that drives much of FCP X's editing efficiency.

    The X editor can EDIT in the database whether or not a timeline currently exists.. Setting In and out points, making coloring decisions, sound manipulations and a host of other frame accurate actual editing decisions which then carry over directly into the timeline when the editor eventually needs to employ one.

    And that makes the quote both accurate and quite important, in my opinion.

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


    Return to posts index

    Herb Sevush
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 21, 2015 at 3:46:17 am

    [Bill Davis] "Previous NLEs were timelines that sat on top of a database... While FCP X is a database that sits on top of a timeline.
    ...
    The X editor can EDIT in the database whether or not a timeline currently exists.. Setting In and out points, making coloring decisions, sound manipulations and a host of other frame accurate actual editing decisions which then carry over directly into the timeline when the editor eventually needs to employ one."


    Not meaning to be too petty, but to be historically accurate, 20 years ago the EMC2 had an "edit list" function that you could switch to at any time which showed your timeline as a CMX edit list (which is a pure data base construction) in which you could edit and manipulate your data, the results of which would show up in your timeline. So whatever it is that FCPX is first at, and I do believe there is something concrete to what you are saying, you haven't defined it properly because with the EMC an editor could "Set In and out points ... sound manipulations and a host of other frame accurate actual editing decisions which then carry over directly into the timeline when the editor eventually needs to employ one."

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


    Return to posts index

    Bill Davis
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 21, 2015 at 10:33:38 am

    How bout we just agree that as the iPod came after the Diamond Reo (iIRC) and a couple of other far less successful MP3 players, it was less the order and more the "sum of the parts" that let Apple dominate the mobile music industry for so long. The market for a NLE is far smaller than for a personal music box, but I think the principal is the same. And as Jeremy noted, even those of us who are deep into X haven't figured out all its corners yet. What he posted about auditions above kinda blew me away. I use them rarely - now I'm going to reconsider that. In another forum someone was kvetching about the the lack of a keystroke command for a one frame audio dissolve in X. Somebody else responded that manually doing those would take an extra hour - out of the DAYS ahead of schedule he was cutting on X. Forest and trees and all. Even funnier was the editor who is starting to like X, but she feels it's "not very good for documentaries" followed by the guy who does nothing but documentaries saying it's the best documentary tool he can imagine. It's the same tool, but the way individuals see it and approach it can make a HUGE difference in their experience. Go figure.

    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: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 21, 2015 at 1:57:51 am

    I haven't had a chance to watch the videos all the way through yet, so I may be speaking out of turn.

    Sometimes I think that people truly believe that FCPX is simple. It may be easier to approach for a novice, but it's not simple.

    I have an edit that I am working on today, and Oliver Peter's himself said that the Audition features that allow me to store nearly every single take in the current Project are "useless". I'm in rough cut stages now, but when the agency does come in, I am unbelievably ready to show them nearly every take, and I can do it in line without having to adjust much.

    It is comments like this that probably don't make any sense to someone who hasn't used FCPX, and to those that do use FCPX and don't use certain features like Auditions, it also doesn't make any sense. But Auditions, and the magnetic timeline improve my workflow, and therefore my clients relations so much so, that it is better, and it is the best.




    For me and my needs.

    I'm not much for platitudes either. I don't think one NLE is better than another, overall, it just may be better for you or your cohorts and sometimes that means it may be more comfortable. I also think that platitudinal speech about FCPX doesn't even make any fracking sense to most people, because they haven't felt what it's like to successfully operate a better system, or at least a system that's better for them.

    If you are talking about editing as craft, I don't see how Apple, FCPX, or anything is taking away the edit as craft. A director being able to send over a sequence with the takes they like is assembling selects. This could have been done on a notepad, but instead it's done in the moment on the very same software. Taking those selects and making the action fluid and adding all the elements to make the performance work, is editing. Apple or FCPX doesn't take this away from anyone including the editor.


    Return to posts index

    Gary Huff
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 22, 2015 at 8:40:12 pm

    [Tim Wilson] "I still come back to the reality that "the Cold Mountain moment" was for users. "Hooray! My faith in this tool is validated!" "The Cold Mountain moment" was also nearly 100% responsible for Avid still being the major player in feature and episodic workflows. It dramatically underscored the extent to which FCP didn't provide a viable alternative. "

    Yeah, after reading Murch's book on the subject, I was amazed that he put everything on the line with using FCP, and basically was only successful because another company provided the software he needed that definitely broke their NDA with Apple. Not exactly praise in my opinion.


    Return to posts index

    Andrew Kimery
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 23, 2015 at 3:03:32 am

    [Gary Huff] "Yeah, after reading Murch's book on the subject, I was amazed that he put everything on the line with using FCP, and basically was only successful because another company provided the software he needed that definitely broke their NDA with Apple. Not exactly praise in my opinion."

    Murch choosing to use it (especially on such a prominent project) and continuing to use it is what carries the weight. He's a very well respected editor so people take notice to what he says and does. No offense to Jan, but if Murch had cut Focus using FCP X the resulting discussions would've taken an entirely different tone and direction.


    Return to posts index

    Herb Sevush
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 20, 2015 at 9:11:30 pm

    [Aindreas Gallagher] " historically, the director and the editor might as well be the same person right?"

    Well yes, actually, historically they might.

    I see no reason, historical or otherwise that a film director couldn't or shouldn't edit his own film. Most film directors have specific areas of strength and other areas where they are more reliant on the talents of others. Many directors were film editors at an earlier point in their careers - do you suppose Hal Ashby was hands off in the editing room when they made Being There or David Lean when he was cutting Lawrence? Some editors make enormous creative contributions to the films they work on, others work under the shot by shot guidance of a director, and pretty much nobody outside of the editing room knows who contributed what. There is nothing more mysterious than what an editor's contribution to a given film might be - I actually don't understand how they can give awards for it without knowing what was going on in the editing room.

    The notion that the directors of Focus, the plurality of which is more historically unusual than their intimate involvement with the editing, should not be directly cutting some of the scenes in their own film makes as much sense as being surprised that a director will re-write some dialogue on the set. It's not always a good idea, depending on the individuals involved, but it's not some sort of a crime.

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


    Return to posts index

    Walter Soyka
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 20, 2015 at 9:22:38 pm

    [Herb Sevush] "the directors of Focus, the plurality of which is more historically unusual than their intimate involvement with the editing"

    I'd love to discuss this point more. How does the auteur theory espoused above fit in with two directors collaborating on the film?

    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

    Herb Sevush
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 20, 2015 at 10:04:52 pm

    [Walter Soyka] "How does the auteur theory espoused above fit in with two directors collaborating on the film?"

    I wasn't being particularly Auteurish above, although I have definite opinions along those line, I was being both historically accurate and practical. Historically people like Keaton, Chaplin & Griffith controlled every aspect of their films - the idea that the Hollywood studio system of isolated directors, writers and editors was always the case is simply not true.

    As to the "Auteur Theory" - properly understood it never said that the director is always the "auteur" of every film, it said that certain directors, due to the immensity of their talent, should be considered as the "authors" of their films even when working inside the assembly line Hollywood production system.

    These directors - majors like Ford, Hitchcock, Wells, Hawks, Peckinpah, Capra, Wilder, lesser appreciated like Aldrich, Fuller, Mann - had a singleness of vision that was so strong that no matter what material they were handed by the studio, the final work could best be understood within the context of that director's career.

    Ever since the French new wave brought forth the "auteur theory" for understanding American cinema, it has been distorted into the "cult of the director" with every novice getting a possessory credit.

    However great movies were often made in the studio system without such strong directorial personalities. Casablanca was directed by Michael Curtiz, a very fine studio director who also made the Errol Flynn "Robin Hood" - but was he the "auteur" of Casablanca? I don't think you'll find many who would say so.

    So in answer to your question, multiple directors as a team can be auteurs, witness the Coen Brothers, the same way music writing teams can be the authors of their songs, think Gilbert and Sullivan. It's become more common in recent years but the Director's Guild still fights against giving multiple directors credits on the same film and in the highly egoistical world of film directors, it is still unusual.

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


    Return to posts index

    Walter Soyka
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 21, 2015 at 12:07:36 pm

    [Herb Sevush] "I wasn't being particularly Auteurish above"

    I was referring to other remarks about ownership of the film, and audience of one, etc.

    In that context of the director using the editor to speak with his (the director's) voice -- I think the idea that there are TWO voices from the get-go is weirdly fascinating.

    Maybe this is auteur-lite, but I've thought the paradox in auteur theory is the idea that one person (specifically the director and specifically not the writer), can have distinct intellectual ownership of and responsibility for the outcome of a highly collaborative effort. Without this concept, how else can you understand Hitchcock's body of work as Hitchcock's?

    But my main point was really that this film is prima facie more collaborative than most because there is more than one directorial voice (even when they speak together).

    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

    Herb Sevush
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 21, 2015 at 2:11:00 pm
    Last Edited By Herb Sevush on Mar 21, 2015 at 4:16:42 pm

    [Walter Soyka] " I've thought the paradox in auteur theory is the idea that one person (specifically the director and specifically not the writer), can have distinct intellectual ownership of and responsibility for the outcome of a highly collaborative effort."

    That isn't the paradox, that's the assertion, which is that in the case of certain Directors there is a wealth of aesthetic pleasure to be found in watching any of their movies in the context of that Director's oeuvre. This is not an assertion about the making of these movies, it is rather a way of watching these movies.

    Now with many of the more prominent Auteurist Directors there is no doubt of their authorship - many not only directed but also wrote, co-wrote and/or produced their films. Even thought they were studio controlled, directors like Ford, Hitchcock, Welles, Lewis and Capra were clearly involved with the development of the projects they worked on even if they didn't carry the formal role of producer. Hawks, Wilder, Fuller and Sturges wrote or co-wrote their films. It is impossible to watch any John Ford film and not recognize the authorship no matter who the writer, the producer, the editor or the cinematographer was - the same is true with all of the above named directors.

    With the above, and that list is not remotely exhaustive, the authorship is clear and unequivocal, mostly because of the French new wave critics. For me the greatest achievement of the auterist theory was in championing the less obvious work of directors whose control over the material they worked on was not nearly as complete - Anthony Mann, Nicholas Ray, Robert Aldrich, Raoul Walsh, Don Siegel and on and on.

    Again this is a theory of a way to watch movies, not a theory on the way movies are to be made. The idea is we can watch films the way we look at paintings - there is the painting in itself, but then there is the way we react to the knowledge that this is a Matisse, from his blue period. If you know nothing about Matisse, you gain the pleasure from the painting in itself. If you are aware of Matisse's work then you can gain the additional pleasure of watching how that painting fits into the flow of his career, notice the echoes of his earlier work and how those traits will eventually lead him to this work that you are looking at. This knowledge is not necessary to enjoy the painting, it simply deepens your pleasure if you have it. The auteurists were merely bringing this aesthetic principal to the understanding of American movies.

    As to why the director was chosen to be the center of this aesthetic vision, the answer was that you could not find a producer or writer or cinematographer or editor whose work could be viewed as an aesthetic continuum. It could be applied to specific actors - Betty Davis, James Cagney, John Wayne, Bogart - but they were much more at the mercy of the material they were given.

    In TV you can find such aesthetic continuity in the works of Aaron Sorkin and many other Writer/Producers. An auteur theory is not needed here because no one doubts whose voice is being heard.

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


    Return to posts index

    Walter Soyka
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 21, 2015 at 2:28:07 pm

    Herb, great post. Thank you!

    [Herb Sevush] "An auteur theory is not needed here because no one doubts whose voice is being heard."

    I thought an auteur reading is being promulgated with the assertions at the top of the thread that the editor has not added their unique voice -- nor is it even the editor's job to do so -- but rather following the director.

    But you're certainly right that this conversation is more about the "cult of the director" than an auteur theory criticism. We're mainly talking about the process and not the outcome; film criticism hasn't entered into the discussion.

    What I'm curious about, and not from a film criticism standpoint but a practical working-together one, is how that works with co-directors.

    (That said, from a film criticism perspective, I would still question whose voice is heard! There are two responsible minds here. How do you disentangle them?)

    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

    Herb Sevush
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 21, 2015 at 5:05:28 pm

    [Walter Soyka] " I would still question whose voice is heard! There are two responsible minds here. How do you disentangle them?"

    You don't, unless and until they split up and produce separate work on their own. How could you untangle Lennon/McCartney songs until you had both Lennon and McCartney songs.

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


    Return to posts index

    Glenn Ficarra
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 22, 2015 at 5:30:56 pm

    I know and have worked with a lot of co-directors professionally and personally (Coens, Lord and Miller). Most tend to write together and hash out the differences early on in the process. This is true of my partner and I. We've been working together for 25 years. We've developed a shared brain and a trust in that time and are old enough to not waste time on ego battles and other distractions. We have also known Jan for 20 years and let me tell you, when you erase ego and territoriality from the equation it's simply about having fun and making a movie. I for one do not believe in the auteur theory as a monolithic definition. It's more like a band. No matter how strong your voice is, there is always the unique flavor of the mix of people that affects the whole. Sometimes this is a conscious mix and sometimes it's a happy accident. This mix includes the editor, PD, the composer, DP, VFX, even the AD and on a huge level, the cast.
    Anybody here ever see the doc Sound City? It's a really great illustration about how changing the team on the slightest level can affect the whole and it's neither better or worse- it simply is (as long as you have a kick ass Neve console and great-sounding-by-accident drum room, that is)


    Return to posts index

    tony west
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 23, 2015 at 1:18:14 am

    Glenn, thanks for sharing your thoughts on here. I'm looking forward to seeing the film.

    I have enjoyed working with X myself, albeit not on as large a budget as yours.

    I never saw why X couldn't be used the way you guys used it, but it's nice to see someone actually do it.

    I'm glad it worked out for, and good advice on getting the ego's aside.


    Return to posts index

    Nathan Adam
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 22, 2015 at 12:16:52 am

    Though I'm a regular FCPX user for a bi-weekly show, I mostly drop by the COW to read Aindreas posts. I feel like he keeps Apple honest as they continue to "reinvent" editing. :)


    Return to posts index

    Ty Vann
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 22, 2015 at 4:34:07 pm

    Hilarious threads like this keeps me checking the COW.

    Bash the director and editor of a big budget Hollywood production. Clueless hacks for using their NLE of choice. Second rate. Mediocre IMDB credits. How dare!

    Then when said director shows up on the thread, it's like: welcome, we are so blessed. Btw, we will show ourselves out the backdoor now.

    Makes my day brighter when editing dull corporate pieces.


    Return to posts index

    Oliver Peters
    Re: Focus - Light Iron videos
    on Mar 24, 2015 at 5:07:04 pm
    Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Mar 24, 2015 at 5:07:30 pm

    And some more info.

    http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/news/edit/focus-feature-future-final-c...

    - Oliver

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


    Return to posts index

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