FORUMS: list search recent posts

Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Lillian Young
Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 16, 2016 at 6:03:17 pm

After a lot of Premiere hype and realizing some advantages that make it feel more professional + AE integration, I switched to Premiere Pro last year.

Some things made me smile (maximizing windows, dynamic linking) while others made me frown (not being able to preview filters -- spoiled by X). But soon I realized that dynamic linking was buggy and changing audio levels was fickle.

The deal-breaker is that projects MAY open if you hold Shift and Option for 8+ minutes. Orrr, you may have to sign out and sign back in only to have it crash. There are a ton of workarounds that don't always work and multiple people like me online having the same issue.

But ONE thing is consistent. Apple's Final Cut Pro X.

I can work on my FCP X projects on any (same version of) FCP X. Only once since I've started using it (around 2012) have I had a project not open. But I was able to troubleshoot it.

Premiere won't even open on my workstation. It crashes on my laptop. I literally have to go back to my office on the weekend to make revisions on a project.

I do not want to go back to FCP X. It feels amateur after using Premiere. But I want reliability. Darn-it to hell.


Return to posts index

Tero Ahlfors
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 16, 2016 at 6:32:55 pm

Sounds like you might got some deeper problems with your computer.


Return to posts index

Lillian Young
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 16, 2016 at 9:24:41 pm

I'm using it on 3 different computers. A Mac Pro from 2008 (Mavericks), MacBook Pro from 2012 (El Capitan) and a Mac Pro from 2015 (Mavericks).

I don't see how it's the machine. Also, enough people have had the same issue.

I'm just starting my new projects in anything but Premiere.


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 16, 2016 at 7:34:19 pm

[Lillian Young] "I do not want to go back to FCP X. It feels amateur after using Premiere"


I think you may get a little heat for that statement.


Return to posts index

Lillian Young
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 16, 2016 at 9:32:30 pm

So be it. It's a rant and that's how I feel. I'm paying $50/month for Premiere when I could be pirating it instead like many do.

Every non-editor I meet uses FCPX. I've defended FCPX and use it for quick, private projects. But it's iMovie + Motion, basically.

And I specifically posted this in the "FCPX or Not: The Debate" forums.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 16, 2016 at 11:13:22 pm

I would agree that there's something wrong with your systems. I can't say what it would be, but I've worked on a number of different systems with Premiere and have had no such issue. That being said I just wrapped up a job last week that got real unstable in the multicam view. Hadn't run into that before and I suspect something's weird in that particular project, since it was started last year and gone through a few Premiere updates.

As far as FCPX being amateur. Hmm... what can I say? I've done a lot of fairly complex jobs with X and its feature set has been fine. As I type this, I'm currently exporting master files for a film with DME splits. Doing that with stems and roles is far easier than doing it in Premiere. Just setting up the output audio matrix in PPro is rocket science. :)

But if neither Premiere nor FCPX are to your liking, I would strongly recommend Avid Media Composer. Rock solid and very pro.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Lillian Young
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 12:18:36 am

I've hopped over to Avid some and may re-consider when time allows me to really learn it.

I don't understand how something can be wrong with multiple systems, but I do see how something can be wrong with one project given multiple Premiere Pro updates.

Thanks for your feedback. I am still upset and expressing myself from that position of frustration, but plan to try contacting Adobe tomorrow to hopefully avoid having to go to my office just to use Premiere.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 1:35:16 am

It's possible that if these systems have gone through multiple updates without a clean install, that something has become corrupt somewhere. I've also run into Premiere crashes when a GPU card was getting wonky.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 3:08:33 am

[Lillian Young] "
I don't understand how something can be wrong with multiple systems, but I do see how something can be wrong with one project given multiple Premiere Pro updates. "


If it's the same project(s) that is wonky on all the machines then it could be something wrong with the project. FWIW, over the past 2-3yrs I've used PPro on 6 different machines that are across the board in ages (09 MP, '11 MBP, nMP, etc.,) and I haven't experienced what you are describing.

Sometimes if I feel like a project is starting to get wonky (crashing, feeling sluggish, etc.,) I'll create a new project and import the 'problem' project into the new project. In my experience that usually does a good job of cleaning out any sort of under-the-hood 'clutter' that might gumming up the works in PPro.


-Andrew


Return to posts index


Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 2:39:38 am

[Lillian Young] "But it's iMovie + Motion, basically. "

Have you seriously used iMovie? It's ain't no FC Express. or Adobe Premiere Elements for that matter.

That said, I do like how you can a swap the location of the timeline and event windows with a really cool animation effect. Wonderful time killer when you realize that your movie looks like some amateur Utube video that any child could produce.

Have you tried the Cloud-Bill-Monthly forum here on the cow? Maybe someone could help there.

Last time I looked they even had an Adobe rep answering posts.

Seriously, I think if you want to stay with Adobe the problem is treatable. But if you want to rant, you've come to right place.

Here's a debate forum hint: it's far more effective to call someone else an amateur for choosing FCP X than to call FCP X a toy.

Most of the users here have forgiven Apple for dumping legacy. I haven't. But now that I know X, I would be equally pissed if Apple EOLed it and came out with FCP 8. But I'm from NY. I don't want LA celebrity pizza. I want NY Italian pizza that folds with one hand.

http://kenkaminesky.photoshelter.com/image/I0000wUJ6VRzhmQc

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 18, 2016 at 4:34:42 pm

Lillian Young : "When I could be pirating it li like so many others do"

Actually that would make you a thief. And how do you know that "so many others do that?" I'm sure Adobe's intellectual property lawyers would love to hear what you know.


Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 18, 2016 at 8:34:23 pm

[Andy Field] "And how do you know that "so many others do that?" I'm sure Adobe's intellectual property lawyers would love to hear what you know."

If Adobes lawyers are unaware of this they should check out the torrent sites. Hundred of thousands of seeders for Adobe products. They probably already know though...


Return to posts index


Andy Field
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 5:40:27 pm

If there are hundreds of thousands of people trying to get adobe products for free how bad can they be to send people running to FCP X?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 3:21:34 am

[Lillian Young] "Every non-editor I meet uses FCPX. I've defended FCPX and use it for quick, private projects. But it's iMovie + Motion, basically. "

So, 20+ years as an editor and I'm now a non-editor? If you say so...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 7:55:08 pm

[Lillian Young] "Every non-editor I meet uses FCPX. "

Really? This is one of the silliest statements I have seen on this forum, and believe me there have been some silly statements (some by me!) here.

I guess I am a non-editor too. 35 years in the business and now I find out. Guess I have to return all that revenue that FCPX made for me. And then lower my rates. Darn.

[Lillian Young] "I'm paying $50/month for Premiere when I could be pirating it instead like many do"

Wow.

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 8:54:26 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Really? This is one of the silliest statements I have seen on this forum, and believe me there have been some silly statements (some by me!) here.

I guess I am a non-editor too. 35 years in the business and now I find out. Guess I have to return all that revenue that FCPX made for me. And then lower my rates. Darn."


I think this is one of those 'all dogs are mammals but not mammals are dogs' situations. Lillian didn't say all editors that use X are 'non-editors' she said 'all the non-editors she knows use X'. Along this same line of thought, prior to X coming out I'd say that nearly all (if not all) of the non-editors I knew (directors, shooters, producers, writers, etc.,) used FCP Legend. Of course, many of the editors I knew use FCP Legend too. Relatively few people that didn't edit as part of their day job knew Avid because the learning curve was much higher than FCP Legends.

These days I run into a lot of directors, shooters, producers, writers, etc., that have to edit every now and then for various reasons and I'd say X is the most common NLE they use (PPro would probably be #2). Why? For similar reasons they were using FCP Legend in 2010. Is it indicative of the 'ceiling' that X can edit at? Of course not, but it seems like a forgone conclusion that Apple had the 'fat middle' of the market in mind when making X (as opposed to the market segment that edits day in and day out) and the fat middle has a lot of people that do many things including some editing when the need arises.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 3:26:38 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " Lillian didn't say all editors that use X are 'non-editors' she said 'all the non-editors she knows use X'. "

But, if you are using X (or PP or MC for in that case) you are, in effect, an editor. So her statement makes no sense.

Her tone, and my take on it, seems to say that you can't be a "real" editor if you use X, therefore you are a non-editor. Which is, of course, bulls***. If you are using an NLE, you are editing and are an editor. Maybe not be very good at it, but you are editing.

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


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 3:43:46 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "But, if you are using X (or PP or MC for in that case) you are, in effect, an editor. So her statement makes no sense. "
I believe she was referring to editing as a profession i.e., those who edit as their job, as apposed to those who edit casually but are really producers or DP's, etc. I can find my way around After Effects to make a nice title or something but I wouldn't consider myself a Motion Graphics Designer. It was a statement more about FCP X being easily approachable by those who do not edit for a living more than anything else. Of course, only Lillian can clarify.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 7:24:02 pm

[John Rofrano] "I believe she was referring to editing as a profession i.e., those who edit as their job, as apposed to those who edit casually but are really producers or DP's, etc. I can find my way around After Effects to make a nice title or something but I wouldn't consider myself a Motion Graphics Designer. It was a statement more about FCP X being easily approachable by those who do not edit for a living more than anything else. Of course, only Lillian can clarify."

My thoughts as well. For example, I spent nearly two years color grading as my primary occupation before I felt comfortable selling myself as a colorist (as opposed to an editor that's very good at grading). I've since gone back to editing full time and my grading knowledge and skill has atrophied over time so I'm back to being an editor that's got strong color chops. I'd consider branding myself a colorist at this point in time to be disingenuous.

Maybe being in LA, where specialists abound, influences my POV in this area.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 8:29:28 am

[John Rofrano] "It's not. I was referring more to the way that you treat the medium. For example: Tape needs to be acquired and therefore needs an import step to copy it to a digital file. Digital files do not need to be "acquired" and so you can just drag them from a card and drop them onto a timeline."

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Though NLEs like Media Composer (via AMA) and Premiere Pro started adopting file based, native camera codec editing workflows before X was even made public. Not to mention Sony Vegas (well, Vegas Video back then) could eat just about any codec you threw at it. On a related note, is deciding to use Proxy or Optimized media in FCP X really any different from a conceptual standpoint than deciding to use DNx36 or DNx175 in Avid MC? Even with todays super-fast computers the pros and cons between editing media in it's camera native format vs using a proxy workflow vs transcoding to a high quality, 'edit friendly' codec still exist.


[Joe Marler] "This item you casually mentioned is actually a deep, divisive debate within the UI design community, about skeuomorphism. Jobs and Scott Forstall liked it, Jony Ive and his team do not. "

I agree that the super-flat trend in UI design has gone too far and has negatively impacted the usability of many pieces of software.


[Bill Davis] " Listening to how things as fundamental as deciding WHEN Leia appears IN the actual film implies that if all one thinks about is simply "following the script" as an editor - one may not actually be as skilled an editor as they might become. Just a general observation referencing no one."

Or that some movies are rushed into production with half written scripts so there is no choice but to figure it out in the cutting room. In a recent interview Peter Jackson admitted that many times while shooting The Hobbit he was making it up as he went along because he was given a woefully inadequate amount of time for preproduction. The lack of a coherent script certainly showed up on the big screen in three films that weren't nearly as good as his previous trilogy.

I agree with the saying that a movie is written three times, once by the writer, once by the director and once by the editor, but the editor's version is severely handcuffed by the abilities and execution of the previous two authors.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 1:28:09 am

[John Rofrano] "Of course, only Lillian can clarify."

That would be a good thing.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 9:35:05 pm

[Lillian Young] "Every non-editor I meet uses FCPX."

All squares are rectangles....

[Mitch Ives] "So, 20+ years as an editor and I'm now a non-editor? If you say so..."

[Scott Witthaus] "I guess I am a non-editor too. 35 years in the business and now I find out. "

... but not all rectangles are squares.

As one of the squarest of squares myself, I feel the need to clarify the logic pedantically. These responses don't follow the original reasoning. Lillian did not say that everyone using FCPX is a non-editor. She did suggest that people who edit video but who are not editors by profession (non-editors, right?) prefer FCPX.

Interestingly, this aligns with one of Bill's frequent points here that FCPX has a broader user base than any traditional NLE could or does, that FCPX doesn't have to be a specialist's tool: a point I think both of you would agree with?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 2:28:32 am

[Walter Soyka] "[Lillian Young] "Every non-editor I meet uses FCPX.""
[Walter Soyka] "Interestingly, this aligns with one of Bill's frequent points here that FCPX has a broader user base than any traditional NLE could or does, that FCPX doesn't have to be a specialist's tool: a point I think both of you would agree with?"

I think that what is "wrong" about this point of "non-editors" is that this phonomenon didn't start with FCPX, it started with FCP Legend. "Everyone" had a copy of Legend and they did all kinds of weird shit with it besides edit Cold Mountain. It was a fairly easy to use general purpose video viewing and sequencing tool that video professionals from other disciplines that weren't 'editors' owned and used for a multitude of reasons other than "story telling". It was a tool that was capable of performing many tasks, and it also happened to be a tool that professional editors really liked. Why, now, is this idea a problem with fcpx and somehow more "unpro" than before? Or maybe Lillian doesn't know the Legend of FCP Legend?

And why is it in a thread that started, and I'll paraphrase, with 'I am begrudgingly switching back to FCPX because it's more reliable' turns in to a weird defensive defense of fcpx?


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 3:05:26 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Why, now, is this idea a problem with fcpx and somehow more "unpro" than before? Or maybe Lillian doesn't know the Legend of FCP Legend?"

Two fold, IMO. First, X launched lacking many 'pro' features that Legend, and other NLEs, had and you don't get a second chance to make a first impression. Second, and you kind of touch on this, some people forget (or maybe never knew) how crapped on FCP Legend was by 'the establishment' right up until the point where the establishment found it useful (it still got crapped on, but not quite as much). Same thing with Avid in the 90's. Same thing with PPro until a few years ago. Same thing will eventually happen with X (it already is). I think it will just take longer because Apple is so high profile.

On a related note, the 'ramble rousers' that used FCP Legend and scoffed at the establishment 15yrs ago are now the establishment looking down at a new tool that could be potentially empowering to the less well off (either in terms of money or skill or both). Same reason why people are upset with the democratization of media/production equipment *today* because it potentially benefited others more than themselves but absolutely loved it 15yrs ago when it benefited them more than others.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 4:31:34 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think that what is "wrong" about this point of "non-editors" is that this phonomenon didn't start with FCPX, it started with FCP Legend. "Everyone" had a copy of Legend and they did all kinds of weird shit with it besides edit Cold Mountain."

Don't you think FCPX appeals to a bigger "everyone" than FCP Legend ever could?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 5:09:42 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Don't you think FCPX appeals to a bigger "everyone" than FCP Legend ever could?
"


The argument could be made with digital delivery and low prices, all software can appeal to more people than ever. It isn't necessarily because of FCPX the application, it's because of the times we live in, the advancement of internet download speeds and delivery, in general.

Apple has the 'luxury' of a very simple store system, and software that is tuned to run on a multitude of relatively cost effective hardware, as well as a solid user base.

So, yes,simply by default, X and even Creative Cloud appeal to more "non-pros" than ever.

Regular every day people (kids) use Photoshop to make memes and animated gifs to post on social networks. They aren't photoshop pros, they are simply having fun in their communications, and they can do that for $9.99/mo.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 6:34:32 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Don't you think FCPX appeals to a bigger "everyone" than FCP Legend ever could?"

Yes, and so does Apple. :-) After all, the number Apple stated for Legend was only a bit over 2 million units over its entire life. FCPX passed that number relatively quickly, although I remain on the record absolutely stupefied that it hasn't blown that number apart.

THAT's the story to me, how much more slowly, and how little, it has grown Apple's footprint than I'd have imagined. My optimism for Apple's success with X has been thoroughly debunked in these pages.

Thanks. LOL

(Then there's the whole other Hollywood-specific conversation about how X reduced Apple's footprint -- for reasons that in some cases have nothing to do with anything, no doubt, no doubt, PLUS DINOSAURS

...but Walter, that does indicate the flip side of what has happened in actual practice. We should be well past the point that any rational X-naysayers have to concede that X is in fact up to any of Hollywood's tasks, but we should likewise be past the point that any rational X-philes have to concede that there simply aren't as many flags being waved as there were in the early days of Legend.

Is that solely because Apple is obviously not investing the same energy into telling these "In Action" stories as they used to -- and they're clearly not -- or because X does in fact, by Apple's specific, careful, considered, and well-executed plan intentionally appeal to less of each and every group of "everyone" than the appeal of Legend?

Can we at least, rational nay- and yay-sayers alike, agree on that? That Apple isn't trying to reach "everyone" in ways that it did just 5 years ago? They've said so often enough that it seems a little disrespectful to insist that they are.

Sticking with Legacy and the meaning of the word "everyone" though, 2 million was still a fraction of Premiere's numbers at the time iirc (5 million? one of you lads can surely correct me), and I know for a fact that when Avid bought Pinnacle in 2005, there were 10 million users of Pinnacle Studio.

There is of course the matter of comparing apples to apples, pun intended, and I don't think that $99 consumer software and $995 (or more) professional software have anything to do with each other....and after all, the #1 consumer video editing platform these days is Vine...but the legend of Legend appealing to "everyone," even if you limit "everyone" to "video pros with a Mac," is just that. A legend. NOT a legacy. It never happened. 2 million copies is a lot, but not even enough for an unambiguous plurality.

I know we're just chitting and chatting, but in order for this kind of statement to be true, you'd have to actually change the meaning of the word "everyone" to be "well, not actually EVERYONE" -- which is kind of the opposite of what it actually means. I'm as hyperbolic as anyone you've ever met, but once language crosses into "I mean the opposite of what I'm saying," we probably need better language.

Still, like Jeremy, I'm a little amused that we can reductively paraphrase the thread's opening gambit as "at least X is RELIABLE crap," which is inevitably going to spin off discussions of "Reliable or Not: The Debate" AND "Crap or Not: The Debate" for both Premiere Pro and X simultaneously. I'm impressed. LOL


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 9:31:06 pm

[Tim Wilson] "
Can we at least, rational nay- and yay-sayers alike, agree on that? That Apple isn't trying to reach "everyone" in ways that it did just 5 years ago? They've said so often enough that it seems a little disrespectful to insist that they are."


Yes and no. ;)

I think Apple is more concerned with trying to reach more of "everyone" in general with X and less concerned with trying to reach "everyone" within the specific niche of guys and gals that edit all day, every day for a living.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 10:08:28 pm

[Tim Wilson] "After all, the number Apple stated for Legend was only a bit over 2 million units over its entire life. FCPX passed that number relatively quickly, although I remain on the record absolutely stupefied that it hasn't blown that number apart. "

Actually I don't think those numbers are right, Tim. Wasn't Apple's last official announcement for FCPX in 2014? At that time it was only "over 1,000,000 users". So, I too am surprised that there hasn't been any acknowledged larger amount since then. Unless of course you have updated info from Apple.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 11:04:54 pm
Last Edited By John Rofrano on Jan 20, 2016 at 2:17:48 am

[Lillian Young] "Every non-editor I meet uses FCPX."
Perhaps that's because it's very easy for non-editors to grasp. This is the same reason that many professional editors cannot grasp it because they come to it with a preconceived notion of how video editing should be accomplished and FCP X doesn't work the same way as they have done in the past. Only editors willing to learn a new workflow seem to "get it".

Just because a tool is easy enough for a non-editor to use doesn't mean that it's not appropriate for a professional to use. I'm pretty sure that the paint bush that Michelangelo owned is no more difficult to use than the paint brush that my kids use. The difference is the "talent" required to wield that brush and produce a masterpiece. A talented editor knows how to tell a story and the difficulty or ease of use of their tools should have no bearing on the final story's outcome, although the editor using the easy tools may get finished quicker. I believe that's what a lot of FCP X editors are finding out (i.e., productivity increases when your tools make it easier to achieve your goals).
[Lillian Young] "But it's iMovie + Motion, basically. "
That's a pretty old misconception. Have you seen iMovie and FCP X lately? They look and act very different.
[Lillian Young] "I do not want to go back to FCP X. It feels amateur after using Premiere."
If by "amateur" you mean "easy" then I would have to agree. The ease with which I can edit is what drew me to FCP X. If by "amateur" you mean "lacking functionality" then I'd like to know what I've been missing.

Early NLE's tried to make editing easier by using film strips, bins, scissors and other things that were familiar to editors that were use to working with film. New editors don't have that frame of reference anymore so continuing to restrict your workflow to using these techniques doesn't make sense. The new crop of editors don't categorize their tweets... they use hashtags to group ideas together. Likewise they don't want to place clips into bins. They are very comfortable with tagging and FCP X plays right into their new way of thinking. Editors that don't understand the power of metadata tagging don't understand the power of FCP X.

The new Final Cut is a reimagined workflow focused around telling the story with digital media. Why would I want to line up clips on tracks like box cars in a train yard when that's not the way a story is told. Stories have main story lines with secondary story lines with music and sounds that are connected to the story to enrich the plot. This is exactly how FCP X works. More like an organic tree with branches stemming from it, than box cars in a train yard at fixed positions that have to be manually rearranged if you want to try new ideas. With FCP X, if I move the trunk the branches don't get left behind; they move with it. I believe this is why non-editors can relate to it. It's a very natural approach to story telling.

You need to approach FCP X with fresh eyes. If you try and make the new tool work like the old tool you will always be disappointed. You need to take the time to understand the workflow that new tools introduce and embrace the new way of thinking and the efficiencies that they offer. If you want the new tool to work like the old tool, then stick with the old tool. I for one, could never edit with a track based NLE again. It really seems archaic to me now. IMHO, the trackless workflow is a very liberating and efficient way of working.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 20, 2016 at 8:27:35 pm

[John Rofrano] "Early NLE's tried to make editing easier by using film strips, bins, scissors and other things that were familiar to editors that were use to working with film. New editors don't have that frame of reference anymore so continuing to restrict your workflow to using these techniques doesn't make sense. "

Yet FCP X still has things like the razor blade tool, sprocket holes, film leader, an 18th century looking key icon, etc.,. ;)

Oddly enough, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Avid probably has the least amount of 'archaic' iconography and it's typically dogged as being the oldest, least 'with it' NLE in everyday use. Besides bins I can think of anything film-centric off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other ones, but I don't have Avid in front of me.

FWIW I'm pushing 40 and I've never cut on film (barely even touched film) so even 20yrs ago the film-centric frame of reference was falling apart, but I don't think that really matters. What matters is if the interface still effectively communicates the desired information. For example, it's easy for people to associate 'razor blade' with cutting something so giving the tool that allows you to make a virtual cut in your virtual footage a razor blade icon still effectively communicates the function of that tool.

Just like it's become popular in UI design to have a gear icon to access the settings of a program or filter. Does software have gears? Do computers anymore? No, but the idea of gears being in the 'guts' of things so clicking on the gear icon will allow the user to manipulate the 'guts' of the program is a seemingly effective design decision.


[John Rofrano] "The new Final Cut is a reimagined workflow focused around telling the story with digital media"

I hate being 'that guy' but this is a pet peeve of mine. I know 'digital' has been co-opted to mean tapeless and/or card based for acquisition and downloadable and/or streaming for delivery but digital acquisition has been around for 20yrs (and digital delivery for over 30) . Digital 8, DV, DVCPro, DVCAM, Beta SX, HDCAM, etc., on the acquisition front and CDs, LaserDiscs, DVDs, etc., on the consumer delivery front.

With that being said, I don't see how, in terms of story, a movie shot on film is inherently different than a movie shot digitally.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 21, 2016 at 1:24:37 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "With that being said, I don't see how, in terms of story, a movie shot on film is inherently different than a movie shot digitally."
It's not. I was referring more to the way that you treat the medium. For example: Tape needs to be acquired and therefore needs an import step to copy it to a digital file. Digital files do not need to be "acquired" and so you can just drag them from a card and drop them onto a timeline. NLE's that require you to perform an import step when it's not longer needed because the medium has changed, are force fitting an old workflow to the new medium that doesn't need it. So I was talking more about updating workflows to match new mediums than about iconography, although I do find it quite odd that all software still uses the black floppy disk icon to save when most millennials have never seen a floppy disk in person. (I have several boxes in my basement if anyone wants to take peek at them) ;-)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 21, 2016 at 7:26:30 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "FCP X still has things like the razor blade tool, sprocket holes, film leader, an 18th century looking key icon, etc.,. ;)...What matters is if the interface still effectively communicates the desired information. For example, it's easy for people to associate 'razor blade' with cutting something so giving the tool that allows you to make a virtual cut in your virtual footage a razor blade icon still effectively communicates the function of that tool..."

This item you casually mentioned is actually a deep, divisive debate within the UI design community, about skeuomorphism. Jobs and Scott Forstall liked it, Jony Ive and his team do not. The previous iOS Podcasts app with the reel-to-reel tape metaphor was held up as an example of skeuomorphism gone wild -- most users had never touched reel-to-reel tape, so why use it. An example of the complaints: http://gizmodo.com/5991798/apples-podcasts-app-no-longer-has-horrible-reel-...

Besides end users, the UI design community piled on this as uncool and out of sync with the new wave "flat UI" approach. They use UI buzzwords like "authentically digital", referring to how great the flat non-skeuomorphic design is.

Instead of rationally and carefully excising selected skeuomorphic elements, a mind set has taken hold that every trace of real-world UI realism must be eradicated -- no matter what the cost. This includes things like color gradients, drop shadows, real-world textures, etc. In UI designer lingo, they disparagingly refer to these elements as "chrome".

They had some valid points but this is producing a UI which many users find sterile, unfamiliar, puzzling, ugly and (worst of all) inefficient.

A good example is the much-maligned iOS Podcasts app. However archaic, the previous reel-to-reel metaphor instantly conveyed what the app was, what state it was in and what UI options existed. Now we have a trendy, flattened Podcasts app which is difficult to figure out, and is incapable of playing a video podcast full screen on an iPad. Here is how a video podcast looks on the new iPad Pro. It is severely letterboxed and there's nothing you can do about it:

https://joema.smugmug.com/Computers/IOS-91-Podcast-Player-on-iPad/n-F4k9VW/...

The chief UI designers at Apple pay lip service to Bauhaus design, which says "form follows function". However their actual implementation of flat UI design often repudiates this. It prioritizes form (the flat non-skeuomorphic look) *over* function (readability, intuitive elements). In essence, it is a new version of the much-maligned "chrome", no different than other fads of the past like automotive tail fins. It reality it is "chromeless chrome", non-functional flat design elements which adhere to an austere UI doctrine, yet interfere with and obscure the underlying function. The gigantic borders on the iOS 9 Podcast Player are such an example.

FCPX is actually an interesting case. It is a new database-driven approach which eschews tracks and other artifacts which were brought forward from the flatbed editing world. It has a few residual skeuomorphic items like the razor blade and key but these efficiently convey the purpose. I just hope Jony Ive doesn't get his hands on FCPX and damage it as happened to the Podcasts app and OS X Disk Utility.


Return to posts index

Phil Lowe
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 21, 2016 at 11:50:25 pm

[John Rofrano] "Why would I want to line up clips on tracks like box cars in a train yard when that's not the way a story is told."

Actually, storytelling going as far back as its oral traditions, is a very linear enterprise. Every good story has a beginning, middle, and end. Only a poor storyteller gets confused regarding this order. Modern tools give us ways to rearrange the various parts of a story but, in the end, you're always going to arrive at that "line of of clips on tracks like box cars in a train yard."

I get that X allows you to rearrange things quickly. But if you have a solid script, why is that such a selling point? If you're just throwing things into an event with the intent of building things on the fly, I suppose a non-tracked and unstructured sand box, like X, is the perfect place to play with your clips.

On the other hand, I've never had a problem rearranging things in Avid when needed, and I prefer being able to see the beginning, middle and end of my story as I build it. Structure, after all, isn't a bad thing.

Canon XF-300, Canon 5DMkIII, Canon 7D MkII, Avid Media Composer 7.05, Adobe CC 2015, iMovie Pro.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 12:56:16 am

Well, respectfully, you might want to read some of the interviews with the two women that edited the big StarWars blockbuster (on AVID) recently. The story by Shane Hurlburt is on the ProVideoColition website. From reading it one gets the distinct impression that today's top editors aren't so much engaged in "following the story" as much as in intense collaboration with the director, of course - in actually creating it. Listening to how things as fundamental as deciding WHEN Leia appears IN the actual film implies that if all one thinks about is simply "following the script" as an editor - one may not actually be as skilled an editor as they might become. Just a general observation referencing no one.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 1:07:01 am

Steve Hullfish, not Shane Hurlbut. :)

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Phil Lowe
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 5:37:09 am

[Bill Davis] "if all one thinks about is simply "following the script" as an editor - one may not actually be as skilled an editor as they might become. Just a general observation referencing no one."

Having helped rewrite scripts in the edit bay while under deadline, I certainly understand and appreciate collaboration. Having won six Emmys for my work as an editor as part of of an investigative journalism unit certainly qualifies me to have an opinion on it. And my opinion is that having a polished script at the outset obviates the need for a lot of experimentation in editing, especially when you're under tight deadlines.

Most of the script editing my colleagues and I did in the edit bay was directed at eliminating - as much as possible - the need to re-edit on the timeline. It had nothing to do with avoiding dragging clips around, but about getting the story right before ever laying a single clip down. A good editor can see problems in a story while they're still on paper. That's where the collaboration should really begin.

IMHO.

Canon XF-300, Canon 5DMkIII, Canon 7D MkII, Avid Media Composer 7.05, Adobe CC 2015, iMovie Pro.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 3:40:46 pm

While I think it's great to try and get as much done before production as possible, I find it's rare that a project, especially longer projects, remain the same as the script.

In docs, there isn't a script. A paper edit helps you get started, but very often that changes once the story comes together, or more footage comes in, and X is awesome at moving huge chunks of story around.

Same for narrative. Sometimes, certain scenes get reordered from the original script, or lines of dialogue get trimmed. This is like, editing 102.

But even more granular than that, X is awesome at sketching out ideas in a workspace with virtually no penalty.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 7:15:32 pm

I think this is the same thing we see here over and over again.

A qualified editor looks at X through eyes that are accustomed to seeing things in one particular way.
If it fits that pre-conception, they like it.
If it does not - they don't.
It's always been like this. And always will.

The issue, as I see it anyway - is that the world is changing so fast AROUND all or our traditional workflows.
For many, they will be able and happy to hang on to what they learned to expect during their formative years - no matter how recent or distant those might have been.

For others, that just won't cut it.

And so it goes.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 31, 2016 at 6:52:36 pm

Both and not either or. Fcp x evolved the browser to fit the fast and loose run and gone cameras are everywhere a zillion takes and angles are cheap work flow. But old school work flow which starts on the page not only has advantages but should be rediscovered. Too many projects are visual eye candy with as much nutritional value as any sugar product.

Not everyone will agree but I think magnetism is a huge evolutionary step beyond snapping for those that like to arrange/experiment on the timeline for these newer workflows. But sub clips were favorites in a less evolved state. And the timeline having fixed positions in time had advantages as well as disadvantages. Any program can create any of these projects.

I would love to see Apple continue to add -not change for change sake- new features specifically for different needs. And to enhance the effects/inspector/timeline to work more ergonomically which I think they are doing but rather slowly as of late.

I think it would be very cool to have both custom and presets for window layouts. Apple is pretty great at coming up with clean interfaces. How about one tailored to color correction, audio, for working on a single clip, (without turning it into its own timeline), etc. I think it could have a great future; but I am concerned that apple doesn't care that much and could dump it in 5 years for something new and shiney.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 31, 2016 at 8:51:34 pm

[Craig Alan] "I think it could have a great future; but I am concerned that apple doesn't care that much and could dump it in 5 years for something new and shiney."

Well, won't whether and/or if they dump it depend (at least in part) on how much the underlying technology changes?

10 years ago I was still mastering to plastic discs and plastic tapes. Just in the past 2 years or so have my clients - many in major companies - FINALLY stopped asking me to burn DVDs and mail them out for tradeshow playback.

If I flip that around, I wonder what the technologists inside companies like Apple and Google etc - see even 5 years downstream? Perhaps the idea of local installed software will start to seem silly. If you simply have a fast internet connection and appropriate hookups - EVERY tool we now have in our software today will just live on the cloud and be constantly accessible to everyone. It's a crapshoot. Will the fact that Adobe went subscription early make them a leader, or will they have to contend with somebody like BlackMagic providing nearly the exact same capabilities, but for FREE.

Is Apple right to have re-created the NLE? Looking back, the biggest change was probably going from software that was a 20lb box full of plastic and paper - and having pro software delivered to you nearly instantly in exchange for a credit card number and a click.

Again, we're still living in an era where things are still MASSIVELY shifting. Old skills like a head full of expertise about tungsten lighting and VHF radio mics - just aren't as valuable anymore.

Who knows where we will be in 5 years?

Maybe there will be kids looking at ANYONE who uses ANY of this software and shakes their head in wonder - probably while they use the $.99 InstaCapProDirectorPadCam App (with auto edit!) to reach an audience of six million every Friday night.

One way or another, it's gonna be lots of fun finding out!

My 2 cents.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 23, 2016 at 12:18:16 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I find it's rare that a project, especially longer projects, remain the same as the script. "

I find it surprising that anyone here thinks narrative films are strictly based on the script. That almost never happens. As the saying goes, there are three films: the film as written, the film as shot, and the final product after post. Sometimes these are close and sometimes they are quite different.

I worked on one film where the single most important scene (a small one, but it set up the main character's motivation) wasn't filmed. We had to completely re-arrange things and add voice-overs to fix the situation, otherwise it would have never made any sense.

If a final version of a film were totally based on the script, the picture would be locked a week after production wrapped. :) Instead, films often take 9 month or longer in post, including a DGA mandatory 10 week minimum for the director's cut.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 23, 2016 at 1:06:15 am

[Oliver Peters] "I find it surprising that anyone here thinks narrative films are strictly based on the script."

I don't think anyone is saying that narrative editing is a paint-by-numbers affair where nothing changes after the writer finishes the script.

[Oliver Peters] "I worked on one film where the single most important scene (a small one, but it set up the main character's motivation) wasn't filmed. We had to completely re-arrange things and add voice-overs to fix the situation, otherwise it would have never made any sense."

I think this is more in line with what the sentiment is. If the script is well written and well shot then you minimize the amount of 'fix it in post' that has to happen. The editor(s) can spend more time editing and less time rewriting in order to fix plot holes, production short comings, etc.,.


Even for doc/unscripted projects production still has to at least have a premise for what they are doing (who/what am I filming, why am I filming, etc.,) otherwise you'll just end up with hours and hours of aimlessly record footage and interviews that have nothing to do with each other. And at some point you should still end up with a script/paper edit as a starting point before you dive into editing, IMO. On reality shows story producers will basically be writing the script during production and hand it off to the AE's who will create a string out for the editors to start working with. Will there be changes once editing starts? Of course (especially if it's episode 1 of season 1), but the starting point of editing is a script and as the show goes on the scripts will get better and the amount of rewriting in the editing will go down drastically (network notes notwithstanding). No one is going to hand the editors thousands of hours of footage and say, 'have at it'.

Last year I worked on a historical doc and the script was 95% done before my first day on payroll. The director/producer had a premise of the doc, did the interviews accordingly, had them transcribed, and cut them into a script along with VO. Were some changes made during the edit? Of course, but the edit wouldn't taken significantly longer if we were trying write and edit the documentary at the same time.

In narrative someone writes a script and actors perform it for the camera and in unscripted people 'perform' in front of the camera and then someone writes a script based on that. The more I work on long form unscripted pieces the more I appreciate having a script to work off of if for no other reason than I know that someone has already gone to the effort of looking through the footage and created a first draft as a starting point.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 23, 2016 at 1:21:06 am

[Andrew Kimery] "If the script is well written and well shot then you minimize the amount of 'fix it in post' that has to happen. The editor(s) can spend more time editing and less time rewriting in order to fix plot holes, production short comings, etc.,."

I don't think it's usually a matter of fixing. Most films need a certain amount of experimentation. Often a written story requires a lot of details spelled out so that the story is clear. In a film one often finds that some of what was written and filmed is no longer needed. Or it reveals too much and tells the audience too much, too early.

A recent example is "Steve Jobs". I would imagine Sorkin's script was pretty buttoned up. Yet, in edit, they developed the construct of the interstitial elements between the three events of the film. This was needed to make the story feel like it flowed as a whole, rather than 3 different stories.

Alan Heim tells this story in "The Cutting Edge" documentary about the film "Lenny". That film is about the comedian Lenny Bruce, which Heim edited. They decided to cut the whole last reel. When Bruce is convicted in court, they cut straight to his suicide, dropping all the in-between material.

It's these sort of things that elevate a film in editing to be better than what is written in the script.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 23, 2016 at 5:47:20 am

[Oliver Peters] "I don't think it's usually a matter of fixing. Most films need a certain amount of experimentation."

I think most projects need both but the amount of each can be indicative of how well (or poorly) pre-production and/or production were executed. I've worked on projects that were well put together and I spent the majority of my time wearing my 'creative editing hat'. I like wearing that hat a lot. Other projects I've worked on were not very well put together and I spent the majority of my time wearing my 'fix it in post hat'. I don't like wearing that hat very much.

And how much fixing can be done in post depends on the size and types of the problems being faced. In your example of a scene not being shot it sounds like you were able to fix it in adequately post. On the flip side, Peter Jackson being forced to shoot parts of The Hobbit without a script wasn't a problem that could be adequately fixed in post. And there's of course 'happy accidents' where victory is snatched out of the jaws of defeat. All projects, and all problems are different as we all well know.



[Oliver Peters] "Alan Heim tells this story in "The Cutting Edge" documentary about the film "Lenny". "

Interesting that you reference Lenny Bruce as I cut a documentary about him a few years ago (just a niggle but his death was an OD, not a suicide).


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 23, 2016 at 1:58:56 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "(just a niggle but his death was an OD, not a suicide)."

Correct. My mistake.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 23, 2016 at 1:35:24 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Most films need a certain amount of experimentation. Often a written story requires a lot of details spelled out so that the story is clear. In a film one often finds that some of what was written and filmed is no longer needed."

Yes. It is misleading to think that a scripted drama requires little editing, hence software features that facilitate quick rearranging, skimming, etc. are not important. Maybe the "limited editing" thing was more true in the past, esp. on filmed TV dramas which had a 10:1 shooting ratio.

Even during the film days an editor would sometimes totally re-create the film. A notable example was "The Night They Raided Minsky's", when editor Ralph Rosenblum worked for a year in post to fundamentally re-make the film. All the work he did was not in the script. This was documented in the book "When The Shooting Stops ...The Cutting Begins". What he would have given back then for our modern tools.

Oliver you have written about post-production on "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". That film had a 200:1 shooting ratio and 443 hours of material. There was a script but I understand a huge amount of experimentation took place during the edit to shape the film. This was not purely technical work about what take looked better but creative brainstorming about what kind of movie they wanted -- after it was shot. All those examined permutations were not scripted -- it was creatively discovered during the edit. The gigantic shooting ratio essentially allowed re-shaping the tone and feel of the movie. Is that correct?

The point is this same technology is now available for everyone, so it's no longer accurate to think a script somehow eliminates the need for major experimentation in post. And that is for scripted narratives -- with docs it's even more so -- the story is often discovered during the editorial process.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 23, 2016 at 2:12:54 pm

[Joe Marler] "you have written about post-production on "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". That film had a 200:1 shooting ratio and 443 hours of material. ... ... The gigantic shooting ratio essentially allowed re-shaping the tone and feel of the movie. Is that correct"

I don't know the answer. Part of the high shooting ratio might simply boil down to Fincher's aim for perfection. You can certainly never take the director out of the equation. I don't know whether this was designed to make more options available in post or not.

Fincher comes from a music video background and I believe that informs his choices as a director. Compare that to Eastwood, who comes from a scripted TV and low-budget (Leone) film background (as an actor) and you'll find two completely opposite approaches. Both are equally valid and successful.

Part of the equation with ratios is shooting multiple cameras versus single camera. The claim is that shooting a scene with two or more cameras cuts down on shooting because you cover more angles. I actually haven't found that to be the case. Seems like you only get 25% useful footage out of that second camera angle and take up a lot more time, storage and effort in post. Not to mention, additional time in production staging and blocking for the other angles.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 23, 2016 at 3:27:58 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I don't know the answer. Part of the high shooting ratio might simply boil down to Fincher's aim for perfection. "

OK, understood. I thought I read somewhere Fincher did not use the high shooting ratio like Kubrick -- IOW do 100 takes to get a perfect one -- but rather to provide multiple versions of each scene so the final "script" would essentially be written in post. I cannot remember or find where that was.

[Oliver Peters] "Seems like you only get 25% useful footage out of that second camera angle and take up a lot more time, storage and effort in post. Not to mention, additional time in production staging and blocking for the other angles."

Yes I agree, esp. on high multicam shots. It is nice to have but we end up impeding production because of getting in each other's shot, limiting shooting angles, waiting for all cameras to get ready, restricting floor space, etc. It can cause more problems than it solves.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 24, 2016 at 4:27:42 am

I also think it's fair to note that Phil Loews original push back at the X design would be appropriately viewed by him through a news cutters eye. And story telling chops aside, it's a different beast from fictional storytelling. News is a massively time sensitive area where because it IS news, is at least supposed to value neutrality over point of view. At least in theory. When I was a young radio reporter the POV expected was one of accurate information delivery - not JUST tell a good fictional story and if you need to fudge facts or play around with reality, oh well. (No wonder I left news for advertising early on, huh?) the power (in my era at least) was exclusively in the news directors hands - seldom in a reporters and even less often an editors - even if they were the same person. Unless that's changed in recent years.

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

Phil Lowe
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 27, 2016 at 10:52:51 am

[Bill Davis] "I also think it's fair to note that Phil Loews original push back at the X design would be appropriately viewed by him through a news cutters eye."

Bingo.

Every investigative script we wrote had to be vetted by corporate legal: every sentence scoured and every word parsed by attorneys. They had to get the first look at it and only when we had it approved did it make sense to start editing because any changes we made after that had to be vetted by legal again.

We got pretty good real fast at what would get past legal and what wouldn't. We usually had 2-3 days for one of these investigative pieces that would run between 5 and 10 minutes. Often, the first day was spent rewriting and refining the script in the bay so that a finsihed script could be delivered to legal. Once we had the script written, we would start laying sound bytes, narration, and music: the skeleton of the piece. After getting sound down, I would work on any graphics that needed to be created, such as scanning documents and producing animated pull-outs from legal papers, etc.

Third day was a chance to look at the piece for flow and pace, and clean up any rough spots we saw, while waiting for attorney approval of what (now) was the final script, which was transcribed from this first cut. I would drop in graphics and B-Roll the piece while the reporter dealt with legal. On rare occasions, small legal changes in either a shot or the narration had to be made to the piece(s) as late as 10 minutes before air. We never missed a deadline.

News is both intensely deadline driven and extremely detail oriented, especially when it comes to investigative journalism. You can't simply sit down and rough out ideas in editing without having a script first, and the closer you can get that script to the final cut, the fewer issues you'll have at deadline.

Just thought you all should know.

Canon XF-300, Canon 5DMkIII, Canon 7D MkII, Avid Media Composer 7.05, Adobe CC 2015, iMovie Pro.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 27, 2016 at 3:24:29 pm

Whatever tool you feel will get the job completed to your specs is then tool you should use, but there is nothing about this workflow that X would impede.

Some (most) of my projects deal with quick turn legal at varying levels, and we are always waiting on legal, they aren't waiting on us. FCPX nor any other NLE would stand in the way of getting the job to legal.

And since you ARE writing the piece in the bay, X might even help you out because it's so fast to fling the story around.

Just thought you all should know. :-D


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 27, 2016 at 8:06:17 pm

I'd agree with Jeremy on this.

Phil, you were frustrated because X was screwing with your focus. We get that.

Jeremy and I (and others) would tell you that if you ever get to the point where you understand X at the same level of detail you knew your other NLE tools - you'd find that your work will actually be much easier. Not more difficult.

This is the extremely common story from almost all editors coming from other software who make the transition. I don't know a single editor who has actually made the mental journey into X expertise who isn't extremely pleased that they have.

That's all.

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: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 23, 2016 at 3:26:09 pm

[Joe Marler] "es. It is misleading to think that a scripted drama requires little editing, hence software features that facilitate quick rearranging, skimming, etc. are not important. Maybe the "limited editing" thing was more true in the past, esp. on filmed TV dramas which had a 10:1 shooting ratio."

Precisely.

On top of the scripts which can be shot with multiple plot lines and endings, due to the advent of "cheap" digital cameras that can roll "forever", shooting ratios and the amount of camera per production have skyrocketed. Therefore, you need a tool that will help you amass, categorize, simultaneously view, and edit all of that footage.

I was just part of a low budget independent movie production and they were shooting on 3 Alexas.

As director, how can you watch three cameras at once and make a valid decision on set? You can't, so you do a lot of takes and have a lot of options in editing.

There's no doubt having a well written script can help, but it's just not that tidy all of the time.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 24, 2016 at 3:59:01 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Last year I worked on a historical doc and the script was 95% done before my first day on payroll. The director/producer had a premise of the doc, did the interviews accordingly, had them transcribed, and cut them into a script along with VO. "

I will toss in on this topic. After just finishing an investigative doc as the producer director and editor I can certainly tell you that my "script" changed plenty of times.

With my doc (and I'm sure many others) there was that "big fish" interview. You know, that one expert that you are chasing after.
In my case it was Bob Alvarez. I had no idea if I was going to get him or not. He lived half way across the country and also had not committed to it. I set forward putting the film together without him, but when he became available late in the game, everything changed.

I moved everything around to accommodate him because he is amazing.

He wasn't the only interview that came along late in the game either.

When you are doing a doc, these people have no obligation to be in your film. They can say yes or no. It's up to them and that's part of what you have to deal with as a producer/editor.

X was perfect for me with this.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 10, 2016 at 7:16:43 pm

[Tony West] "I will toss in on this topic. After just finishing an investigative doc as the producer director and editor I can certainly tell you that my "script" changed plenty of times. "

No one said the script never changes. The position was pretty much that the better the script, and the better the execution during production, the better post production will go. Basically, let's avoid fixing it in post if at all possible.


[Tony West] "When you are doing a doc, these people have no obligation to be in your film. They can say yes or no. It's up to them and that's part of what you have to deal with as a producer/editor."

And I'm sure during the course of your shooting if I asked you why are you shooting at location X or, why are you interviewing person Y that you'd be able to explain your reasoning to me. You might not know exactly what the interviewees are going to say, but you have a general idea of the information you are seeking and roughly how that will fit into your story. Long story short, you have a plan (even if that plan gets tweaked after each and every shoot).


For example, I cut a feature length doc about Lenny Bruce that originally started out as just a 10min behind-the-scenes piece about a guy named Matt researching, writing and acting in a one-man play based on part of Lenny's life. This project was shot and cut over the course of six years and had many 're-writes'. It went from a BTS piece, to a full blown follow doc about Matt's journey, to a doc-within-a-doc (think "This Film is Not Yet Rated), back to a follow doc about Matt's journey and ultimately ended being a PBS-style historical piece that had no mention of Matt or his play. Those are some drastic course changes, but every time it happened the director and I would reformulate our plan of attack (what do we need to shoot now, who do we need to interview now, what questions do we need to ask them, etc.,.). Our final two interviews were Richard Lewis and Hugh Hefner. We really had no idea what Richard Lewis would say (but one of his bites ended up kicking off the beginning of the film) where as with Hefner we had some narrative points that needed fleshing out so we asked him more specific types of questions to help fill in those gaps.


On the flip side I also worked on a doc where the director wanted a more cinema verite approach but he didn't have the resources to shoot a lot (which you kinda need in order for verite to work) so I ended up with a lot of footage of the people but not a lot of story. The director also knew the people very well so the story about them in his head was much more fleshed out than the story he actually captured on tape. I still think the piece turned out well, but it could have been better (and required much less work in post) if there and been more focus and clarity during production about what the story was and what needs to be filmed in order to tell that story.


My rambling point? Even in docs you need a plan (some sort premise, script or outline) and you need quality execution during production otherwise you are going to be hurting in post.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 23, 2016 at 3:32:45 am

[Oliver Peters] "I find it surprising that anyone here thinks narrative films are strictly based on the script."

Come on now. We all know the first cut with a 4 hour running time is what makes it to screen!


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 2:32:04 am

FCP X is just as linear as any other non-linear editing app. Your film ends up as a linear progression/a timeline. How you get there depends not only on the editor but how the pieces of the puzzle were produced. Traditional tracks keep many layers more organized, but X's connected clips help move segments around more easily. I think they both have their pros and cons. The end result is the same. It's not like the connected clips go off in different angles or start telling stories in some alternative universe. They go straight down the time line just like any other NLE. And the same rules apply. Top layers dominate the visuals. Even an old school it starts on the page production benefits by FCPx keyword smart collections to help organize the media using metadata.

I think that if you could keep certain elements in their "tracks" but still employ its connection to the primary you'd have the best of both worlds. That is be able to keep any given clip or collection of clips on a certain layer above or below the primary. Secondary storylines I think try to address this but not as clearly for me as say 5 tracks of audio. On the other hand, the connection points and how easy they are to manage is very intuitive. So much easier to keep things in sync.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 1:43:46 am

If for every time I had $10 after hearing X is a toy scenario well I would be rich. :-)

I used to think it was a toy but it is not. It has become my tool of choice with Resolve a very close second. Sure there can be some stuff that can be improved but overall a solid tool. The timeline gets out of my way, no worrying about clip collisions and all the organization tools are a bonus. Off my soap box.

I said trim dang it!



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 6:35:04 am

For a free editor, Resolve is pretty decent and getting better every release. But I've come to realize it's actually (in a way) a combination of all the bad parts of Premiere and X. From X it has the non-customizable interface. The horrible keyframing engine (right down to no easing of position Keyframes) timelines without tabs, and a single bin window. From premiere it has- tracks and patching, hover scrub instead of skimming, bins instead of keyword collections, and playback resolution lowering instead of the "better performance" toggle of X. Let's not forget a slew of confusing settings and preference panels akin to premiere AND legacy.

And they forgot to take direct link or motion integration from either, OR affordable plugins. Those are big issues for me.

I'm being a little tongue in cheek, but every time I give it a shot I keep thinking how hey, it's like X, but with tracks instead like premiere. But it's not. When you get to it the best stuff about X is the performance. Render, playback, export, proxies and things like a timeline that gets out of the way to avoid clip collisions and destructive editing. The keywording is one of greatest strengths too as is the motion/plugin/template integration. NONE of that in Resolve.

In premiere, the stuff I wish X had was the interface customization, the send to AE direct link, having multiple bins open, having tabbed timelines and pancaking, the fantastic keyframe controls, and even the ability to full-frame any window. Resolve has none X of that.

It's like they took the worst parts of X, and combined them with a Premiere that's missing what's cool about Premiere.

But at least it's color correction is decent. :)


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 12:21:23 pm

I've stopped being interested in about what others think of X.

And I don't think my producer gives a damn, either, as Friday he was literally dancing with joy after the big cheese watched the edit and gave a thumbs-up, no revisions to that morning's work. The edit was completed in about... 60% ?.... sort of hard to actually say half, of the time it would've taken me on other NLEs. Keywording, mag timeline, connected clips all major contributors in that time savings.

Back to the issue, though, I'm going to agree with both Lillian AND Andrew, et al. Over the years, IMHO, PPro has always been more "flaky" than the others. Reading the forums, there seems to be a never-ending stream of issues. Many are user-created for whatever reason, but the overall vibe seems to be a house made of bamboo, not steel. (yeah, sucky analogy, but only 1 cup of coffee so far today) If you get your house in proper shape, and don't poke at the foundations, PPro will be pretty solid (linking, ahem), only sometimes requiring things like cut n' paste of project info. FCPX, on the other hand, just works. (yeah, after initial fiasco) Going back to the little scenario above, I'm working on some final tweaks to that edit, maybe moving a bit too fast, as my commands are starting to buffer, then execute, and X goes POOF. System needs a hard reboot. General gasps from producer & others, while I calmly go for a stick of gum. No concern, because I've never had a project get corrupt in X. About a minute later, full reboot, back editing (man, I SO love SSDs). Now, had that project been an effects heavy one, I very well might have been considerably slower than linking PPro/AE. Still shaking my head that Motion is left adrift from X.

We're just still not a point where we can deal in absolutes in which NLE is, in all cases, better. Hammer vs screwdriver. Right tool n' all that.

More coffee now.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 1:43:05 pm

[Bob Woodhead] " Now, had that project been an effects heavy one, I very well might have been considerably slower than linking PPro/AE. Still shaking my head that Motion is left adrift from X. "

I find it interesting that AE is considerably more solid than Premiere. Using Automatic Duck, FCPX plus AE make a good combo.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 1:49:23 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Using Automatic Duck, FCPX plus AE make a good combo."

Yeah, I really should give that a spin. I still do the manual go-around.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 7:02:53 pm

Oliver,

AE/duck is a better round trip to FCP X than Motion? Or just you prefer AE?

Can you buy AE stand alone?
Or just monthly as part of a package.
If only by subscription, what happens if you stop paying?
I suppose once clips are sent back to FC, you don't need AE for those projects?

What exactly is the problem with Motion/FCPX RT?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 7:22:29 pm

[Craig Alan] "AE/duck is a better round trip to FCP X than Motion? Or just you prefer AE?"

First of all, there is no full, two-way roundtrip with Motion nor with After Effects. Automatic Duck Ximport enables direct import of an FCPXML file for a sequence into AE. XtoCC also enables similar possibilities by converting an FCPXML into XML, which can then be imported into AE. It's an extra step, but there are pros and cons with each method. In both cases, it's a one-way into AE. From AE you would generate a rendered, flattened file. At this point, there is no way to get a sequence of clips from a timeline into Motion in the same way as with AE.

As far as AE versus Motion, they are both great tools. I know no one personally (not counting my friends online that are Motion experts) who actually uses Motion professionally. Nor Nuke or Fusion for that matter. I do interact with plenty of folks who use AE, so in my freelance gigs, at a minimum a functional knowledge of AE is pretty important.

[Craig Alan] "Can you buy AE stand alone?"

The only standalone option would be to buy the CS6 package. Otherwise it's subscription for a current version.

[Craig Alan] "If only by subscription, what happens if you stop paying?
I suppose once clips are sent back to FC, you don't need AE for those projects?"


Assuming you don't need to re-edit, you would have final, rendered movies. If you do need to re-edit, you just renew the subscription for a month.

[Craig Alan] "What exactly is the problem with Motion/FCPX RT?"

It no longer exists. Ask Apple why.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 7:48:53 pm

[Oliver Peters] " I know no one personally (not counting my friends online that are Motion experts) who actually uses Motion professionally."

I am actually going to learn Motion this spring and incorporate it into my post workflow. Love what AE can do, but the interface is awful (to me). I don't consider myself an AE artist, just someone who can do some basic things when needed. Hoping Motion can fit that bill with better FCPX integration and a better interface...we shall see. Premiere is still flaky on my MacPro and I will not use it unless forced to.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 8:04:39 pm

Thanks. Understood. Obviously haven't done any RTing. But its on my to learn list. Really doesn't make sense that motion isn't well integrated though it's so cheap that it really doesn't offer Apple much incentive. Maybe FCP X sold (helping sell computers) but not too many bought the $50 motion?

But you can create an effect in motion and import it into FC right? Then use it in FC on-goingly?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 8:22:22 pm

[Craig Alan] "Really doesn't make sense that motion isn't well integrated though it's so cheap that it really doesn't offer Apple much incentive."

In the "classic" days FCP7/Motion enabled a roundtrip. You could highlight one or more clip on the FCP7 timeline and "send to Motion", leaving a nested Motion project in that place on the timeline. Anything you did to these clips in Motion was then updated within the FCP7 timeline. So it worked a lot like Dynamic Link between Premiere Pro and After Effects.

With FCP X, Apple seems to have changed what they wanted Motion to do. It is the under-the-hood effects engine for FCPX. Even if you don't buy Motion, you have a lot of Motion installed. FCPX has no native effects. Instead, all effects are Motion templates based on effects in the Motion engine. Plus, Motion adds more effects power for users who want that. For many folks, Motion has become an effects building tool, rather than their primary compositor. I presume that Apple is perfectly fine with that.

[Craig Alan] "But you can create an effect in motion and import it into FC right? Then use it in FC on-goingly?"

Yes.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 6:46:26 pm

[Bob Woodhead] "Back to the issue, though, I'm going to agree with both Lillian AND Andrew, et al. Over the years, IMHO, PPro has always been more "flaky" than the others."

Just to clarify my experiences, over the past 2-3yrs that I've been using PPro I personally haven't noticed it being any more temperamental or quirky in general than FCP Legend or Avid (don't use X so I can't talk about it first hand). There have been times where corruption, for lack of a better term, has forced me to copy/paste entire FCP projects from one project to another or to copy/paste all the contents from one Avid bin into another in an attempt fix problems so my suggestion about importing one PPro project into anther is actually borne from doing similar things in the past in other NLEs.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 6:56:57 pm

Yeah I'm not buying the FCP X never has problems summary. One thing all these apps have in common is that they are run on computers and media drives. If any file or the original media gets corrupted then FCP X or any other app will not be able to read it. X some times gets back on track with a reboot. some times by dumping preferences. some times by relinking. But some times all is lost and hopefully you backed up.

One thing I have noticed is that FC will when faced with certain problems will crash the entire OS. That is something OS X was suppose to not allow. I have seen this when one media clip was corrupted when trying to import.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 7:49:32 pm

[Craig Alan] "Yeah I'm not buying the FCP X never has problems summary."

Lol... didn't say it never has problems, just that every time it's gone POOF on me, I've never lost a single edit. Never had to ditz around with prefs or files. Just relaunch, and there's the last thing I was working on. And yeah, that story from last week, the OS locked up. But 1 minute reboot & I'm back to where I was, nothing lost or corrupt.

I'm quite ready to bash parts of X I don't care for... eg, how long it takes the filters window to list. ugh. stupid thumbnails is my guess. Inability to custom window interface.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 7:53:37 pm

[Bob Woodhead] "just that every time it's gone POOF on me, I've never lost a single edit. Never had to ditz around with prefs or files. Just relaunch, and there's the last thing I was working on."

One of my favourite things about FCPX


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 7:59:17 pm

I agree that the auto backup has been really good for me. but I have lost stuff that only a backup saved. again may be more computer file based than specifically X.

maybe you can up your ram if you want the thumbnails to load faster?

would a SD system drive speed up things loading within the app or just booting the app gets sped up?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 11:49:33 pm

I've got 64GB in my Tube, so can't be RAM. I really think it X building the thumbnails. I'd wager that if the devs would allow a text display of filters/etc, it would be like After Effects plugin window... instant. And while I sometimes appreciate the roll-over preview of filters, most of the time I'd be very happy without.

SSD - anything from that drive speeds up. So boot, app launch, that sort of thing. I can't even sit in front of a machine that doesn't use a SSD for the system disk any more. SAST. Short Attention Span Theatre.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 8:56:54 pm

Now if I could only afford that control panel and turn my den into something that looks like the bridge on the Starship Enterprise, life would be great.


Return to posts index

Phil Lowe
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 6:17:06 am

[Bret Williams] "a timeline that gets out of the way to avoid clip collisions and destructive editing. "

I guess I don't get the phobia people here have with this issue. In Media Composer, simply turn sync locks off (or don't work with them at all), and when you want to drag clips around, lasso select them and use "yellow" segment mode (yellow arrow). It ripple inserts selected clips from one part of the timeline to another without overwriting existing clips. And if you're not in any segment mode - red (overwrite) or yellow (insert), then there's no danger of inadvertently moving anything at all! And I'm even "snapping" these clips where I want them to go!

Here's a brief screen cap video I did demonstrating it on a little Christmas music video i put together in Avid.

What people here see as an innovation in FCPX has been in Avid for years.



Canon XF-300, Canon 5DMkIII, Canon 7D MkII, Avid Media Composer 7.05, Adobe CC 2015, iMovie Pro.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 6:30:48 am

You're talking about horizontal inserting and swapping. Something any NLE can do. When people talk non destructive in regard to X, we're referring to tracks getting out of the way vertically. IOW when you're editing a shot from the event to the timeline you don't have to worry about how long the clip is and if it's going to overwrite a portion of a clip either because you didn't properly pay attention to the track patching or miscalculated the length of the clip in the source or forgot to put an out in the timeline. For me, editing takes less precise calculation before placing in the timeline and edits are massaged in context with juxtaposed clips/VO. Since the latter massaging is generally going to happen anyway as that's the nature of our business, it feels faster to me to just be able to quickly get the elements into the timeline without worry of overwriting any audio or video.


Return to posts index

Phil Lowe
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 6:47:21 am

[Bret Williams] "When people talk non destructive in regard to X, we're referring to tracks getting out of the way vertically. IOW when you're editing a shot from the event to the timeline you don't have to worry about how long the clip is and if it's going to overwrite a portion of a clip either because you didn't properly pay attention to the track patching or miscalculated the length of the clip in the source or forgot to put an out in the timeline. For me, editing takes less precise calculation before placing in the timeline and edits are massaged in context with juxtaposed clips/VO. Since the latter massaging is generally going to happen anyway as that's the nature of our business, it feels faster to me to just be able to quickly get the elements into the timeline without worry of overwriting any audio or video."

Still don't see the issue. It takes a second to patch a track in Avid and nothing gets overwritten. Takes even less time to set an out point. X solves a problem that has never existed, as far as I'm concerned. Trackless is just a gimmick to me. YMMV.

Canon XF-300, Canon 5DMkIII, Canon 7D MkII, Avid Media Composer 7.05, Adobe CC 2015, iMovie Pro.


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 17, 2016 at 11:48:49 pm

[Lillian Young] "I switched to Premiere Pro last year....The deal-breaker is that projects MAY open if you hold Shift and Option for 8+ minutes...multiple people like me online having the same issue...I can work on my FCP X projects on any (same version of) FCP X. Only once since I've started using it (around 2012) have I had a project not open...Premiere won't even open on my workstation. It crashes on my laptop. I literally have to go back to my office on the weekend to make revisions on a project...I do not want to go back to FCP X. It feels amateur after using Premiere. But I want reliability..."

I have used Premiere for years and currently use both CC and FCPX. If I had a dollar for each time either had crashed, it would pay for a nice meal at a five star restaurant.

After the difficult adjustment, I really like FCPX -- it is super fast, especially on H264 4K material. Adobe has a real problem there and it will be interesting to see what they do in the near future.

From a reliability standpoint I think the current FCPX is overall a bit better but I have had many FCPX crashes and apparent memory leaks leading to unexplained slowdowns.

I definitely don't view FCPX as iMovie+Motion. I think it was Mike Matzdorff (assistant editor on "Focus") who described the interface as deceptively simple, hiding deeply powerful functionality.

If at this point you are invested in Premiere, your problems can probably be resolved one way or another. My advice is pursue that vigorously before you ditch Premiere. It is easy to get frustrated at whatever your current software is, but this can happen with any editing software.


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 18, 2016 at 1:30:01 pm

I've posted numerous times about why it was a pain to go back to Premiere after a long stint in FCPX.
My job expects me to jump from all three NLEs time to time so I have some experience in all the "bugs".
Sure the one bug that I hate from FCPX is the "all of a sudden projects slow down".
That goes away after awhile.
My biggest peeve with Premiere is the "I cant find the files since you moved the entire project into a different volume".
Now explain to me why that loses the path so easily when the project is still intact within the parent folder.
This may seem trivial to some but when working with other editors/directors, they look at this as my issue when I tell them Im missing files all the time.
One bug which only relates to me for some reason is this full feature I'm grading and facilitating (Pro Tools, sfx and finishing).
On a specific nMP audio from the proxies went missing but still intact on the clients workstation.
This went on for months me accusing the client that he's removing files here and there.
In the end it was all my fault due the nMP and Premiere.
Opened the the project on a cMP and it was fine.
Then I tested the same project on numerous nMPs and they were fine.
Just that specific tube and Premiere install.
Couldnt fix it with an update to 2015 so I had to do a complete reformat of the system and start again.
Never had to that with FCPX.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 7:22:58 am

[Eric Santiago] "Sure the one bug that I hate from FCPX is the "all of a sudden projects slow down".
That goes away after awhile.
"


try command-9 to see what background tasks are processing. Apple let's you work while stuff is happening in the b.g. BUT there is no magic to it. It's still doing more than one thing and will slow down.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 4:45:48 pm

I was more surprised by the "it goes away after a while." Huh? No it doesn't. The longer X runs the more sluggish it gets. Just have to reboot the app every few hours. It sucks up all the available memory. It's not usually an issue until you start using templates, compounds or anything else to push the app a little.


Return to posts index

Kevin Monahan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 18, 2016 at 11:12:19 pm
Last Edited By Kevin Monahan on Jan 18, 2016 at 11:17:40 pm

[Lillian Young] The deal-breaker is that projects MAY open if you hold Shift and Option for 8+ minutes. Orrr, you may have to sign out and sign back in only to have it crash. There are a ton of workarounds that don't always work and multiple people like me online having the same issue.

Hi Lillian,
Sorry you are having trouble with Premiere Pro. First of all, you can get more help with Premiere Pro issues in the Premiere Pro forum here at Creative Cow or at the Adobe Forums (I run the Adobe forums for digital video).

Regarding the issues that you are having, it sounds like project corruption. Projects may become corrupt if you update Premiere Pro (or OS X) mid-project, or work on the same file over and over again each day without working from a backup.

1. It's not a good idea to update your project file to a major new version of Premiere Pro while working on a project, especially if you have a complex project with dynamic links, nested sequences, imported graphics, multiple formats, media on multiple drives, etc. You should strive to remain on the same version of Premiere Pro throughout the life of your project. The most recent version (9.1) is a major version, so if you updated recently, that is why your projects might be corrupt.

2. Do not update a major version of OS X while working on your project. Wait until you are between projects.

3. Do not work on a single copy of your project for months and months without working from a copy/duplicate/backup.

As was suggested by Andrew Kimery, you can sometimes import a misbehaving (corrupt) project into a new project, which can "rewire" it into working much better.

[Lillian Young] "Premiere won't even open on my workstation. It crashes on my laptop. I literally have to go back to my office on the weekend to make revisions on a project."

It sounds like you have the problem of OS X corrupting the functioning of Premiere Pro by changing the Adobe folders' permissions to RW to R (Read Only). This can happen when updating OS X from one major version to the next using certain updating methods, like via Time Machine or system migration.

This blog tells you how to fix that issue and what to do the next time you update OS X: http://blogs.adobe.com/kevinmonahan/2014/09/10/premiere-pro-cc-freezing-on-...

For help with this, feel free to contact our support agents. Start a chat here: http://bit.ly/adobe-support Then, ask for the "video queue" to make very sure that you are connected with our top video troubleshooting staff. Do not let a baseline agent assist you with these issues. Insist on speaking with the video queue. They are open M-F 5AM to 7PM. If you have any trouble beyond that, contact me.

Other editors you may run into, might have similar issues. I feel it is because of the above issues. Feel free to share this info with your colleagues for a smoother experience with Premiere Pro and the other Adobe applications.

Thank you,
Kevin Monahan

Kevin Monahan
Support Product Manager—DVA
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe
Follow Me on Twitter!


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 10:35:12 am

Always impressed, Kevin, good to see you here on the Dark Side again. ;)

I think my computer screen would crack if we saw an Apple rep on the forum. Yet here you are, not even staying on your side of the pasture. Well done!


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 19, 2016 at 8:52:59 pm

Kevin,

Thank you for posting, glad to hear from you again. I will admit I kind of did some of those things that we should not do unless we like inviting Murphy to dinner. He is very likely to attend and muck things up rather quickly.

I also learned quickly you should clone your hard drive before updating to a new version of OS X otherwise Murphy shows up, not pretty. Thankfully, in my situation, I had a bootable external drive with Yosemite on it.

Amazing the number of problems that can be avoided if we just take a little extra time and do some rather painless, though time consuming, steps. Granted, even a clean install from the ground up can cause issues as well though less likely.

Backup, clone, clean install, don't update anything in the middle project unless you really, I mean really enjoy crossing your fingers and knocking on wood. Been there, done that, not making that mistake again.

My two cents, not worth anything in the modern day economy.

P.S. Even though I mildly dislike rental only, I am enjoying my Photoshop subscription so far. Still hoping for a buyout option.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 6:15:28 am

Here's why many legacy Editors may have turned to PP rather than learn the "new way" of FCP X editing.


Lets say Editors are Olympic runners. They're used to lacing their running shoes, drinking water, training, and competing the way runners have for...oh, centuries.

Apple comes along and says. "That old way of running is for dinosaurs...here let me put these cement army boots on you, backwards and tie the laces together...no go out there and have fun guys"

That was FCP X v 1.0

God bless 'em -- editors so wanted to believe in the Oracles at Apple, they hopped in those boots and tried.

Apple eventually came around to replacing the boots with high heals and removed some of the cement, but those professional runners saw a competitor who simply gave its editors performance enhancing drugs so they could run faster (no rendering, easy back and forth between applications, familiar interface, etc) and they said to FCP X - " we're out of here."

When you make a first misstep that big, it's hard to win hearts and minds back

Even this afternoon I dove back into FCP x trying to find a way/reason to love it....and i'm sure there is....but that race left the starting block several years ago and there's little incentive for veteran editors to return and try to get back in

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 7:34:26 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jan 22, 2016 at 7:37:28 pm

[Andy Field] "Apple comes along and says. "That old way of running is for dinosaurs...here let me put these cement army boots on you, backwards and tie the laces together...no go out there and have fun guys"
"


Since this whole thing is labeled as a rant - let me play.

You lost your entire argument right there in your own terms - and in an exceptionally convincing fashion.

First, the "dinosaurs" comment, did NOT come from any of us promoting X - and certainly as your quotes seem to imply - NOT from Apple itself. It came from those who were viscerally aggrieved at how some of us could look beyond our change related fear and suggest there might be good in X. It was a marching term of that hurt - NEVER a slur used by X proponents IIRC - and I was in the thick of those debates.

I know as a very early and vocal X advocate, I never used it. And it surprised when it showed up - and here you are publicly pretending it was an actual QUOTE from Apple.. Stop it. Trying to re-write history to make a point that is at best, disingenuous.

And that's the least of your problems in your contention.

From literally DAY ONE - the vast majority of X has worked perfectly well for view editing. It was NOT "broken" in any sense of the term. Period. I cut successfully on it from version 1. Got paid for my work from version 1. To suggest it was as stupid as cement boots put on backwards is as hyperbolic as it is patently false.

If you want to make a point, make it. Tell us what you THINK - even what YOU felt trying to come to terms with X- and label it as such.

Because from what you wrote here, you don't have much actual factual knowledge about what you're writing about.

Just an observation.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 7:52:56 pm

[Bill Davis] " It was NOT "broken" in any sense of the term"

Maybe a little on one of the early versions when autosave wasn't reliable and FCPX wasn't very stable :)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 24, 2016 at 12:01:55 am

[Steve Connor] "Maybe a little on one of the early versions when autosave wasn't reliable and FCPX wasn't very stable :)

"


That's fair.

Back then I was still largely still working with corporate and industrial clients who were OK with 25Mbps DV and never had much instability - likely cuz I didn't have to push early X very hard. That echo'd my experiences 10 years ago with Legacy - It was 3 or 4 years into the software before people started trying to cut movies and TV with it - rather than just general business stuff.

What I do recall was the trouble I had losing the "Command S twitch" I'd developed over a decade on Legacy. Definitely took me some time to get over that!

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 24, 2016 at 1:32:58 am

[Bill Davis] "What I do recall was the trouble I had losing the "Command S twitch" I'd developed over a decade on Legacy. Definitely took me some time to get over that!"





















Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 9:36:23 pm

Bill - you take this so personally.

It was a metaphor......i was referring to dinosaurs as my own expression not Apple's or any one else --

and there was a lot broken - no more round trips to Motion or Apple's old sound mixing program..or color correction ....no more audio mixer or tracks (or roles at that point) ....dozens of things that were in Legacy that vanished in version 1.0

We get it ...you LOVE FCP X and will defend it to the death. Good for you you. Enjoy it.....just because someone offers a critique or theory doesn't mean it's a personal Bill Davis attack.

As i mentioned - i keep trying to go back and use FCP X with each revision....but years of working a different way makes that difficult and i see no reason to change when Premiere Pro is essentially FCP 7 on steroids

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 22, 2016 at 9:42:50 pm

PS Bill Davis -- re FCP X "not broken" from the beginning -- a blast from the past from Conan O'Brien's editors who also thought it was "perfect" from the start







Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 24, 2016 at 1:57:36 am

[Andy Field] "We get it ...you LOVE FCP X and will defend it to the death. Good for you you. Enjoy it.....just because someone offers a critique or theory doesn't mean it's a personal Bill Davis attack."

Doesn't work any more Andy.

I disagree with something you or anyone else says - I do my best to give chapter and verse WHY I disagree with the thinking.

And you are absolutely free to take on those points chapter and verse in return.

But I'm kinda immune to the "It's YOU, Bill, that are super sensitive to criticism and should lighten up."

If you disagree with my IDEAS - post your own. If your only argument is that *I* am lame - fine. But everyone here knows that a person can be totally lame - and still correct in the facts and opinions they post.

And that's the problem, here. You're trying to make it about ME. But it's not. Its about my arguments. If you can refute them - do. If you ACTUALLY think X was lame and ineffective and "broken" on day one - post your experiences with it - on day one - and WHY it was lame in your actual experience. I've done exactly that on why it NEVER was lame. From day one.

But if all you got for an argument in this is that *I* am a fanboy so ipso facto X is lame - I suspect you've lost the argument at the starting gate - coz I'm just not that central to anything.

Just food for thought.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 24, 2016 at 12:10:57 pm

Like any other software I think FCP X now has its pros and cons but it's a great program for my needs.

On day one I was pretty pissed off about a couple of pretty basic things.

One was the EOL of FCP legacy. It was just too central to the work flow of too many film makers to just end its life without a good deal of continued support and a much more developed replacement.

If Apple were a small company that was hanging on to a non-profitable product and issued a statement to the effect that it just wasn't financially sound to continue to update it then its just how the digital age rolls.

But that was not the case.

FCP X at day one had a lot of problems. It's hard to remember all of them but the one that I just couldn't believe was having very little control over how and where media was housed.

One library for all your projects?

And only on the root level of any drive.

By default your system drive.

Seriously?

Yes there was a workaround: sparse bundles.

Which were tedious to create in Disk Utility.

CreateDiskImage saved the day here (copy paste function would be nice - but a great little app that just works).

BUT disk images have about the same odds of getting corrupted as any drive, which doubles your chances of loosing access to your project. On the other hand, it does make backing up very easy and perhaps makes it less likely to have sloppy organization in the finder.

If you did want access to media from a particular project that was not the one you were working on, you needed to open the given sparse bundle, not just navigate to the media you wanted to import from within FCP X.

The other problem at day 1 (and this in some ways continues to this day) from the perspective of a film teacher (at any level of the educational system) is its lack of acceptance by the Hollywood community. At this point if you are a film maker and you edit on FCP X no one cares. But there were people during the FCP 3-7 days that made a living with just FC. Not generalists just FCP editors. X changed that. There were only two NLEs that the industry cared about back then. FCP and AVID. And at the time FCP X came out there was a feeling that if Apple nailed FCP 8 with a major update that AVID might loose even more of its hold on the film and TV industry. No one took Premier seriously at that time. Though independent PC users did use it.

Even now there are things about the FCP Interface that feel annoyingly like an annoying consumer product. Yes I hate this aspect of Apple's current software design even for products and apps I use on a consumer level. I want to export not share. I want to know what codec my media is in not have daddy take care of it for me. The Vimeo export doesn't tell you H.264 or High Profile H.264 just its resolution. FCP X's "optimized" means don't worry about it (maybe transcoded maybe not). How hard would it be for FC to just report AVC-Ultra or imported as such and such transcoded to Apple Pro res 422. For example here's a copy of a segment from the user manual from FCP 7.

To choose an Easy Setup for transcoding HDV
Choose Final Cut Pro > Easy Setup.

Choose one of the following from the Format pop-up menu:

Apple Intermediate Codec

Apple ProRes 422

Click the Use pop-up menu to see all of the Easy Setups related to your choice in the Format pop-up menu.

You can further refine the list by choosing a specific frame rate from the Rate pop-up menu.

Choose an appropriate HDV Easy Setup from the Use pop-up menu.

Important: Make sure to choose an Easy Setup that matches the format of your HDV source tapes.

Note: The Apple ProRes 422 Easy Setup option supports only 1080p24 HDV. You should use this codec when you have 24 fps footage stored with 3:2 pull-down in a 1080i60 HDV signal.

Click Setup.

The corresponding capture, sequence, and device control presets are loaded, as well as A/V device settings.


Simple enough for someone learning the program; informative and detailed enough for any pro. Can't say the same of HDV though it was the cheapest option for many 'prosumer' film budgets. (Canon XL2/Sony PD150/170).

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 25, 2016 at 5:13:10 am

[Craig Alan] "On day one I was pretty pissed off about a couple of pretty basic things.

One was the EOL of FCP legacy. It was just too central to the work flow of too many film makers to just end its life without a good deal of continued support and a much more developed replacement.

If Apple were a small company that was hanging on to a non-profitable product and issued a statement to the effect that it just wasn't financially sound to continue to update it then its just how the digital age rolls.

But that was not the case.

FCP X at day one had a lot of problems. It's hard to remember all of them but the one that I just couldn't believe was having very little control over how and where media was housed.

One library for all your projects?

And only on the root level of any drive.

By default your system drive.

Seriously?

Yes there was a workaround: sparse bundles.

Which were tedious to create in Disk Utility.

CreateDiskImage saved the day here (copy paste function would be nice - but a great little app that just works).

BUT disk images have about the same odds of getting corrupted as any drive, which doubles your chances of loosing access to your project. On the other hand, it does make backing up very easy and perhaps makes it less likely to have sloppy organization in the finder.

If you did want access to media from a particular project that was not the one you were working on, you needed to open the given sparse bundle, not just navigate to the media you wanted to import from within FCP X.

The other problem at day 1 (and this in some ways continues to this day) from the perspective of a film teacher (at any level of the educational system) is its lack of acceptance by the Hollywood community. At this point if you are a film maker and you edit on FCP X no one cares. But there were people during the FCP 3-7 days that made a living with just FC. Not generalists just FCP editors. X changed that. There were only two NLEs that the industry cared about back then. FCP and AVID. And at the time FCP X came out there was a feeling that if Apple nailed FCP 8 with a major update that AVID might loose even more of its hold on the film and TV industry. No one took Premier seriously at that time. Though independent PC users did use it."




Realize that like many others, you have just invested hundreds of words in re-litigating an issue that became obsolete 4 YEARS ago. I was able to use X effectively then. And I can use it VERY effectively now. In large part because I didn't let what it isn't - dissuade me from patiently learning about what it is.
If you and others wish to continue fanning, as you do in this thread, the flames of "the EOL of Legacy and the introduction of X was H O R R I B L E and hurt feelings" - just realize that some of us - who enjoy editing in X - view time spent doing that as immensely unproductive. I, for one, would rather move forward towards an ever increasingly enjoyable future with X, rather than dwelling in the past. The new path feels like progress. Big progress. It's nice.

[Craig Alan] "Even now there are things about the FCP Interface that feel annoyingly like an annoying consumer product. Yes I hate this aspect of Apple's current software design even for products and apps I use on a consumer level. I want to export not share. I want to know what codec my media is in not have daddy take care of it for me. The Vimeo export doesn't tell you H.264 or High Profile H.264 just its resolution. FCP X's "optimized" means don't worry about it (maybe transcoded maybe not). How hard would it be for FC to just report AVC-Ultra or imported as such and such transcoded to Apple Pro res 422. For example here's a copy of a segment from the user manual from FCP 7."

X is NOT 7. 7 is 4 years EOL 7 is irrelevant to me now. Long past time to move on. For me, end of story.

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

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 25, 2016 at 8:35:13 pm

Thought it was brought up whether it was good to go day 1. Not by me. This is also a debate forum centered around FCP X merits.

You overlooked, by choice I suspect because it didn't meet your agenda, my opening line: "Like any other software I think FCP X now has its pros and cons but it's a great program for my needs."

You don't feel it needs to round trip better with say Motion?

You don't feel its ability to handle several layers of audio could be better?

You don't think it should make the codec of each clip clear?

Just Critiquing my post is the true waste of words.

My concern in switching to FCP X (which I did do and stopped using FCP 7 asap and did not try to get it to behave like FCP 7) as a teacher was very real. If it failed to to be taken seriously by the industry it would be a bad choice. This was a debate taken on by all the local film schools which was a another concern. My students that go to film school get complimented on knowing the skills that are used in their programs. I like to use all industry standard stuff.

If you feel this makes me an ignorant non-believer toward the NLE messiah, FCP X, then you have freedom of religion in this country. Enjoy it. But I suggest you swallow your condescension. It's a waste of words and counterproductive.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 25, 2016 at 9:34:46 pm

[Craig Alan] "My students that go to film school get complimented on knowing the skills that are used in their programs."

I am sure they get more compliments on the quality of their films, not what software they use. My students use X (a few cling to Premiere) but if the work sucks, it's not the programs fault. The student team fails in that project, not FPCX. NLE's don't create concepts, write scripts or make edit decisions. It also depends on what you are teaching your students to become. Film and broadcast editors? Media Composer first. Corporate, web, commercials, weddings, producers, directors or education? Pick one you like best and gets out of the way of the creative process. Which is why X is best for me right now.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 25, 2016 at 11:47:56 pm

I don't disagree with any thing you are saying. The compliments (if that is the right word) I was referring to was: that they know how to use kino flos and fresnels and grip equipment and audio mixers and boom poles and coil cable, and camera operation. how to frame a shot. production vocabulary. how to write in script format and read and write a shot sheet. etc. As far as editing is concerned, it's an advantage to already know the editing programs that are available at that school. At one college, a professor required that the students learn AVID. However for any of their projects, they were just required to turn in the exported video. So this student took a class on AVID and edited with FCP X on his laptop.

My initial concern was not that you couldn't edit on FCP X but that it wouldn't help them going forward. I chose FCP X because it fit our needs much better than AVID and I did not have the type of funding that would allow us to make monthly payments. But I was nervous that it wouldn't get developed and that it wouldn't be used by the colleges and the industry. I feel I made the right choice. Several of the colleges that initially decided not to use it at all, now use it about even with Adobe.

Traditional Hollywood studios and TV broadcast are still old school. But I think we'll see more and more independent productions using FCP X.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 26, 2016 at 1:16:05 am

[Craig Alan] "I feel I made the right choice."

I know the feeling. I changed over our grad school from FCP7 to X a couple years ago. Of course we have the Adobe CC suite on all the computers too since my students all want to try After Effects.

The increase in speed of learning was pretty astonishing to watch compared to FCP7. Apple has done something very right with this software for people who are not trained in the track-based world (as I was). I sure as hell hope Apple keeps developing the product as I dread the thought of teaching Premier.

[Craig Alan] "that they know how to use kino flos and fresnels and grip equipment and audio mixers and boom poles and coil cable, and camera operation. how to frame a shot. production vocabulary. how to write in script format and read and write a shot sheet. etc. "

Very cool. Those are talents that are so valuable, even if you end up as a director. I have often said that some of the best directors I know have been editors. They know what it's like to be at the bottom of the hill, and we all know which way the shit rolls! :-)

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 26, 2016 at 3:32:14 am

Our classes are only an hour per day and I can teach FCP X basics in very short order. 2 minutes with a kid who never used it before will be doing a rough cut. 2 more minutes and they can adjust the audio, or do a transform or crop or basic color correction. One on one with someone showing you how to use the interface as you need it is just the fastest way to learn. Far easier to teach than FCP 7. Even basic smart collections and keywords are pretty easy to demonstrate and the kids take it from there. Though most of our projects at least in class are short form and don't need a lot of organization. But events do.

How do you handle round tripping between after effects and FCP X and resolve for that matter?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 26, 2016 at 1:57:30 pm

[Craig Alan] "How do you handle round tripping between after effects and FCP X and resolve for that matter?
"


We don't. Any AE they use is exported out of AE and imported to X. I don't go heavy into CC as I focus on concept and then creative execution. I just teach color inside X (which you can get a damn good result from) and let them know about the other softwares out there. I have Finale on my teaching computer and I might show them that as an example. These are marketing and advertising grad students.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 26, 2016 at 3:09:23 pm

Yeah I use FCP X for color as well but resolve for my visually creative students seems like a nice addition. Most of this type use photoshop which I don;t teach and again can't budget for a monthly payment

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 2, 2016 at 12:57:03 pm

[Craig Alan] "Our classes are only an hour per day and I can teach FCP X basics in very short order. "

I am always amazed in how quickly students pick X up. Yesterday, in my second class of the semester, I told 35 skeptical grad students (average age: 25) that they would be editing in just under 3 hours (a portion of the three hours is used showing them how to access Terrablock partitions, music library, ftp, etc). I had about 6 of the 35 who had used Premiere before. I used about an hour to walk them through the process of importing footage, interface, basic edit commands, color, sound effects, music and output. After about 90 minutes every one of them had completed the task and had a lot of fun doing it. Four of the six Premiere users commented that X was much better for them (I found myself defending Premiere!). It's just really cool how the non-track-baked brain approaches the task uses the software. Apple has done something very right and I hope they continue to support the software. These students are now required to finish the Lynda FCPX Essentials class in two weeks and it will be again interesting to see where they are after that.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 2, 2016 at 7:06:28 pm
Last Edited By Craig Alan on Feb 3, 2016 at 3:17:38 am

[Scott Witthaus] "Four of the six Premiere users commented that X was much better for them (I found myself defending Premiere!). "

Yeah it also points to what I find: that people that know how to edit have an easier time learning FCP X then people who don't. Liking it depends on their workflow and needs.


[Scott Witthaus] " Apple has done something very right and I hope they continue to support the software."

That's my concern. Will they? And their secretive nature is not helpful. And their history for EOLing stuff without more communication and support is troubling. Imagine if they had released FCP X by saying up front that it was a work in progress and although they would not continue to update FCP 7 they would add support for new codecs and that 7 would work on the same system drive as X and 7 would work on the next several OS releases. (which actually turned out to be the case). Sure there would still be this debate but it would feel certain that going into FCP X was the path of the future and would remain supported. I still think Apple could improve its respect by being more transparent and communicative. $300 was a lot of money for a beta release. $300 for every release up to the latest version has been the greatest deal in NLE history. But no way to know this. In fact I paid for a site license to keep OS X and FCP X up to date only to learn by years end that I paid for nothing cause both, Apple decided, would be for free. They gave a partial refund starting on the date that they made that decision. Not too generous considering it was a school. And it took I can't tell you how many phone calls to get it since no body at Apple knew. And then they gave it to the entire school system and I never got it for my program, even though it was grant money that paid for it.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 3, 2016 at 11:57:04 am

[Craig Alan] "And their history for EOLing stuff without more communication and support is troubling"

As an Avid D|S editor and beta tester, I can attest that it's not only Apple that will tell you sweet lies until they pull the rug out from your favorite product.

I can't worry about what Apple might do. I use (and/or teach) the best tool that I have now, like I did with DS, and change if I have to. I dread the thought of having to use and teach Premiere or Avid, but if I have to, that's what I will do.

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 3, 2016 at 3:04:50 pm

[Craig Alan] "Imagine if they had released FCP X by saying up front that it was a work in progress"

I think it might have helped some people but it wouldn't have helped me, because I already figured it was a work in progress. Almost all software is.

I still say to this day that one of the main problems X had was "misinformation" by people online that didn't know what they were talking about. Some people did, but many didn't, and it was hard to tell the 2 apart at first.

People putting out a bunch of information that was flat-out not true. Like, you couldn't turn the magnetic timeline off.

Even the famous Conan joke clip was misleading. Having the audio out of sync, which most people will agree is very difficult to do in X. People saw that clip around the country and it still gets posted to this day.

I know it's meant as a joke but most jokes are based on truth, and this was a stretch, but if you did't know better you would think that X throws stuff out of sync really easy, which in fact, the opposite is true.

I get it though, the things that people were most angry about would have been hard to make fun of.
Like, I can't import my 7 timeline. Not really funny. The whole sketch was already too insider baseball for the audience anyway, without getting farther in the weeds.

One day I decided to try X so I could decide for myself what was true.

I'm glad I did.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 3, 2016 at 3:21:06 pm

[Tony West] " Like, you couldn't turn the magnetic timeline off."

Just for fun we could resurrect that argument :)

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/17555


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 3, 2016 at 4:46:06 pm

[Steve Connor] "Just for fun we could resurrect that argument :)"

hahaha only it's not an argument. it's fact.

I saw a woman's review early on that said the clips snap back and there is nothing you can do about that.

You could do something about it, she just didn't know how. She put out her video before she learned the program.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 3, 2016 at 5:16:26 pm

[Craig Alan] " that people that know how to edit have an easier time learning FCP X then people who don't."

Only if they approach X with a clean slate. Sure, they know more of the terminology, but I see new users "getting" FCPX faster than "track-baked" editors if they try to make X work just like PP or MC.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 3, 2016 at 9:47:41 pm

The end game is the same.The UI has a lot of components that are the same. You may not prefer connected clips but it takes almost no time to get. If you don't like magnetism then you haven't learned the position tool. Trackless is different and I can see not liking it and I can see learning to use it in complex edits, if you have already learned to use tracks, could be a difficult learning curve. But mostly I don't find experienced editors saying that it was a hard learning curve as much as they didn't like it . Early on they may ask if they are missing some aspect or operation that would allow them to work the way they were used to working. Well with the position tool the answer is yes. But if you want the equivalent of tracks, you start learning stuff about secondary storylines and using gap clips to place a sequence at a fixed location, compounding clips, etc. And yeah that is trickier than transitioning to another track based timeline. But easier to keep audio in sync not harder. And the reason that you needed tracks has not gone away. You are still editing multiple layers of media for a project that will appear as one linear timeline.

And if they really want to learn it rather than just say its not for them, then telling them they must embrace FCP X way of thinking is not helpful. What is helpful is asking "what specifically do you want the edit to do" and then give directions of one or three ways to get it done. FCP X still has traditional use of layers like all visual apps from photoshop to AVID. The top layer dominates the visual. You can set opacity to allow lower layers to create a composite. or just as a way to cut between shots while keeping a consistent audio track. Same as all NLE.
So the real difference is how to manage those layers without tracks. My take is with a limited number of layers FCP X is easier and faster. With more layer, its more difficult to manage or at least not as obvious to manage but doable.
Deal breakers are missing features not a different interface.

One thing I love about X is I have never found an edit that I couldn't find tutorials on on line and if I was motivated and had the time could learn. In some ways this is Apple legacy. Apple users "share" more. But please don't cal an export a share. Its just condescending renaming a universally understood operation. If you want to upload to Video fine. But if someone doesn't know what an export is they will not know what a share is.

[Scott Witthaus] "I see new users "getting" FCPX faster than "track-baked" editors if they try to make X work just like PP or MC.
"


I don't doubt this is your experience; but my guess is, they are going back and forth between different NLEs, and not spending as much time in FCP X.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 26, 2016 at 12:17:13 am

[Craig Alan] "You don't feel it needs to round trip better with say Motion?

You don't feel its ability to handle several layers of audio could be better?

You don't think it should make the codec of each clip clear?

Just Critiquing my post is the true waste of words.
"


This is substantive, so let me address it point by point.

A) Perhaps 15% of my work requires motion graphics beyond what can be done inside X via the titler,, generators or plug ins - and most of that has come up in the past 6 months
Also, X also already does a LIMITED round trip, since I can option double click launch many Motion effects directly from inside X and alter them and even changed the published parameters so they show up INSIDE X. So again, there s a LIMITED set of round tripping (in a broad sense) already there. So you're really asking if I'd like MORE of what I already have? Yes. Sure. But it's NOT anywhere remotely close to a "stopper". I see it as one of those things that people who once had what they felt was a superior workflow in a different software - and would like to have back. I can sympathize. But it's just no big deal to me. If and when they improve closer to so called "round tripping" I'll enjoy that. But I miss it like changing a grade in elementary school and missing the fact that last years teacher - along with being a great teacher - told great jokes. The new teacher is even better at instruction - but no jokes. Bummer. But I'll live.

Same with Audio. If I was doing indy feature work without a sound department - or a lot of live music video work - I'd probably value more audio tools hugely. But I do that kind of work rarely, if at all. In the past six months, most of my income recently has come from interview driven projects where I have a mono VO. It will maybe get Music and EFX sometimes, but not always. I already have all the Logic Plug Ins in X - so what am I missing. Heck, even Jan and Mike on Focus were able to work with the scoring houses and audio post folks with hardly a glitch. So it's not something major missing - and they did most of the movie on 10.0.9! Additional capabilities that would be welcome and nice - but seeing them as make or break is silly.

Codecs? I have MediaInfo on my desktop. I can drop analyze things are during import and can tag codecs in the software - even bucketing them via Smart Collections as needed. Solved by thoughtful workflow. No issue for me.

To me what you're doing is being a bit pissy about what I see as "first world editor problems."

It's largely other system trained editors being annoyed at having to adapt. And as you note when you get crabby again, YOU DON"T HAVE TO ADAPT. Don't use the program if if annoys you. Nobody will be offended.

But also don't preach that it's WRONG WRONG WRONG - when it simply isn't for a whole lot of us.

Negativity serves a purpose - particularly when it points out actual DEFICIENCIES. But not so much when it simply results from something not doing enough to stroke one particular editors personal predilections.

No OMF? Two responses. Bitch. Or use AAF rather than OMF. And don't tell me the post houses can't adapt. That's pure BS. They are SERVICE businesses. If their clients need a service - they'd BETTER provide it. Period.

That's all.

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

Andy Field
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 28, 2016 at 12:18:40 am

Bill has spoken! if he doesn't need or use it ...no one does -- move along!

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 29, 2016 at 6:03:08 pm

How about...

Dear scores of readers out there...

You got angry andys opinion that everyone needs what HE needs
And you've got Pollyanna Bills opinion that everyone should be as happy as him

And now each editor gets to decide for him or herself what THEY need and pick a path.

You get to hate it and tell everyone they should hate it just like you do.
And I get to like it and tell everyone that they should like it - just like me.

Then we let THEM decide.

That said, I categorically refuse to wear a "Haley Mills" blond wig whilst arguing. That's non-negotiable.

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

Andy Field
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 29, 2016 at 6:45:16 pm



Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 29, 2016 at 10:35:04 pm

[Bill Davis] "And now each editor gets to decide for him or herself what THEY need and pick a path."

;-)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 29, 2016 at 10:44:17 pm







Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 24, 2016 at 6:08:15 pm

I did disagree that it was "not broken" from the beginning and offered a list of what didn't work....... you've embraced the Apple way of doing things -- again good for you -- there are many of us who don't like it, don't find it faster or more productive and offer our ideas too. Happy editing!

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Kevin Monahan
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Jan 26, 2016 at 11:28:35 pm

[Lillian Young] "Premiere won't even open on my workstation. It crashes on my laptop. I literally have to go back to my office on the weekend to make revisions on a project. "

Hi Lillian,
Did you ever get this working? Let us know.

Thanks,
Kevin

Kevin Monahan
Support Product Manager—DVA
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe
Follow Me on Twitter!


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 6, 2016 at 6:53:14 pm

said someone from Apple support never......

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

MIke Guidotti
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 17, 2016 at 5:31:36 pm

Wow this drifted a bit.

I skipped to the end so maybe someone mentioned this already. Has the OP considered maybe the projects are corrupt or there is a disk permissions issue? Are you on external storage? Have you checked the file/folder permissions? Are they propagating properly downward? At the very least you can use disk utility to repair basic permissions. If you are good at using google you can fine pretty much anything you want to know about the UNIX command line, and there is a built in manual...


Return to posts index

MIke Guidotti
Re: Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
on Feb 17, 2016 at 5:33:30 pm

Oh yeah, and I'm ready to catch shade...

There is always Avid


Return to posts index

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