FORUMS: list search recent posts

Stirring the pot...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
Stirring the pot...
on Jun 12, 2016 at 4:56:08 am

It's way too quiet here.

So here's a link to my latest XinTwo blog post...
https://www.xintwo.com/now-you-can-edit-faster-and-produce-better-work/

Surely it's provocative enough to encourage others to respond about how insufferably lame it is - thus sparking a spirited discussion we can all enjoy!

Just trying to help...

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 12, 2016 at 12:11:12 pm

All I can say is that the guy in the stock photo is asking for trouble with his coffee cup. Keyboard or lap. Only two choices.
:)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 12, 2016 at 5:25:34 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jun 12, 2016 at 5:29:22 pm

While replacing the screen caps with my XinTwo content, we probably should have replaced the coffee cup with a small bowl of mixed nuts....

On second thought, carrot sticks.

God forbid I imply a high fat diet is required for quality editing!

; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 12, 2016 at 5:39:32 pm

You could go with some high octane beer but that edit session could get interesting.

I don't think your post was lame and I actually enjoyed reading it. Look forward to more of your content. Cheers!


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 12, 2016 at 7:42:05 pm

I have also come to the realization that the pre-edit in the browser with fairly precise in and out markers and keywording is the way to go in FCPX. It is really a different approach than the string out that I used in 7 and what I still see being recommended for other NLE like PP. I took me too long to figure this out and relearn editing, but it really makes the early editing less painful and then the right smart collection gives you a great start for an assembly.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 13, 2016 at 12:30:53 pm

Removing the eye blink when you first review your material may foster some kind of efficiency but only at the cost of making an important decision out of context - maybe the blink is a key to character, not merely something to be avoided as an ironclad rule of editing.

The most important task of an editor is to become as familiar with their material as possible - and that means all their material, the good, the bad, the seemingly pointless; so when the time comes to make a decision "in context" you have all your options open, having committed to nothing. "No wine before it's time", no decision made before you have to; it is only during the process of editing that any moment's importance will be revealed - "deciding the spine is the process of editing."

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 13, 2016 at 3:23:06 pm

Again, Herb the way you imagine editing in X is not the way it actually works.

In my example, I was trying to create a relatable description of any situation where there may be an obvious "starting place" for an in-point decision.

If the editors preference is to include such a blink, he or she certainly can do that.

I'll also contend that many experienced editors, having reviewed their material thoroughly, will instinctively remember that the pre-trimmed take they are using "in the moment" includes that eye blink that they previously elected to trim - and in a quick unconscious action will simply ripple the cut to reveal it the instant they call the scene to their playhead.

In my experience, many, many editors are really smart that way.

X does not require you to make your decisions the way it wants you to - it enables you to make the decisions you prefer to make, store them as precise decisions accessible via keyword tags - and adjust them as precisely as you like once they arrive in your storyline.

It's not a restrictive system. no matter how you try to cast it as that. In practice, it's the complete opposite of restrictive.

My 2 cents.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 13, 2016 at 3:40:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "It's not a restrictive system. no matter how you try to cast it as that. In practice, it's the complete opposite of restrictive.
"


I would add to that, it's not a restrictive system in exactly the same way as all other NLEs are not restrictive. Because none of them are, really. It's just a matter of how you use them.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 13, 2016 at 4:26:33 pm

[Michael Hancock] "[Bill Davis] "It's not a restrictive system. no matter how you try to cast it as that. In practice, it's the complete opposite of restrictive.
"

I would add to that, it's not a restrictive system in exactly the same way as all other NLEs are not restrictive. Because none of them are, really. It's just a matter of how you use them.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor"


Yes, yes.

We all know that X is annoying because is so different from anything that's come before it - causing years of "hair on fire" consternation and woe - and yet, miraculously, still everything IT can do- is fully and utterly possible in every other NLE.

It's the FCP X conundrum.

Very different, yet NOT AT ALL different - at precisely the same time!

Quite amazing, really.

; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 13, 2016 at 4:35:24 pm

[Bill Davis] "We all know that X is annoying because is so different from anything that's come before it - causing years of "hair on fire" consternation and woe - and yet, miraculously, still everything IT can do- is fully and utterly possible in every other NLE."

We all know that X is simple and instinctive to use and yet it takes months to "get your head around", fortunately for Mr. Davis, who is expecting a windfall of profits for being ahead in the learning curve of the easiest of all NLE's to learn.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 13, 2016 at 4:42:41 pm

[Bill Davis] "Again, Herb the way you imagine editing in X is not the way it actually works."

I wasn't talking about the way X works, but rather about your description of your own workflow. You put a premium on storing edit "decisions" before you begin to edit. Now obviously any NLE will allow you to change your mind and access material you might have discarded at some point, and so my observation about editing are tool agnostic, I'm simply suggesting that delaying decision making might be more important for your projects health than you might think.

The more intelligent the species, generally speaking, the longer the maturation age of the individual -- perhaps there is something lost by going too fast.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 13, 2016 at 5:08:06 pm

[Herb Sevush] "You put a premium on storing edit "decisions" before you begin to edit."

I agree with Bill here, if I am correct in understanding his workflow.

I do a lot of detail work using keywords and favorites before one edit is made (doing that right now). As I do this, ideas come to mind, possible scene flows, etc. Once that process is done, call it "edit decisions before you begin to edit" if you will, I use the E key and append the sh** out of my selected cuts to the timeline to get a very rough storyline. Then the fine tuning happens. This is pretty much the workflow I have used with any NLE, but X makes it more efficient (for me). I am not sure what delaying these ideas in todays NLE world brings to the table.

I don't sit there looking at an empty timeline and wait for inspiration. The inspiration comes out of the work, and for me, that starts right at the beginning.

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


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 13, 2016 at 7:07:39 pm

[Scott Witthaus] " I am not sure what delaying these ideas in todays NLE world brings to the table."

In Bill's example he talked about the speed efficiency of making his initial selects so tight that he would loose the eye blink before the next line. I don't want my initial selects to be that tight, I prefer to keep things as loose as possible till I have to make my final decisions - this way I'm always looking at and reviewing as much as possible. I like to keep it loose and whittle it down slowly, I realize other's do not have the same approach.

None of this has anything specifically to do with X or Avid or any other NLE - these are basic workflow techniques and I could work my way as well with one editor as another.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 14, 2016 at 3:40:43 am

Herb,

Pardon me but you are still re-casting my point exclusively and narrowly from a point of view I don't share.

You are stuck thinking about how X supposedly demands you to adapt to it.

Let make this crystal clear. It does not.

You can make X work EXACTLY as you ever have. If someone as an editor loves "whole tape" capture - never sub-clipped anything - and ONLY wants to spend their time endlessly manually trimming everything out of hour long takes to reassure themselves that there isn't a single frame of vaguely useful content obscured by pre filtering - they can totally do that in X!

I don't know WHY anyone would want to do that, but if they did, they could.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 14, 2016 at 11:33:25 am

[Bill Davis] "Pardon me but you are still re-casting my point exclusively and narrowly from a point of view I don't share.
You are stuck thinking about how X supposedly demands you to adapt to it. Let make this crystal clear. It does not."


We seem to be talking at cross purposes here Bill. I agree with everything you say in this post. I do not think X forces you to do anything, I think it, like all other NLEs, allows you to work in a variety of styles. I've said this in all my posts, I can't make this any clearer.

I was not discussing X, I was discussing YOU, and not in any sort of disparaging way, I hope. I was merely pointing out that you have an oft stated preference for "pre-editing" or "editing-in-the-browser" which X apparently is very efficient at. I was stating that this is something that holds little interest for me as a workflow, especially as it pertains to making very "tight" decisions early in the editing process. As in most aspects of what we talk about here, one persons strength is another persons weakness.

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 14, 2016 at 6:11:50 pm

Fair enough.

All my career, I've been seeing things that spark edit ideas during early stage footage review. It's only since I adopted X that I feel I finally have a purpose built system to save those ideas in a way that makes real sense to me.

It's nice, that's all. The fault is likely mine in failing to describe it in a way that hammers home that it's not a requirement, but an extraordinarily useful option.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 20, 2016 at 12:55:27 am

[Herb Sevush] "I was stating that this is something that holds little interest for me as a workflow, especially as it pertains to making very "tight" decisions early in the editing process. As in most aspects of what we talk about here, one persons strength is another persons weakness."

When I was regularly writing magazine tech articles ten years ago I noticed talking to other writers that I had a totally different approach to many others. I would take some notes, have 'discussions' about the subject in my head and then mull for a while before writing almost final draft. I would write 2000 words for a final of 1800. Final editing was simply about trimming redundant words or clarifying concepts, not changing the shape of the narrative. others would write much longer, tighten and swap paras around etc. I just couldn't write that way.

If you think that way and use tools to help hone a tight rough, outside the timeline, then you can work like Bill. It is faster but I would never venture to say better, just depends on how your creative brain is wired and what comes naturally. (Who'd of thought Bill and I had something in common.)


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 8:02:06 pm

I see browser organization as homework, prep and the fun/creativity takes place on the playing field, the timeline. How much homework you have depends on the type of project and how much media you have imported. Some projects don't require any key wording and some require a great deal - otherwise causing you to be seeking and re-reviewing and getting more and more confused.

I think FCP X certainly has a powerful browser but FCP legacy also used similar types of organization. I really don't believe that X created a new way to edit. I think it added some new features and lost some others. But the most basic concepts are the same and the end results are the same. So its just a matter of which feature set works best for you. And I have noticed that other NLEs are stealing some of the good features that were introduced in X. Just as X put back some that were missing.

Even the so called trackless timeline in X is really a hybrid. For example when you open a multicam clip in the timeline and angle viewer everything is laid out in tracks on the timeline.

Isn't nesting and compounding addressing the same needs? Aren't connected clips following the same basic rules as layers in photoshop or track dominance in track based NLEs? I still would like X to move to tracks with connection points - i think that would be the best of both worlds.

I feel we live in strange times in terms of information and learning. Knowledge has certainly become more democratic with the revolution that the internet has created. But the constant practice to change how digital tools/interfaces work is in part counterproductive. There is such a thing as mastering a craft in order to be a more fluid artist/creator/producer. If people have to constantly be re-learning how those tools work, they will never be able to master them and will not be able to pass that knowledge on to the next generation. The tool is an extension of the worker not the other way around. And when it is the other way around, it's not art. If you do all the heavy lifting in the browser and then just transfer the sequence to the timeline wholesale then its just a giant organized spreadsheet of media. Kinda like when screenplays were nothing more than a formula in which on page 90 you have a plot point which comes as a complete surprise (to no one) increases the conflict between good and evil to the point of being life threatening and drives the story home to its happy ending - boy gets THE girl on his way to blowing up THE bad guy.

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 9:03:39 pm

[Craig Alan] "If you do all the heavy lifting in the browser and then just transfer the sequence to the timeline wholesale then its just a giant organized spreadsheet of media."

FWIW, and contrary to some opinions here, not everybody does all the heavy lifting in the browser. Personally I do just enough to let the browser do the heavy lifting for me. (Smart collections/Roles etc) To me, that is the major benefit of FCP X. And not just in the Browser, but everywhere in the app. Some tend to obsess about the metadata, but to me, that's only a part of it. How I interact with the app, what it can do for me, or make doing much easier for me, is the big deal.

Other NLE's can copy all the features they want, but unless they copy how X works -which they can't because mean old Apple has it patented - X will always stand out. In a good way for me, YMMV ;-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 9:16:02 pm

I think we are on the same page. I like the browser for the organization that it gives me both automatically and by allowing me to organize the way I wish. But its in the timeline that I make artistic decisions. And I like magnetism and connected clips in the timeline for quick and easy edits playbacks and experiments. I liked FCP legacy on the timeline because the keyboard short cuts to toggle between specific layouts was ergonomically vital. FCP X needs to add this feature. custom layouts which you can toggle between. For audio for color correction for cropping for rough cuts etc etc.

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 9:21:32 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jun 18, 2016 at 9:24:29 pm

[Craig Alan] "to toggle between specific layouts was ergonomically vital. FCP X needs to add this feature. custom layouts which you can toggle between. For audio for color correction for cropping for rough cuts etc etc."

Totally agree. I resize/rearrange the relative size of the windows depending on what I'm doing. Be nice to save and recall the layouts. Pr works well-ish here with workspaces. But... you run into the same issue as in X if you rearrange windows/panels while in a layout. You still need to un-arrange stuff to get back to your "base" workspace state. As you noted, FCP 7 would save a recallable "base" state. We need that back :-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 9:34:39 pm

Apple's good at layouts. Wouldn't mind them giving you a bunch of presets with the ability to tweak them or create your own. I'd also like the active window to be a little more obvious and by default if i just E, W, or Q-ed an edit that the timeline become active. sure there are times I'm putting a bunch of clips on the timeline from the browser but as soon as you click on the next clip to select it or trim it in the browser, the browser is active. The number of times I assume the clip will play on the timeline and I go "what? oh yeah command 2..." too many.

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: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 9:34:07 pm

[Craig Alan] "FCP X needs to add this feature. custom layouts which you can toggle between"

Well, you can sort of do this now.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/final-cut-pro-x-keyboard-tips...

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 9:47:59 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Well, you can sort of do this now.
"


True, in a way it's like Pr workspaces a la carte :-) I just wish that I could resize the windows... Tiny timeline, giant viewer, small effects browser, whatever, then hit a key combo and have it snap back to the original saved layout like FCP 7. (This is true in both X and Pr btw) The built in default layout isn't what I want.

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 9:49:53 pm

Two problems for me - I'm not a full time editor and a lot of the ones that apple has already to toggle specific windows on and off is hard to remember and more importantly its not just turning on one window or another. It's a specific set of windows resized a specific way given the monitor you are on. legacy let you decide on a size and configuration for each window for each lay out.

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: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 9:53:05 pm

[Craig Alan] " its not just turning on one window or another. It's a specific set of windows resized a specific way given the monitor you are on"

I totally get that. I have a number of saved custom workspace layout when I work in Premiere.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 10:00:05 pm

Even if you forget the short cut its so nice to have the layout that works for you.

Again Apple did a nice job in the browser to give you different looks. and little radio buttons with a short cut reminders if you prefer it that way. The different looks do not resize anything which also would be nice. Then again they also expect me to type with my thumbs on little digital keyboards that three year olds seem to have no trouble doing.

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 10:01:46 pm

[Oliver Peters] " I have a number of saved custom workspace layout when I work in Premiere.
"


I do like that, but it has the same annoying issue as X in that if you're in a workspace, and resize a window/panel, then that becomes the workspace layout. There's no way to just snap to your original. You can (and I do) have a bunch of different workspaces, but to save every possible layout that I might want is, to me, unnecessarily complicated. Let me save a layout, and let me get back to that even if I change the layout while I'm in the layout. Like FCP 7. Sure, there were only 2, but the original saved state was always available, and only changed if you re-saved it.

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 11:02:41 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Like FCP 7. Sure, there were only 2, but the original saved state was always available, and only changed if you re-saved it.
"


It's been too long, but I remembered being able to save more than 2 layouts. Of course, maybe I just did these manually.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/better-editing-with-custom-sc...

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 18, 2016 at 11:30:24 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It's been too long, but I remembered being able to save more than 2 layouts. Of course, maybe I just did these manually.
"


Nope, you're right... There were only 2 "default" layouts you could set and use a 2 key keystroke, but you could (wait, I mean you still can! Lol) make and save as many others as you want. Totally forgot about that.



Point is, they would open in the original state you had saved them, and the saved state would be the same even if you moved things around when in a particular layout...

Pr has it half right, and X should get on board and do it all the way right. FCP 7, still the gold standard! Lol ;-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 19, 2016 at 12:31:41 am

took some experimenting but i remember being about to toggle between my preferred lay outs for 3 or 4 stages of the edit. mostly assembly, audio, color correction. I also remember using the spreadsheet in the browser to sort by various metadata and creating sub-clips in the browser.
So I don't consider FCP X revolutionary in terms of this but it is far more advanced and
nicely designed.

I also remember getting the audio out of sync far too often and really struggling to get it back in sync and feeling like I was an idiot. I also remember hooking up firewire cables to ingest in real time and sometimes the camera or VTR would get seen by FC and sometimes not. Just getting the footage into the program was a major step. And then having to use compressor to get it back out in a form that was good for distribution or playback on different devices was another time consuming stage.

Sometimes I think people think that FCP X is so much faster because media itself is so much faster. The sync issue was end user error and I watched the pros touch type through their edits and get things back in sync with a couple of keyboard strokes. There are times the same applies to FCP X edits but not nearly as much. And the google searchers bring up solutions much more readily.

It's all a wash for me now. I'm as advanced in X as I was in 7 and I do like a lot of its features though would like others to improve. What I don't want is to have them improve, my skills to get more fluid, and then suddenly it's EOL and I have to learn a new program. I'd much rather evolve as a film maker than learn a new interface which accomplishes 95% of the same stuff.

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: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 19, 2016 at 7:17:06 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jun 19, 2016 at 7:21:06 am

[Craig Alan] "Sometimes I think people think that FCP X is so much faster because media itself is so much faster. "

Or it's that some of us who have spent decades editing one way - and now are editing another way - are actually getting more work done in less time and understand precisely why.

If it was just the processor speed, we'd know that. We'd be doing the same functions faster. But an experienced X editor doesn't necessarily do the same functions in the same way.

And of course, some editors could care less about getting done faster. They're content to shift any time savings to more iterations, idea testing, and staring into space actually thinking about the real challenges of making their work come alive.

There's nothing stopping any editor from editing in X more or less the way they edited in Legacy. (I've seen plenty of X newbies try to do just that!) Import only from finder folders after dragging clips around manually. Use the event browser exclusively to store whole clips. Reject or Favorite nothing. Keyword nothing. Build a dozen string outs as projects and cut and paste from them onto a "Master" timeline. Pay no attention to the used clip indicators. Do all your work in a single huge library with one global event. Ignore the timeline index. Use "position mode" and the tilde key as much as you can. Stay away from Roles. Ignore the custom file naming generator. Ignore the Share system and instead use it exclusively to plop every saved "master" onto your desktop and then launch another program to burn that master file onto a DVD and put it into the mail! That will ALL get the job done. And it's all possible in X right now.

There's no FCP X police that will call anyone out for a workflow like that.

But please stop telling me that editing in X is really no different than how I used to edit. Because that's what I used to do - and you're wrong. It is. For me, it's better. Consistently and measurably.

It's an excellent editing tool right now - and I've been completely and utterly convinced it will continue to improve in the future.

but the reality is that I still hear voices from the two fringe poles. That either A) Apple ruined it with the total re-write and all the new ideas - or; B) it's really largely just the same as all its competitors, no better or worse. These are mutually exclusive concepts, and both wrong IMO.

Apple changed it hugely, and in doing so, made it functionally BETTER in lots and lots of Both massive and tiny ways.

The proof is pretty obvious from how much its competitors are hurrying to adopt functions it pioneered.

(It's as crazy as maybe Apple introducing a sleek new all glass buttonless phone at some point - then over the next decade ALL the smart phones ending up looking EXACTLY like that one - while their manufacturers are endlessly on TV bragging about how their phones are all so innovative and superior..

To my thinking, innovative means taking chances. Taking leaps. Taking a risk.

Are there features in other NLEs you folks see as evidence that other companies are taking big risks like that? The few brief glimpses of Resolve 12+ I've had kinda look like X with tracks to me. Is there serious innovation hiding there?

Lumetri? Not the NLE per se, but Premiere drivers seem to love it. Did it break new ground in CC?
What about AVID and Lightworks and Vegas? Are exciting new ideas coming from there?

Just curious.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 19, 2016 at 10:10:30 am

[Bill Davis] "But please stop telling me that editing in X is really no different than how I used to edit. Because that's what I used to do - and you're wrong. It is. For me, it's better. Consistently and measurably."

Firstly, I don't think he was saying that and secondly there isn't a single person on here who doesn't know that FCPX is better for you!


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 19, 2016 at 1:35:46 pm

[Bill Davis] "but the reality is that I still hear voices from the two fringe poles. That either A) Apple ruined it with the total re-write and all the new ideas - or; B) it's really largely just the same as all its competitors, no better or worse. These are mutually exclusive concepts, and both wrong IMO."

Let's discuss B for a moment.

You always react strongly when someone says that such-and-such a function can be done in other NLE's as well. If you stop and think about it, this will always be true - editing is editing, the work requires certain functions, and any NLE that is used for professional purposes will have to be able to perform those functions. The difference between NLE's is in how they prioritize those functions, not in whether they can accomplish them - they can all accomplish them.

What makes X unique are the priorities they established - speed of moving clips around a timeline with the ability to attach groups of media together as they move, enhancing search speed by use of keywords, ease of maintaining sync, etc. These benefits come from prioritizing those features at the expense of lowering the priorities of things like visual coherence, ease of track mixing, etc. Therefore it should not come as a shock when someone claims another NLE can do certain X functions, the question is whether they can do it as well.

My guess is you would find that X will do what it prioritizes better and faster than other systems do, while Avid, Ppro, etc will concurrently do the things they prioritize faster than X does, even though, as you demonstrated, that X "can" be used in a more traditional way as well.

All NLE's can be made to do the same sort of things, it is in the way they prioritize their features that the differences lie, and it is in learning which one's priorities most closely match your own that happiness in editing lies.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 19, 2016 at 5:58:45 pm

[Herb Sevush] "NLE's can be made to do the same sort of things, it is in the way they prioritize their features that the differences lie, and it is in learning which one's priorities most closely match your own that happiness in editing lies.
"


Agreed.

For decades, all NLEs prioritized things in an extremely similar fashion.

Now there's a fundamentally different option available.

But that alone should quash the "there's just not much difference" argument.

That an individual editor would prioritize conditioned comfort, familiarity and a shallower learning curve higher than transitional stress and a potential boost in efficiency is both rational and defensible.

It's the argument that there's really no difference that strikes me as weak. Because there is.

A difference that some editors won't value, but a real difference with real benefits. And I suspect, ever-increasing benefits, as the direct result of Apple taking the bold re-invention path in 2011, rather than concentrating on the path based more on past workflow compatibility.

Time will tell.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 20, 2016 at 3:47:55 am

http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/adding-metadata-comments-and-notes-to-media...

I think this is evolutionary not revolutionary. Organization was always part of the workflow for complex or long form films. FCP X improved the tools. As have other companies. It's a good thing. But I don't see how that means that the craft/art of editing has changed fundamentally. Tools are all about ergonomics. Art is all about expression and composition.

Ergonomically, I think the browser in FCP X has set the bar. Not so much in the inspector. But its cropping tools are really good at least on my level of skill. Keying is really good as well. I like the new way of applying many modifications as effects that can be set independently for each clip. I think audio could be a lot better. And the timeline itself I'm finding often doesn't have enough room - too much mousing around to see what I need. Really like the speed ramps. Really like magnetic behavior in combo with positioning tool.

I would like compound clips - at least by default - to just be a timeline edit and not ripple to other uses of the 'clip' and not populate the browser. You compound it, you expand it, you re-compound it. I like all that. I would like the option to save one to the browser but only if for some reason I would want to use the compound in other projects which I could do anyway by opening the two libraries and copying it to the other library. But saving to the browser would be cool for a portion of the timeline that isn't working but might come into play later.

All these "in their own timeline stuff" I find confusing. You probably have a better handle on this than I do.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 20, 2016 at 11:06:40 am

[Bill Davis] "That an individual editor would prioritize conditioned comfort, familiarity and a shallower learning curve higher than transitional stress and a potential boost in efficiency is both rational and defensible."

We are almost there Bill - now just imagine an editor who doesn't care about conditioned comfort, who's fine with transitional stress, but who looks at his project and notices that X doesn't prioritize what he needs and would be a lower efficiency choice than another NLE - if you can acknowledge that such a person and such a workflow exists, then we've arrived.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 20, 2016 at 6:58:58 pm

Just to be cantankerous, Herb, I'd be totally fine with that. But only if said editor had a reasonable grasp of how X actually worked. In my experience, most editors stopped really assessing it LONG before they had more than a faint clue about how it actually functions.

It would be like somebody forced by circumstances to migrate from iMovie to Premiere Pro and constantly bitching about having to understand "all that new crap that I can't imagine I'll ever really need!"

Hard to assess whether you might need it, if you don't really understand what it actually does.

And so it goes.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 20, 2016 at 7:35:21 pm

[Bill Davis] "Hard to assess whether you might need it, if you don't really understand what it actually does."

Maybe, but in many situations you're forced to make a decision on incomplete information. It would be lovely to have 3 months to asses every decision, both personal and professional, but that's not often the case.

In my specific case the whole "keywording" thing is pretty much besides the point. All the data I need is contained in the names of my clips (C13R_205 is a Recipe clip from episode 13 from camera C and is the 205th clip shot during production) and the continuity notes I have, (it'a actually a large loose leaf binder)- I need nothing else to find any clip from any angle from any show. All of this work is done in production before I ever transfer a shot to my hard drives, let alone open them in an NLE. So what's for me to Keyword? Everything about that take is noted and cross referenced in my binder - it would take more time to enter the information than it does to just look it up.

What I do use extensively is a track mixer, with bussing, that will let me add eq and compression settings, as well as level and pan settings, on a track basis. This allows me to change the nature of any part of a clip from Dialogue to EFX and back again simply by changing what track it's playing on.

I have never had an issue with moving clips, or groups of clips, around a tracked timeline but I do have a strong preference for working with my video unattached to my audio linked only by a sync indicator.

While I prefer to do most of my compositing within my NLE my producer likes to use third party graphic designers to create graphic elements and these are always sent to me as AE project files - (when I was working in Legacy I would request Motion templates but this never happened.)

So looking at my needs, which NLE should I try first?

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 20, 2016 at 9:26:08 pm

And of course, nobody should ever argue things based on a specific case.

Obviously every editor has different needs and preferences.

Interestingly, I was just chatting yesterday with an editor in the Czech Republic who works for a huge famous management consulting operation with offices all over the globe. He has hundreds and hundreds of "active" corporate edits in process at any one time.

We were discussing how he uses Frame.io for project management, in conjunction with FCP X - a subject very much of interest to me as I'm building my own "micro-sized" group of international collaborators for my XinTwo thing.

Unlike what either you or I do, he has to navigate between literally hundreds of concurrent projects.

For him, (and many others) what floats his boat is not so much the keywording stuff that I love - but rather the Motion templates features of X.

A library with dozens and dozens of re-usable opens and closes for far flung operations all accessible with a style menu and menu selectable from INSIDE X really delights him.

As with the Frame.io collaborative stuff, it's obvious that X is not at all exclusive with any of this stuff. It's just seems that he considers the specific Apple implementation as a wonderful fit for the type of work HE does.

So for the wider audience, the question remains, is the kind of work he's doing more or less likely to be what the editing industry is headed? Or is it the kind of work you're doing, producing traditional episodic TV programs, more likely to be where editing opportunities will be expanding?

The path you take implies the tools you gravitate to. As it always has.

Remember, I try hard NEVER to write against how Premiere Pro or AVID do things, because I don't use nor understand them. It just seems that when I write how X does things (something I actually know about!) people get all upset and "push-backy" - or at least quite ready to twist the implications of what I'm actually saying to suite a differing narrative.

Of course, I'm fully aware that this forum is the ONLY place that ever happens on the internet.

/sarcasm.

And so it goes.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 19, 2016 at 7:25:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "Or it's that some of us who have spent decades editing one way - and now are editing another way - are actually getting more work done in less time and understand precisely why."

Maybe some of that is because we have moved to all digital workflows and things have gotten much faster and metadata has become plentiful. Apple did not invent metadata, or digital capture devices, they just organize it well and know how to design clean interfaces. Sometimes too clean.

You still shoot with a camera and import them into a NLE in a browser in which you organize the clips and then sequence that media on a timeline using appends inserts and overwrites trims transitions and a variation of layers. Its 99% the same basic tool. Did the electric then cordless tools revolutionize wood working?
Construction, yeah. Cabinet making? less yeah. Sculptures? hmmmm. It's both and not either or. Don't throw out the wisdom of the old film makers

The interface and features that FCP X introduced and the need to learn a new program helped create some re-thinking as did the move to all digital tools. However, if Apple EOL FCP X and you needed to use another NLE, I'm sure you would carry with you most of this new work flow. Do other programs work as fluidly in the browser as X? X is most likely the best there is at the moment at clip organization. But editors and tutorials have been recommending this organization as a work flow forever; even as far back as keeping a spreadsheet of all media and sorting it various ways and adding names to clips to match that organization. Screenwriters used index cards to sort an entire movie by shots and scenes. In house they would use large index cards on a wall to discuss the scenes in an episode. FCP 7 editors would use log and capture to have editors learn their footage well as they selected what clips should be imported. Scene and reel and custom names would organize this footage. Even those dreaded meaningless labels camera companies assign to clips in a digital "reel" if we bothered to read and master the manual can be changed to label clips with something meaningful. Apple for the most part does not invent new concepts but rather packages them in a cleaner interface that encourages end users to adopt their benefits. And the browser in FCP X is a good example. But it A: could be better still. B: did not apply to the inspector and effects and audio and color correction interfaces. (all of which are improving)

A: how could it be better still?

Well the browser could toggle to full screen with a simple short cut.

Excel has a cool feature in which you can sort by more than one column. So, for example, sort by date and then by name (which is done by default in most sorts and name is clip/file name). But you could instead sort by date and then by column x then by column y then z in other words any other column of metadata that you create or is already there. Very cool.

And this can be done on the fly with one spreadsheet not multiple folders containing various subsets and not rearranging the columns to display in a certain order. So sort by date then by angle then by character then by mood Oh there's the 3-26-16 CUs of Sue and Joe having an argument. Oh wait, on 3-27-16 there is another CU of Sue - not angry - but breaking into a mock smile and that would be a cool transition before she suddenly gets angry. And it could foreshadow the same look she throws when they make up. All from one full screen sort of all clips not folders which would hide all but the keyworded clips.

Also I am all in with FCP X. I'm not the bad guy, Bill. I'm not putting it down. But I'm not going to assume its the last word or the new word on editing. Some of the greatest movies of all time were shot on film and edited by cutting and taping the film back together. I still like the look of projected film better than digital. But I never could afford it and still can't. It would be really cool if they came up with a way to project an analog image as a wash of light from our digital exports. Fast is not always better.

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

Michael Gissing
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 20, 2016 at 1:01:47 am

[Craig Alan] "Even those dreaded meaningless labels camera companies assign to clips in a digital "reel" if we bothered to read and master the manual can be changed to label clips with something meaningful. "

I shudder when I hear people recommending changing file names. In a collaborative workflow the biggest disaster comes when an editor decides to helpfully rename their proxies and break the link back to the camera originals that were backed up in triplicate on location. Or even if they rename the camera originals on their drive but the drive fails and you have to use a backup with all different file names. Fun.. not!

Please please don't recommend changing file names after location backups are done unless you are going to change every copy identically.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 20, 2016 at 3:06:39 am

your point is well taken. Rules need to be set in a collaborative work flow at all levels of production. otherwise things get messy.

I was talking about being able to change the clip names in camera not after the fact. And if this is being done it should be done consistently for the entire production. And yes not when the clip names are already copied to storage.

I have played with batch renaming in FC. But not editing in a collaborative workflow. I don't remember it breaking the link with the original named clips in the finder.

In Aperture, I always do a batch rename either upon copying to the library or after and that has proven really helpful. I think it could be in FC as well but would need to learn more about how to do this without creating any unexpected results.

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

Michael Gissing
Re: Stirring the pot... Text wall warning!
on Jun 20, 2016 at 4:04:57 am

I wish location crew would learn to set meaningful names in camera. And done there is best.

My other gripe is getting file names repeating. Day 1 > 00000.mts and again Day 2> 00000.mts etc. You end up with a whole job with the same file names for each day just in different folders. In the end having unique file names is all that really matters and meaningful ones are a bonus.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 22, 2016 at 11:07:58 am

[Charlie Austin] "I do like that, but it has the same annoying issue as X in that if you're in a workspace, and resize a window/panel, then that becomes the workspace layout. There's no way to just snap to your original."

Premiere does have an easy way to snap a workspace layout back to its saved state.

Window > Workspaces > Reset to Saved Layout, or Alt+Shift+0 (zero)

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 22, 2016 at 4:34:16 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Premiere does have an easy way to snap a workspace layout back to its saved state.
"


Thanks Walter, that's the first time I've ever been wrong! lol ;-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Stirring the pot...
on Jun 22, 2016 at 5:32:50 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Thanks Walter, that's the first time I've ever been wrong! lol ;-)"

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

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

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