FORUMS: list search recent posts

A FCP-X post... here???

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 12, 2013 at 6:37:53 pm

Since so many, many posts in the "FCP-X or not..." forum have been all about PPro and CC over the past few months, I thought it would make sense to make sure that the folks who hang here get the benefits of the same "it should be an open debate" sensibility.

So just in case you don't also hang out over there, here's the current topic du jour heating up the debate just in advance of IBC in Amsterdam.

Sam Mestman posts about how X is "blowing away" their AVID Unity system for on-set daily's processing on a more than $100 Million dollar feature being shot in Bulgaria. Seems like the whole database thing and the new workflow in X saves a boat load of time and makes things a whole lot easier when you have to manage today's ever increasing flood of on-set multi-format footage.

Enjoy.

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/1225-fcp-x-in-bulgaria-a-new-definitio...

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 12, 2013 at 7:42:35 pm

As I said on the other forum where this was posted...this is 1/3rd of the workflow...only the setup. How will this do with the actual edit? How will it fare with all of that footage...a lot of it native? I hear that FCX bogs down the larger the projects are, the more footage in it's "Event" or "library" or whatever Apple decided to call things.

And what's the final delivery? how many add-on apps did they need? I'd love to see a follow up article.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 12, 2013 at 8:09:58 pm

Q key isn't working :( Shane asked, "How will this do with the actual edit?" Maybe the proper forum for my response is the Indie Film Forum...

Which is the real question -- telling the story. That's hardly the NLE's dilemma. I mean, I've seen lots of bad and/or "artistic" movies edited in Avid and FCP, for example, which is why I'm waiting for a couple of features, check boxes for "happy client" and "compelling story."

With regard to the mechanics of cutting, here's a quote from the article: "From there (first 1/3 of editing), she picked up audio, color correction, and the Magnetic Timeline pretty fast, and is currently working away without issues editing the EPK. She had been editing previously in Premiere and told me without hesitation that there would have been no way for her to do what she was currently doing with that program."

I understand "without issues" to mean editing *for her* doesn't involve any issues.

Now that the story's done (maybe good maybe bad) and now that the client's happy, and bit tongue in cheek, how are they going to print this feature to film?


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 12, 2013 at 8:26:37 pm

Yeah, saw that. It basically just brushes over that part. I'd like to know what she was doing that wouldn't be possible in other NLEs. That's what I like to know. Yeah, the creative parts are fun, but I also like the problem solving things...that's the point of my blog. "I couldn't do this in Avid without lots of expensive software, or taking 3 hours to build it...but in FCP, I was able to accomplish this task in 10 min!" So it would be cool if they said "she had to do TASK X, which is pretty common in EPK editing," or "which was unique to this situation..." "And she said that to attempt this in Premiere would have been impossible, or really difficult, but in FCX, it was a breeze as she did X and Y and was done in no time!"

Rather than 5 paragraphs about setup, scoffing at the poor old saps who "just don't get it," one sentence about the editing...and then going on and on about how some don't think FCX is professional, and we need to grow up and get a life because it IS! "And I'm going to be gearing up a feature to be cut on it, so there! Thphtphtphphpthph!"
Could have had a lot less "It's professional...see? Look it's professional, you all are fuddy-duddies!"

Just show how well it works in the given situation. Stop looking down and laughing to oneself about "the poor old Avid guys...sigh, what losers. They just don't get it." That's a very "hipster" thing to do.

I've admitting that FCX is a pro app, as have a lot of people. It just isn't suited for all situations. Showing how it was perfect for this situation, and how it did things better than Avid could...stating specific examples...great! Shaking ones head at the sticks-in-the-mud and saying over and over "see? It's professional!" That's being defensive....almost like he is trying to prove to himself that it's professional.

I blogged all the time about using FCP for cutting a broadcast show, when FCP was poo-poo'd and scoffed at. Not once did I resort to pointing at the old people and laughing, or calling it professional. I just said "Hey, look it does this and this and this, and with a capture card, this and this! Perfect for the show I am cutting!"

This article did get my attention, and will have me look at FCX because I'm an organization maniac. But his attitude was very off-putting. Plus, I'd like more examples of how the editing was faster and solved things. Like how benifical ROLES are, or how the magnetic timeline really kicks butt when dealing with X.

As I said...1/3 of an article. Waiting on the last 2/3. Really interested in output. But EPKs lately are digitally delivered for the most part, so that's a no brainer for FCX. Be nice to have HIM say that...

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 12, 2013 at 9:14:00 pm

That was funny. And well said. I assume techno-details are not good ratings boosters, doesn't track in Google Ads metric very well. Look at the forums around here that do the best -- they're debates!

For the record, I agree with you. Your AG-HVX200 to FCP workflow was well received by me in 2006 for example. I keep looking for something like that. A little more detail, a lot less gossip.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 12:29:32 am

Look, nobody's saying this one article is the be all and end all of the discussion. Or, for that matter, that X is the replacement for all the workflows that took a decade plus to develop around the Legacy or Avid (or even Premier) ecosystems.

What you ARE seeing, however, is a steady trend that's pretty clear.

Editors about two years back fell into two broad groups.

One group that embraced the software, warts and all, and stuck with learning how it operates because we saw something interesting and potentially valuable in it.

And another larger group of people who looked at it. Got all PO'd at how strange or incapable or just plain different it was, and tossed it aside and then did one of two things. Either they changed course, or they just kept plugging along with Legacy.

Now what you're seeing two years later is that some of the folks who made the switch, are beginning to leverage the new tools in new ways to become MORE EFFICIENT editors. Not "better" editors. Just more efficient ones. That's what the Mestman postings are all about, greatly increased editing efficiency at some common and important tasks. We ALL have to organize and search for and find assets when we sit down to edit. And it's undeniable that the piles of assets we have to do that with are growing fast.

So I just don't get what the problem is here? There's a sub $400 tool being used to process 4k raw thru GoPro footage on a major hollywood movie. The guy involved with that says he's leaving for his NEXT big movie, and they're considering cutting the whole thing on X if I read his comments right.

If that software was from some startup called "EditWizard2013" people here would be going nuts and calling it a major industry breakthrough. But because it's Apple and people are still pissed at them, that's not the popular notion.

Truth is, the software has proved in the trenches to be not just stable and capable, but approachable enough so that a useful chunk of the grunt work of clip processing can be done by bright, local computer literate employees rather than specialists.

This seems to be A) worthy news to report. And B) there are signs of the same thing that happened with Legacy, happening again for X. Which is that nobody thought it was competent to do a big Hollywood Movie until someone did - then suddenly everyone knew it could.

It was a long while before people migrated to thinking Legacy might be one of the BEST tools to use for movie making - but that concept had to start somewhere.

And here we are.

Sorry to intrude on the PPro group debate. I'll slink back to "OrNot" since it's more fun over there. But I just got a tiny bit tired of wading through all the PPro posts to get to the X discussions that I need to follow - I've still got a whole lot to learn after just 2 short years of daily use!

Have fun.

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 3:24:24 am

[Bill Davis] "One group that embraced the software, warts and all, and stuck with learning how it operates because we saw something interesting and potentially valuable in it.

And another larger group of people who looked at it. Got all PO'd at how strange or incapable or just plain different it was, and tossed it aside and then did one of two things. Either they changed course, or they just kept plugging along with Legacy."


Don't forget group #3 that recognized X didn't meet their needs and quietly continued on about their business while keeping an eye on the progress of X (as well as the progress of Avid, Premiere, Smoke, Lightworks, etc.,). ;)




Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 4:00:05 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Don't forget group #3 that recognized X didn't meet their needs and quietly continued on about their business while keeping an eye on the progress of X (as well as the progress of Avid, Premiere, Smoke, Lightworks, etc.,). ;)"

Fair, Andrew. But the problem is right there at the end of your first line. They were QUIETLY continuing on. Leaving the public square to the small but loud contingent who pretty relentlessly told everyone and anyone who would listen that Apple had destroyed the pro editing industry with the horribly flawed, childish and impossible for any sensible editor to take seriously "iMovie Pro" crap.

Remember that?

And sorry, but the "the first release was not up to snuff" argument just won't cut it. The vast majority of what truly makes X what it is, the metadata foundations, magnetism, the database, clip connections, etc. etc - where ALL there on the day it was publically released. Sure multi-cam and roles and other later additions made it even better. But the foundations were all there in V1.

You just had to give it a fair shake and see what it was, rather than remain pissed about what it wasn't - to start to notice that Apple might have been onto something really useful.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 4:38:35 am

[Bill Davis] "Remember that?"

I do. I also remember lots of people screaming about how revolutionary FCPX was (or was destined to be) and if you weren't learning X you were a dinosaur that was destined to become as irrelevant as a buggy whip maker. Yes, it was a wonderful time to be ridiculed for not praising the all mighty Apple and the heir apparent to the NLE throne, FCP X, and to be called a loser if you liked iMovie Pro. There was more than enough bile to go around.


[Bill Davis] "And sorry, but the "the first release was not up to snuff" argument just won't cut it. The vast majority of what truly makes X what it is, the metadata foundations, magnetism, the database, clip connections, etc. etc - where ALL there on the day it was publically released. Sure multi-cam and roles and other later additions made it even better. But the foundations were all there in V1."

If someone needed multicam, baseband video out, the ability to import existing FCP7 projects, tape I/O, EDLs, XMLs, work with R3D footage, etc., then, no, the first release was not up to snuff for those users. Potential was there. Foundation was there. Sweet. Call me when what I need to meet my workflow requirements has been built on top of the foundation. That's what I (and many other people with various needs and workflows) continue to wait for.




Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 4:21:49 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I also remember lots of people screaming about how revolutionary FCPX was (or was destined to be) and if you weren't learning X you were a dinosaur that was destined to become as irrelevant as a buggy whip maker. "

Naw, not a "lot" of people at all. Pretty much just me! (grin)

At least it felt that way in the early days of Or Not. Yeah, I know I wasn't the only guy who liked X, but I'm pretty sure I was the most vocal at pushback against everyone who kept saying that it was the devil's spawn. I even remember getting Craig and Jeremy and other very early supporters mad at me for going too far in my defense of the X paradigm.

It was such fun!


[Andrew Kimery] "If someone needed multicam, baseband video out, the ability to import existing FCP7 projects, tape I/O, EDLs, XMLs, work with R3D footage, etc., then, no, the first release was not up to snuff for those users."

You're saying you couldn't slap six camera tracks as connected clips - shrink them into smaller windows - and do effective multi-cam switching in X V1? Just like we all did back in Legacy? Sorry, but you could. The "official" multi-cam was MUCH slicker, but you're actually re-arguing not capability, but convenience with this.

And beyond that, you're still begging the question. What about the editors who did NOT need all that stuff. They were hearing nothing but X is lame. X is unprofessional, X is flawed.

My experience was that X was fun and exciting. And I don't recall much of anyone else saying that in those early days.

When I started producing work for profit with it in the first 30 days of X's public existence, what I got was a solid editing system the fit my needs and NEVER caused me to miss a deadline. I was cutting work easily and effectively. I was delivering stuff and getting paid for it. The work looked great. It also had amazing new capabilities I'd never experienced in a piece of software before, such as the fact that X would crash, but NEVER lose a single keystroke or mouse click!! (How big a WOW was that, after 20 years of crash groaning and even full-throated crash screaming?)

I say the same thing I always did. X was superb for 80% of all editors outside the top end of the industry. But those editors IN the top 20% were so pissed off at Apple that they all too often got significantly blinded by their largely irrational anger. Mad at having to change. But change is life.

And one final note for discussion. Have you noticed where the majority of the major FCP-X success stories are coming from today? Notice that it's LESS likely to see them coming out of the US than it is to see them from overseas?

I wonder why that is? We know Apple is global, so featuring global success stories makes sense on it's face - but it also causes me to wonder whether the nearly two years of constant anger and general pissed-offedness reflected by a clear sub-set of pro editors shoveled toward X will turn out to have caused them to delay adoption and put them behind competitors around the world should X turn out to be a big long range success.

For every "X capable" editor I read about thats US based, I'm starting to feel that I hear from half a dozen who are based off-shore.

The patriotic (or maybe jingoistic?) part of me is troubled by that. Apple is a massive US success story. And in our industry at least, US editors were among the MOST likely to trash X at the first sign of difficulty. Even if X was nothing more than a superb metadata manager for pre-pro - at it's price, why isn't every shop taking advantage of that?

Premiere Pro (hope I got it right this time Dennis!) is also excellent American-bred software.

And I totally understand Adobe seeing the X intro as a chance to gain market share. That's fair competition.

But the reality is that Apple and the X team took much larger risks in it's re-invention than Adobe did with Premiere a few years back. Premiere took the path of innovating AROUND a traditional workflow. Appealing to those who would not relinquish comfort in the search for new levels of performance and even new capabilities.

One way or another, X is American innovation, writ large. And it pains me to see our home grown editing industry lagging behind the global market when it comes to giving it a fair shake.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 6:58:54 pm

[Bill Davis] "At least it felt that way in the early days of Or Not. Yeah, I know I wasn't the only guy who liked X, but I'm pretty sure I was the most vocal at pushback against everyone who kept saying that it was the devil's spawn. I even remember getting Craig and Jeremy and other very early supporters mad at me for going too far in my defense of the X paradigm. "

I'm referring to my experiences across multiple forums, not just the COW. After launch debates raged about FCPX on every industry forum I frequent (and surprisingly many tech forums too).

[Bill Davis] "You're saying you couldn't slap six camera tracks as connected clips - shrink them into smaller windows - and do effective multi-cam switching in X V1? Just like we all did back in Legacy?
"


Sure you could, but why would you want to take a step back like that? I could also run a marathon in high heels but why would I when I already have a great pair of running shoes with me? There were lots of things that X lacked on launch that made it not up to snuff for a lot of editors. It's a simple fact that I'm surprise is still under such contention.


[Bill Davis] "I wonder why that is? We know Apple is global, so featuring global success stories makes sense on it's face - but it also causes me to wonder whether the nearly two years of constant anger and general pissed-offedness reflected by a clear sub-set of pro editors shoveled toward X will turn out to have caused them to delay adoption and put them behind competitors around the world should X turn out to be a big long range success."

Maybe... or maybe people/businesses will just adopt X as it meets their workflow requirements and let early adaptors hash out what works and what doesn't. As an end user I really don't see the inherent advantage of getting in on the ground floor. Of the dozen or so pieces of software I use/used regularly (Photoshop, AE, Avid MC, FCP Legend, Resolve, Color, Mac & Win OS, DVD SP, etc.,) I wasn't a V1 user of any of them (mainly due to age) yet that hasn't hindered my ability to be successful (and to become more knowledge about the in working of that software than most users).




Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 7:18:24 pm

[Bill Davis] "what I got was a solid editing system the fit my needs and NEVER caused me to miss a deadline. I was cutting work easily and effectively. I was delivering stuff and getting paid for it."

So: it worked for you and that means everyone else's issues weren't valid.

[Bill Davis] "X was superb for 80% of all editors outside the top end of the industry. But those editors IN the top 20% were so pissed off at Apple that they all too often got significantly blinded by their largely irrational anger. Mad at having to change."

You keep trotting this chestnut out, and it's blatantly false. You don't get to be in the top 20% if you're "terrified of change". It's a disingenuous oversimplification, and one that dismisses what were valid criticisms at the time.

Honestly I can't quite decide which was worse - the over the top anti X ranting at launch (which has since stopped) or the goofy cheer-leading that continues unabated.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 9:35:15 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "You don't get to be in the top 20% if you're "terrified of change". It's a disingenuous oversimplification, and one that dismisses what were valid criticisms at the time.
"


So you don't think that there were folks in the "top 20%" of slide rule users when the electronic calculator made it's debut? They got there. And they eventually were likely exactly that. Terrified of the change.

It's EASY to be terrified of change and still be in the top 20% of anything. It's kinda the definition of small c conservatism. Find a popular formula or process that works for a big audience and resist change whenever possible. It's entropy as business philosophy. And companies have done wonderfully with that type of philosophy for eons. They just brand it "adherence to traditional business values" right up until they inevitably crash or their industry changes around them. Grab a paper from 1960 and look at the stock leaders and note which ones are still around and healthy. The percentage is a LOT smaller than the overwhelmingly powerful business advantage of success at any point in a companies history - and therefore access to capital and proven expertise - should allow for.



[Sandeep Sajeev] "Honestly I can't quite decide which was worse - the over the top anti X ranting at launch (which has since stopped) or the goofy cheer-leading that continues unabated.
"


I can.

Ranting is unsustainably tiresome over the long run. Goofy cheerleading is quite fun for everyone except those too stiff and full of themselves to be comfortable carrying pom poms.

Personally, at heart, I'm a producer/director. Which means at one point, somebody handed ME the megaphone on a set and said "make it happen." So cheerleading is actually one of my core values.

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

Chris Conlee
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 15, 2013 at 3:14:34 pm

Bill, Bill, Bill...

Avid is also an American innovator (25 years ago and still cooking). It does what I need in a bulletproof fashion. It trades well with my vendors, and no matter how many thousands of hours of footage I throw at it, the projects remain sprightly, organized, and stable.

I'm very happy that others have tools that meet their needs. I'm also VERY happy that Avid has met mine in the broadcast episodic and feature worlds. As you say, that's competition, and it's good for all of us content creators and shapers.

Chris Conlee


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 16, 2013 at 12:42:42 am

[Bill Davis] "And sorry, but the "the first release was not up to snuff" argument just won't cut it."

OMG. You couldn't even use an external monitor for what--six months?! Talk about selective memory.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 17, 2013 at 5:24:34 pm

[Chris Harlan] "OMG. You couldn't even use an external monitor for what--six months?! Talk about selective memory.
"


Then it was lucky for me that for the first six months I didn't NEED an external monitor, wasn't it.

I was learning the software, establishing my knowledge of the Event Browser and Share concepts, and oddly, every single program I produced during those months ended up looking just GREAT when they were shown to the audiences involved. Maybe that's because over the 20 years I've been creating video - I've actually learned how to generate field footage in which I have confidence, so that while I might have at some points along the way "suspected" that an attached broadcast monitor would have been a useful tool, I always had alternate tools (like effective scopes!) that I could use to assure myself that my signals were clean.

The fact that YOU can't be comfortable without the convenience achieved by tossing money at Ikigami, Flanders or Sony for reliable monitoring doesn't mean that everyone is stuck on that the same way you are.

I own about 5 true broadcast monitors for my studio and field work, mostly Sony's with Q phosphorus. And I use NONE of them regularly anymore. Today I use my laptop - along with the judicious use of X's built in scopes - which I've always felt more comfortable with for judging signals than monitors anyway.

Horses for courses, and 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

Chris Harlan
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 17, 2013 at 6:57:12 pm

Is it lonely up there on Mount Bill?

[Bill Davis] "Then it was lucky for me that for the first six months I didn't NEED an external monitor, wasn't it.
"


Ain't you BAD! Well, unfortunately for others (those are those people who aren't Bill) who wanted or NEEDED one, they weren't there, so while that argument may not hold water for you, it certainly held water for them (again, those people who are not Bill.)


[Bill Davis] "I was learning the software, establishing my knowledge of the Event Browser and Share concepts, and oddly, every single program I produced during those months ended up looking just GREAT when they were shown to the audiences involved. Maybe that's because over the 20 years I've been creating video - I've actually learned how to generate field footage in which I have confidence, so that while I might have at some points along the way "suspected" that an attached broadcast monitor would have been a useful tool, I always had alternate tools (like effective scopes!) that I could use to assure myself that my signals were clean.
"


I was humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic while reading the above, and it works. I'm not even sure what you are arguing here anymore. This sounds like "I had to walk five miles to school through snow when I was a kid." I'm pretty certain my technical skills are up to yours, Bill. Maybe I have a little more, or a little less. Yes, I could have made do. I didn't want to. I often work off a laptop. I am happy, though, that I can throw my work to a monitor, even if it is just and only to experience my cuts at an appropriate size and from an appropriate distance.

[Bill Davis] "The fact that YOU can't be comfortable without the convenience achieved by tossing money at Ikigami, Flanders or Sony for reliable monitoring doesn't mean that everyone is stuck on that the same way you are.
"


Oh dear! Did you just kick sand in my face? I think you did. I don't have any of those monitors, Bill. Though I would like one of those Flanders. Walter makes them sound good. Again, need and want are different things. A great colorist can, no doubt, take a Macbook Pro into a properly lit room and get their work in the ballpark, but that doesn't mean that they want to. You can cut with a block and razor blade, but thank God you don't have to. Yes, X at its release was hands-down better than cutting with a CMX 340, but so what? It dropped a bunch of tools that its predecessor had, as well as other existing NLEs.

[Bill Davis] "I own about 5 true broadcast monitors for my studio and field work, mostly Sony's with Q phosphorus. And I use NONE of them regularly anymore. "

Oh no! You're not using analog SD CRTs anymore! Its a crime, I tell you. You mean, phosphors, btw. A CRT packed with phosphorous would be pretty dangerous. Phosphor decay being what it is, I'm guessing all of them are a little less than stellar at this point. Also, who is working in 525 anymore?

Bill, even if I loved X in the cradle, I could not have used it in my work for six months. There was no way to separate audio stems. That is a delivery requirement that I could not meet until Roles came out. Why you feel this need to reinvent the past is beyond me. X is making marvelous strides; why isn't that enough for you?


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 17, 2013 at 6:51:48 pm

Chris it's not the software, it's us. We suck at our jobs.

We haven't figured out how to generate good footage in the field. Neither have the Networks, if they had, they'd just eyeball our masters, and we'd be good to go. No need for expensive QC infrastructure. There is no earthly need for any of us to use external monitoring, Apple was probably just messing with us when they added that functionality in the .3 release.

We're also not intelligent enough to grasp any of the thinking behind X's way of handling metadata. After all it didn't take us 6 months to get up to speed with it, so there's no telling what we missed.

We should also buckle down and spend some quality time exploring the Share Menu. Let's check back in 6 months and see where we're at.

Best,
Sandeep.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 17, 2013 at 7:03:49 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "Chris it's not the software, it's us. We suck at our jobs.
"


It's kind of a trip, huh?


Return to posts index

Dustin Lawhorn
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 4:06:36 am

[Bill Davis] "Sorry to intrude on the PPro group debate. I'll slink back to "OrNot" since it's more fun over there. But I just got a tiny bit tired of wading through all the PPro posts to get to the X discussions that I need to follow - I've still got a whole lot to learn after just 2 short years of daily use!"

Whoa, slow down there! No need to take your ball and go home. The truth is every good editor should be “software agnostic”--software should not drive the edit. So, I’m loving that you are willing to look at more than one set of software options. I appreciate the discussion.

I think most of us just get grumpy when we have to move on to some other solution. I know that I’ve expressed my frustrations around here with the hopes that some how, some way, somebody at the ______ CORPORATION would realistically consider the feedback of the people who make up their client base. Perhaps those posts read a bit too much like a gripe-fest. Perhaps not.

Either way, my resolve as an editor remains the same: “to convey the message, tell the story, and to entertain.”

The basic truth is that the story comes first. Hang the software. Software that gets in the way is slowing the creative process down. Like most people around here, I’ve edited on A/B rollers, Video Toasters, Premiere systems, FCP systems, Avids, Pinnacle systems and blah, blah, blah. They are all the same. They get in the way of my creative process (because I have to learn them). I don’t care who makes the best software for editing. But, I do WANT the best editing software I can find. I want a system that works for me, is an extension of me, and that disappears into the background as I am in the editing process. If it’s intuitive and its interface “fades out of my mind” as I’m putting things together, that’s the best software solution at the time.

As for the other issues often brought up around here, I’m on the perpetual licensing side of things because I believe that I must maintain access to all of my work. But that’s not the topic of this thread.

Back on the topic of this thread, I’m excited to see how others are thinking of ways to get the FCPX working right for their workflows. I have a copy of it; I like it. To its credit, the interface is not as cumbersome to me as it was when I started using it. But, I don’t find it meeting all of my needs at the moment. I actually use FCP more than X. (The interface hasn't melted away for me!)

I think a very valuable discussion to have here is about where our workflows are breaking down:
I’m still ‘stuck’ when it comes to motion graphics--that’s where my workflow is breaking down. ‘Motion’ just does not meet my needs--AE6 is much more satisfactory. Only problem there is that AE really goes hand in hand with Illustrator, Photoshop and AME when I use it.

This introduces the next problem: the current pricing for the Cash Cow is “all” or “one-at-a-time.” If the subscription plan is permanent, I’m going to go to “any other” editing suite, the GIMP and possibly Nuke or Blender. Then I’ll hang all of those programs out to dry as soon as something better comes along.

I’m interested to know where others’ workflows are breaking down right now.

-dl


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 10:19:34 am

[Dustin Lawhorn] "The truth is every good editor should be “software agnostic”--software should not drive the edit"

Not in Bill's world. You're either a True Believer(tm) or a heretic.


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 7:53:16 pm

[Dustin Lawhorn] "The basic truth is that the story comes first. Hang the software."

While I agree that story should come first - the truth is the stories that are being told now (in commercials, features, basically anything narrative) require both skilled personnel and highly capable software.

You couldn't make most commercials that are being made today for example, without the tools that currently exist. So i find it a bit strange that they're dismissed so casually. I know for a fact that without NLE's I wouldn't be editing today as I spent a semester cutting film the manual way in college and I just didn't have the hands for it.


[Dustin Lawhorn] "Video Toasters, Premiere systems, FCP systems, Avids, Pinnacle systems and blah, blah, blah. They are all the same."

No not really. Of all the ones you mention Avid if I remember right is the only one with a built in Motion Tracker. I have to track something on every job and the lack of one in FCP was/is a real drag.

Etc. So there are often cases where the differences between the tool-set can be crucial.


Return to posts index

Dustin Lawhorn
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 15, 2013 at 3:46:14 am

[Sandeep Sajeev] "While I agree that story should come first - the truth is the stories that are being told now (in commercials, features, basically anything narrative) require both skilled personnel and highly capable software.
"

Speaking to point 1. Yes. I agree, story SHOULD come first. Granted, some commercials are all about the sight gag but aren't those really just visual stories taking the front row?

As for your other point, motion tracking in Avid was awfully handy! I have to admit, though, that I've come to really prefer doing tracking in Mocha Pro or AE. I guess it's a "whatever floats yer boat" argument. There really is no clear answer to those kinds of arguments. Some people want to do everything in one timeline/one program; others prefer to bounce into other programs to do certain things. Actually, come to think of it...

That was one of the big selling points of CS when it all was getting started. "Roundtripping" / "Dynamic Linking" That was one of the things that got me more interested in CS as a whole. I loved that feature! But it seems to not really be a selling point for the CC. I would think with what we're being told by Todd and a few others, that the individual software development teams can push the changes through as quickly as they want. I wonder how they would find time to cross-check all of the Dynamic Linking implications of their updates... Also, with the death of Encore (okay, the freezing of it to CS6 version) there's a segment of that Dynamic Linking that is gonna be dead-delivery to disc media. I'm not really losing sleep over that though.

-dl


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 15, 2013 at 11:48:22 am

[Dustin Lawhorn] " I would think with what we're being told by Todd and a few others, that the individual software development teams can push the changes through as quickly as they want. I wonder how they would find time to cross-check all of the Dynamic Linking implications of their updates..."

Todd says [link]:

[Todd Kopriva] "Just a clarification: Dynamic Link functionality works between any applications that use the same version of the Dynamic Link protocol. In previous versions, it has been easy to know whether two applications shared the same version of the Dynamic Link protocol, because it got incremented along with the version number of the applications---so the fact that AFter Effects CS6 and Premiere Pro CS6 were both "CS6" applications was the indication that they could communicate over Dynamic Link.

With releases coming more frequently in the future, we'll need to communicate which versions of the applications can communicate using Dynamic Link.

For now, it's simple enough to say that applications with the 'CC' version designation can communicate with each other using Dynamic Link."


Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Dustin Lawhorn
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 15, 2013 at 12:42:02 pm

Thanks, Walter! I appreciate it.

-dl


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 12:51:32 pm

[Bill Davis] "Sorry to intrude on the PPro group debate. I'll slink back to "OrNot" since it's more fun over there. "

In a way, it is actually on topic. Even though FCP X requires a Mac to run, you could buy an iMac for the cost of three years CC subscription. X is perpetually licensed at $300, and can run on up to 10 machines that you "own or control".

With CC, any substantial discount for non-profit organizations has been eliminated. This creates the oddball situation where it's cheaper in the long run to actually buy a Mac and run FCP X. We have used Premiere Pro since CS3, but our non-profit may conceivably be forced to Apple by the high cost of CC and the elimination of the previous discount.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 1:23:43 pm

Always appreciate your take and input on any forum Bill so have at it. Why not after all?

There are a few comments I would make but excuse my brevity and terseness as I just came back from a late night flight. I am guzzling coffee at an alarming rate this AM...

[Bill Davis] "(or even Premier)"
I know this is my pet peeve, but it's Premiere Pro or Premiere if you prefer. See, I need a nap!

[Bill Davis] "There's a sub $400 tool being used to process 4k raw thru GoPro footage on a major hollywood movie."
Democratization of technology (lowering of cost and increasing the user base) is an ongoing trend. one has only to look at how cheap color grading applications have gotten in the last 5 years to see this played out again. NLE's really did it 5 years before that.

FCP Legacy took a big step to make craft editing affordable but others have as well. Premiere, Avid and many other NLEs have innovation that the competition doesn't have. my motto is that "every NLE has at least one cool feature." BTW - it took Apple years and years to get to native RED support - they're late to the game, so this is a 'me too' feature.

[Bill Davis] "Truth is, the software has proved in the trenches to be not just stable and capable, but approachable enough so that a useful chunk of the grunt work of clip processing can be done by bright, local computer literate employees rather than specialists."

Sure, I can agree with that. I think you're partially putting a veil of secrecy over NLE's in general and discounting creative people's desire to learn and improve... However, if you want someone doing grunt work (ala intern, PA, rookie, etc.) then other companies offer solutions as well. For Adobe, we would point you to Prelude which is great for ingest, logging (metadata) and roughcut work. Again, we're not the only ones. I think you and I would agree that it is a matter of choice.

Let me quickly(!) run through the points he makes in his article:

1 No Transcoding: Really, do I even need to say anything here? Premiere Pro really invested in this long before Apple and Adobe continues to lead the pack in this regard. We supported native when we did Premiere Pro - long before CS5. Here's an ancient old video I did with CS4 (pre-64bit) to emphasize it; Really old video
2 ExaSAN and FCPX: Any NLE attached to a properly set up SAN with sufficient throughput is not a big deal. He could have said ExaSAN and Premiere or ExaSAN and FCP7 or...
3 Sync 'n Link: Maybe I'm missing this or don't understand this particular bullet point, but isn't this the same as Pluralize?
4 Metadata: I like the way FCPX allows keyword organization but I also like the way you can search in the project panel and media browser inside of Premiere Pro. Both approaches are powerful.
5 Training: At Adobe, I've done a ton of informal trainings and continue to be at large media companies doing them or supervising them. What the author said is verbatim what i have experienced when teaching people Premiere Pro, only the time it took is less than 3 days generally. At this point, any product can be learned online just by doing a google search or if you want to pay by signing up for a Lynda.com account or similar. Training resources for any product these days are a non-issue.

Ultimately, you FCP X currently faces a perception problem. Take from the Adobe guy who has worked for years to get Premiere Pro the recognition it deserves.

Okay, gotta make some more coffee.. ;-)
Dennis


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 4:04:21 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "Take from the Adobe guy who has worked for years to get Premiere Pro the recognition it deserves."

And right as you're about to succeed, management swoops in and cuts your legs out from under you.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 4:20:16 pm

[Gary Huff] "And right as you're about to succeed, management swoops in and cuts your legs out from under you."

I know that's the motto of this forum, but I don't think so.


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 5:29:34 pm

There are a lot of us who appreciate the power and elegance of your new video offerings. Personally I think the cloud is great value, if it was an option when I started my company 3 years ago, I'd have been all over it.

Having said that, I find it hard to believe that some of negative noise kicked up by the Cloud only model is not pissing off your various product teams.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 5:59:24 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "I find it hard to believe that some of negative noise kicked up by the Cloud only model is not pissing off your various product teams."

Not the case. Actually, all of the teams I work with are excited because they can now deliver features that customers and/or they have wanted to bring to market faster than ever before. product management and engineering are both excited about it. I haven't heard one negative response in that regard.


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 7:03:57 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "all of the teams I work with are excited because they can now deliver features that customers and/or they have wanted to bring to market faster than ever before."

I don't doubt this, but that wasn't my point :) Your teams must be populated by cyborgs if they aren't even a little bummed that so much criticism is focused on the distribution model to the point where some of the really cool things about these updates are dismissed with a 'yeah that's great but as long as I can't own my hammer, I'm not interested' response.

I think it's a shame that's all. There's some really good stuff in this latest feature roll out. And the price keeps dropping by the day ;)

Now if you guys could just combine Premiere Pro, AE and SpeedGrade into one super App and get rid of the Dynamic Link merry go round... :)

For anyone that's interested SGO's Mamba is available for pre-order at 240 Euro's. Final Pricing TBA. If it's in the 3K range, then watch out.

https://www.sgo.es/shop/index.php?route=product%2Fproduct&path=59_17&produc...

Great to have so many options now.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 7:53:49 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "For anyone that's interested SGO's Mamba is available for pre-order at 240 Euro's."

Ooh, that sounds cool. Mistika is really bad-ass, but just a little bit outside my price range...

Not much on SGO's site, though. Is there a demo video available that you've seen?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 8:24:43 pm

No demo out unless you're in Amsterdam I believe.

There's some copy here:

https://www.sgo.es/2013/09/sgo-unleashes-mamba-fx-accelerating-compositing-...

At the price they're offering it at (300 USD) it's probably worth taking a leap of faith if you have a windows machine in the shop. Unfortunately I don't, so I have to give it some thought :)

As they're promising integration with Mistika, I'd guess the interface etc will be pretty similar if not exactly the same, with some of the sexy stuff missing - either like Smoke vs Flame or Flare vs Flame. At this price point, I'd guess it'd be more like Smoke vs Flame.

Mistika is a beast. I'm surprised this announcement hasn't gotten more play.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 8:03:15 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "For anyone that's interested SGO's Mamba is available for pre-order at 240 Euro's. Final Pricing TBA. If it's in the 3K range, then watch out.

https://www.sgo.es/shop/index.php?route=product%2Fproduct&path=59_17&produc....."


Wow, that does look interesting. Thanks for sharing!

Shawn



Return to posts index

David Cox
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Oct 7, 2013 at 1:47:53 pm

There's some more info and stuff to see now about SGO's Mamba FX compositor. Have a look at MambaTutorials.com as it has a couple of tutorial style videos. There is also a link on that site to get a free eval copy.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Oct 7, 2013 at 7:49:05 pm

[David Cox] "

There's some more info and stuff to see now about SGO's Mamba FX compositor. Have a look at MambaTutorials.com as it has a couple of tutorial style videos. There is also a link on that site to get a free eval copy."


Very impressive!

Shawn



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 7:19:08 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "I know that's the motto of this forum, but I don't think so.
"


Yes but a lot your USERS do and that's the most important thing isn't it?

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 7:51:22 pm

Indeed Steve and as mentioned by Kevin and others, we're looking at ways to satisfy all of our existing and potential customers.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 8:00:16 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "Indeed Steve and as mentioned by Kevin and others, we're looking at ways to satisfy all of our existing and potential customers."

I'm sure you are, it does seem a shame that the controversy has slightly overshadowed the work that your teams have been putting in to greatly improve the software.

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 7:06:56 pm

[Gary Huff] "And right as you're about to succeed, management swoops in and cuts your legs out from under you."

^ This.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 4:29:58 pm

[Bill Davis] "So I just don't get what the problem is here? "

The "problem" is ancient: techne v telos.

Another problem was the guy's tone. The FCPX users' (of which I am one) Napoleonic syndrome is now a silly meme.

I vigorously agree with Shane (that) give us some actual techne instead of the spitting hipster because as editors we a priori agree with his telos.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 6:18:42 pm

[Shane Ross] "But his attitude was very off-putting. Plus, I'd like more examples of how the editing was faster and solved things. Like how benifical ROLES are, or how the magnetic timeline really kicks butt when dealing with X. "

as an Avid X user ;-)… I agree with ya about the tone of the article. Calling someone who likes a certain workflow/UI a dinosaur is just as stupid as all the crap that was/is said about X. Big productions require close collaboration, and X still does this in a popsicle sticks and glue kinda way. It's do-able. It works well. But it needs beefing up and Avid is still the king here.

I also agree with you about the lack of editorial specifics because that, for me anyway, is what really sets X apart from everything else. Despite it's shortcomings - and sometimes odd behavior - the combination of the trackless, magnetic timeline, Roles, audio component editing, skimming, unified inspector panel etc., are really hard to do without once they become ingrained.

Which gets me back to your comment above… What I like about X, is cutting in it. Because all i gotta do is cut. No patching. No tabbing through a zillion panes to get to a setting. No jumping through hoops to change an audio configuration. Realtime video and audio effects previews… that one is huge. Skimming a clip beyond its duration in the sequence.

A little example that I just discovered… Dragging a transition to a cut is like nothing else. Because of how everything else works, I always tried to drag the effect directly on to the transition. And X would annoyingly show it appearing on all the surround transitions 'til I placed it on the cut. But... I just realized what it's doing, and it's not annoying at all now. Because all you gotta do is get it close and just let it go and it drops to the right place… So essentially you're just grabbing an effect and tossing it onto the cut. :-)

There are a ton of little things (and big things) like that which, once you integrate them into your editorial workflow, are really hard to live without. Metadata is cool and all, but IMHO the magnetic timeline is what crushes everything else. I like Pr. MC makes my head explode now despite the fact that I cut in it for years, but it's a powerful NLE. FCP Old is OK too. But they all have 70 different places to adjust settings and parameters. That takes me out of the flow these days now that I'm used to not needing to tab around much to get to settings. Also... they all have fixed tracks. And tracks suck. ;-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 12:55:24 pm

Hi Bill -- welcome to the jungle!

Without taking anything away from FCPX, I think you'd be surprised at what Premiere Pro can do. Here are the main points Mr. Mestman raises in favor of FCPX from the article:

1. No Transcoding -- Adobe kind of invented this.

2. ExaSAN and FCP X -- Premiere is storage-agnostic.

3. Sync N Link -- People really manually sync dual-system sound in 2013? Sync N Link looks very cool for FCPX workflows, but how would this be different than PluralEyes for a Pr workflow?

4. Metadata -- Adobe's XMP metadata system is much richer than people give it credit for. Yes, I'd love to see some kind of smart bin system like FCPX has, but Prelude/Premiere does offer a very reasonable metadata workflow.

XMP is an open standard, so any MAM system can work with it, and apps like Adobe's own Prelude or Red Giant's new BulletProof (for ingesting, organizing, first-pass color, metadata and backup) can use it for prepping assets for post.

With the upcoming Prelude Live Logger app, you can "begin recording notes on your iPad while your crew shoots. After ingesting your footage, combine your Live Logger comments and tags with the rest of your metadata in Prelude CC so that all your information is available for editing and postproduction." It's been one of my contentions for a long time that actually creating the metadata to drive the edit is a very time-consuming part, and I think that moving that metadata creation into acquisition like Adobe is doing here a really big deal.

5. Training -- I hear constant comparisons of Premiere Pro to the erstwhile FCP8. Any experienced editor can get comfortable with Pr in short order.

A couple other points:

This article takes pains to mention Unity over and over, but doesn't actually describe what they needed the Unity (EOLed two years ago) and team of Avid editors for in the first place, or how they are working together. Adobe has Anywhere for true multi-user collaboration. Beyond the acquisition and organization, there's After Effects, Audition and SpeedGrade with the CC bundle, too.

My point is not to try to minimize FCPX here, but rather to point out that Premiere shares some of the benefits that FCPX has, and has a few unique advantages as well.

Though they have different design philosophies, FCPX and Premiere Pro are both modern NLEs, are both quite capable today, and both have room to grow. They are also both trying to prove themselves against Avid and FCP7 in production.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Leo Hans
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 2:54:41 pm

I don't think Adobe's approach to metadata is even comparable with Apple's.
FCPX is metadata driven while PPro has metadata views. That's why you have smart collections in FCPX and not in PPro.

Leo Hans
Editor AVID - Final Cut Pro (7+X)
http://www.leohans.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 3:48:19 pm

[Leo Hans] "I don't think Adobe's approach to metadata is even comparable with Apple's.
FCPX is metadata driven while PPro has metadata views. That's why you have smart collections in FCPX and not in PPro."


I'm not saying that FCPX and Pr work with metadata the same way. You're right that they don't.

I really, really like what FCPX has done with metadata -- I have said before that as Apple helped bring awareness of grading to the masses with Color, they are bringing awareness of asset management to the masses with metadata -- but there's this view among some FCPX proponents that FCPX is the only application that is metadata-aware. This is untrue and comes in part from ignorance of Avid's and Adobe's implementations.

I'm not making a value judgment here on whose implementation is better. They are different, and one might be stronger or weaker in specific situations than another. Each implementation has advantages and disadvantages.

I do think that FCPX's smart collections (basically saved searches) are nicely done, and Apple has really pushed the idea of metadata to the fore by making explicit metadata the only way to organize your footage. You can search or sort against your metadata in Premiere today as well as using traditional organizational tools, but I think Adobe would do well to add more dynamic options like smart bins to work with the metadata they can already track.

Likewise, I like the way Adobe offers true metadata portability via XMP. It's an open and extensible standard, other applications can interchange with it, and the metadata can live not just inside a project, but actually inside (or alongside) the media. Apple could benefit from a more open and accessible system like XMP.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Tim Kolb
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 9:52:40 pm

[Leo Hans] "I don't think Adobe's approach to metadata is even comparable with Apple's.
FCPX is metadata driven while PPro has metadata views. That's why you have smart collections in FCPX and not in PPro."


The approaches are different, but without tracks, FCPXs ability to deliver things like multiple audio stems of various types of sound (natural snd, music bed, narrator 1, narrator language 2, etc) is completely dependent on the proper metadata tagging in order to work properly. Premiere Pro may not have the mechanism of editing built around metadata, but FCPX is utterly dependent on it...a bit like editing via database.

Neither way is right or wrong, but an application that ONLY sorts or categorizes assets based on metadata, even after it's placed on a timeline has its own set of limitations.

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

Adobe Certified Instructor


Return to posts index

Leo Hans
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 10:04:14 pm

Tim, Without properly assigning the roles that's true. But with tracks you have to keep every thing in the right track, so it ends up the being the same in that regard.

Leo Hans
Editor AVID - Final Cut Pro (7+X)
http://www.leohans.com


Return to posts index

Tim Kolb
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 14, 2013 at 12:20:04 am

[Leo Hans] "Tim, Without properly assigning the roles that's true. But with tracks you have to keep every thing in the right track, so it ends up the being the same in that regard."

I agree, but my point is that one is based on visual placement (timeline track) and organization and the other is dependent on data-entry...

Which method is a creative person more likely to find more tedious and unintuitive...and therefore more inconsistently maintained over time?

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

Adobe Certified Instructor


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 4:15:47 pm

It's like you read my mind Walter. How dare you steal my reply from me before i was finished typing it! ;-)

I agree on all of your points and agree that the saved keyword search is very nifty.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 5:00:42 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "It's like you read my mind Walter. How dare you steal my reply from me before i was finished typing it! ;-)"

Great minds, and all.

But seriously, I think anyone with a bit of time on Premiere would have more or less this same response to these points.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Sam Mestman
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 13, 2013 at 11:41:58 pm

Hey guys,

I'm that Napoleonic douche who wrote that article. Hello! Nice to meet all of you. Anyway, a couple of quick things...

Shane, I've written (and had video done) extensively on the type of thing you're asking for... a few months old, but most of it still applies:

http://www.moviemaker.com/diy/movies-better-fcp-x-red-feature-film-workflow...







Also, I've got no problem with Premier or Avid. I'm indifferent. If you want to know why I write with this tone, it is in response to the tone I've received from so many in the post industry when i talk about what I'm doing. Turns out people can dish it out but they can't take it.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 14, 2013 at 1:18:17 am

[Sam Mestman] "I'm that Napoleonic douche who wrote that article."

I can't help but think how awesome this would look on your business card. I might put it on mine...


[Sam Mestman] "Hello! Nice to meet all of you."

Thanks for the article. I do hope to read more about your experiences.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 14, 2013 at 1:53:48 am

[Sam Mestman] "I'm that Napoleonic douche who wrote that article. Hello! Nice to meet all of you."

Best. Introduction. Ever.




Return to posts index

Tim Kolb
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 14, 2013 at 2:32:02 am

[Sam Mestman] "If you want to know why I write with this tone, it is in response to the tone I've received from so many in the post industry when i talk about what I'm doing."

Oh...so it's like talking about Premiere Pro editing 5 years ago then...

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

Adobe Certified Instructor


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 14, 2013 at 9:19:17 am

Might it have the same outcome? If it does you will have the rental model to thank, much more than the quality of the software.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Sam Mestman
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 14, 2013 at 2:36:25 pm

[Tim Kolb] "Oh...so it's like talking about Premiere Pro editing 5 years ago then..."

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much exactly right. For the record, I come from a FCP7 background, but I started on Avid (well, technically, I started with a linear tape based system as well as on a flatbed for film). Had the opportunity to use Premiere recently, and I think it's actually a great piece of software. Even though it's not my NLE of choice, that doesn't mean that I don't think you can work effectively with it. In fact, for after effects heavy workflows, or people who want to live in a 4k RED FCP7 world or edit in a PC environment, it doesn't make much sense to use anything else. And if there comes a time where I think I can work more effectively with Premiere than I can with FCPX, I'll use Premiere. Also, just an FYI, if you want to set up a 4k capable SAN environment with Premiere, the ExaSAN setup I mention in the article will work great.

While it may seem like we're Apple fanboys at Lumaforge, we're not. We're interested in the most efficient 4k workflows on the market. Currently, we feel like FCPX offers the best bang for the buck, the smallest learning curve, and the most ease of use. For me, at least, my issues with Premiere are currently with project prep, metadata ease of use, multicam, XML integration (when I used it, I never knew what was going to work and what was going to come into Resolve/FCP7... although maybe this was user error or has changed in the last few months), and I just feel like there are too many windows, preferences and menus for my taste. But I thought it was a perfectly fine piece of software.

In terms of Avid... I just wish it played better with others. AAF sucks. AMA sucks. I can get from FCPX to Resolve, FCP7, Premiere, Smoke, Pro Tools, etc. with ease. Not so much with Avid. Also, all of these programs will work just fine with my SAN setup... they're non exclusive. AAF doesn't play well with anything. With Avid, you're stuck with the damn unity... and the price/performance return with that is not very good. Not only that, but for those thinking about higher res workflows, the Avid just is not very efficient.

Anyway, that's just my .02. If there was any single goal I had with that article, it was to just get people to open FCPX back up again, take a look for themselves about what it can do, and then decide for themselves whether or not it was a usable tool for the work they do. So far, seems like it at least has people talking. That's all I wanted.

Sam Mestman
Chief Workflow Architect - Lumaforge
http://www.lumaforge.com
http://www.wemakemovies.org


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 14, 2013 at 11:41:19 am

[Sam Mestman] "If you want to know why I write with this tone, it is in response to the tone I've received from so many in the post industry when i talk about what I'm doing."

There are many on the COW forums that have the same passion for FCPX and share your enthusiasm. You're among friends here.

[Sam Mestman] "Turns out people can dish it out but they can't take it."

Well, as an Adobe employee who watches this forum almost daily, I'd say I take my fair share. ;-) Fundamentally, any creative's investment in his/her tools (the NLE in this case) are emotionally attached to it. You invested in this software/hardware/doo-hickey after all! When someone trashes your NLE, they trash your intellectual decision and trample your psyche. It's completely natural to want to defend your decision. So, I completely understand your tone, though I didn't interpret the article as argumentative or brash.

Good luck to you on your continued success!


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
And on that topic...
on Sep 14, 2013 at 11:21:12 pm

What bothers me most about the constant trashing of other people's reasoned choices on the "Debates" forums, is the fanboy accusations which fly back and forth. That said, I had no idea that there was a science behind being a "fanboy" (or "fangirl" - "fanperson?"):

http://www.lifehacker.co.in/life/why-we-buy-the-same-stuff-all-the-time-top...

No hard answers, but it's a good read, and food for thought...

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Dustin Lawhorn
Re: And on that topic...
on Sep 16, 2013 at 8:24:18 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "What bothers me most about the constant trashing of other people's reasoned choices on the "Debates" forums, is the fanboy accusations which fly back and forth. That said, I had no idea that there was a science behind being a "fanboy" (or "fangirl" - "fanperson?"):

http://www.lifehacker.co.in/life/why-we-buy-the-same-stuff-all-the-time-top.....
"


Nice read. Thanks for posting!

-dl


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: A FCP-X post... here???
on Sep 17, 2013 at 7:16:38 pm

[Sam Mestman] "Hey guys,

I'm that Napoleonic douche who wrote that article. Hello! Nice to meet all of you. "


Oh, yeah! Kudos on the calling card!


Return to posts index

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