APPLE FINAL CUT PRO: Apple Final Cut Pro X FCPX Debates FCP Legacy FCP Tutorials

BrickSculpting and Classical Conditioning.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
BrickSculpting and Classical Conditioning.
on Jun 17, 2017 at 5:40:43 pm

Catching up on the threads today I found myself thinking about how I learned to swim decades ago.

The pool our family frequented as respite from the summer heat, had a swimming instructor named Joe, who would take us tadpoles, and drill us with a particular stroke cadence - bellowed loudly enough for us to hear underwater:

"One, Two, Blow it out, Take a breath."
Over and over and over.

I'm swimming a good bit this summer for exercise and when I hit the pool and start my strokes, i find it functionally IMPOSSIBLE to swim without that cadence running through my head.

Looking back, it's among the most successful classical conditioning I've ever had.
A regular behavior - ideally linked with a conditioned mental response.

I'm wondering what part of this debate about how editing should be best approached - doesn't have a large measure of the same type of classical conditioning at it's heart.

For any editor who's spent decades constantly, daily, conditioned to equate "build your timeline" as where successful editing happens - I wonder if it's every bit as difficult to conceive editing without calling up and addressing some type of timeline thing - as it is for me to do laps without Joe's voice being summoned?

Just a Saturday morning musing.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: BrickSculpting and Classical Conditioning.
on Jun 17, 2017 at 7:11:28 pm

[Bill Davis] "For any editor who's spent decades constantly, daily, conditioned to equate "build your timeline" as where successful editing happens - I wonder if it's every bit as difficult to conceive editing without calling up and addressing some type of timeline thing - as it is for me to do laps without Joe's voice being summoned?"

So we're back to Luddites and dinosaurs?

What a shame.

Can we not agree to disagree on this? It's all just personal preference at the end of the day. It's fun to argue, but none of us is "right" and none of us is "wrong".

Surely?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: BrickSculpting and Classical Conditioning.
on Jun 17, 2017 at 7:21:24 pm

What?

What part of this implies ANY luddite or dinosaur thinking whatsoever?

Addressing prior conditioning is a long standing part of understanding human behavior.

It's IN NO WAY good or bad. It just IS. It's how we learn to hit a baseball - OR type, for heaven's sake.

Without conditioning - we have to re-learn EVERYTHING anew each time we face it.

The question isn't ARE we conditioned. It's stepping back occasionally and asking a very simple, and very reasonable question. Does the conditioning we've accepted still serve us optimally.

The answer can VERY much be YES IT DOES. The conditioning Michael Phelps went through in swimming propelled him to amazing achievements.

So the conditioning is neutral. The only thing dangerous might be if we NEVER question our conditioning and merely keep assuming that our prior methods are always inviolate.

Which is distinctly NOT saying anything IS bad. It's just asking for occasional "re-examinations" in order to make sure the original criteria for advancement are still being met.

Seems simple enough.

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


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: BrickSculpting and Classical Conditioning.
on Jun 17, 2017 at 7:38:17 pm

[Bill Davis] "What part of this implies ANY luddite or dinosaur thinking whatsoever? "

Sometimes, although you write brilliantly (and I really admire you for that), it's very hard indeed to understand what point you are trying to make.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: BrickSculpting and Classical Conditioning.
on Jun 18, 2017 at 5:23:16 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jun 18, 2017 at 5:35:25 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "Sometimes, although you write brilliantly (and I really admire you for that), it's very hard indeed to understand what point you are trying to make."

First, thanks - and second, my failure, clearly.

So let me try to be a bit more clear.

But first, let me say I truly enjoyed reading your article. Well, perhaps not enjoyed, but it was fully ENGAGED by it - which is excellent enough. Seriously. It pushed me WAY out of my comfort zone. And that means it mattered to me. So that caused me to re-examine my position. Which is healthy. And while I obviously disagree with some of the points you seemed to be making (and that could DEFINITELY be my flawed assessment at work) I greatly appreciate the time you took to think about the topic, write it down, and do that scariest of things - post it in the open for others to criticize.

I know that's not easy. EVER.

I also GREATLY admire much of the other work you do, Simon, including your software products. I suspect they help many, many editors get quality work done more efficiently. And that moves the industry along.

Let me also acknowledge, that lots of us here take elements of these discussions a bit too personally. I know I've done that a bunch. And if it's come across as aimed at you personally, that's me irritably swatting the smoke, not addressing the fire.

So to the extent I've done that. My apologies. Sadly, I'l probably continue to do so - based on the fact that this is the area I have elected to work in and it matters to me. But I'll try to be more careful.

But sometimes a phrasing hits me as personal - even if it might not have really been intended that way.

As I'm SURE it does to you.

So sorry for that.

Please, keep doing this. Engaging in the discussion. Keep making the case for the tools you appreciate. And when folks like me push back, I hope you can continue to do what I try to do. Use the pushback to see if if it helps you refine your thinking.

There are LOTS of video sculptors (and far more, probably now tantalized by the ideas that video editing can be a sculptural process) than there were before this overall discussion.

That's great.

So long as any foolishness that there may be one STYLE of editor necessarily superior to another - nor in fact, one editing tool that's deficient in the ability to sculpt, lay bricks, or for that matter - firehose ideas out into the internet - I'm good.

The rest is just debate. And I know you'll take comfort in the fact that your article and ideas earned coveted Cow front page prominence. So in that sense, your ideas have already won the actual contest.

So well done.

Take care.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: BrickSculpting and Classical Conditioning.
on Jun 18, 2017 at 9:57:52 am

Thanks for your kind words, Bill.

It's good to be provoked into re-examining the way we do things and the reasons why we choose the methods that we do, and it was in large part because of your "provocation" (and I mean that in a good way!) that I thought I'd try and write down my approach in detail, as much for my own benefit as to share it with others.

I'm sure you will agree that writing about your thinking can actually help clarify what your thinking actually is, and in this case I found it really useful to articulate aspects of this method that I perhaps hadn't fully explained even to myself hitherto.

I think we all believe that "our method is the best method". It would be very odd if we persisted with a sub-standard method if we believed there was a better method out there. That said, it's always worth taking stock and re-evaluating our choices in the light of changing technology and exposure to other people's thinking. Ultimately though, what makes sense to you might never make sense to me and vice versa. What matters most is whether something "feels right" to us. Although that too may be continuously evolving.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index


Craig Alan
Re: BrickSculpting and Classical Conditioning.
on Jun 23, 2017 at 5:44:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "What part of this implies ANY luddite or dinosaur thinking whatsoever? "

A: your history on the debate.
B: "Classical Conditioning"

You are implying that they are stuck in a certain (dated) mode of editing due to how they have been conditioned rather than what IS the most efficient and creative approach for them.

Further you feel that they are anchored to this workflow based on instruction rather than experimentation.

I didn't agree with critics that said early on that FCP X was a different way to edit and misguided (though everyone agreed that it was missing needed features) and I don't agree with your assumption that it is a different way to edit now.

Ultimately, it produces a linear sequence of clips produced in an app that allows non-linear access to media. The mechanics of the types of edits are as traditional as you can get.

My take: The browser and timeline are linked. They work in tandem. They complement each other. FCP X certainly has features in the browser that make it THE most powerful workspace for organization. If it was a plugin, it would sell.

But ultimately its the exported timeline that the audience experiences. It is the timeline in which you fine tune your film. The art is in the details.

If you can see the final composition in your mind and the timeline is just a place to dump (assemble) it after you create it in the browser, then you have an exceptional ability to compose entire films in your mind.

If that ability could be conditioned then all hockey players would be Gretsky, all the basketball players would be Magic, all the composers would be Mozart, all the song lyricists would be Dylan.

Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic HPX250P, FCP X 10.3, teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Classical Conditioning
on Jun 17, 2017 at 10:59:45 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Jun 17, 2017 at 11:02:51 pm

[Bill Davis] "Without conditioning - we have to re-learn EVERYTHING anew each time we face it."



Bill,

This is factually not true.

A casual search on wikipedia lists 17 types of learning. I suspect it's rather incomplete.

If by "conditioning" you mean "learning" or "memory" in general, then it might be more true, but your title implies you are really more interested in classical conditioning.

[Bill Davis] "... how I learned to swim ... Looking back, it's among the most successful classical conditioning I've ever had. A regular behavior - ideally linked with a conditioned mental response."

I'm not an authority on learned behaviors but as you have described it, this is not classical conditioning.

I'm not sure what your experience was, but it seems like it may be more operant conditioning (if you felt you were being rewarded, which is unclear), or something like imprinting (as you seem to feel your age and the authority of the instructor were factors). In any case, you can familiarize yourself with an overview of classical conditioning at wikipedia.

[Bill Davis] "Addressing prior conditioning is a long standing part of understanding human behavior. ... The question isn't ARE we conditioned."

Conditioning is, of course, central to behaviorism. Behaviorism is famously not interested in internal processes so much as observable and measurable outcomes. It was popular and influential in 20th century psychology, particularly in the U.S. where its traces are still seen in pop culture, and stands in contrast to another foundation of psychology (Freud) and humanist understanding in general. Noam Chompsky's 1959 critique of behaviorism began the shift to cognitive psychology which focuses on mental processes that affect behaviour (anathema to behaviourism).

Behaviorism is one school of psychology, and not really current in terms of our understanding of learning. I'm not sure what your question "are we conditioned?" is asking. I think you might be suggesting editing is learned by classical conditioning (thus the title of your post) which I have trouble making sense of, so you'll have to explain further if that is your meaning.

Any complex skill set is going to be rather difficult to trace in terms of how we learn it, even without considering the relationship between creativity and something like editing or the social contexts in which something like filmmaking or videomaking is undertaken (which are surely quite important).

So I don't really understand what ideas you are trying to express or what connections you are trying to make.

If your point is that people can be creatures of habit, I'd agree. People are also quite curious, creative, inventive, and surprisingly open minded sometimes. You've made no case for why one approach to editing is any more of a habit than any other, or why one editing habit is preferable to another.



Franz.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Classical Conditioning
on Jun 18, 2017 at 4:56:13 am

In response, I will make some assumptions.

First, while I'm sure there are some (like you?) reading this thread who focused on the behavioral theory, I suspect the vast majority of those reading my post didn't get confused at all and understood what I was arguing, which was NOT about Psychology as a topic of critical importance to my point..

Second, Many people in the threads relating to this topic have referenced "muscle memory" - a clear form of conditioning.

Third, - ... oh why bother.

I wrote something about people getting "conditioned" (see, it's even in scare quotes this time, so it clearly doesn't need to be taken literally anymore!) to prior habits that got them good results in the past - and making those habits their default because it might feel rational to them to presume that those same behaviors might get them equally good results in the future.

My point was that sometimes conditions exist (or have changed?) that make said thinking situationally WRONG.

Not always. Not exclusively, Sometimes not at all. But sometimes.

That's the simple core of what I was saying.

If you'd like to address THAT - I'd welcome reading your thoughts on the topic. It would be WAY more useful than a discussion of how many hairs we might split (or at least the ends of them?) before we need to discuss "conditioning" any further.

; )

That last graph turned stealthily, surprisingly FUN to write. Thanks!

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


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Learning
on Jun 18, 2017 at 3:14:47 pm

Bill,



So: people have habits and sometimes habits are bad. Got it. Thanks for clarifying. I’d agree.



Your original post is concerned, however, that if someone achieves success editing with timeline-based approaches, then it might lead to an inability to conceive of editing any other way.

In fact I think there’s been a feast of discussion here about how people use both models in their editing - the very intention has been to articulate and identify different approaches. (I myself touched on how Murch thought of both approaches. And Oliver and Simon have been very patient in articulating their thoughts to ungenerous response, to give just 3 examples.)

So it’s been demonstrated that at least some people who use timeline-based approaches can conceive of editing in other ways. On the other hand, there's been real resistance to even considering timeline-based approaches from some posters who use browser-based methods. Here’s one example:

[Tony West] "The concept of dumping hours and hours of footage into the timeline that you know very little of is going to stay, is not an efficient way of going about your work."

So I don’t understand the concern of your original post which seems oddly focused if we’re talking about ingrained habits - unless your claiming that browser-based editing never becomes a habit, which would be an interesting claim.

How do you challenge your own editing habits?



[Bill Davis] "... oh why bother."

Posting? Responding? Editing? It’s a good question.



Finally, “muscle memory” isn’t a kind of conditioning as you seem to think, but a form of learning connected to procedural memory that allows action without conscious thought. It’s often used as an analogy, though, for ingrained behaviours (conscious or otherwise), which is how I suspect you are using it here. Still you seem to be conflating “learning” with “conditioning” (and very specifically “classical conditioning” for what remains a mysterious reason).

I think this is important because perhaps if you reconsider your understanding of how people learn things, it might assuage your concerns about their ability to adapt and consider alternatives.



Franz.


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Learning
on Jun 18, 2017 at 5:00:03 pm

First off a simple man asking a simple question.
Not to derail this topic but I figured to ask here since I feel its the best place to add (and not to start a new topic).
My question is more "chicken or the egg" as far as editing processes go.
An argument I've had many at times with different colleagues.
If one is to do a commercial spot (an example), what're your thoughts if a client picked a music bed first?
I've had arguments on this one where one editor would ignore the music bed all together until the end.
Of course, I would reply with the music video process where one is to edit to a specific music track provided.
This topic on my end has come up in so many levels from feature/short films, docs, and tv spots.
Should an editor be so biased as to how to start a process?
What if the client is adamant that the music should be the basis of the edits?
I want to say "to each his/her own" but I also instruct NLE software at local college and would like to have some input from this fabulous forum ☺
Please go easy on me, I'm asking since it's been burning in my head for years now.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Learning
on Jun 18, 2017 at 5:15:33 pm

[Eric Santiago] "If one is to do a commercial spot (an example), what're your thoughts if a client picked a music bed first?
I've had arguments on this one where one editor would ignore the music bed all together until the end."


My view is that in short form videos, and in commercials, promos and trailers especially, the music is the bedrock of everything you do. The music should dictate the underlying structure. It's what is going to give your piece the shape, the flow and the emotional impact.

Every line of dialogue needs to be placed so that it fits most effectively against the music. Make sure that the beats and loud accents are happening in the spaces between the words nor underneath the words. There is a real art to making this work to the very best advantage but when you get it right, your spot will really sing.

Similarly make sure to place the key moments of your visuals on the beats. Not only does this create a really satisfying flow, it also contributes to the drama, the emotion, the comedy, or whatever it is you are trying to convey. Imagine you're making a music video here - make the visuals harmonise with the music and everything will work so much better.

It takes a lot of practice to make this work well but the difference between a spot that's been cut around the music and one where the music has been laid in as an afterthought is like night and day.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Learning
on Jun 18, 2017 at 5:40:53 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Similarly make sure to place the key moments of your visuals on the beats. Not only does this create a really satisfying flow, it also contributes to the drama, the emotion, the comedy, or whatever it is you are trying to convey. Imagine you're making a music video here - make the visuals harmonise with the music and everything will work so much better.

It takes a lot of practice to make this work well but the difference between a spot that's been cut around the music and one where the music has been laid in as an afterthought is like night and day."


Agreed 100% That's exactly how I approach it


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Learning
on Jun 18, 2017 at 5:43:04 pm

Eric,



It’s a good question, because it’s specific.

In a way, I think there’s two questions in there - the first is what is the better way to approach an edit, the second is how do you deal with conflicting approaches in the edit room.

I’d suggest the most fruitful thing in terms of your teaching context would be to try to articulate for your student the strengths of each approach.

Think of all the things that your editor colleagues have said about why they prefer to “ignore the music bed until the end”. Or ask here (as you’ve done) for why people like to work this way.

Then also think of why you might personally prefer editing to the music from the start.

If you can articulate the strengths and reasons of each approach to your students then you’ve not only taught them something specific, but maybe opened their minds to thinking about and trying different approaches. What about an assignment where half the class does it one way and half the other - as a means of sparking a post-screening discussion?

Personally, I would approach this problem (a commercial spot with music) using a kind of hybrid approach.

I’d work with the material without the music to come up with draft assembly that’s probably too long with too many ideas. This kind of exploration makes clear to me what material is strong (and weak), what internal rhythms I might rely on (juxtapositions and visual harmonies), and generally afford me a real knowledge of the material (which takes I preferred and why, etc.).

Once I have that, I’d look to the music on it’s own and come up with a first draft music only cut that works to time. Again, this allows me a strong knowledge of what I like or don’t like about the piece and what might be possible to change in future iterations.

With these two elements each loosely structured (and rattlling around in my head) I’d set to work putting them together. At that point, it might be said that I’m “cutting to music” though I hope you can see that it’s actually more complex than that. The previous work makes this stage easier in the sense that I can rely on my experience with the material in the earlier stages.



[Eric Santiago] "What if the client is adamant that the music should be the basis of the edits?"

This is more about the second question - how to work with people. If your collaborators (or employers) are set in their ways and demand you work a certain way then you might not have a lot of options.

However, it can be helpful to communicate to them a different approach if they have never considered it. Further, while they may know what they want, you are the expert on what you need in order to work (in terms of process), and it’s important to communicate that. There may not be a way of working together, of course, and that’s an important choice to make as well.

Hope that helps.



Franz.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Learning
on Jun 18, 2017 at 7:14:57 pm

Eric,



I had a further clarifying thought on this.

Putting music to the cut at the end is essentially a traditional scoring model. If you think about it that way, you can maybe see it in a more positive light.

This scene from the Godfather is a strong, simple example (Michael pivotal moment in the restaurant) though I’m sure it’s trivial to think of your own example.




(Incidentally I like the interior car scene that precedes the restaurant as a good example of sound fx as music.)

Of course, the scene is cut for drama and then score added later (famously starting only after he drops the gun). It probably isn’t as cut and dried as that (cut first, score later) because temp music plays a role in the edit. But you can see that by prioritizing things other than music (in this case, “drama”) you can get to strong piece which music then supports.

I should probably note here that I prefer not to work that way, though I have, and further that this is simply to try to clearly contrast an approach with the idea that music can play a "driving" role in an edit.

In fact, I think this is a better way of instigating my imagined student exercise - have one half of the students cut to music, the other half cut without music with instructions to “score” the piece after. This might lead to more clearly contrasted results, a better understanding of each approach, and better discussion. I like this idea so much I’m going to try to use it next teaching opportunity I have …



Franz.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Learning
on Jun 18, 2017 at 7:28:57 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "So it’s been demonstrated that at least some people who use timeline-based approaches can conceive of editing in other ways. On the other hand, there's been real resistance to even considering timeline-based approaches from some posters who use browser-based methods. Here’s one example:

[Tony West] "The concept of dumping hours and hours of footage into the timeline that you know very little of is going to stay, is not an efficient way of going about your work.""


Oh yes, I certainly stand by that statement Franz.

I'm trying to imagine someone cutting the highlights of the baseball game and they drop the entire 3 hour game in the timeline. Knowing that the foul tips and guys stepping out of the box and back in the box and adjusting their batting gloves aren't going to stay anyway. That works for them. Search up to the HR drop it down, RBI drop it down and so on works for me. They just haven't done an effective job of selling it to me or some others. You aren't sold on our way either so we are even.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 1:46:30 am

[Tony West] "I'm trying to imagine someone cutting the highlights of the baseball game and they drop the entire 3 hour game in the timeline."

tony, sports is the weakest possible analogy since for the most part, sports highlights are pretty obvious and easy to put together. But hours and hours of b-roll in a random project that may have golden moments somewhere or anywhere within the footage is something completely different.

Adobe Premiere 2017.1.1
Windows 10 Pro
Samsung SSD 850 EVO system
Samsung SSD 850 EVO Adobe cache
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
OWC Thunderbay 12t x 2 in Raid10 configuration (thru Storage Spaces and Disk Management)


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 2:55:01 pm

[greg janza] "tony, sports is the weakest possible analogy"

It's not an "analogy" it's a job. it's a job that's pretty hard to make a credible argument for using this method.

So, as it can work in some cases (like the job I'm working on now) not so in others like this one.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 6:15:35 pm

[greg janza] "But hours and hours of b-roll in a random project that may have golden moments somewhere or anywhere within the footage is something completely different."

I'll just say that this describes MOST of my projects.

And having the database in X available to range select, tag and subsequently retrieve those golden moments - as and when they are needed - has been the single most transformative and efficient change in my workflow in the past 25 years.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 20, 2017 at 4:45:16 am

[Bill Davis] "
And having the database in X available to range select, tag and subsequently retrieve those golden moments - as and when they are needed - has been the single most transformative and efficient change in my workflow in the past 25 years."


Databases are not exclusive to FCPX nor did Apple invent the database paradigm. Apple also did not even event keywords or keyword collections. That was implemented into Adobe Bridge long before FCPX. Having said that the competition is getting better and better and it is free. I am not saying DR is better than FCPX or Premiere Pro. I am saying it is free and I like what I see. All editing systems can make use of metadata and databases as of 2017. Does FCPX have better metadata capabilities than the competition? Will FCPX have better metadata capabilities than DR in the year 2019? Just for the record Premiere Pro shows a thumbnail even in database mode.







Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 11:34:41 am

[Tony West] "I'm trying to imagine someone cutting the highlights of the baseball game and they drop the entire 3 hour game in the timeline."

I am trying to imagine that as well. What would be the point?

[Tony West] "Knowing that the foul tips and guys stepping out of the box and back in the box and adjusting their batting gloves aren't going to stay anyway."

Those unusable parts would not need to be on the timeline.

[Tony West] "Search up to the HR drop it down, RBI drop it down and so on works for me."

I don't doubt that way does work great for you. In Premiere Pro you can create a separate timeline of home runs and a separate timeline of RBIs. You could also just use markers to separate them within the same timeline. The choice would be yours. There would be no time spent on keywords but their would be organization and a sense of time. For example 2 minutes of RBI and 1 minute of home runs. Perhaps you would have clips of the sports fans doing silly stuff. I have never edit a sports highlight real so I am not going to say one paradigm is better than the other. I think FCPX is a good program but I think it would be cool to have an editing contest between the two paradigms. I think one paradigm might be better for some projects and the other paradigm might be better for other projects.

[Tony West] "They just haven't done an effective job of selling it to me or some others"

I don't doubt that because I think there may be merit to both editing paradigms and everyone needs to use the method that works best for their projects. As I stated having a contest between the two editing paradigms might be enlightening for everyone. I wanna be hip : )

[Tony West] "You aren't sold on our way either so we are even."

I don't think anyone has to change their editing methods. I will say that I can see the roles feature of FCPX being useful but I can also see tracks being useful. I like the key-framing in Premiere Pro but I also like how Fairlight is now part of DR. Can one editing program be the best solution for every project? Probably not. Having said that I have no need to make any FCPX user switch to Premiere Pro. FCPX for $300.00 is a good deal and should work just fine.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Learning
on Jun 18, 2017 at 7:58:18 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Your original post is concerned, however, that if someone achieves success editing with timeline-based approaches, then it might lead to an inability to conceive of editing any other way."

That is NOT what I said.

I never implied any "inability to conceive."

Thats pure spin.

What I was writing about is how it *might* lead them to view timeline based approaches (which BTW, every single NLE in existence that I'm aware of uses) as the exclusive pathway worth reliance or development.

A very different idea from what you imply above.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Learning
on Jun 18, 2017 at 9:49:05 pm

[Bill Davis] " I never implied any "inability to conceive.""

[Bill Davis] "I wonder if it's every bit as difficult to conceive editing without calling up and addressing some type of timeline thing"

Bill,

Replace "inability to conceive" with "difficulty conceiving" in my post above if you feel that's more accurate to your original post.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 12:29:35 am

Great stuff Simon/Steve/Franz ☺

Thanks for that.


Return to posts index

Mark Smith
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 2:19:29 am

I can see the value of throwing an interview in a time line seeing and hearing it all in context, breaing it down, cutting away the fat, the tangents etc and using that practice as a way to develop a sense of context of the whole interview. That's not how I do things now, but I might use this some time in the future


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 4:12:16 am

[Mark Smith] "I can see the value of throwing an interview in a time line seeing and hearing it all in context, breaing it down, cutting away the fat, the tangents etc and using that practice as a way to develop a sense of context of the whole interview."

I find this is a great way to work when I don't have time to log. It's especially effective with pancake timelines.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research

linkedIn: http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
vimeo: vimeo.com/album/2271696
web: propaganda.com
facebook: /dlawrence
twitter: @dhl


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 10:53:33 am

[David Lawrence] "I find this is a great way to work when I don't have time to log."

There's another interesting way of looking at this whole question.

A timeline is simply another kind of container but with its own uniquely useful properties.

If you can put assets into a bin or an event or a keyword collection, you can also put them into a timeline. You're just using a different type of container but you're not doing anything essentially different.

To approach timelines as somehow fundamentally distinct from other types of organisational containers is not only to make a category error, but also to miss out on the opportunities that they afford when viewed as containers.

The uniquely useful property of timelines as against other types of container is that they allow you to manipulate your assets in time and in context.

I think that some people only ever see the timeline as a place for putting together their final edit, but once you recognise it's just another container like any other, you can start to free up the way you work.

Of course, I'm not saying that you have to!

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 6:29:07 pm

I just realized something. In FCP X we have the browser that has a filmstrip view and a list view. PP does not have a filmstrip view in the project pane or anywhere that I know of except if your footage is placed in a sequence. It looks like those that like the PP sequence way of editing are trying to emulate the browser filmstrip view. May be in the future PP will copy the way FCP X browser works just like they copied the way Motion and FCP X work together with PP version called the Essential Graphics Panel. Kidding aside, both methods are viable and you have to decide which one will work for you on each project.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 7:07:22 pm

I do the "combo-platter". I log, grade (as in favorite, keyword, etc) all footage before starting, then throw all the favorites on the timeline and start "sculpting" from there. By going though the footage first, I start putting the story together in my head before any edits are done. I also might find that one clip that screams to be the first or final shot in the program. Or a look, or a laugh...I would rather find it then, than waiting to discover it on a long timeline.

I teach my students this way: get to know your material by logging and grading, then get something on the timeline and start working with it. The inspiration comes from the work, not sitting there staring at an empty timeline waiting for some great idea to pop into your head. Work the "clay" and see what shape it forms....but get to know your clay first! Its really fun to find a story in the material that the client never knew they even had in the can.

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 9:05:33 pm

[Scott Witthaus] " I also might find that one clip that screams to be the first or final shot in the program. Or a look, or a laugh...I would rather find it then, than waiting to discover it on a long timeline."

I think there is definitely some confusion. No one just drops everything in the timeline. It is viewed first and placed where it needs to be. There is organization on the timeline. If you notice something funny or unusual you can simply add a marker to it. The markers metadata is searchable. You always have the Master Sequence or Master Rough Cut to see what you have used or if you want to replace something. You may have the Master Sequence (all usable video) then Edit 1, Edit 2 edit 3. Don't get me wrong I am not saying keywords and smart collections are not a good way to organize the media. I think it can be useful.

[Scott Witthaus] "I do the "combo-platter". I log, grade (as in favorite, keyword, etc) all footage before starting, then throw all the favorites on the timeline and start "sculpting" from there."

Why would you grade all the footage if some of it might not make it to the final edit?

[Scott Witthaus] "I teach my students this way: get to know your material by logging and grading, then get something on the timeline and start working with it."

Shouldn't you show them your method but at the same time let them know there might be a more efficient way of working? I say that because Avid, FCPX, DR and Premiere Pro will all get better and we may all have a paradigm shift in another two years from now regardless of which NLE we use. Having said that I am not going to color grade every clip first.

[Scott Witthaus] "The inspiration comes from the work, not sitting there staring at an empty timeline waiting for some great idea to pop into your head"

I don't know of any editor that would simply stare at a timeline. I think we all agree the footage must be viewed and some form of organization has to be done. I don't agree that grading has to be done upfront. I think an editing contest would help to find out what techniques and methods actually work best. Remember many people thought Chinese Kong-Fu was the best form of martial arts until the UFC proved that to be false. Some thought Aikido was the best form of martial arts but the UFC proved that wrong as well.

Once again I think FCPX is a good program but I think even people using FCPX will have a different method to their madness. Perhaps if you and I had an editing contest I would adopt your method of color grading all footage first but I would have to have proof that it is more efficient before adopting a new technique or method.

The UFC = Ultimate Fighting Championship

The UEC = Ultimate Editing Championship


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Learning
on Jun 20, 2017 at 12:08:39 am

[andy patterson] "No one just drops everything in the timeline. It is viewed first and placed where it needs to be. "

Au contraire...

https://library.creativecow.net/article.php?author_folder=ubsdell_simon&art...

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

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 20, 2017 at 12:21:10 am

[Walter Soyka] "[andy patterson] "No one just drops everything in the timeline. It is viewed first and placed where it needs to be. "

Au contraire...

https://library.creativecow.net/article.php?author_folder=ubsdell_simon&art....."


I don't doubt what has been added to the timeline in the article has been viewed and placed accordingly as oppose to literally highlighting 175 video clips, 85 images, 26 voice overs and 28 sound files and just drop them into the timeline willy nilly. Once the content is methodically added to the timeline areas can be marked with ranges.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 7:26:23 pm

It's interview footage -- all of it -- all at once.

He cuts the radio edit. This point, up until Andy raised it, has been overlooked in this supra-meta-thread. Simon concedes the point. His sculpting is tailored to this radio edit deliverable.

Then he looks at the picture framing quality etc.

Then he finds b-roll.

I think you're quite correct, Mr. Patterson.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 9:00:29 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Jun 21, 2017 at 9:26:00 pm

[Richard Herd] "Simon concedes the point. His sculpting is tailored to this radio edit deliverable."

I have no idea what you think you mean by this but it doesn't sound even remotely like anything I have said.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 11:53:54 pm

"So far I’ve only mentioned what is happening with what is sometimes called the “radio edit”."


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 7:43:14 am

[Richard Herd] "this radio edit deliverable"

This is the bizarre expression I was taking objection to. Would you care to explain what if anything you mean by it?

Notice also that I used "radio edit" in quotation marks as it's not an expression I normally use, but which is however widely recognised.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Learning
on Jun 20, 2017 at 12:46:22 am

[andy patterson] "Why would you grade all the footage if some of it might not make it to the final edit?
"


Read my post. Grade, as in favorites, reject, keyword. Giving a "grade" to each shot, not color grading.

[andy patterson] "No one just drops everything in the timeline. "

I was referring to the "13 hour timeline" of an earlier post. I would never do that. I never liked string-outs anyway.

[andy patterson] "Shouldn't you show them your method but at the same time let them know there might be a more efficient way of working?"

Been at this for 36 years. I have tried a lot of strategies. They can discover that if need be. But I find my way the most efficient way I have tried, so that's what I teach.


[andy patterson] " I think an editing contest would help to find out what techniques and methods actually work best. Remember many people thought Chinese Kong-Fu was the best form of martial arts until the UFC proved that to be false."

I have no idea what you are talking about. It's like having artists having a "painting contest".


[andy patterson] "Once again I think FCPX is a good program but I think even people using FCPX will have a different method to their madness."

My method has nothing to do with FCPX. I did the same thing in Avid, FCPLegacy, DS and Premiere.

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Learning
on Jun 20, 2017 at 1:52:23 am

"I have no idea what you are talking about. It's like having artists having a painting contest."

It seems that for some editing is all about how quickly one can get to the finish line. I think for others the process itself is quite rewarding.

"My method has nothing to do with FCPX. I did the same thing in Avid, FCPLegacy, DS and Premiere."

Amen.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 3:41:17 am

[Scott Witthaus] "[andy patterson] "Once again I think FCPX is a good program but I think even people using FCPX will have a different method to their madness."

My method has nothing to do with FCPX. I did the same thing in Avid, FCPLegacy, DS and Premiere."


I didn't say your method had anything to do with FCPX. In fact I have posted several times if you have 10 FCPX editors they may all do things slightly different.

[Scott Witthaus] "[andy patterson] " I think an editing contest would help to find out what techniques and methods actually work best. Remember many people thought Chinese Kong-Fu was the best form of martial arts until the UFC proved that to be false."

I have no idea what you are talking about. It's like having artists having a "painting contest"."


Actually I think we could all learn a thing or two.


[Scott Witthaus] "[andy patterson] "Why would you grade all the footage if some of it might not make it to the final edit?
"

Read my post. Grade, as in favorites, reject, keyword. Giving a "grade" to each shot, not color grading."


Sorry. I seen grade and thought it was color grade. My bad but only slightly because I am not sure you always have to grade by way of reject, favorites or make use keywords.


[Scott Witthaus] "[andy patterson] "Shouldn't you show them your method but at the same time let them know there might be a more efficient way of working?"

Been at this for 36 years. I have tried a lot of strategies. They can discover that if need be. But I find my way the most efficient way I have tried, so that's what I teach."


Once again ten FCPX editors could all do things slightly different. Everyone will think their method is the best. As I sated new features will be added making us constantly evolve our editing process. Keep in mind FCPX did not have all the metadata it has now when it first launched. Keywords, keyword collections projects etc have changed over time. I don't doubt your method is very good. I say teach it. I would just always let the students know that things change and they should always be looking out for new editing paradigms. That is all I was hinting at. You didn't edit like you do today 36 years ago using 3/4" tapes. Things will evolve and change requiring a paradigm shift. Having said that I am not sure you always have to grade (as in favorites and rejects) or always add keywords. I think most of the time that would be helpful and FCPX does a good job at it.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Learning
on Jun 20, 2017 at 2:15:27 am
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Jun 20, 2017 at 2:19:59 am

[andy patterson] " Remember many people thought Chinese Kong-Fu was the best form of martial arts until the UFC proved that to be false. Some thought Aikido was the best form of martial arts but the UFC proved that wrong as well. "

HUGE OT SIDE NOTE: Most experienced martial artists would probably disagree. It's been a common thought for centuries that there's no such thing as a superior style, only superior practitioners. So called "mixed martial arts" works great within the confines of a UFC fight, maybe not so well in a knife fight with an eskrimador (just sayin'). I think the same is true for any art form. There is no 'best tool' or method, just the best tool for the artist, the project or the production.

EVEN MORE OT: Kung-Fu isn't a style... it's hard work over time, anyone with a high degree of skill can be said to have good Kung-Fu, even a master editor. Chinese Martial Arts encompasses hundreds of different styles with different benefits for different kinds of practitioners. So even within that broad art form, you learn that 'best' is a matter of need and perspective.

Shawn



Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 20, 2017 at 10:19:23 pm

It is one thing to have a Kong-Fu or Aikido practitioner practice wrist lock and deflections with friends in the dojo. However when they enter the real world the wrist locks and deflections do not work as they has practiced. In fact it does more harm than good.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Learning
on Jun 20, 2017 at 11:56:48 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Jun 21, 2017 at 12:08:25 am

[andy patterson] "It is one thing to have a Kong-Fu or Aikido practitioner practice wrist lock and deflections with friends in the dojo. However when they enter the real world the wrist locks and deflections do not work as they has practiced. In fact it does more harm than good."

LOL - that's a bit like saying that you can't produce high end work using FCPX because casual users aren't capable of producing great work with it. I think you should pick a subject that you're more knowledgeable about to make your points. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 3:59:26 am

[Shawn Miller] "[andy patterson] "It is one thing to have a Kong-Fu or Aikido practitioner practice wrist lock and deflections with friends in the dojo. However when they enter the real world the wrist locks and deflections do not work as they has practiced. In fact it does more harm than good."

LOL - that's a bit like saying that you can't produce high end work using FCPX because casual users aren't capable of producing great work with it. I think you should pick a subject that you're more knowledgeable about to make your points. ☺

Shawn"


For starters I was not comparing FCPX or Adobe to any type of martial arts. That my friend is your bad. I am saying that everyone thinks there editing paradigm is the best and that their NLE is the best. Martial artist think their style is the best an their technique is the best. I always say there are cool thing about FCPX, Avid, Premiere and DR. You kind of messed up a tad bit there didn't ya?

Nothing I posted would suggest FCPX cannot be used for high-end work. I think people might think you have a hard time grasping analogies. Having said that just simply owning FCPX does not guarantee that the user can produce a major motion picture with it. That might have been the better way to word it and more accurate.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 4:55:58 pm

[andy patterson] "For starters I was not comparing FCPX or Adobe to any type of martial arts."

I think you completely missed my point - saying this:... "It is one thing to have a Kong-Fu or Aikido practitioner practice wrist lock and deflections with friends in the dojo. However when they enter the real world the wrist locks and deflections do not work as they has practiced. In fact it does more harm than good."

...is like saying this... "FCPX cannot be used in high end workflows because inexperienced editors cannot use it to get professional results"

I'm saying that you don't understand martial arts enough to know that your statements are incorrect, as incorrect as someone who doesn't understand FCPX, but insists that it can't be used in high end workflows.

[andy patterson] "You kind of messed up a tad bit there didn't ya?"

I really didn't. BTW, its Kung-Fu or Gung-Fu... not Kong-Fu... ☺

[andy patterson] "Nothing I posted would suggest FCPX cannot be used for high-end work. I think people might think you have a hard time grasping analogies. Having said that just simply owning FCPX does not guarantee that the user can produce a major motion picture with it. That might have been the better way to word it and more accurate."

Please see my first comment. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 7:41:27 pm

Just for the record--I have never, ever even remotely thought: Hey! That Shawn, he has a hard time grasping analogies. I have found, over the years, that have superior skills in both producing and understanding analogies. You are, in fact, damn good at it.

As for Kong-Fu--I believe those are the set of teachings and philosophies that accompany the quest for the acquisition of a 12th level Donkey Kong belt. I could be wrong.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 7:46:56 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Just for the record--I have never, ever even remotely thought: Hey! That Shawn, he has a hard time grasping analogies. I have found, over the years, that have superior skills in both producing and understanding analogies. You are, in fact, damn good at it."

Thanks Chris, that truly means a lot to me. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 9:24:11 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I really didn't. BTW, its Kung-Fu or Gung-Fu... not Kong-Fu... ☺"

The spelling is irrelevant. I don't need to know anything about martial arts nor did Jim Brown when they hosted the first UFC. I am saying many martial artists feel their form of martial arts is the best and that there technique is the best. We know this because they were all interviewed at the first UFC. Obviously BJJ proved to be effective. Over time the fighters mixed up elements of boxing, karate, judo wrestling etc.

Many editors think their non linear editor of choice is the best and that their technique is the best.

The Ultimate Editing Championship might shed some light on what methods really work the best. I think like the UFC it will be a combination of different techniques and if truth be told some NLE might have a slight edge over other NLE for certain tasks.

What I stated is 100% correct. Don't be upset if I don't now anything about karate or judo because I don't have to nor did Jim Brown. We know from the first and second UFC that some techniques were not effective while others were. The sport has defiantly change since UFC 1 and 2.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 10:15:32 pm

[andy patterson] "The Ultimate Editing Championship might shed some light on what methods really work the best."

This might shed some light also Andy.


Come on, you all were thinking it. It was just a matter of who would post it first : )







Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 10:38:55 pm

Not bad but I have always liked this : )







Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 11:28:17 pm

[andy patterson] "The spelling is irrelevant."

Not when you say things like this [andy patterson] "You kind of messed up a tad bit there didn't ya?"

[andy patterson] " I don't need to know anything about martial arts nor did Jim Brown when they hosted the first UFC."

Jim Brown didn't make a faulty analogy based on a subject he didn't know anything about AFIAK.

[andy patterson] " I am saying many martial artists feel their form of martial arts is the best and that there technique is the best. We know this because they were all interviewed at the first UFC."

And, as I've said, this isn't a common mindset among experienced martial artists, and it hasn't been for a long time. You might have to have more exposure to the subject than television interviews to know that though.

[andy patterson] "The Ultimate Editing Championship might shed some light on what methods really work the best."

For an editing contest... sure. I'm not sure what useful methods might be exposed for every day work though.

[andy patterson] "What I stated is 100% correct."

I doubt that you could be convinced otherwise!

[andy patterson] "Don't be upset if I don't now anything about karate or judo because I don't have to nor did Jim Brown. We know from the first and second UFC that some techniques were not effective while others were. The sport has defiantly change since UFC 1 and 2."

LOL - that first part is just classic! To your point though, to be effective in UFC style fights, you have to use the methods and techniques that are effective in those fights. Outside of those fights, the same approach isn't nearly as effective. Sports martial arts is to real fighting as reality TV is to real life... one is real, the other is realistic. That's my conclusion after having done all four. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 12:28:43 am

[Shawn Miller] "[andy patterson] "The spelling is irrelevant."

Not when you say things like this [andy patterson] "You kind of messed up a tad bit there didn't ya?""


What good does using a straw-man do? I didn't fault you for your spelling.


[Shawn Miller] "[andy patterson] " I don't need to know anything about martial arts nor did Jim Brown when they hosted the first UFC."

Jim Brown didn't make a faulty analogy based on a subject he didn't know anything about AFIAK."


Where is the faulty analogy? As stated I am not saying Avid is like boxing or FCPX is like jodu. There are martial artists that think their technique and fighting style are the best. There are editors that insist their NLE and technique are the best. You may have read more into it than what was there. I think maybe you really like martial arts and are taking things way to serious. As stated Jim Brown could easily see when a fighting style did not work. It would not matter if he spelled Judo correctly or not.


[Shawn Miller] "[andy patterson] " I am saying many martial artists feel their form of martial arts is the best and that there technique is the best. We know this because they were all interviewed at the first UFC."

And, as I've said, this isn't a common mindset among experienced martial artists, and it hasn't been for a long time. You might have to have more exposure to the subject than television interviews to know that though."


Did I ever say all martial artist feels that way today? No I did not. In fact I have stated just the opposite. I have stated the UFC fighters today see the merits of Judo, Boxing karate etc. Prior to the first UFC many martial artist felt thier fighting style was the best and that their technique was the best. The UFC is what made people realize boxing, judo and karate all had merit. Very few people watching the first UFC had heard of BJJ. After the first UFC people like myself and Jim Brown became aware of what BJJ had to offer. Grappling became very popular and very respected. That is the only point I have made thus far and that point is correct.

You claim I need to have more exposure to the subject than television interviews? Wrong! You need to actually comprehend what I have written and respond accordingly. The UFC changed the way we view different fighting styles. The Ultimate Editing Championship might change how we use different editing techniques.


[Shawn Miller] "[andy patterson] "The Ultimate Editing Championship might shed some light on what methods really work the best."

For an editing contest... sure. I'm not sure what useful methods might be exposed for every day work though."


Every time someone posts a link to Thomas Groove Carter editing people are in awe. I am not in awe because I know it is a dog and pony show he has done time and time again. I am not saying anyone will change the way they edit but they may see some feature in another NLE that could be useful or at the very least realize all the NLE will work. Would one NLE be better for certain projects than another? Probably.


[Shawn Miller] "[andy patterson] "What I stated is 100% correct."

I doubt that you could be convinced otherwise!"


What is incorrect about the UFC showing what fighting techniques work and what ones do not work? Did the UFC not force the fighters to appreciate and adopt other forms of fighting?



Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 3:44:14 am

Well, alright then. You win, Andy. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 9:45:06 am

[Shawn Miller] "Well, alright then. You win, Andy. ☺"

Does that make him the Ultimate Forum Champion?

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

Scott Witthaus
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 10:29:35 am

[Walter Soyka] "Does that make him the Ultimate Forum Champion?
"


Perhaps he and Tim can have one final "Who Can Write the Longest Post" battle for all the marbles? ;-)

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 11:03:34 am

I'd say that marbles were lost quite some time ago.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 11:15:53 am

[Scott Witthaus] "Perhaps he and Tim can have one final "Who Can Write the Longest Post" battle for all the marbles? ;-)"

I can only assume subtractive edits would be banned...

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

Tim Wilson
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 9:26:53 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Scott Witthaus] "Perhaps he and Tim can have one final "Who Can Write the Longest Post" battle for all the marbles? ;-)"

I can only assume subtractive edits would be banned..."


My point was that I personally only made subtractive edits.

And u ppl have no idea how long my posts are before I post them. 😁 I cut way, way more than I post. Easily a 5:1 ratio, and probably more.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 2:54:35 pm

[Walter Soyka] "

[Shawn Miller] "Well, alright then. You win, Andy. ☺"

Does that make him the Ultimate Forum Champion?"


lol - yes, I believe it does. ☺

Shawn



Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 2:08:48 pm

[andy patterson] "There are editors that insist their NLE and technique are the best."

I think I will disagree with your actual point here. There is a difference between "preferring" one NLE over another (we all do that) and a certain "technique" over the other (we all do that also).

I'm not claiming X is the best, I'm saying I prefer it.


[andy patterson] "Every time someone posts a link to Thomas Groove Carter editing people are in awe. I am not in awe because I know it is a dog and pony show he has done time and time again."

That's a good opportunity for your editing championship challenge. Carter is showing his efficiency cutting a spot in X. You could take sections of his video and make your own performing the same tasks and showing how your way is more efficient than his pony show.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 2:38:22 pm

[Tony West] "There is a difference between "preferring" one NLE over another (we all do that) and a certain "technique" over the other (we all do that also). I'm not claiming X is the best, I'm saying I prefer it."

One of the interesting undercurrents in these threads is the relationship between NLE and editing style. Bill talks a lot about how FCPX is specifically designed for a browser-first workflow. Others have mentioned here how Premiere is oriented for sequence-to-sequence editing in a way that FCPX is not.

How much do you feel your NLE preferences influence your technique? Or, on the flip-side, how much do you feel your technique preferences influence your choice of NLE?

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

greg janza
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 3:57:25 pm

For me the NLE doesn't consciously play into my editing technique.

While the technology keeps changing and evolving, my approach to editing has remained primarily the same since I was taught as an assistant.

I was taught the method of first creating a solid a-roll with a music bed and then filling in b-roll imagery, sound design, and graphics afterwords.

I think the constant improvements in NLE technology allow me to better organize material which in turn leads me to create more effective pieces. But I don't consciously change my editing approach or method based on any NLE features.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 4:21:07 pm

[Walter Soyka] "How much do you feel your NLE preferences influence your technique? Or, on the flip-side, how much do you feel your technique preferences influence your choice of NLE?"

It's an excellent question Walter and I think it gets to the core of it for me.

The whole reason I am using X is because I like the "tools" in it. I like the way the organization tools work in the browser so I use them.

It would be like someone coming up with a theory of the "skimmer" being a distraction for them and that I should try turning it off. I'm not going to stop using the skimmer because someone else has a theory about it.

I don't have a problem with them having a theory about it, I like theories, but I'm not turning it off unless I'm convinced of it.

What's ironic about this record thread is Bill has been describing this cutting away from the very beginning. He is big on rejecting clips in the browser. Or rejecting parts of a clip. He always was. What's left in his browser is all good stuff that he wants to use. I on the other hand almost never reject clips. By selecting what I want I am rejecting what I don't want, but I see the value in what he is doing. Carter was working the same way.

Having read Herb's recent comments on it, I feel like I can't say it any better than he did.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 7:20:37 pm

[Tony West] "[andy patterson] "There are editors that insist their NLE and technique are the best."

I think I will disagree with your actual point here. There is a difference between "preferring" one NLE over another (we all do that) and a certain "technique" over the other (we all do that also).

I'm not claiming X is the best, I'm saying I prefer it."


You and I as well as most editors are open minded but their are some that think their NLE and technique is the best. I would say it is a small monitory of editors that are stuck in that way of thinking.



[Tony West] "[andy patterson] "Every time someone posts a link to Thomas Groove Carter editing people are in awe. I am not in awe because I know it is a dog and pony show he has done time and time again."

That's a good opportunity for your editing championship challenge. Carter is showing his efficiency cutting a spot in X. You could take sections of his video and make your own performing the same tasks and showing how your way is more efficient than his pony show."


All I am saying is he is familiar with the footage. If you had several editors with content they had not seen before would and Avid editor finish first? Would the Avid editor finish first but perhaps the the DR editor has a better end result? Keep in mind their is technique and the NLE of choice. I found it interesting that one post production house uses index cards. It may be very efficient. Perhaps other people could use it in their work flow if they seen it first hand.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 7:38:45 pm

I'm also a wrestling folk style wresting referee. For me, UFC is a joke of a "style." It needs some kind of standing 8 count so the referee can control the action. Right now it's either let someone get pounded or call the fight preemptively.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 10:34:31 pm

[Richard Herd] "I'm also a wrestling folk style wresting referee. For me, UFC is a joke of a "style." It needs some kind of standing 8 count so the referee can control the action. Right now it's either let someone get pounded or call the fight preemptively."

I liked the old school UFC with no time restrictions. You either won by knockout or tap out. I like the fact that 8 men entered the octagon but only one man leaves as The Ultimate Fighter.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 8:11:41 pm

Finally, we are getting to it. Does techne cause episteme? That is, if we change our editing platform does our knowledge (and not just knowledge of editing) change also. If so, what medium would demonstrate that relationship between and among episteme and techne? We can be sure a long post about how you feel during your edit is not a very good demonstration. We should look to the work itself. We should make a spreadsheet (csv): work, platform, editor. Alas, that won't work, because what we really need is a time machine. We need editor A to make work A in platform A, and do all the measuring we can. Then, we jump in the machine (wipe all causation between techne and episteme) and have Editor A make Work A in platform B. Our little forum of rascals could then debate whether the experiment itself suffers from the same dilemma. Did the techne of the experiment cause the episteme? Alas, it is turtles all the way down.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 9:11:28 pm

You're failing to take account of a pretty important factor in this thought experiment of yours.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Learning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 11:36:23 pm

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/96150

[Richard Herd] "Does techne cause episteme? That is, if we change our editing platform does our knowledge (and not just knowledge of editing) change also."



Richard,

The reason I asked you about your post was that it wasn’t clear to me how you were relating the ideas of theory and practice (or knowledge and craft) to the discussion.

Personally I don’t make such a clear distinction between the two. (So I guess I’m with Xenophon there?)

It’s maybe easy to imagine practice without theory - but I’d balk at that, as it seems to me you’re always working with theory even if it’s unacknowledged. More difficult, maybe, to think that theory requires practice (i.e. easier to think of “pure theory”) and yet if you imagine knowledge as a skill then we’re back to craft and knowledge as one in some sense (and I guess we’re back with Xenophon).

Two things that are interesting to me about the Stanford entry were that all of philosophers discussed struggle to make a distinction between knowledge and practice and that all of them take up the question in terms of ethics.

Which does bring us back to a question I’ve asked here before (in different form) - what makes “good editing”. How do you define it?

In terms of your second question, I’d say in general that the functional difference between the various platforms is small enough that there is not much influence on editing approach. However, as I’ve said before, there does seem to be an emphasis or assumption of browser-based methods in the design of X, so it may influence users to favour that approach.



Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Learning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 5:59:54 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "“good editing”. How do you define it?"

That is the main question. I think we have to look to the work itself. In addition, the knowledge of craft is the practice of the craft but that is not knowledge. For knowledge, we see the doctor tells the patients how to be healthy; how the Cow tells the "new" editors the craft. At that point, in my view, our knowledge becomes/is (don't get me started on that!) moral philosophy.



[Franz Bieberkopf] "the functional difference between the various platforms is small enough that there is not much influence on editing approach"

My observations of this forum (and I won't go search for posts) the "FCPX-bar theorists" (haha) often say something like X is revolutionary. They consider the new editing metaphor as causing their editing. Simon's post also did that. His timeline "causes" editing. The discussion between Jeremy and Simon was my favorite part of the thread.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Classical Conditioning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 8:03:14 pm

Bill was bringing up the cognitivist's point of learning knowledge v. acquiring knowledge. This dialectic does not require behaviorism


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Classical Conditioning
on Jun 19, 2017 at 11:00:17 pm

[Richard Herd] " Bill was bringing up the cognitivist's point of learning knowledge v. acquiring knowledge. This dialectic does not require behaviorism"

Richard,

What's "the point of learning knowledge vs. acquiring knowledge"?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Classical Conditioning
on Jun 21, 2017 at 6:11:09 pm

Acquisition is more like knowing by doing and errors are seen as developmental. Learning is more like knowing by being told and errors as seen as mistakes.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Classical Conditioning
on Jun 22, 2017 at 10:32:37 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Jun 22, 2017 at 10:56:42 pm

[Richard Herd] " Acquisition is more like knowing by doing and errors are seen as developmental. Learning is more like knowing by being told and errors as seen as mistakes."



Richard,

I'm still struggling to understand both how you pull these ideas from Bill's post and where you're trying to go with them.

Are you saying that Bill's swimming instruction was "knowing by doing" or "knowing by being told"?

Here's my charitable run at it:

[Bill Davis] "... [he'd] drill us with a particular stroke cadence ... loudly enough for us to hear underwater"

... so I'm going to guess that even though Bill talks about both instruction and doing (assuming they were underwater because they were swimming), the swimming lesson falls into the "knowing by being told" category because he was being instructed (and that is condition enough to include it there) and it is not learning by doing (even though he was also "doing" and the drill could be supportive to that action).

Bill doesn't mention errors or how they were handled at all. I can imagine the instruction allowing errors and falling back on the supportive chant of the swimming cadence, but I suppose "bellowing" evokes a bombastic character and thus errors were mistakes.

So in your interpretation Bill's knowledge of swimming was learned knowledge not acquired?

I'm also guessing simply by process of elimination (since there is nothing in his post to tell us how Bill learned browser-based editing) that you're implying Bill's browser-based editing skill was acquired knowledge?

Is "the point" simply to contrast the two ways of gaining knowledge? How does Bill's concern for habits fit into that? Is acquired knowledge more or less susceptible to become unquestioned habit?

As a final aside, is non-behaviorist "classical conditioning" enough of a thing that it doesn't even need to be remarked on?



Franz.

(Edits: for clarity)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Classical Conditioning
on Jun 24, 2017 at 2:56:36 am

I have long been informed by my personal unimpeachable source (my wife, a trained instructional specialist) that whenever you try to shoehorn something inherently complex into a set of simple descriptive shoeboxes - things get ugly fast.

People are complex.

Conditioning in ALL its forms is also complex.

Worse, I suspect it nigh onto impossible to neatly say "learning took place exclusively due to this or that educational modality.

I have carried that swimming cadence in my head for decades because the association was myleanated DEEP in my brain by my instructor that when I swim - it will likely help me swim efficiently.

But when I sprint a bit and need more oxygen - I screw with the cadence. It's situational. Like all good conditioned responses maybe should be?

When I sit to start a new editing project now and Launch X - in a similar fashion the simple question of "can the database at my disposal help me do my work." Is triggered. Before X that stage was missing. I understand that a Premiere editor may similarly get triggered to ask themselves "will a pre- sort of selects into a pancake array help me do my work? In each, the editor seeks to "pre-sort" and thereby narrow their focus.

How they build the habit to seek "presortedness" is kinda irrelevant. Most editors seem to find the step valuable. Mostly.

Those like Simon who feel more comfortable going for the ultimate universal stringout and full-tilt carving approach should have everyone's blessing.

The bottom line for my wife always appeared to be "if the kid learns differently but effectively - and that's demonstrable, you're still good."

Same here I suspect.

This is arguing differences without distinctions because there are WAY to many variables on the table to reach solid conclusions about this stuff.

Not that that's ever slowed us down here much!

My 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Classical Conditioning
on Jun 24, 2017 at 4:39:00 am

I find that post much more balanced and self reflective than your first. A swimming technique and the debate about editing workflows modified by the strengths and weaknesses of a given editing application has extremely different relationship to ergonomics. Editors and production workflows have used metadata and organization of media from the get go. Apple and FCP X did not event this. There were editors that did everything in the timeline and others that took carefully constructed notes on every shot and its timecode. They used index cards like some scriptwriters do to preconceive what the sequences would become. And others used Excel to do the same. The browser in FCP legacy had columns of metadata much the same as X.
All this has been debated to death on this forum. The ergonomics of constant evolution or just plain changes vs mastery is the thing that I find interesting. In the arts and all crafts, "masters" produce on a high creative level and they know their tools inside and out and the learning curve to the mechanical mastery is way in their past. If software companies keep changing how a program works, then much of the craft and time in it is spent relearning and updating how to use the tool. At some point you want the tool to become an extension of your brain - completely subconscious, effortless, except for the creative input the human brain adds to the equation. In the current digital realm, the learning curve never seems to end and a lot of it is arbitrary and not really evolutionary. But some of it is. The best of both poles would be a return to a set of standards that all apps would adhere to, core basics that you would not need to relearn and develop new motor memories to use. The hardest thing to do in any discipline is to express something in its most basic form in a very simple way that also has layers of complexity. I think the original Ipod's mechanical navigation nailed it. I think it should be used as a model for home to interface with layers of organization. But it got replaced with screens and a lot of tapping and swiping and other gestures.
On the latest iPhone, which is an amazing device, something as simple as select, copy, and paste can be frustrating. Its a operation which is used in many apps in different devices including FCP. Yet on the iPhone how this basic function behaves and how successfully it can be performed varies wildly within different apps. As Apple once claimed, it should just work. Sometimes the wheel does not need to be reinvented. And sometimes it never has gotten perfected. No one has ever invented the perfect and perfectly humane mouse trap.
The thing that I think would solve this conflict, evolution vs mastery, is to come up with a system that teaches its end users in a simple and easy manner how to do what they want to do including using a standard based vocabulary. The next huge improvement replacing the help menu.

Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic HPX250P, FCP X 10.3, teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Classical Conditioning
on Jun 24, 2017 at 8:56:35 pm

ON LEARNING

[Bill Davis] "People are complex. ... I suspect it nigh onto impossible to neatly say "learning took place exclusively due to this or that educational modality."

Bill,

Agreed. This is why it’s important to call out stuff like this:

[Bill Davis] ""Without conditioning - we have to re-learn EVERYTHING anew each time we face it.""
[Bill Davis] "The question isn't ARE we conditioned.""
[Bill Davis] "It's how we learn to hit a baseball - OR type, for heaven's sake.”
https://forums.creativecow.net/docs/forums/post.php?forumid=335&postid=9611...

I found this, an overview of Piaget’s constructivist theories about learning:

“Piaget's hypothesis that learning is a transformative rather than a cumulative process is still central. Children do not learn a bit at a time about some issue until it finally comes together as understanding. Instead, they make sense of whatever they know from the very beginning. This understanding is progressively reformed as new knowledge is acquired, especially new knowledge that is incompatible with their previous understanding. This transformative view of learning has been greatly extended by neo-Piagetian research.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-re...

What’s interesting about that is the idea of transformation rather than accumulation - learning isn’t a stockpile that gets bigger, it’s continuous chemistry between the environment and the individual. It's a pretty stark contrast to behaviorism and conditioning.

[Bill Davis] "For any editor who's ... conditioned to equate "build your timeline" as where successful editing happens - I wonder if it's ... difficult to conceive editing [in other ways]"

When you’re saying things like this, I’m suggesting that you’re relying on a behaviorist understanding of how and why we do things. Why are you speculating that timeline-based methods are “conditioned” and not part of a more complex learning process? How are you contrasting the way these approaches are learned with the way other (browser-based) methods are learned?



ON SORTING AND OTHER APPROACHES

[Bill Davis] ”… the editor seeks to "pre-sort" and thereby narrow their focus. How they build the habit to seek "presortedness" is kinda irrelevant. Most editors seem to find the step valuable. Mostly."

You seem pretty confident of you knowledge about the way “most” editors work.

But I think you’ve missed the subject of the discussion; “sorting” or “pre-sorting” are precisely what are in question. Some editors would define sorting or pre-sorting as the important foundation - the first step, the preliminary necessity. Others very much do not describe editing this way.

Simon is good on this - you should read his posts, he’s taken the time to try to explain a bit.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/95831

You are in fact using the very words he’s said don’t apply. He doesn’t “pre-sort” or have a “habit to seek presortedness”. Here he is on how sorting relates to what he does:

“If I were simply sorting through material in a Browser/Bin, this process would not be happening or at least not happening in anything like the same way.”

Here are a few aspects or qualities of his process that he points to that are important to him, and that are not sorting:
“I can see how one clip flows into another “
“I can already get a feel for the pacing.”
“The ability to reorder clips as the thought occurs to me”
“I have a continuous read-out of … length”

His focus isn’t on identifying clips or portions (though this could be said to be happening), it’s on working with things in context. What might seem a simple question of emphasis to you is an important distinction to him. He’s actually pretty insistent on this distinction:
“I have my editing hat on, not an organizing hat.”
“I am already thinking editorially (in the sense of creative timeline-based editing) and not wasting any time merely thinking organizationally.”


So it strikes me that you're trying to claim a certain universality ("mostly") for a certain approach, and you might be missing the things he is pointing out as very important to him, in an attempt to shoehorn things into something that makes more sense to you.



Personally, I wouldn’t say that “sorting” is a thing I do as an important part of the edit. There is a basic organizing stage, but it doesn’t really address the meaning or function of material or even consider whether I will use it or not or why, so I don’t think it could be considered “sorting” in the way you're using it. I’d call it basic organization and it is a task that can be done by others in preparation for the edit. I’d describe the early stage of the edit as understanding the material. “Understanding” is a pretty broad and nebulous thing - it might mean categorizing (“sorting”) to some, but it also means looking for relationships, looking for meaning maybe, or just finding a way to connect to the material.

I do that in a the timeline.



... AND ON A MORE COMEDIC NOTE

[Bill Davis] "... whenever you try to shoehorn something inherently complex into a set of simple descriptive shoeboxes - things get ugly fast."

What’s your wife’s take on browser-based keywording and tagging?



Franz.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: BrickSculpting and Classical Conditioning.
on Jun 19, 2017 at 7:57:50 pm

[Bill Davis] "A regular behavior - ideally linked with a conditioned mental response."

and positive reinforcement.


Return to posts index

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