Betting Everything on FCP X

Actually it just sounds like someone conforming a show. Assembling a bunch of previously cut pieces into the final show. I could see that in "17 minutes" but even there, you'd want to at least watch the show roll down before you ship it which would add at least another 28 minutes to the edit.

I do like the billing question though. If folks can edit that quickly, we will be able to hire them for 17 minutes at a time instead of for multiple days. Will make things much more economical on my part that's for sure.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
biscardicreative.com

How do you "slap together" a 28 minute show in 17 minutes without watching your edits or the show in general? This is BS - sorry...not buying it one bit.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

It's the downside of Skimmer oriented editing. It's not caring about the content. Skim through and visually and audibly find the head and skim to find the tail. Yes it's ultra sloppy but skimmer lends itself to "hyper shuttle" mode. I can see doing that for a first rough cut but someone with a crazy deadline an low regard for details could do that.

i don't care if someone cut an oscar wining feature film on FCPX in 10 minutes, i still think the software holds as much practical allure as a rotten, sordid pair of mouldy old pants.

no offence.

>Skim through and visually and audibly find the head and skim to find the tail.

Geez. They don't even playback at double speed to check if the cut is okay? And I thought I was sloppy...



www.strypesinpost.com

">Skim through and visually and audibly find the head and skim to find the tail.

Geez. They don't even playback at double speed to check if the cut is okay? "

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

this kind of sloppy attitude would help explain why the whooshes are more often than not out of time with the transitions on those 'talent' show and singing programs.

classy.

Nope. Skimming is crap. That is not editing. That is not our trade. That is hacking...just like the way Apple hacked FCP X together to release it before it was done. Perfect metaphor.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

> It's not caring about the content. I can see doing that for a first rough cut

The only point of a first rough cut is content. Skip that and every single step afterwards is moot. It doesn't matter how smooth the cuts are, how nice the graphics, how solid the structure, or how well chosen the music, if you didn't include the scene material necessary. All other decisions flow from choosing the content.

And content cannot be the purview of a paper edit, because the paper edit is like a beatsheet; it misses far too much that the real footage and real editing convey. This is why story editors can never replace hands-on picture editors. And why story editors can often be mediocre or even bad picture editors.


www.derekmok.com

I think you're all missing my point. Skim editing doesn't have anything to do with quality. That it can be done though means someone will do it and the fact that someone cut a 28 minute show in 17 minutes is likely proof. We have the monkey at the typewriter and this case the typewriter is FCPX because it has keys accessible to the monkey. Somebody had some reason to throw something together quickly and wasn't particularly concerned about content or much story structure. It sound like a public access show IMHO a reality show which to me often ranks up there with public access, at least the worst of them do.

And my point is, if the project in question is this sloppy, I could do it in 17 minutes too -- on FCP7 or any other proper editing software, even Media 100. Maybe even faster, since I'd have more track real estate to use as an area of operations, and an assembly like this would need no rendering.

In an iron-vise schedule like this, when FCPX does falter, it won't shake loose the problem so easily, because so much control has been stripped away from the user (eg. saving and file management) and the entire design relies on the computer doing things right. And we've all seen how badly computers can go wrong, in ways never imagined by the short-sighted software designers. We'll see how much trouble the FCPX user is in when he does the 17-minute-for-28 thing and his media goes offline or the export refuses to work.

Speed doesn't come from rushing. Speed comes from accuracy, confidence, diligence, and a safe, reliable, predictable, knowledgeable workflow. Speed comes from using tools that can handle many contingencies, not tools that tunnel-vision you into narrow assumptions. You can bet that if I were on a 17-minute deadline on an FCP7 project, I'd still do at least one manual backup during that rush session.


www.derekmok.com

Nobody is missing your point. It IS about quality. Cannot believe you do not see that (?!).

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I think Craig's argument is that FCPX is just a tool, and that the same sloppy editor would be just as sloppy on FCP7. Which is true.

But I stick to my point. For true speed, long-term and consistent speed, we need a tool that's versatile, stable and deep. FCPX is short-sighted speed -- speed that only happens when all the elements are in a specific, narrow margin.

For example, I do many "adaptation" spots where I need to juggle four language versions, with various audio, video and graphic elements, some of which are shared, others not. I dare anyone to say FCPX is better in that scenario, with its oh-so-smart trackless approach.

Keywords and metadata? I love making notes and I love it if the software can make metadata intrinsic to the file to help organization. But to rely on it to locate elements in the timeline is dangerous. For example, how many of us have worked with assistant editors, effects artists, sound mixers -- pros who are very good at their jobs -- who make typos all over the place? Spell a person's name eight different ways on 10 different files? When looking for an actor, do you use the actor's first name? Last name? The character's name? Am I the only one who sees a problem when you rely on metadata alone to organize your timeline? And am I the only one who finds it much easier, faster and more logical to just highlight Track V5 and above and hit Copy or Delete? What about when we have multiple graphic versions like I outlined above? Are FCPX advocates going to try to argue that FCPX is better for lining up v03, v05 and v08 of the same graphic so that we can A/B it for the director to choose? What about five takes of the same reaction shot?


www.derekmok.com

Well said, Derek. Reality shows are constantly being re-tooled and re-edited, interview bite pick ups, etc. I have edited reality shows for MTV and similar...17 minutes? I've spent over a month cutting a 30 minute (22 minute-ish) episode. Can this be done on FCPx quicker than that? Perha---oh wait, no multi-cam...

I think the issue is some people mistake using the Skimmer for actually screening material. The shot "sort of looks right" so being over confident, they throw it on the timeline. I think it's inevitable that someone is going to skim edit a piece under pressure.

Event though I like FCPX it certainly opens the door to some bad workflows. That someone actually did it and boasted about it is proof. Do you think they were concerned about quality?

I've had a two-day turnaround for a 50 minute show several times in the past. That was a pretty tough deadline to meet. I'd love to see what this show looked like after being edited in 17 minutes.

My software:
Pro Maintenance Tools - Tools to keep Final Cut Studio, Final Cut Pro X, Avid Media Composer and Adobe Premiere Pro running smoothly and fix problems when they arise
Pro Media Tools - Edit QuickTime chapters and metadata, detect gamma shifts, edit markers, watch renders and more
More tools...

The entire consideration of the idea of a 28 minute show being edited in 17 minutes is absurd. It takes me three weeks to cut 22 minutes. It takes me the first three days just to organize and learn my footage. Editing speed isn't in the software it's in the speed of your thinking and seeing all the puzzle pieces and their connections quickly. It's not as if editing is just hitting a series of buttons as fast as you can. Sometimes I actually walk around the block and think about the cut and I consider THAT editing just as much as operating the tool. Sometimes I think about the structure of the cut on my drive home and come in and slam it out in the morning so my drive home is considered editing as well and I am not using ANY software for that. It's all about how fast my mind can get to the right place and when it gets there I don't even look at the keyboard because that is all muscle memory anyway.

We edit with our wits and our hearts, not with paradigms.

Quote
craig seeman
Most reality shows seem like hack jobs to me. That's the point 17 minutes to cut a 28 minute show sounds like a reality show on deadline.

What the hell do you cut craig? As one of the "hacks" who have cut reality television, let me enlighten you to a few things.

First of all, the shooting ratio for reality vs scripted: at minimum you can expect 5 to 6 TIMES more footage for reality than scripted. And that's a conservative estimate. So for an hour long show, you are often looking at 50-80 hours of footage, and that's not even taking into consideration multicam shoots of 3 or more.

Typical turn around time for an hour long show is apprx. 10-12 weeks. Not 17 minutes. Not ever.

Reality TV editors generally make more money than scripted TV editors. The reason? Because reality editors don't have a script. At most they have a basic story outline provided by the story producers on set. All the visuals and dialogue must be found and edited from the massive vault of footage we're looking through. They are writers and producers as much as editors. Sometimes you have things like script sync to help you search out sound bites and in-scene dialogue, other times you just have a written transcript. Still other times you have to make do with your own locators and memory.

Reality editors don't get alternate takes from their "actors." They have to be exceedingly clever about massaging the story, cutting around production mistakes, and matching edits on a scale that scripted TV doesn't have to deal with. Calling them "hacks" because you don't like reality TV, or because those shows don't have the lighting and look of CSI is a great dis-service to the work they do.

I've worked as a news editor, a scripted film editor, and a scripted TV and reality editor. As much as I hate watching reality TV, my hate is for the concepts and conceits, not for the work that goes into it. In fact, it's the hardest editing work I've done in terms of organization, concentration, and pacing skill.

You can find mediocre editors in any field and at any level. Personally, I thought the pacing on Transformers was atrocious. But I know enough about the business not to even consider that a "hack job." To call most reality TV "hack jobs" only tells me that you don't pay close enough attention to the editing.

Andy

>Sometimes you have things like script sync to help you search out sound bites and in-scene
>dialogue

Or PhraseFind. Just wished Avid has a free search tool to search by keywords.



www.strypesinpost.com