|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
Emmy award winning editor at NBC changes his mind about FCP X, He "Loves" it.
Posted by Michael Horton
|
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC changes his mind about FCP X, He "Loves" it. August 17, 2012 07:49PM |
Wow, a lot of his arguments aren't very good though. Multicam? Never learnt to use it anyway. Grading or sound finishing outside of FCP? Never was in a facility that used it anyway. No RED? Well, its a new program, give it a break. Can't open old projects? Just keep FCP7 around. And guess what? It's cheap!
I don't really care what people use or like, but that just wasn't very convincing to me.
I don't really care what people use or like, but that just wasn't very convincing to me.
|
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC changes his mind about FCP X, He "Loves" it. August 21, 2012 07:16PM |
Gotta admit that talking from a seasoned editor's standpoint, that is probably some of the worst points ever made. The arguments go along the lines of "audio mixing? Who needs audio mixing? I don't. Color correction? What's that? Oh look, I have an Emmy. FCP X is great."
There are quite a few things FCP X is good at:
- Motion Rigs to build effects
- abundance of 3rd party plugins
- simplicity in transcoding to an intermediate format
- powerful metadata engine and database search tools
- built in audio synchronization
- a pretty slick multicam editing layout
The issues are that it builds on the premise of the magnetic timeline instead of tracks, it has little or no compatibility with industry standard interchange formats (eg. batch lists, EDLs, AAFs, OMF, etc..), also it has no tape support and it relies heavily on 3rd party solutions.
www.strypesinpost.com
There are quite a few things FCP X is good at:
- Motion Rigs to build effects
- abundance of 3rd party plugins
- simplicity in transcoding to an intermediate format
- powerful metadata engine and database search tools
- built in audio synchronization
- a pretty slick multicam editing layout
The issues are that it builds on the premise of the magnetic timeline instead of tracks, it has little or no compatibility with industry standard interchange formats (eg. batch lists, EDLs, AAFs, OMF, etc..), also it has no tape support and it relies heavily on 3rd party solutions.
www.strypesinpost.com
|
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC changes his mind about FCP X, He "Loves" it. August 22, 2012 07:28AM |
> The editor/DOP loved FCPX, telling all the guys working with him "that's the best NLE in the world" and within a few hours he changed his mind.
Because short-term "speed" is sexy. Reliability, versatility and professionalism only show their true worth over time.
It reminds me of the many times some producers have asked me to take shortcuts (such as using files without converting them properly) and I resisted. They come back around when they get a problem while accessing the project themselves, something goes wrong, and I fix it in two minutes over the phone.
Reliability and versatility are what give long-term speed. FCPX deals in short-term speed.
www.derekmok.com
Because short-term "speed" is sexy. Reliability, versatility and professionalism only show their true worth over time.
It reminds me of the many times some producers have asked me to take shortcuts (such as using files without converting them properly) and I resisted. They come back around when they get a problem while accessing the project themselves, something goes wrong, and I fix it in two minutes over the phone.
Reliability and versatility are what give long-term speed. FCPX deals in short-term speed.
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC changes his mind about FCP X, He "Loves" it. August 22, 2012 02:24PM |
Most of us use edit machines today to do more than storytelling. There are extended functions that we use NLEs for, such as subtitling, versioning, or in the case of multicam shows, creating sync maps. FCP X is fundamentally designed to re-look the creative editing process. Apple has clearly seen the shortcomings of the system with regards to multicam syncing, which is why they released the audio synchronize feature as early as in the .0 release. I find that approach commendable, as it brings syncing into the modern age. A lot of the current prep work for multicam shows still involve some degree of manual work. However, audio synchronization still doesn't beat creating a sync map from your rushes, and I'm not sure how elegantly FCP X will work with that many clips and camera angles, and i am not talking about performance, but rather stacking that many angles into the angle editor.
The new editing paradigm is an interesting concept. However I have doubts that it will become the holy grail of narrative editing. I may take up the trial when they release the version with 2 up display and multitrack audio editing tools.
FCP X is a new program and a lot of things will change as it undergoes development and people can most certainly learn it. However, FCP X has quite a bit of industry backlash and even people who have not seen or touched it are slamming it, which I feel is quite unfair. But we've always had sheep and a lot of software is sold purely by the "buzz", including many badly configured FCP systems.
www.strypesinpost.com
The new editing paradigm is an interesting concept. However I have doubts that it will become the holy grail of narrative editing. I may take up the trial when they release the version with 2 up display and multitrack audio editing tools.
FCP X is a new program and a lot of things will change as it undergoes development and people can most certainly learn it. However, FCP X has quite a bit of industry backlash and even people who have not seen or touched it are slamming it, which I feel is quite unfair. But we've always had sheep and a lot of software is sold purely by the "buzz", including many badly configured FCP systems.
www.strypesinpost.com
|
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC changes his mind about FCP X, He "Loves" it. August 23, 2012 05:41AM |
Most of us use edit machines today to do more than storytelling.
That's true.
Another thing is that people quite often say "I'm not interested in the technique behind — it just have to work my way" other's say "It's not working the way I want — what I'm doing wrong?" there also others which say say only "It's not working" and so on. All of this makes a forum like this living and sometimes controversial.
As Gerard said "The new editing paradigm is an interesting concept. However I have doubts that it will become the holy grail of narrative editing."
I do have my concerns as well, I hope Apple will make their "revolution" change into an "evolution".
I'm just starting to make a re-edit of a 10 year old short about my daughter which had been filmed and edited by some guys from a German TV station cause they "loved" my daughter. This works like a charm with FCPX even though I don't have the source files. All this (meta)data handling and keywords are great; magnetic timeline is great. I used old fashioned and obsolete QT Player to cut the movie into pieces. That's way more efficient and secure rather than doing it in FCPX or any NLE — in this case.
I've got another re-edit with a "technical" movie where I gave FCPX a try and it fails right at the beginning cause there is no viewer and canvas and I cannot compare clips, even if I would take the burden to make "best guess markers" and match the clips I still can't import the metadata needed for this (boring technical 2 hour) movie. Another thing is that FCPX can't handle some of the obsolete QT files, that means some referenced movies either can't be imported or will create a total chaos. So FCPX is a no go with this.
Again, FCPX can be good for many people, can be just a kind of toy for others or just another app in the toolbox.
I'm also with Derek "Reliability and versatility are what give long-term speed. FCPX deals in short-term speed."
-Andreas — also an award winning editor
Some workflow tools for FCP [www.spherico.com]
TitleExchange -- juggle titles within FCS, FCPX and many other apps.
[www.spherico.com]
That's true.
Another thing is that people quite often say "I'm not interested in the technique behind — it just have to work my way" other's say "It's not working the way I want — what I'm doing wrong?" there also others which say say only "It's not working" and so on. All of this makes a forum like this living and sometimes controversial.
As Gerard said "The new editing paradigm is an interesting concept. However I have doubts that it will become the holy grail of narrative editing."
I do have my concerns as well, I hope Apple will make their "revolution" change into an "evolution".
I'm just starting to make a re-edit of a 10 year old short about my daughter which had been filmed and edited by some guys from a German TV station cause they "loved" my daughter. This works like a charm with FCPX even though I don't have the source files. All this (meta)data handling and keywords are great; magnetic timeline is great. I used old fashioned and obsolete QT Player to cut the movie into pieces. That's way more efficient and secure rather than doing it in FCPX or any NLE — in this case.
I've got another re-edit with a "technical" movie where I gave FCPX a try and it fails right at the beginning cause there is no viewer and canvas and I cannot compare clips, even if I would take the burden to make "best guess markers" and match the clips I still can't import the metadata needed for this (boring technical 2 hour) movie. Another thing is that FCPX can't handle some of the obsolete QT files, that means some referenced movies either can't be imported or will create a total chaos. So FCPX is a no go with this.
Again, FCPX can be good for many people, can be just a kind of toy for others or just another app in the toolbox.
I'm also with Derek "Reliability and versatility are what give long-term speed. FCPX deals in short-term speed."
-Andreas — also an award winning editor
Some workflow tools for FCP [www.spherico.com]
TitleExchange -- juggle titles within FCS, FCPX and many other apps.
[www.spherico.com]
|
Re: Emmy award winning editor at NBC changes his mind about FCP X, He "Loves" it. August 23, 2012 04:50PM |
>Another thing is that people quite often say "I'm not interested in the technique behind — it
>just have to work my way" other's say "It's not working the way I want — what I'm doing
>wrong?" there also others which say say only "It's not working" and so on.
Regarding that point, I have to say that there is only one NLE that does keyframing the way it should be done- Premiere Pro. I'm not sure how many people will say otherwise. No other NLE does it quite right. You can build up speed in keyframing in any NLE, but the ease in which you can marquee select, copy, paste and delete keyframes. It's unparalleled. Avid may be trying not to alienate their loyal user base by maintaining the AVX architecture, but as an FCP editor, I would have loved it if they gave me that After Effects style of keyframing in any version of FCP.
>Reliability and versatility are what give long-term speed. FCPX deals in short-term speed.
This is an absolute statement, and we should refrain from making absolute statements when discussing software. There are loads of things that can be improved in the editing world, that can dramatically increase the speed, without sacrificing stability or reliability or versatility in the software functions. Take native H.264 editing for example. We used to say that it should be converted to ProRes before editing because H.264 is very computationally intensive. But after a while, it made little sense. QT X could play H.264 with no issues, and you can step through frames in QT X without beachballing. And these are exactly the functions we need in an NLE to work with H.264, but we couldn't because either FCP lacked some GPU acceleration to decode those files or there was some coding issue or performance issue related to 32 bit performance or the software just wasn't up for multithreading. Then there are markers and metadata, and there are shortcomings to how they work.
The problem or perhaps benefit with FCP X is that paradigm shift- the magnetic timeline, primary storyline, secondary storyline, connected clips; the skimmer, the one-up display, filmstrip view; the event browser.
Initially, I thought the skimmer and one-up display was a hallmark of the new UI design- that Apple felt the purposes of the two up display could be served with a one up display and filmstrip view. Of course, many editors disagreed, and I think Apple's current roadmap is a result of Apple listening to some of the arguments put forth over its design, and they seemed to have overlooked the importance of comparing shots.
The asset management itself is a different beast. It creates little files which is similar to an Avid bin, and reference movies. Of course, my problem with this is that the software doesn't store a video project the same way we work with a video project. And try as I may, I really see a mess here without a 3rd party app to sort this out.
But most fundamentally as an NLE, it is what is central to the editing paradigm that has many editors talking- the magnetic timeline, primary storyline and connecting clips. It comes at the expense of tracks. This new paradigm is supposed to work the way editors think- how clips are related to one another, how to shift groups of clips while avoiding clip collisions and how to reduce the time spent on patching tracks. But the big question here is- is Apple over analyzing the way editors work? How often do you start an edit with a scratch VO (primary storyline), throw in your cutaway shots, and then change the VO line and re-voice it, and then amend the cut? How often do you throw a bunch of clips onto track 2, and then shuffle them around? How often do you think in terms of creating a secondary storyline, and how often do you just drop a shot in and see where you end up later?
Kudos to developers who try to do something different. Apple looked at FCP, as well as Apple's fundamental direction as a company, and built upon its strengths, such as developing the metadata and database functions of FCP, and also developed FCP as a platform and made it easy for 3rd party developers to create apps on top of it. The issue now is the gamble with the new paradigm for storytelling, and while having a new way to tell a story is good, the problem is that there is no more old way. And time will tell if this gamble can take off.
www.strypesinpost.com
>just have to work my way" other's say "It's not working the way I want — what I'm doing
>wrong?" there also others which say say only "It's not working" and so on.
Regarding that point, I have to say that there is only one NLE that does keyframing the way it should be done- Premiere Pro. I'm not sure how many people will say otherwise. No other NLE does it quite right. You can build up speed in keyframing in any NLE, but the ease in which you can marquee select, copy, paste and delete keyframes. It's unparalleled. Avid may be trying not to alienate their loyal user base by maintaining the AVX architecture, but as an FCP editor, I would have loved it if they gave me that After Effects style of keyframing in any version of FCP.
>Reliability and versatility are what give long-term speed. FCPX deals in short-term speed.
This is an absolute statement, and we should refrain from making absolute statements when discussing software. There are loads of things that can be improved in the editing world, that can dramatically increase the speed, without sacrificing stability or reliability or versatility in the software functions. Take native H.264 editing for example. We used to say that it should be converted to ProRes before editing because H.264 is very computationally intensive. But after a while, it made little sense. QT X could play H.264 with no issues, and you can step through frames in QT X without beachballing. And these are exactly the functions we need in an NLE to work with H.264, but we couldn't because either FCP lacked some GPU acceleration to decode those files or there was some coding issue or performance issue related to 32 bit performance or the software just wasn't up for multithreading. Then there are markers and metadata, and there are shortcomings to how they work.
The problem or perhaps benefit with FCP X is that paradigm shift- the magnetic timeline, primary storyline, secondary storyline, connected clips; the skimmer, the one-up display, filmstrip view; the event browser.
Initially, I thought the skimmer and one-up display was a hallmark of the new UI design- that Apple felt the purposes of the two up display could be served with a one up display and filmstrip view. Of course, many editors disagreed, and I think Apple's current roadmap is a result of Apple listening to some of the arguments put forth over its design, and they seemed to have overlooked the importance of comparing shots.
The asset management itself is a different beast. It creates little files which is similar to an Avid bin, and reference movies. Of course, my problem with this is that the software doesn't store a video project the same way we work with a video project. And try as I may, I really see a mess here without a 3rd party app to sort this out.
But most fundamentally as an NLE, it is what is central to the editing paradigm that has many editors talking- the magnetic timeline, primary storyline and connecting clips. It comes at the expense of tracks. This new paradigm is supposed to work the way editors think- how clips are related to one another, how to shift groups of clips while avoiding clip collisions and how to reduce the time spent on patching tracks. But the big question here is- is Apple over analyzing the way editors work? How often do you start an edit with a scratch VO (primary storyline), throw in your cutaway shots, and then change the VO line and re-voice it, and then amend the cut? How often do you throw a bunch of clips onto track 2, and then shuffle them around? How often do you think in terms of creating a secondary storyline, and how often do you just drop a shot in and see where you end up later?
Kudos to developers who try to do something different. Apple looked at FCP, as well as Apple's fundamental direction as a company, and built upon its strengths, such as developing the metadata and database functions of FCP, and also developed FCP as a platform and made it easy for 3rd party developers to create apps on top of it. The issue now is the gamble with the new paradigm for storytelling, and while having a new way to tell a story is good, the problem is that there is no more old way. And time will tell if this gamble can take off.
www.strypesinpost.com
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
