And the first major Hollywood feature to be edited in FCPX and released is…

[Bill Davis]

I think there’s a reasonable argument that the use of an NLE that largely conforms to the structure of every NLE that’s come before it (Premier Pro cutting Gone Girl). Is a significantly different matter than when an NLE that set out to radically change the entire workflow of editing does the same type of thing.

Those voices that clearly said that the X change “ruined” FCP the program for professional editing – have now been ultimately proved to have been totally wrong. Period.

What’s still left to debate is whether holding onto an NLE approach that values traditional proven workflows over what many see as workflow innovation (I know, I know, in eye of the beholder, surely) will turn out to be a smarter long term strategy than learning an alternate way that trades familiarity against the potential of greater overall efficiency.

Mike Matzsorff said on the VUG webcast that he honestly felt that using X (on what we now formally know was the Focus edit) let the team spend less time on editing mechanics and more time on the creative aspects of editing.

If that’s true, X will earn it’s place in the industry.

These are definitely interesting times in professional editing.

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

[Charlie Austin]

Looking forward to hearing more about this as the cat slowly crawls out of the bag. 🙂 Ya know what would make me very happy, in a perverse way? If Apple talks about it, sticks it on the FCP page, but doesn’t go media blitz crazy with it.

Just like, “Yes.This feature was cut in X. We were pleased to be a part of the film, and here’s some information about it. You can hear more about it from the people involved, who had a good experience. It works, and will continue to improve. Also… here’s a few more things happening.”

Steady as she goes. Kind of what they’ve been doing actually. 🙂

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Robin S. kurz]

[Charlie Austin] “Just like, “Yes.This feature was cut in X. We were pleased to be a part of the film, and here’s some information about it. You can hear more about it from the people involved, who had a good experience. It works, and will continue to improve. Also… here’s a few more things happening.””

I believe that’s called the “In-Action” page. 😉

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Tony West]

A couple of things I find interesting about this topic, is that when he started, X didn’t even have all the improvements it has now. (Looks like he may have had a lot to do with some of those, which would make sense)

He said he didn’t even have the new Mac Pro until the end.

He pulled it off with a much lesser X with less horsepower.

I’m interested to see how this jump starts X

Many of us have said it before, as much as I love working with X, I want Pr and Avid and others out there competing.

It makes them all better, and heck, it’s better for the economy to have more jobs than fewer.

[Oliver Peters]

I think the point that FCP X’s use is interesting for the workflow is very valid. However, I think it’s wrong to set up Premiere as the choice because it’s close to what came before. The reason Premiere Pro made the cut for “Gone Girl” was largely because of its tight After Effects integration, which was used extensively on “GG”. Far more that any other film I can recall. So, while the NLE is a more familiar paradigm, the reason it was chosen was also because of a unique workflow.

– Oliver

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

[Charlie Austin]

I believe you are correct. 🙂

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Bill Davis]

[Oliver Peters] “So, while the NLE is a more familiar paradigm, the reason it was chosen was also because of a unique workflow.
“

This is an absolutely fair observation Oliver. As I’m not an AE guy, I often neglect to think in terms of other software like that being a integral part of a particular workflow.

Mike M told me directly that there were something like 170 effect shots in Focus – far more than I would have suspected since it’s more a real world, “heist genre-ish comedy drama” as opposed to a space opera or some Michael Bey deal where you expect every other shot to be VFX dependent.

The AE connection you’re making makes a whole lot of sense.

I wonder if that means they did more of the effects work in house – or just used AE do do pre-comps then farm the work out as with most films. Much is changing out there. It’s kinda fun!

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

[Charlie Austin]

[Bill Davis] ” there were something like 170 effect shots in Focus – far more than I would have suspected since it’s more a real world, “heist genre-ish comedy drama” as opposed to a space opera or some Michael Bey deal where you expect every other shot to be VFX dependent. “

I’m still surprised at how many FX shots are in pretty much every studio movie these days. As we cut trailers, we usually get unfinished features. Even a simple romantic comedy these days usually has a bunch of FX shots. Pickups, reshot scenes where they shot a backplate so they wouldn’t need to go back to the location, etc.When we get dailies, there’s a whole lot of static shot’s of interior and exterior locations. Action films… seems like every other shot has some sort of VFX component.

Nothing is real man!!!! lol

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Shawn Miller]

[Bill Davis] “I wonder if that means they did more of the effects work in house – or just used AE do do pre-comps then farm the work out as with most films. Much is changing out there. It’s kinda fun!”

Tyler Nelson, Jeff Baxter and a couple of the post-production engineers talk a bit about that throughout the video below. It sounds like they’re doing a lot of what they were doing on The Social Network, but with Premiere as the main edit tool and not just a front end for AE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o6pjd2AU9c#t=39

Shawn

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Oliver Peters]

[Bill Davis] “170 effect shots in Focus – far more than I would have suspected”

That’s nothing these days. So many directors add set extensions, use stabilization and use “invisible” split screens for two shots, the 170 sounds quite low to me. Depending on how long or how cutty the film is, that’s 10% or less of the shots in the film. In that virtual user group, Mike mentioned having assistants working with Nuke in the next room. I suspect that was a similar workflow to the “GG”, just less intense.

[Bill Davis] “I wonder if that means they did more of the effects work in house – or just used AE do do pre-comps then farm the work out as with most films. Much is changing out there. It’s kinda fun!”

I just interviewed Baxter and Nelson, plus have followed the various other interviews they’ve done, in prep for an article for DV. It’s my understanding, that between stabilization, shot alterations, TV/computer screen comps and split-screens, nearly every shot was an effects shot. The bulk of this was done in-house using After Effects – first as preview comps with proxy footage and then later at 6K resolution. There were also shots sent to outside facilities such as Digital Domain. For example the underwater shot of Amy.

This is a similar workflow to “Social Network” and “Dragon Tattoo” except much more – and way more tightly integrated than could be done with FCP7 and AE. Basically, the editor could set up a clip or a simple comp in the preview timeline as an AE comp. Then the assistants handle the AE work on the same storage network. When the AE comp is saved, it shows up in the editor’s timeline. It seems that the new “render and replace” feature that’s in the newest version of CC came out of experiences learned on this film.

FWIW – if you look at old interviews with Angus Wall on editing “Zodiac”, he mentions sending clips to Shake from FCP (hint, hint).

– Oliver

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