-
And the first major Hollywood feature to be edited in FCPX and released is…
-
Although the article calls it as a Cold Mountain moment I don’t see that is a relevant comparison. Breaking down the edifice of AVID for features was a moment for sure and it changed the NLE landscape profoundly. These days there are many NLEs that can be used to cut a feature film so there isn’t a similar ceiling to break through.
Also camera and distribution is digital so using a new NLE to cut a show that remains non destructive of camera original is not so scary. Neg cutting and the cost of prints meant you really wanted to be sure your NLE can be frame accurate, work at true frame rates and produce an EDL.
FCPX might not be a good choice on a pure film shot, telecine, neg cut workflow. But really the world has moved on so far that I am a bit surprised that X or Pr being used on a feature is seen as equally significant to Cold Mountain was for FCP.
-
[Michael Gissing] “Although the article calls it as a Cold Mountain moment I don’t see that is a relevant comparison.”
I’d say you’re grossly overthinking the matter. 😉 The “Cold Mountain moment”, at least as *I* understand it, is merely referring to the moment when FCP (in that case legacy) was “legitimised” as an NLE for editing features. As in long form, massive data etc. Something many questioned was possible then… and now. I’m pretty sure everyone knows that the overall circumstances were in fact completely different, yes. But feature films are nonetheless in a league of their own in terms of the technical, organisational etc. demands. Along the lines of “If your car can go 200mph, whether you actually ever do it yourself or not, you know it can easily go 60mph”… if ya know what I mean. 🙂
And yes, if things were actually still telecined etc., then X wouldn’t be nearly as useful. But then, as you say yourself, that’s pretty much irrelevant today. Unless you’re Quentin Tarantino. 🙂
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
So frame accuracy is suddenly irrelevant? No way, especially if you need to take the 100s of hours of footage, and relink to the pertinent 2 hours, and make DI and prints.
Frame accuracy is still important, you just don’t need to go hunt frames on a tape and back to film, you have to go look or a frame in the midst of hundreds of thousands of other frames in multiple terabytes of material, both original and working copies. I’d say it’s just as important as ever.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “So frame accuracy is suddenly irrelevant?”
Um… when and where exactly did anybody say that? Seeing that it’s a direct response to my post, apparently I did?
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Michael Gissing] “Also camera and distribution is digital so using a new NLE to cut a show that remains non destructive of camera original is not so scary. Neg cutting and the cost of prints meant you really wanted to be sure your NLE can be frame accurate, work at true frame rates and produce an EDL.”
[Robin S. Kurz] “And yes, if things were actually still telecined etc., then X wouldn’t be nearly as useful. But then, as you say yourself, that’s pretty much irrelevant today. Unless you’re Quentin Tarantino. 🙂
“ -
[M. Gissing] “Neg cutting and the cost of prints meant you really wanted to be sure your NLE can be frame accurate, work at true frame rates and produce an EDL.””
All of which FCP X can do as well as any other NLE. FWIW…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Charlie Austin] “All of which FCP X can do as well as any other NLE. FWIW…”
Just to be clear, that was me quoting Gissing (it looks like you quoted me).
I just think that because everything is digital doesn’t mean that it’s any easier, it just means that you don’t have to write a tape transport protocol.
As a matter of fact, I’d venture to say there’s more to keep track of in current workflows than ever.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “ust to be clear, that was me quoting Gissing (it looks like you quoted me).
“oops… corrected. 🙂
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
Sorry, but whether you want to insinuate some imho far fetched relationship or reference between the two claims or not, still doesn’t change that that wasn’t even close to my actual point. If anything, I was referring to the possibly more laborious OUTPUT (not editing or import) to film due to the lack of the normally needed exchange formats by default within FCP X. So you may want to actually ask what was meant first next time, instead of simply making assumptions. Thanks.
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
It’s OK, Robin. It’s just a discussion. If I’m wrong, tell me where I went wrong. If you recall, I did ask a question to start this discussion: [Jeremy Garchow] “So frame accuracy is suddenly irrelevant?”
Michael’s point seems to be that negative cutting/EDL was the only thing that requires frame accuracy in NLEs, you seemed to sort of go along with that notion. I wasn’t assuming anything, just inferring what you seemed to agree to.
The truth is, 3 years ago, X wasn’t up to the task of making a movie, and now it is. Pr has made similar strides in a relatively short amount of time, and and already had a much more mature feature set than X did 3 years ago.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up