-
Can we perhaps hold the triumphalism …?
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “if you don’t understand the need for this feature, then the chances are that your personal editing requirements tend toward the modest.
“now that’s a little elitist! 😉
Color me “modest ” too.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Steve Connor] “That’s just the old way of thinking Oliver :)”
As I sit here transcoding a bunch of Sony A7 footage because the performance is bad enough that I don’t want to deal with bringing the computer to its knees 🙂 Granted that’s not TC (the A7 has TC), but just one of the many issues caused by consumer-ish gear (or at least consumer codecs) used in professional environments.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I really don’t frequent CC forums or any others for that matter anymore since they seemed riddled with childish rhetoric quickly rearing it’s ugly head that inevitably and usually quite quickly deviates from anything that could be called relevant input to the OP’s question/ comment; in this case, Simon Ubsdell.
This thread however is interesting. Why? Because Simon made the comment that FCPX needs improvement in a certain area of great importance. Great because he was detailing a lack of one of the integral parameters being available that is the reason for using the very software he is using in the first place. Logical.
But hang on minute. Who is apple? They have been a company for sometime now who states brazenly and I paraphrase, “We do things this way and you should too.” This pertains to everything they do. From software to file handling and everything in between. This would seem to more than intimate that they are also saying, “So get over any problem you have, with it.”
And anyone using their stuff that has thrown even a single brain cell on it, knows this as a fact. Those that do not use their stuff call all of you guys, ‘Fan Boys.’ The reason for this derogatory label is that while those using apple’s stuff seem to be die hard apple stuff users, they are the biggest group of complainers on the block. Possibly because apple really has paved the way for a lot of innovation and the problem with that is, everyone gets on a roll, stoked with the advances and feel like, “Let’s do this”, and they and all of us should. Progressing with the obvious is awesome and we as the only species that realizes the feelings that we have and some understanding of why we have them is awesome. The problem is that apple keeps stopping. A little advance and a harsh halt. People using their stuff get miffed.
But again, who is apple? They had FCP7 which everyone, including the professional industry, used. They bought Shake and again, everyone used it. Why did everyone use these two software packages? Because they were logical well thought out software, minus some obvious features albeit for FCP7, that covered the gamut of necessary tools to do the job of editing and special effects. To do the job with the creativity that we as a species realize is within us and do it with excellence to the best of our abilities at the time we are doing it. In short form, to be unlimited in the execution of our ideas, within reason, with a proper, logical toolset.
The first question is this: Is FCPX anything like 7? The answer is, no. The second question is: Then why the ‘f’ are you using it? The second question is the killer. So if their is a blame to be had, whose is it? The guy swinging the whip or the guy showing up to be whipped?
Apple bought and then killed Shake, which still, even to this day, out does Nuke and Fusion hands down and if it had continued to be developed seriously, would still be the number one package of it’s kind in the world as it was back in the day.
So to Simon and the rest of you, why are using what is, in your own stated opinions, less than you need to do your job?
FCPX is a joke and premier another clown in the same circus. Avid is the only serious tool and that is confirmed by every major and minor house on a whole around the globe. If you don’t have the tools to do the job, go get them, and stop complaining. Besides, if you show up for the beating, a beating you should be handed.
And if you think that being lambasted by apple and their people for spinning around your feature requests into attacks, you guys are not thinking about the implications of that very fact. They are not listening and they consider you a pest. Think about it.
Time code is essential along with all of the essential tools that are indisputably important. Do not doubt your ability to ascertain your needs in any situation that are needs for real.
Again, think about it.
-
[Oliver Peters] “As I sit here transcoding a bunch of Sony A7 footage”
And of course, as I go to sync them, none of the TCs match each other among 2 cams and audio device. Plenty of drift over the course of the day. Thank goodness for those “old school” slates with a clap.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Brian Chaffee] ”
FCPX is a joke and premier another clown in the same circus. Avid is the only serious tool and that is confirmed by every major and minor house on a whole around the globe.”Statements like that are extremely close minded, and very troll-ish. Avid is not the only serious tool…and it sees heavy use in very specific areas of post. It’s absolutely the WRONG choice for many other productions. heck I used it in projects that would best be handled by another app (Premiere…even FCP 7) solely because we need project sharing. Sorry, that’s statement won’t get you far in this group…much less in the world of post.
“IT’S THE GREATEST TOOL EVER IN THE THE HISTORY OF EDITING APPLICATIONS…OMG!” Sorry, who’s fanboying now?
[Brian Chaffee] “Time code is essential along with all of the essential tools that are indisputably important.”
That statement is true. I’ll give you this. People who mock us for liking and needing good old timecode because “it’s too old…and anything old is bad” doesn’t see the forest for the trees. There are many cases where “because it works it’s good” is true. When something works…why change it for the sake of change? Also very narrow minded.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Brian Chaffee] “Apple bought and then killed Shake, which still, even to this day, out does Nuke and Fusion hands down and if it had continued to be developed seriously, would still be the number one package of it’s kind in the world as it was back in the day.”
I’m curious why you say this, Brian. In what way does Shake outdo Nuke and Fusion?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I literally think we are having different conversations on timecode. “
This.^
I’m going to try to hit the reset so everyone can hopefully get on the same page.
Let’s just start with a single camera out in the field that is capable of generating SMPTE timecode. Your options are free run (user definable start time and the TC runs constantly once started), rec run (user definable start time and the TC only runs while the camera is recording) and time of day (TC matches the time of day and constantly runs). No matter which option you choose it will always be displayed as HH:MM:SS:FF where FF obviously corresponds to the frame rate your camera is set to record in. TC drift in this situation isn’t that big of a deal because it’s a single device so it only has to be accurate relative to itself.
If we upgrade the complexity though to say two cameras and one audio recorder in the field then we have to be more mindful of TC accuracy because three devices need to be put into sync and then kept in sync. This is where an external device comes into play. The two ways to go about this is either with a constant connection to an external clock (either with wires or wirelessly) or by jam syncing (temporarily connecting an an external clock multiple times a day to establish/maintain sync before the devices drift apart). So how accurate do we need to be to keep everything frame accurate? If we are shooting 60p then the devices have to maintain accuracy of at least 0.016666666666667 seconds.
This is where my first point of confusion comes in, Bill. With your GPS idea is it meant to replace the device’s internal clock for TC (i.e. if there is no GPS connection there is no TC ability) or is your idea meant to be another way to provide external sync to multiple devices (ex. instead one local box sending out the same signal to multiple devices you would just have all the devices to connect to a GPS satellite to get the time)?
From what I’ve read about how computers, smart phones and GPS-enabled watches, etc., keep time it doesn’t sound like going the same route to enable cameras/audio gear to maintain sync would work. There’s just too much wiggle room allowed (and it’s also a lot to ask of camera manufacturers to make their devices with WiFi, cellular and GPS radios like smartphones have). It might be any okay alternative to jam syncing though (a bit more info here, https://watch.camp/2014/11/apple-watch-timekeeping-accuracy/ ). An Apple Watch might drift a few fractions of a second over the course of a day and then ‘snap back’ to the right time when it gets a GPS update a few times a day and that won’t be noticeable to anyone. But if you have three pieces of A/V gear that all ‘drift and snap back’ at different rates that’s probably not going to turn out well.
Sure, you could possibly use one iPhone, for example, as the time source and then attach receivers to the all the A/V gear so that the are all getting time from the iPhone, but then you not only have to worry about the iPhones accuracy but also the strength of the signal going out to each device (what if Cam A accidentally wonders out of range for a few seconds but Cam B and Audio stay w/in range)? This is already one of the short comings of using a wireless setup for syncing such as the WifiMaster.
Like i said in a previous post, I think it’s an interesting idea Bill, but I don’t think the tech is there yet to make really make it happen. Maybe as an additional alternative to what we currently use in some situations, but certainly not as a viable and robust replacement.
As Jeremy has mentioned TC in post production isn’t quite the same beast in part because media generation in post doesn’t usually happen in real time. If you are on the broadcast side of things or still have a lot of tape I/O in your workflow then you probably need to multiple devices (NLEs, decks, etc.,) locked to the same clock, but if you otherwise it’s doubtful you would need to have a central point of sync for everyone to tap into. In post I think maintaining TC continuity throughout the project becomes the key point. For example, if an interview is shot ToD in the field and I export it for transcription it behooves me to export it with the exact same ToD as opposed to having it start at 00:00:00:00 (unless of course I have good reason for wanting the ‘official’ TC of that interview to change to 00:00:00:00). Or If I make an export for color grading then the TC I originally give them should be consistently used throughout the process.
And to a point that I think Oliver made (if not others) TC is one of the few pieces of metadata that is pretty much universally understand by all NLEs *and* is easily human readable.
If anyone is bored they can go to Time.is ( https://time.is/ ) and see how their computer/phone/tablet time compares to that of an atomic clock. Note that anything down to 1/10 of a second comes back as “exact” yet for our needs we would need accuracy down to at least 1/60th of a second.
[Bill Davis] ” FCP X doesn’t CARE if the sources ALL have SMPTE or not.”
What NLE does? I used to digitize VHS into various NLEs nearly 20yrs ago.
-
[Oliver Peters] “As I sit here transcoding a bunch of Sony A7 footage because the performance is bad enough that I don’t want to deal with bringing the computer to its knees 🙂 Granted that’s not TC (the A7 has TC), but just one of the many issues caused by consumer-ish gear (or at least consumer codecs) used in professional environments.
“If you are talking about transcoding H.264 to keep from bringing Premiere CC to its knees, I have observed that myself. In my tests on 4K H264 from an A7RII and AG-DVX200, the frame rate when fast forwarding in the timeline is about 20 times slower than FCPX. On my top-spec 2015 iMac 27 with 4Ghz i7 and 32GB RAM and Thunderbolt RAID, I generally have to transcode such content to get fast editing performance on Premiere, especially for multicam. On FCPX that is less necessary, although I sometimes use proxy when editing three-camera 4k.
Also I don’t see the issue about consumer codecs in professional environments. Our AG-DVX200 records UHD 4k using H.264 at up to 150 mbps, yet this still requires transcoding (in Premiere) for best performance, and even FCPX benefits if doing multicam. Even the $16k Canon C300 Mark II uses H.264, with the same issues. Do you mean cameras with internal ProRes or similar codecs?
-
[Brian Chaffee] “But hang on minute. Who is apple? They have been a company for sometime now who states brazenly and I paraphrase, “We do things this way and you should too.” “
That was pretty much Jobs’ so it’s nothing new.. Apple made FCP 7 for themselves just like they’ve made FCP X for themselves. Users that liked FCP 7 happened to have their likes overlap with Apple’s likes and many users mistakenly took that as Apple making FCP for them, which wasn’t the case.
[Brian Chaffee] “Avid is the only serious tool and that is confirmed by every major and minor house on a whole around the globe. “
Um, okay… (o_O)
-
[Joe Marler] “Do you mean cameras with internal ProRes or similar codecs?”
Not to speak for Oliver, but all other things being equal, an intra-frame codec (ProRes, DNx, Cineform, etc.,) is always going to be easier to handle from an playback/editing perspective than an interframe codec (H.264, MPGE2, etc). The advantage to interframe codecs is the small file size which is why camera makers like them (you can record more footage per card and off the shelf cards are fast enough to handle the data rates).
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up