-
Emmy award winning editor at NBC blogs about FCPX
-
[Herb Sevush] “As for “The Yeti” his first specific comments were about multicam editing and they were so ignorant and arrogant as to make one question his judgement about anything, including which way is up.”
I agree. Not only is this an appeal to authority argument (He won an Emmy, therefore FCPX is better because he likes it!) but his opinion is somewhat questionable given the kinds of statements in makes in the article.
And, BTW, winning an Emmy means $#!t-all in my book.
-
Hi Gary
I don’t think the world revolves around my workflow. In fact I often tell people that work for me. “Most other people probably don’t do this” My point was more so that the tools inside the program are pretty sweet on there own. And you can now go x to protools so problems solved.loudyeti.com
-
[Mike Fernanandes] “I don’t think the world revolves around my workflow. In fact I often tell people that work for me. “Most other people probably don’t do this” My point was more so that the tools inside the program are pretty sweet on there own. And you can now go x to protools so problems solved.”
I was referring to this statement:
Can’t send my mix to Protools or Color. – I don’t understand as I do my show mastering in FCP.
Why did you choose to phrase it that way instead of, “While I can see that that could be an issue for some, I master my shows within FCP, so it wasn’t a problem for me.” There is a lot of stuff people on here talk about that is never a part of my workflow, but I understand it. I don’t just simply dismiss it because it’s not my experience.
-
[Mike Fernanandes] “I’ve always felt it was a bit more work than stacking footage and razor it. Like running a switcher on a live shoot sometimes its not as accurate as I’d like it be. (i’ll blame that on reflexes being not up to snuff) and my train of thought is if i have to watch it live switch and then go back and re-tweek I haven’t really saved any time. Our show uses at time 3 – 4 cameras simultaneously if you were doing say a concert or sporting event SURE Multi-clip that up but I’ve just never really felt it was efficient.”
I ran a multi-cam edit in Premiere CS4 (not very well touted with it’s multi-cam abilities) and never had a problem. Don’t do them often, but it works well enough for my purposes.
-
No i brought up the Emmy simply because I wanted anyone who read my page ( of which i really didn’t expect anyone too ) to know that I wasn’t some kid in high school with pimples on my face and my head in the clouds. Your jumping to a few conclusions of my intentions though I stated that I wasn’t posting that fact to brag in any way just to let you know this isn’t my first day.
I agree with you 100% winning something for work you did is great. Work you do way more important.
loudyeti.com
-
I get it but also I’m not dismissing it. I was saying what works for me. I didn’t say forget protools and how dare you color correct anything.
loudyeti.com
-
Totally I’ve dabbled with it. Its a nice feature. I’m just not down with the multi-cam.
loudyeti.com
-
I found the ProTools, Logic and Color comments very odd in the article. For starters a lot of broadcast pros are dependent on I/O workflows to and from their editor. The audio-mixing in FCPX is very limiting. You don’t even have a multi-track or channel mixer.
And that Color is built into FCPX… This is not the case. Perhaps parts of Colors engine resides in FCPX but as a grading tool FCPX isn’t there yet. GUI is completely different and huge features are lacking:
– No curves support. Both RGB + LUMA as well as HSL.
– No key frame support at all
– Limited still-store or other comparison tools
– Limited matching if you disregard the “match grade” feature (which is quite unreliable). Even FCP7 is better here.
– No tracking support.Not that I want to be the negative b-srd but a few comments came out really odd to me. That said, some features of the color correction / grading tools in FCPX are promising. The same can be said for audio-side of things. But they aren’t a ProTools or grading suite replacement by a long shot from my experience.
-
[Mike Fernanandes] “I am not trying to discredit it and if you your self do use it awesome. “
From your blog:
“Multicam – I’ve never been a fan of this feature. I never use it and when I have multiple cameras I drop them all in a timeline shrink each down 50% and pull out the blade tool. It might not seem right or the easiest way to do it but I like it. I even tell all my new employees to edit this way. And they all seem happy too.”What do you do when it’s more than 4 cameras? What do you do when it’s an entire show? I understand that this type of cutting suits your limited needs for multicam but why encourage your employees NOT to learn something that might prove useful?
[Mike Fernanandes] ” I myself just have never gotten the hang of it in any sort of way.”
So lets disparage something you’ve never used while in the middle of an article complaining about people who disparage something (FCPX) they never use.
[Mike Fernanandes] “Like running a switcher on a live shoot sometimes its not as accurate as I’d like it be. (i’ll blame that on reflexes being not up to snuff) and my train of thought is if i have to watch it live switch and then go back and re-tweek I haven’t really saved any time.”
Absolutely. I make my living the way I do because a while back I convinced some producers that as long as I was re-cutting their live switched shows anyhow, they should throw out the switcher, record all the cameras and let me cut it in post. Higher quality, same cost, more time – but they weren’t up against tight deadlines. And you know what, they won some Emmys that way.
But let me suggest something to you. If your going to do it stone age style, set up your repo layers the way you do but then export it as a file. Now take that “quad split” file and lay it on the highest track, on top of your repo video. Now delete all the repo attributes so that the underlying tracks are full size. Now blade away to your hearts delight, covering over the quad split with whatever angle you like. This way you always have the quad split reference no matter what you do later and you don’t have to constantly undo and redo the repo settings.
[Mike Fernanandes] “And Up’s the direction with the clouds right?”
Only when your standing on the ground.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Mike Fernanandes] “No i brought up the Emmy simply because I wanted anyone who read my page ( of which i really didn’t expect anyone too ) to know that I wasn’t some kid in high school with pimples on my face and my head in the clouds.”
I was mostly referring to the title of this thread. And I never thought you were simply pimply-face high school kid, but I do think you have your head in the clouds. A lot of it strikes me as trying to make it work simply because it’s Apple, and by golly I love that company!
If Adobe, AVID or, heaven forbid, Microsoft had released the exact same NLE, I think you would have dismissed it outright instead of plowing through to make it work because you needed to be able to make it work.
Could be wrong, but a lot of people who got upset at the discussion on Creative Cow over FCPX, seemed to carry that banner as their rallying cry.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up