-
FCP X and the Future of Editing
-
[Jason Porthouse] “…post houses (who are very conservative in the main) have been either ignoring it completely or tentatively exploring it’s potential, alongside a known system they can trust.”
This is exactly true. I agree completely with you Jason. I was just talking to a facilities manager of a middling post house about X and there were a couple things that jumped out at me despite the fact that I personally think from an editing perspective, X would be perfect for the kind of work they do.
The first think that struck me was that the tests they ran on X that worried them involved editing projects in 24p and then converting them to 30i after for use in pro tools. Tests that would’ve yielded the same results in FCP7 (their current system). In fact, they’re workflow is designed to avoid the issues of 24p to 30i conversion, but yet, they expect X to handle things different. So while they’re testing it, they’re doing so with weighted scales and every failure is a confirmation of a “bullet dodged” for not having adopted it.
The second thing that was interesting was that the claim that, “no one else we know is using it,” was a viable excuse for why they hadn’t adopted it. It’s clear that there is a bias against X, I suspect from the launch and the reticence for jumping full in with something so different. But, it’s not as if they’re being pushed towards another system. They seemed just as reluctant to go with Avid (because of it’s financial issues), or Premiere (media handling).
The final thing they mentioned was they were worried about the other editors at their house being able to pick it up. I thought that was funny, but it’s prescient. The younger AEs have all played with it, but the long timers know 7, and probably only 7 (or maybe Avid), and do NOT want to learn something new. This attitude will make sure FCPX gets slow adoption, not fast.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Andy Neil] “The first think that struck me was that the tests they ran on X that worried them involved editing projects in 24p and then converting them to 30i after for use in pro tools. “
As an aside… This seems a bit odd. Pro Tools is perfectly fine with 24p (23.976) projects. There’s the obvious OMF or AAF conundrum with X, but I frequently send X, 7 and MC 24fps jobs to my usual Pro Tools guy without issue. Not sure what their problem would be.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I probably just worded it oddly. The problem isn’t Pro Tools. The problem is timing a show for 30i broadcast mastering when production shoots in 24p and editors want to edit in 24p. They currently just edit in a 30i timeline to maintain proper timing, but for some reason they’re holding X to a different standard.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
A belated thumbs up to you, Oliver, for your observation about the different ways that RED and Alexa are both prospering. “Leverage” notwithstanding, Alexa is simply better suited to the “40 hours of footage down to 42 minutes, 22 times a year,” where RED’s advantages become clear when you can build a fresh workflow around it. I’ve obviously oversimplified your point, but I think that you’re also right about how this applies to X In the context of Jason, Steve and Andy’s posts above.
It has always been true that 7 had (some admittedly large) niches where it worked and where it didn’t. I still think that X is already bigger than 7, but may never be as useful for the exact same niche-sters that prospered with 7, a la there not really being that many people wrestling very long between RED or Alexa. The workflow is ultimately more important than features or interface metaphors.
-
[Andy Neil] “They currently just edit in a 30i timeline to maintain proper timing, but for some reason they’re holding X to a different standard.”
I get it. It’s a real PITA to try to get exact timings with the X timeline. Timecode is a real afterthought and you have to work harder at it with X than other NLEs. It’s still doable with X, so I’m not sure it’s a complete deal-breaker, but I certainly understand their concern. The simple act of removing a 1 sec. dissolve fading up on the first clip of a 30 min. show will cause everything in the timeline that follows to shift by 12 frames. Not ideal in broadcast TV.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Tim Wilson] “Alexa is simply better suited to the “40 hours of footage down to 42 minutes, 22 times a year,” where RED’s advantages become clear when you can build a fresh workflow around it. “
Quite true. What a lot of the arguments in this thread come down to is the split in the worldview between individual owner-editors and staff or for-hire editors. “Industry-standard” workflows are essential to the latter group.
If I’m a client and use some one-off workflow, then I’m stuck with the facility that knows that workflow. If I have a conflict, it’s harder to move. If I’m using accepted routines, then I can have my pick of suppliers. That’s the issue that hit RED’s adoption and I think it applies to X as well.
Right now with MC or FCP 7 I can collaborate on projects with other editors on the other side of the world. We can each open the other’s projects and generally understand what they did because of the similarities.
[Tim Wilson] ” I still think that X is already bigger than 7″
That’s probably a dubious number. It now seems apparent that 7 never had the success of previous versions, because many FCP users stayed with 5 or 6. For all we know, Apple may have sold more seats of 7 AFTER X than before. The general parsing of Apple’s words, is that X has outsold 7, not all of “legacy”. I’m sure there are more seats of iMovie than either.
[Tim Wilson] “The workflow is ultimately more important than features or interface metaphors”
Yep. The reason “legacy” caught on was because users initially saw it as a “little Avid”. The $100K NLE as a $999 application for your personal use. The operational design fit into the known world. As advanced features were added, these were built to match the workflows of the existing world. In many cases, they were improved upon in ways that users asked for. Those paradigms are built and it will take a long time to rebuild something entirely different.
Innovation does not always equal success. After all, none of us are editing with CMX’s voice-activated edit system. 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “Well done. Your anchor at the center of your own universe is officially unassailable!
I hereby bestow upon you the Ironic Post of the Era award, (with beech nut clusters!!) hands down!”
I will have my prize meatloaf please.
but you know what I’m saying – I won’t repeat the good points laid out below, but I’m facility and client dependent for my living. No Jobs are ever posted for FCPX in the UK, or have been. I regularly raise the question -and it really isn’t being considered as far as i can tell, and they are pretty carefully getting ready to reset themselves for the next couple of years.
I’m not in truth at the man jason’s beeb level, I’m more commercial and corpo with some tasty stuff – I just finished a half hour doc on the ryder cup based around a lengthy interview with olazabal and archive – olazabal is a total dude btw, and, unlucky america on yet another ass kicking. 🙂
the point is that I can still say FCP when asked preferred editing system – there is no way I could have executed that piece in Avid, fortunately there are absolutely piles of people in my position, and london is stuffed to the gills with nook and cranny facilities packed with small room inexpensive day rate suites running five year old macpros and FCP 7.0.3 – production companies can book one for a hundred odd a day depending on their relationship.
but the massive FCP7 overhang will eventually go away – I am going to have to become Avid proficient – am slowly in the process of it.
but those suites bill, god knows how many of them there are – are never going to be FCPX – Its a total, absolutely total rejection thus far. Clients are barely aware of it – half of them don’t even know FCP is EOL – not kidding. When I say FCPX doesn’t exist – thats what I mean. It literally doesn’t exist for the facilities, the clients, or the editors.
at the very minimum, this represents a massive discontinuity with the editing system it took its name from. I consider it really, really questionable that it will follow the same osmosis path FCP did a decade ago – as oliver pointed out – FCP represented industry standard practise from the outset – on no level can you say this about FCPX.
If the adoption situation changes, my position changes – you know well that I really like certain things in X. cupertino laid massive cards on the table with regard to card based ingest, rapid footage interrogation and timeline CC operation.
Ultimately, I feel that if they had mollified timeline operation alone – began with clip connection negation- just that spoonful of sugar, then the medicine might possibly have gone down.
as it is, there is insane intellectual waste in the dead wake of FCPX. Motion rigging for controlled live branding architecture still strikes me. That is actual manna for corporate, and a tremendous time money personnel interplay short circuit. there is real client money left on the table there.
a corporation’s ability to deploy the brand bible components, live, directly into any edit suite is beyond unheard of, and in a large organisation, has real implications.
No one has gone near what apple executed there, afaik.
but positing/foisting motion onto designers for design pre-stage was dependent on the primary editing system’s broad adoption.
so thats a problem.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Clients are barely aware of it – half of them don’t even know FCP is EOL – not kidding.”
Are you surprised by this Aindreas? Most of my clients are not cutting edge on most of the tools that are out there.
They don’t anything about the Sony F5 either. I don’t blame them really, they are not the ones using the equipment. Like you have said in the past, they just want to feel confident that I know how to use it. What ever it is.
Apples and oranges though.
A person cutting their own doc and a person like you cutting for clients. These should be two different discussions.
.02
-
[tony west] “A person cutting their own doc and a person like you cutting for clients. These should be two different discussions.”
god knows it is now. apple have effectively spiked and discarded their core intellectual avid rebellion.
the point is what exactly are apple thoughts now?
Is this market based? As oliver says – if FCPX is Red say, to production’s alexa, should we simply get rid of the idea that there should be an agreed editor platform?
aren’t we shouting for a broad based populist winner? the egalitarian anti-avid of yore hegemony that FCP so very, very nearly was?
the point is that if apple had played it safe, hit 64 bit, removed memory errors – they would have utterly destroyed Avid.
the last eighteen months would have included Avid’s bankruptcy. that’s actually pretty likely.
they chose to completely ignore that open goal. Now everyone has to learn avid – so thanks for that cupertino.
and we still have no clear idea how Apple view their role outside PR, or indeed, how they view the market itself.
I personally have absolutely no idea how apple see the world I am editing wage dependent on- and that is a really interesting, unfriendly mystery.
given the gigantic field of editing practitioner mushrooms sprung from the FCP seed a decade ago – I would personally argue that apple have some onus to speak to their view of the craft of editing and their likely role in it.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Oliver Peters] “[Tim Wilson] “The workflow is ultimately more important than features or interface metaphors”
Yep. The reason “legacy” caught on was because users initially saw it as a “little Avid”. The $100K NLE as a $999 application for your personal use. The operational design fit into the known world. As advanced features were added, these were built to match the workflows of the existing world. In many cases, they were improved upon in ways that users asked for. Those paradigms are built and it will take a long time to rebuild something entirely different.
“I agree with both of you, but I would also add that the attraction of Legacy was that it was not just a “little Avid,” but a “little everything.” The beauty, for me, when I first started using it, was that it was flexible enough to be used like any number of editors. It could function a little like Avid, Montage, Speed Razor, Media 100, and D/Vision. I found that I could use most of my favorite approaches from any of these programs, which is not something I could say about any of the other programs individually. It was a very thorough adoption of the NLE market in general, which I’d guess was a big part of its success. It certainly is what enthused me.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up