-
FCPX is Ready for prime time
-
[Jordan Mena] “FCPX – learn it!”
[Jordan Mena] “I got news for you buddy. I have to cut three 30 minute episodes for air starting Monday with 2 weeks for each episode using X. I’m not scared!”
(what was that just there – james cagney?)
[Shane Ross] “So if you are going to brag about using FCX for a ‘major network,’ can you name that network to add credence to the statement? Or are you prevented from doing that? NDA or something?”
[Jordan Mena] “i can’t say at the moment. But we create or own content as well as promos”
wait -this was in Larry jordan’s presentation right? this is one of the big six, its like a hundred million dollar production? all is about to be revealed at a hollywood big six studio all networks press conference as an “X- Learn it!” banner unfurls overhead just before the hans zimmer bhhhrammms blast through the speakers scattering the terrified editor morons who like a good tracked interface. In someone’s fantasy anyway.
I’m sorry – that’s bad. very much looking forward to the next X release – some pundits think its in the october end apple event as a nuclear tube hardware 4K demo.
do hope it is. one way or another this release is baking nearly a year?
I’m presuming its tracks all the way of course.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
That’s why I shared it. It shows FCP X using it’s strengths to manage vast amounts of media on large projects, like I talked about.
As far as cutting of the movie goes I didn’t get quite the same message. It didn’t really state who was doing the cut for the movie. I am curious to see exactly what the Avid team was doing though. I think FCP X would be faster for cutting but at that stage it doesn’t really matter as much. Any of the main NLEs are capable of cutting. It’s the tools around the timeline that make the difference these days. I just don’t see why they would build an organizational footage network in FCP X and then render it more or less useless (except to use it as an external reference) by editing in Avid. They might as well have done the whole thing in Avid.
-
[Braden Storrs] “That’s why I shared it. It shows FCP X using it’s strengths to manage vast amounts of media on large projects, like I talked about. “
Not really. They are talking about EPKs. That’s significantly different than the post pipeline on a feature, even though you are potentially working with the same footage.
[Braden Storrs] “I just don’t see why they would build an organizational footage network in FCP X and then render it more or less useless (except to use it as an external reference) by editing in Avid.”
Two different departments. Happens all the times. I see plenty of broadcast operations with Avid for news and FCP/Premiere/Other for creative services/promos.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
That’s why I shared it. It shows FCP X using it’s strengths to manage vast amounts of media on large projects, like I talked about.
As far as cutting of the movie goes I didn’t get quite the same message. It said in the article: “…your system is immediately going to be put to use editing EPKs for a major motion picture, and eventually handle editorial for that studio’s films moving forward.” I am curious to see exactly what the Avid team was doing though. I think FCP X would be faster for cutting but at that stage it doesn’t really matter as much. Any of the main NLEs are capable of cutting. It’s the tools around the timeline that make the difference these days. I just don’t see why they would build an organizational footage network in FCP X and then render it more or less useless by editing in Avid. They might as well have done the whole thing in Avid.
-
Ok that makes sense. Though the quote from the article reads: “…your system is immediately going to be put to use editing EPKs for a major motion picture, and eventually handle editorial for that studio’s films moving forward.”
So it states it will be used for cutting the films, though maybe not that one.
-
Out of idle curiosity, outside of the audio mix where I fully appreciate that tracks are a comfortable convention that lots of audio folks are extremely comfortable with – I’m a little confused by how feature folks use lots of video tracks?
Aren’t the effects shots pre-composited? Isn’t cutting a standard hollywood film mostly just assembling the scenes with the art and precision that any good editor has to understand?
I mean I don’t see a lot of feature films with stacks of titles, picture in pictures, multiple windows and other stuff that regularly used to build stacks and stacks of tracks in my Legacy work – and that I now used connected clips to accomplish in X.
Is there something complex on a hidden level that happens with the visual edit, per se, of a feature film that is escaping me?
It kinda seems to me that an EPK with all sorts of interviews, behind the scenes stuff, and fancy schmancy graphics might be a lot more complex an edit than “the feature” itself – or am I just ill-informed?
Audio complexity I totally get. The feature film as a complicated timeline? Not sure I get that.
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.
-
[Bill Davis] “I’m a little confused by how feature folks use lots of video tracks?”
Visual and juxtapositional organization within the timeline. Take a look at these two frame grabs from two of Walter Murch’s timelines.
https://digitalfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/df_pf_4_lrg.jpg
https://digitalfilms.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/df_hg_6.jpg
Part of this vertical separation is to organize different camera formats, VFX, etc. He also uses something he calls QuickTime “skinning”. What it boils down to is this. He exports a self-contained file and places it on an upper track. This becomes less taxing on playback. Then when he makes changes, he break open that section and makes changes in that area. What it effectively gives you is a visual plot that represents a type of “visual change list”.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “As rabid a supporter of X as I’ve been here, you’ve NEVER heard voices here being extremely derisive about anyone using AVID or Premier or Vegas. Occasional bad experiences, sure. But not push back when somebody likes those, right?”
Weren’t you quite recently referring to Avid as AVOID. I believe, if memory serves well, that you were. Maybe you should think of taking the ALLCaps off of never.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Life. Live it!”
I was thinking:
Sex. Have it.
But, the way this weekend is shaping up, that’s not happening.
-
There tends to be a belief that feature editors just have simple timelines – what Oliver has shown is pretty average – I have seen less and more complex. The timelines on Lord of the Rings were just crazy. And from an organization perspective, I have mentioned on other forums, “Alice in Wonderland 3D” had over 5000 bins in the one shared project.
Many features are screened in process, and I have seen NRG screenings done directly out of an Avid timeline. The amount of previz, correction, etc. is getting more and more dense, not to mention the multiples in storage being shot with digital compared to tape and film.
Michael
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up