Focus – Light Iron videos

[Aindreas Gallagher]

some pull quotes for fun:

Final Cut Pro X is the first NLE designed around a data-centric ecosystem.
i’m not sure its column field entry is as malleable as avid AFAIK but ok. or if the data can reach into the script – that is apparently a thing.

“Previous NLEs were timeline-based systems that sat on-top of a database.”
but databases are good things right? are databases bad?
this must now be an intellectual argument for events and projects. on shared storage. wait stop. for a year. and make a library. continue.

In addition, one of the biggest advantages of Final Cut Pro X is the ability to edit native 2K+ without the need to transcode to proxy or “offline” files.
and here finally you have to be joking me. FCPX has been slow to react on new camera native formats. there’s plenty of it on this forum.
PPro generally has not. Adobe, for the time being, reacts like scalded cat. plus they own the open timeline. this line above reeks of bollocks.

Using Final Cut Pro X to edit Focus is about getting FCP X to explore an entirely new world of workflow potential and do everything better than other NLEs.”

from sharp previous ubsdell queries here: it’s possibly about two directors making a sock puppet out of a previously unknown sacrificial nominated editor in order to allow them to run a film edit like over-aggressive ad directors run a suite in soho. only now they’re not clicking their fingers, they’re shoving pre-baked entire edit alterations onto the editor, who presumably has to be a largely domesticated bovine animal for that process to happen.

I guess that’s the final nightmare of the FCPX project – breaking all the basic walls that surround the editor and allowing any director run amok with the moron’s primary timeline auto-correct facility to crash directly into the process of the edit.
because, historically, the director and the editor might as well be the same person right? Or at least some horrible mish mash of the pair.
yay for the apple contribution here. this is a use case to sing of in storied time.

that people like bill dis-avowed the white tower, so fine, but that apple is now visibly entering it is as the wedge of anti-intellectual aggressive director lead break down of the editor role is weirdly depressing.

if you read it through, the process of focus is absolutely nothing with editing as a craft. It’s not murch, it’s not an edit exploration, it’s directors plural, agressive DI people – it’s in no way originating in editing. I’m not sure anyone involved gave a cr*p about the editor that ended up editing it, to the extent they did.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Bret Williams]

Aindreas the shift key is right over there. this reading like is watching Family Guy but of the flashback references none make sense did. i’m not sure they’re if complete sentences they. I thin someone’s had a pint! 🙂

[Oliver Peters]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “from sharp previous ubsdell queries here: it’s possibly about two directors making a sock puppet out of a previously unknown sacrificial nominated editor in order to allow them to run a film edit like over-aggressive ad directors run a suite in soho. only now they’re not clicking their fingers, they’re shoving pre-baked entire edit alterations onto the editor, who presumably has to be a largely domesticated bovine animal for that process to happen.”

I think you’re being a extremely unfair and insulting here. I’ve spoken with the folks involved and that’s not the impression I got. I think Jan very definitely handled the creative edit in the same sense as any other film editor. While the initial desire might have been to edit the film themselves, that’s not how it went down. However the three did trade scenes back and forth.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Andrew Kimery]

[Oliver Peters] “I think you’re being a extremely unfair and insulting here. I’ve spoken with the folks involved and that’s not the impression I got. I think Jan very definitely handled the creative edit in the same sense as any other film editor. While the initial desire might have been to edit the film themselves, that’s not how it went down. However the three did trade scenes back and forth.”

I was at the event and I agree with Oliver. The team has worked together in the past and they are working together in the future so it’s not like they just pulled an editor out of left field so they could manipulate him.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

ok there brett – i guess? I largely said what I meant though. I’m currently sat away from home viewing a dump truck of rushes from paris fashion week. I don’t usually do that wearing a shamrock and a pint. It’s not that I mind the characterisation – it’s just a lot more irritating than you might think.

please enjoy milan below – the wipes are client lead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrKKkdl9ocA

that aside – the shift key remains lost in action. great to see dismissive ad hominem fires alive and well here.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Aindreas Gallagher]

ok fine – but in every way they publicly describe it – it involves their direct continuous involvement in the edit. they’re cutting scenes, shoving them in and re-shaping.

bar me having a wild bret williams party here – I just took a position on this. I don’t actually think this is an editorial craft development. It looks like ambitious process DI people on the make getting aggressively involved with directors keen to produce a scenario of their liking.

moron question round: would kirk baxter, and should kirk baxter, be happy at the sight of edited constructed scenes randomly appearing from david fincher as editor director. would that make sense. do other edit systems obstruct that scenario, or does basic sanity.

does the mecanno construction of FCPX allow for instant iterative lego editing such that you get old milk spoiling the directors point of first apprehension inside the editing room?

we’re all editors so – isn’t there supposed to be a demarcation of first apprehension? When the footage really hits you? the directors on focus kept going on about being plugged into metadata on possible alt takes throughout the process. What the hell was that about? It felt like they were selling a process vacuum cleaner.
Is that the classical scorsese directorial means to demark clean lines from shooting to the period of editing?

that said lets all have bret beers.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Andrew Kimery]

[Aindreas Gallagher] moron question round: would kirk baxter, and should kirk baxter, be happy at the sight of edited constructed scenes randomly appearing from david fincher as editor director. would that make sense. do other edit systems obstruct that scenario, or does basic sanity.”

I dunno. You’d have to ask Fincher, Baxter and Wall (typically the other editor, but he wasn’t available for Gone Girl) about the dynamic they have while cutting. Whatever the dynamic is though, it works for them so WTF does it matter what anyone else thinks?

What’s the difference between a director sitting with you while you edit and giving notes on the fly vs a director watching a cut remotely and giving notes via email or phone vs a director having a copy of the footage and giving notes via sending the editor a sequence? The editor is there to serve the director’s vision. The editor provides creative input, feedback, and should fight for what they think makes the best movie, but ultimately it’s the director’s movie, not the editor’s.

Kirk on cutting Fincher’s films,
“The beauty of the environment that Fincher sets up is it’s an illusion that I’m making a movie for one person, which is David. There is no other thing. I’m not concerned about an audience. I’m not concerned about a studio. I’m not concerned about anything except for pleasing David. David and the movie are one in the same thing. It’s an idyllic situation for a film editor.”

https://postperspective.com/kirk-baxter-editing-david-finchers-gone-girl/

[Bill Davis]

Jeez dude, it’s like 2012 all over again. I mean it’s not like virtually EVERY opinion you posted here for the first three years turned out to be almost entirely wrong. Oh wait. It did. Do you really want to do this all again? X is just a toy. Apple has abandoned the pros. It’s incapable of anything beyond cat videos. Nobody serious will ever use it. Did you think nobody was still around who remembers you at all? It’s over. Really. I can understand why you couldn’t see it in 2012. But with NBC and Fox scrambling for X editors, the ship has not just sailed, it’s reached its port, sold its cargo, and is returning with a new cargo and money in the bank. Give it a rest.

(Wow, posting that felt tres nostalgic!)
; )

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.

[Walter Soyka]

[Andrew Kimery] “The editor is there to serve the director’s vision. The editor provides creative input, feedback, and should fight for what they think makes the best movie, but ultimately it’s the director’s movie, not the editor’s.”

Pop quiz, FCP fans. I know some of you will know this. Whose movie was Cold Mountain?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Walter Soyka]

[Oliver Peters] “I think you’re being a extremely unfair and insulting here. I’ve spoken with the folks involved and that’s not the impression I got. I think Jan very definitely handled the creative edit in the same sense as any other film editor. While the initial desire might have been to edit the film themselves, that’s not how it went down. However the three did trade scenes back and forth.”

Presented for conversation, not as analysis. (This might be a fun topic to bat around at your FCPWORKS debate, Noah.)

Apple’s marketing message for FCP Legend was, “You don’t need AVID to edit a film. Forget that niche hardware and software.” You could believe them because they paraded a big name feature editor.

But now, they’re parading the directors (and dichotomizing the creative and the technical). What is the marketing message expressed here for FCPX? “You don’t need an editor to edit a film. Forget that niche specialty.”

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]