-
Focus – Light Iron videos
-
Bill,
I tip my hat to you – I have more posts that I don’t ‘publish’ in response to you than all others. This would be one of them… 😉
Cheers,
Dennis -
[Walter Soyka] “Pop quiz, FCP fans. I know some of you will know this. Whose movie was Cold Mountain?”
Hey – just cos Minghella was British, that’s no reason to have forgotten him already.
(And he directed some very good films besides Cold Mountain …)
😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “PPro generally has not. Adobe, for the time being, reacts like scalded cat”
But then you would have to edit with Premiere…..ugh….
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “the wipes are client lead.”
IOW, the good part of the design is the client’s idea. Isn’t that exactly what you are complaining about – or alluding to – with “Focus”? Kind of ironic, don’t you think?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
it’s the reasonableness that kills me bill.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[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 don’t mean to insult you with this question, but have you ever been involved in a feature film edit? Every director is very different. Some are very involved in every aspect of the edit, including sitting over the editor’s shoulder the entire time. Others give notes, walk away to let the editor make those changes, and then come back and review. Some, like Cameron, Rodriguez and Smith are hand-ons editors, operating the gear. So it comes in all forms. The fact that a director wants to be actively involved in shaping the edit is not unusual. How they do it all depends on their style, interest and abilities. After all, an editor is NEVER there to create the movie he/she wants. They are ONLY there to facilitate the director achieving their vision.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I know everyone wants to beat up on the FCP X and editorial aspects of the story, but be sure to watch all of the videos. Part 3 talks a lot about how the camera media was handled. Although what they did was not unusual for commercial, corporate, TV and indie films outside of the studio system, it certainly was different for Hollywood. It’s my contention that the media workflow (IMHO as much or more so than FCP X) contributed to the speed and fluidity of the post process on this film. It’s not to be overlooked in the discussions around FCP X. And yes, there are parts of X – like built-in Log-C correction – that also played into this.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Walter Soyka] “What is the marketing message expressed here for FCPX? “You don’t need an editor to edit a film. Forget that niche specialty.””
It’s a good question to kick around. I think it’s more, if you had not been as involved in the hands on end of editing in the way you wanted in the past, maybe you might want to with this product.
I noticed that when she asked the director what’s next, he said to go and get Jan for the next one.
He didn’t say, after using X I don’t need him anymore.
It’s like the analogy he used with the DP of film. You had to trust him more in the past but now he can see more of what the shot is going to look like on a monitor, but that doesn’t mean they don’t need a good gaffer on set anymore.
As X has simplified some of the nuts and bolts of editing, you still will need top end talent to cut. People who that’s their main thing.
There are still a great deal of nuts and bolts to editing and things that you come across if you are not a full-time editor that will trip you up. There are still parts of editing that people just don’t want to do.
I think they will say, “you can do this part” for years to come : )
-
[Oliver Peters] ” It’s my contention that the media workflow (IMHO as much or more so than FCP X) contributed to the speed and fluidity of the post process on this film.”
Perhaps, but that’s very different than the claims presented in the videos, which are riddled with factual errors and philosophical leaps that are based on facts not in evidence, but rather an “everything is awesome” enthusiasm that’s engaging, but doesn’t actually move the discussion forward at all.
Now if YOU had been making the presentation, Oliver, it would have been both more accurate and more helpful to X’s cause.
I think Aindreas’s post above is on the mark. The part that’s very 2012 isn’t the post itself, which is quite precisely rooted in actual words that are being spoken.
The 2012 aspect is that any post that questions the speaker’s grasp of facts is making a criticism of FCPX. Are we truly still in a place where enthusiasm unfettered by fact is the only acceptable response in any discussion of X? I didn’t think so, but I’m apparently mistaken.
In fact, other than disagreeing with the speaker about the speed of FCPX’s support for camera formats, Aindreas makes no observations about FCPX AT ALL. He’s calling out the speaker for enthusiasm that’s stated in ways that aren’t in evidence from the presentation, or are just plain wrong.
To summarize:
Final Cut Pro X is the first NLE designed around a data-centric ecosystem.
I agree with Aindreas. Few people who use Media Composer would agree with this. FCPX different? Yes. Better? Perhaps. First? No.But there is no criticism of X either stated or implied in challenging the author’s claim about X being first.
- “Previous NLEs were timeline-based systems that sat on-top of a database.”
Wait a minute. Timeline, obviously true, but I thought databases were data-centric. In any case, what’s wrong with databases? Does FCPX not use databases? If not, then where is FCPX’s data-centric data contained? Is FCPX’s data-centric approach so data-y that it transcends the idea of a database altogether?
In any case, this is a value judgement by the speaker based on wobbly understanding of how data works and is stored. There’s no evidence given that databases are somehow incompatible with data-centric models.
Again, an overreach by the speaker that implies no criticism of X.
- “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.”
Again agreeing with Aindreas that the emphasis on new workflow potential ACTUALLY SHOWN had to do with things that Oliver notes — bringing client-driven agency-style ROOM dynamics into a feature film edit suite — that have more to do with the relationship between the director and the editor, than between the editor and the software.
“Everything better than other NLEs” is a stretch. EVERYTHING? Really? I don’t know that there are really that many of X’s most enthusiastic fans would agree. But again, little evidence of it in the presentations.
The “discussion of limitations = disrespect” dynamics that still pop up in this forum notwithstanding, pretty much every thread here has more insight than is provided here.
It’s especially disappointing to see after the raves for the event from those who attended. Again noting that I was among FCPX’s earliest and most enthusiastic supporters, I’m left mostly annoyed and exasperated after watching these.
[Walter Soyka] “What is the marketing message expressed here for FCPX? “You don’t need an editor to edit a film. Forget that niche specialty.”
“And here we come to the crux of the biscuit.
This forum’s earliest roots are in Media 100. I think this is the historical fact almost entirely overlooked. FCP’s original growth among pros was not at Avid’s expense. It was an opportunity provided to find safe haven for a vast sea of Media 100 users who knew their ship was sinking, and had been for years. But FCP was only a safe haven with meaningful support for third party SDI I/O.
I bring this up because any former Media 100-er here will remember the exact point at which that company started its irreversible decline: the “Kill The Editor” campaign. The intent was sort of noble. It was an anti-Avid sentiment, a rejection of the old “over-the-shoulder” dynamic that manifested and reinforced the dichotomy between creative decisions and the mechanical button-pushing that those boring old Avid editors did. Instead, Media 100 closed the gaps by making button-pushing accessible to creatives.
The idea wasn’t wrong, but the messaging was incredibly tone deaf. It came exactly at the point that Media 100’s feature set was a more than credible replacement for Media Composer that offered significant advantages. It came at exactly the point at which Media 100 EDITORS could position themselves as 100% as professional as a Media Composer EDITOR.
It emphasized that the truly unbridgeable gap was between the vision and aspiration of the company and the user. Over time, that proved to be exactly the case.
I DON’T THINK THAT’S THE CASE THIS TIME. None of this is a mission statement from Apple. The one thing that I most loudly and repeatedly emphasized from the very first days of X is that “Apple abandoning pros” is nonsense. I still feel that way.
However, I don’t see anything in these videos offering the incontrovertible proof that FCPX is what feature editors have been waiting for. I didn’t see anything to support the claim that X does everything better than other NLEs. I didn’t see the unprecedented workflows that X enables.
Nor for that matter did I see that the director had a very clear understanding of NLEs in general. That certainly accounts for his overstatements and misstatements.
None of which have ANYTHING to with FCPX. It has everything to do with frustration that he is in fact stuck in 2012.
Unbridled enthusiasm doesn’t have to be rooted in facts. It doesn’t have to be based on a full understanding of the limitations of FCPX, or acknowledgement of the workflow advantages that other NLEs do in fact offer.
But boy howdy, it’d sure be nice.
I still come back to the reality that “the Cold Mountain moment” was for users. “Hooray! My faith in this tool is validated!” “The Cold Mountain moment” was also nearly 100% responsible for Avid still being the major player in feature and episodic workflows. It dramatically underscored the extent to which FCP didn’t provide a viable alternative.
I don’t see much different about that here. Yes, the presentation was validating for fans. Yes, it offered clearer insights into the specifics of how this film was constructed. It offered plenty of “okay, THAT’s cool” examples that surely made some naysayers say, “Okay, you’re right, it’s not a toy. It’s going to have a huge impact on how a lot of people work.”
But I didn’t see ANYTHING that would have made me say, “Holy COW, I need to use this instead of the POS I’ve been using!”
I did however see plenty that made me think, “Wow, this guy has no idea what he’s talking about. I sure don’t see any advantages that demand that I change what I’m doing now.”
Especially for someone as enthusiastic about X as I have been for so long, this presentation was nearly a wall-to-wall disappointment for me. I found it depressing, not invigorating.
I’m glad other folks enjoyed the event though, which on the whole, was surely different for folks in the room.
I’m also VERY glad you posted the videos here, Oliver, if for no other reason than that they have already engaged a discussion more insightful and nuanced here than anything I see in them.
-
[Tim Wilson] “I think Aindreas’s post above is on the mark. The part that’s very 2012 isn’t the post itself, which is quite precisely rooted in actual words that are being spoken. “
I’m really not quibbling with Aindreas’ questioning of FCP X or the claims made for it. My response had more to do with what I felt and still feel are unfair characterizations of the director/editor dynamic. After all, was Aindreas a “sock puppet” when he was doing his fashion edit? 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up