Focus – Light Iron videos

[Glenn Ficarra]

David Lean, Stuart Baird, George Lucas, Scorcese all were editors as well as directors. Cameron, Rodriguez, are hands on in the edit room as well. I do not put myself on a par with these stellar talents, but I was a workaday editor in a former life, and my partner and I have been making movies since we were ten years old and edited them as well. As a writer director producer and editor, I am entitled to use the tool of my choice and collaborate with whom I deem artistically compatible. Why is this such a radical concept worthy of so much bile? This is a collaborative medium and I was interested in exploring new technology, not making some comment on the creative process. Calm the heck down folks. We tried it, we liked it, we’re using it again. Plain and simple. Why overthink this? It’s just a tool and it’s not for everybody nor do I think it should be. There is a lot to admire in x as well as cutting on a moviola. I have used both and everything in between and this is tool I see potential in and it serves our collaborative workflow extremely well. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.

[Charlie Austin]

[Glenn Ficarra] “If you don’t like it, don’t use it.”

lol Welcome to the thunderdome Glen. 😉

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Ty Vann]

[Walter Soyka] “And producers hire directors.

(Auteur that!)”

Producers don’t hire directors, directors don’t hire editors.

(Auteured it!)

[Aindreas Gallagher]

but wait – you like the wipes? we fought against them quite hard. I was saying they were client lead because we proposed something different?

I, curmudgeon, believe split screen should have at least some negative space, and even skinny black breathing space here and there in the framing.
I’m old school on my splitscreens.

So HA HA – you’re entire riposte came to nothing there Oliver. It is dust. boom.

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

[Walter Soyka]

[Glenn Ficarra] “This is a collaborative medium and I was interested in exploring new technology, not making some comment on the creative process.”

I think the collaboration element enabled by the technology is the one of the most interesting parts of the story: specifically the blurred lines in the dynamic with two directors and an editor, all cutting together. If you are open to the discussion, is this how you’ve always tried to work? Do you specifically divide responsibilities, keep it totally loose and organic, or somewhere in between? How do you resolve creative differences, especially with co-equal partners?

Thanks,

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

[Tim Wilson]

[Charlie Austin] “[Jeff Markgraf] ” a combination of fear and inertia. I know these people. I work with them. It’s not really about X’s professionalism or suitability. Seriously, let it go.”

Great rant. 🙂 “

My only issues with the rant are that it’s really not very angry, and not all that long. Saddle up, son. LOL The longer and angrier the better. LOL

I do have a small issue with the use of “inertia” as a negative value. It’s simply a fact of nature, as described in Newton’s LAWS of Motion. It’s not a good thing. It’s not a bad thing. It’s just a thing.

I love this take on Newton from NASA’s website:

Newton’s first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

This quite easily applies to human nature as well, but as both a word and a concept, I think is generally used in exactly the wrong way. The key words are “unless compelled to change.” What’s the actual COMPULSION to change to FCPX? What’s the external force that DEMANDS change?

Maybe it’s the need to retool the working environment — e.g., time for wholesale upgrade of all the facility’s machines — or some need to change software, or business model….but for most people, most of the time, there is no compelling reason to change ANYTHING

To more accurately apply any observations derived from Newton, we also have to address INTERNAL compulsion to change. Some people are inclined to it, some people aren’t. Neither state is good or bad.

For example, I’ve moved 25 times in 30 years. I think I’m slowing down, but I’ve said that before, so who knows. I’m pleased to say that I’m 30 for 30. I’ve loved every place I’ve lived and wouldn’t want to have missed a single one.

Four or five moves ago, I lived across the street from a woman who was born in that house, the same house her father was born in — and still lived in with her. She was in her 50s, him in his 80s, and they both loved the arrangement, as did her husband, and the woman’s kids, who loved growing up in the house with granddad. The kids moved away (it’s a pretty small house), but if my friend the mom had had her way, her grandkids would be born in that house too. Nothing was more important to them than their roots and their family, which to them, was pretty much the same thing. They were obviously happy.

So which is good and which is bad? The desire for a rooted family, or the desire to reach past the next horizon, willing to leave other parts of the family behind? Human society would collapse without both. But both are unquestionably manifestations of INTERNAL compulsions.

Even if the house burns down, do you rebuild it, build another nearby, or take it as an opportunity to move across the country? The only important answers are INTERNAL.

This has been my issue with the whole concept of Luddites, Dinosaurs, “stuck in the old ways,” or, worst of all “just doesn’t get it.” It fails to take into account the absence of EXTERNAL FORCES compelling change, or the absence of INTERNAL FORCES compelling change, not always, but sometimes purely for its own sake.

That is, we do a disservice to both “The Cold Mountain Moment” and “The Focus Moment” if we don’t acknowledge that they were driven more by INTERNAL compulsion than anything else. “We’re doing this because we WANT to do this.” Good for them.

But if I neither NEED nor WANT to change, my reasons are 100% valid. Why? Because they’re MY reasons, and my way is working well enough for me, even if YOU think I could or should do better. Stop making it all about you. LOL

Even for people compelled to change, X may not be the right choice. With apologies for dragging him into a rant of my own that he would never make, let’s call it The Raudonis Protocol. Mark needed to retool — the EXTERNAL compulsion. X wasn’t the right choice, so he chose something else.

As Jeff puts it:

[Jeff Markgraf] “Let’s be clear about something. Mark Raudonis and some others jumped to Avid for very good, very specific workflow reasons that couldn’t be addressed by X. Smart moves by smart people. “

This is the sentiment I wish was more in evidence around here. An acknowledgement that there are good reasons to choose something other than X. The most vehement arguments here are usually that there’s no such thing as a good reason not to choose X.

But I still think the key limitation of the use of the word “inertia” as a negative is that it fails to account for the lack of INTERNAL compulsion: if *I* don’t have a reason to change, if over the long haul I value institutional expertise over opportunities for new efficiencies, *I* don’t have a reason to change. No further discussion needed, no justification required.

Lord knows I’m a magpie, always looking for the next shiny thing. I’d tell anyone, “Move! Don’t worry about what’s on the other side! It has worked for me, every single time!”

And if someone replied, “I care too much about my family’s roots in this place we’ve been for generations,” they’d be right. But not right for me. But because of my INTERNAL compulsions.

So can we please please pretty please, nearing four years after Day Zero, acknowledge that sommmmmmme of the reasons people choose X miiiiiight have as much to do with their INTERNAL compulsions to use the newest thing as with X itself, and that some people have neither the INTERNAL personal nor EXTERNAL business/technology compulsion forcing them to even consider changing?

Or once more invoking The Raudonis Protocol, that they have compelling reasons to consider X AND compelling reasons to choose something else?

I’m not saying that nobody is doing this, including Jeff who I hope also doesn’t mind being used to support MY rant disagreeing with parts of his. I fully acknowledge the strength and clarity of his observations.

I am, however, very definitely saying that it’s easy to deny the INTERNAL forces — personal preferences, emotional comfort, spiritual values, philosophical inclinations, you name it — behind making or not making change. Until we bring that into the conversation and keep it there, we’re leaving out what I think is MORE than half of the dynamic that drives choices.

And we can’t have a MEANINGFUL conversation if we attribute negative values to people who choose differently for INTERNAL reasons as much as EXTERNAL ones.

I know I can do better than this for both length and anger. LOL I’m also a little embarrassed by how close this is to being on-topic. LOL I do hope I’ve been sufficiently Derpy.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

I love a bit of split screen. We were super excited and I’d worked up some style samples – then they were all like – no negative space and ramp up the wiping please. so, you know, whatever, but fine. I just really wanted to do the thomas crown affair frankly, and we had 96 FPS models coming out our ears, so that really really could have happened.

oh well.. I’ll definitely check out twilights last gleaming. If bieberkopf was still around he’d probably have some insane examples too…

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

again – I’m really dis-avowing wipes. I think they’re OK, and it wasn’t as icky as I thought it’s be but its not where my heart lies. I just posted that to push back against the man gargling pints thing brett lobbed at me.

– two days turnaround to first client review, with some help on shot curation – radio edit for the IVs over the tune and then a ton of stringouts for atmos, eyes, fashion talent etc. then lots and lots of cropping and wiping. then CC.

Milan is a pretty town but I didn’t see a particularly huge amount of it.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Jeff Markgraf] “Now they use Premiere out of a combination of fear and inertia”

this is what’s worth mocking – as was pointed out – I really didn’t make much bones around X itself at all in the post – and I don’t post here half as much as I used to, but some of the language was so ridiculous I was moved to basically. And so again here.

[Jeff Markgraf] “Now they use Premiere out of a combination of fear and inertia”

This is the weird self aggrandising myth making of the X user. If you reverse that sentence the FCPX adoptee is thrusting, forward moving with courage and insight.

It’s absolutely ludicrous – and this one did make me laugh out loud. I don’t know where the moonieshine comes from, but the weird thing is, as the debate has largely died down, FCPX users mystical notion of their own courage and genius for using a particular piece of software seems as strong as ever?

It’s really funny is all. Funny and a little, little bit sad. And really ripe for a p*ss take – which I suppose I couldn’t quite resist?

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

[Herb Sevush]

[James Ewart] “I think the Thomas Crowne Affair (1968) was one of the first movies to make great use of split screen. Previously more of a TV ‘Batman and Robin’ thing no? Great movie.”

The original Thomas Crowne Affair made extensive use of split screens but was not nearly the first. “Indiscreet”, a Cary Grant romantic comedy used them in 1958, but I think the modern use of split screens, to add excitement and tension into a an action sequence probably began with John Frankenheimer’s “Grand Prix” in 1966. It’s commonly believed that the appearance of split screens throughout the 60’s was actually motivated by the IBM exhibit in the New York Worlds Fair of 1964 which pretty much introduced the world to multi-screen slide shows. The “Woodstock” documentary, 1970, also extensively used split screens and helped popularize them. By 1977, when “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” came out to a pronounced thud at the box office, split screens were pretty much seen as a fad of the 60’s and would fall out of favor in Hollywood. Too bad I say.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf