-
hidden gems
-
[Carsten Orlt] “Quite interesting how a simple post about my joy that a certain difficult problem has now an elegant solution has gone off the rails”
Quite a few threads on here end up going in a completely different direction, sometimes it can be fascinating and amusing.
Sometimes it isn’t
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[Carsten Orlt] “The way FCPx with frame sizes and frame rates is brilliant! And I didn’t read a single argument that disputed this. I read a lot of arguments disputing other things but that seems to be the way it works..”
[Carsten Orlt] “I always did find it curious that many mediocre editors got the edge only because they were wiz (is that spelled correctly?) kids on the computer…”
While we may agree that FCPX’s handling of mixed formats is a welcome convenience, I find the notion that gives a new edge to novice users somewhat amusing. Here’s a recent example:
I got a call from a colleague recently to ask if I could help her with a short video she was having trouble with. She was not happy with the editor’s work and felt the director was keeping her out of the process and not incorporating her feedback. I asked her to send me what they had produced and I’d give my feedback. The piece she sent, which the production team considered near final, was by my standards at best a weak rough cut.
Since it was cut in FCP7, I told her it looked like a straightforward job to fix things. Just get me the FCP project file and a hard drive with all the media. She fires the editor and gives me the project and media. I get everything up on my system, look at the timeline and groan. It’s a total mess. A hodgepodge of mixed formats — HDV, H.264 AVCHD, progressive, interlaced, various sizes, frame rates, etc. Sigh. BTW, she blew her entire budget on the other team so she has no money and must pay out-of-pocket for any additional work. Since she’s a friend and colleague, I cut her a sweet deal.
It’s too bad FCPX can’t open that project. It would have made my life easier. But I doubt if the previous editor had used FCPX it would have been a better cut. The editorial decisions were very specific and intentional. And in my judgement, often amateurish. The fact that their FCP7 timeline was a mess was just another indicator of their general lack of expertise.
For me personally, deep technical understanding has never been an end goal. It’s simply a necessary byproduct of mastering an inherently technical medium. It’s part of the craft.
YMMV, but over the years, I’ve found that the most skilled editors were also the most technically sophisticated. I don’t think FCPX will change that. If anything, it’ll probably mean more work putting out editorial fires as more and more novice users confuse FCPX’s automation for experience and skill.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Carsten Orlt] “And all because some are threatened by the word ‘easier’. Are you afraid there is an army of naive amateurs out there that will burn you alive when you open the door of the castle of knowledge and true professionalism?
What are you trying to defend? Why do you want things complicated? Because somebody without your years of experience suddenly can get the same result?”
Again, nothing against “easier” but against accepting beforehand an avoidable quality lost.
You can get it as easy and without that “peanuts quality lose”, with the same application.
We deal with 2 pictures aspect ratios and 4 kind of pixels.
Hell, this is not quantic physic.
rafael -
But the more I try to help him work out the best workflow to deal with SD or HD and what HD I really start hating (yes hating) FCP7. The way FCPx handles all this is how it should be. I know there is a bit more to it like loosing quality when upscaling etc but this is peanuts against the problem which format your source should be converted too and what your seq should be set too and what if you need to change it after you edit the program.
This was my original quote. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. By ‘this is peanuts’ I ment that the obvious problem that when you upscale you will loose quality and there are only 2 options to minimize that loss (hardware or software scale). It is therefor much easier to explain and to understand compared to that SD has at least 2 and HD at least 4 different pixel dimensions which effect how you have to deal with text, graphics etc. In addition to this you have the frame rates and progressive versus interlaced.
One problem has 2 possible solutions (peanuts) against the other problem having a lot more than that (never calculated the total possible combinations of frame rates and pixel dimensions.Clearer?
And believe me this IS quantum physics for some who are much better editors than we are!
-
YMMV, but over the years, I’ve found that the most skilled editors were also the most technically sophisticated. I don’t think FCPX will change that. If anything, it’ll probably mean more work putting out editorial fires as more and more novice users confuse FCPX’s automation for experience and skill
It will not make anybody a better editor, but it will make a technical problem way easier to handle. To use your example, it wouldn’t have made the program better edited but it would have saved you a lot of time cleaning up the messy timeline. It lets you focus more on the craft of editing and less on the technicalities of modern video formats.
This will benefit the novice as much as the seasoned editor.And the novice who thinks some fancy software replaces experience is as wrong as the experienced who thinks that nothing can replace her/him.
-
[Carsten Orlt] “It will not make anybody a better editor, but it will make a technical problem way easier to handle.”
I think the problem is that it might make “technical problem way easier to handle” to a point. Once you pass that point, however, you don’t have the tools available to easily deal with more complicated issues, and then those issues become far more difficult to handle.
-
[Chris Harlan] “I think the problem is that it might make “technical problem way easier to handle” to a point. Once you pass that point, however, you don’t have the tools available to easily deal with more complicated issues, and then those issues become far more difficult to handle.”
Precisely!
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing “The Whale” to the Big Screen:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfitandSuzanneChisholm/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
Hi David,
Long time I don’t post anything here but it doesn’t mean that I’m not reading everything you, David Lawrence, Rafael Amador and many others are saying about the great combat between 7 x FCPX.
Reading this thread makes me going back on my beginning here on CC when I was confused about fps, frame sizes anamorphic or not, progressive and interlaced and etc… .
You know what ? Thanks to FCP 4.5 , 5, 6, 7 (those I’ve worked with) and all of you guys here who understands the tech problems, I’m a better editor. Not because of an answer you or any other gave me but because the answer made me look more deep on the question, no matter if it was here on CC or anywhere else around the internet or in the books I’ve bought. Do you believe that now I’m also directing ?
Well, I waited 3 months to install FCPX. Before that I read, read and read about it, here in CC.
My last job I edited all of it in FCPX but now I’m with another one inside FCP7. What I’m doing ? Before start the editing I decide what I want to do with all those clips and then decide where I’m going to work. If I will need some plugins and a monitoring, I go for 7 if not I’m taking the X.
Since the videos I work with do not run for an Oscar in Hollywood or for broadcast around the whole country and also I do not have the latest and modern facility full of optical fibers and arrays with many HDs looking like a wardrobe, FCPX is doing a very good job for me.
Do you remember when in a thread you came on my help saying to the others: “Hey guys, Fredy just want to see what he is doing with the clips and not be waiting for render to see the results.” And you came with a good solution for me.
Now, FCPX makes it possible fast and easy. I’m really enjoying it ! But 7 is just beside for many helps … lol.
Greetings and thanks for all ….iMac 2.7 GHz Intel 4 Core i5
16 GB memoryMacBook Pro 17″
2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
6GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAMOWC RAID 5 with 3TB
(2) External HD LaCieMac (400/800 FW and USB)with 500GB -(2) USB External HD Western Digital (in cases) with 750GB
OS X 10.6.5
Final Cut Studio “3” -
[Fredy Schwerdtner] “I’m a better editor. Not because of an answer you or any other gave me but because the answer made me look more deep on the question”
Absolutely Fredy. Precisely the reason why many of us don’t think FCPX really delivers on its promise of making editing easier. It just hides some of technical stuff from users and discourages them from developing a true understanding of the technical aspects of editing they’d be better off learning, just as you have.
[Fredy Schwerdtner] “Do you believe that now I’m also directing ?”
Excellent!!! And, your editing skills will definitely help you to become a better director.
It’s great to hear you’re making so much progress. When you start directing full-time you can hire me to edit. Okay?
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing “The Whale” to the Big Screen:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfitandSuzanneChisholm/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up