-
In-Action Story on FCPX and Focus
For the folks who’ve been curious about how this went:
https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/focus/
Noah
-
203 Replies
-
That’s a great feature, I hope it’s going to get FCPX some well deserved attention from Filmmakers.
-
I will be going to see it. Maybe more interesting will be all the pro and con editors and proponents and detractors weighing in on the future of FCPX on this forum following this release. Let’s hear from the Avid’s, the PPRO’s and the Xer’s.
-
I note the usual “FCPX isn’t professional” c**p is still being spouted in reaction to this story on other forums.
-
I thought they’d be a bit more reaction about this story on here, unless you’re all busy watching the footage of Madonna falling off the stage so spectacularly at the Brit Awards this evening.
-
A nice article, but a HUGE puff piece. For all the discussion about a faster edit, the editing took 11 months. While that’s not uncommon for a studio feature – and is likely due to all sort of things, but not due to the choice of editing systems – it doesn’t make a good selling point for FCP X.
The biggest benefits touted in the article are not really FCP X, but rather in using a native workflow, which tends to be uncommon in a structured studio film. OTOH, it’s the way many indie films have been done for years. FCP 7 has been doing such editing with ProRes4444, too.
Go back and read the “Gone Girl” press by Adobe and you’ll see that Adobe is making similar points in favor of their tools. Both are good moments – maybe even watershed moments, but neither is going to change the industry very much.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Those of us who’ve been arguing for 4 years that X has a great set of developing tools that look like they’ll evolve to become fully professional and change the way that some part of post are done, really don’t need to comment much. It’s kinda self evident now.
Some who firmly planted their flag on the other side and who left X behind feeling it would never be “fully professional” have to re-think at leas a bit of their position now.
Hopefully (honestly!) most will remain happy with their choices, particularly if those approaches do everything they need. If so, they’ll be fine. Or they can feel just a tiny bit that they might have missed a bit of the forest for the trees, in their choice. That’s going to be largely individual.
Honestly, I’m interested in what is said at the Lightiron event coming up. How much extra efficiency do the filmmakers feel X was actually responsible for? Little? Some? A lot? And is the X workflow something they feel is evolving to be a truly superior workflow, or just another viable option? That’s going to be determinant for many. If the buzz ends up being “it’s a lot faster and saved us a ton of money” – thats pretty powerful stuff. And there was that line in the announcement about coming in “under budget” which perked my ears up. OTOH, if it wasn’t that big a difference and X is just a viable alternative, then the change in impressions won’t accelerate that much. Going to be an interesting few months coming up, tho.
And we move on.
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.
-
I can’t imagine someone editing a complex feature given how sluggish performance currently is. I started to get frustrated with delays and sluggish UI just editing a demo reel.
I agree with the “puff piece” designation.
——————-
Los Angeles Cameraman
Canon C300 (x2), Zeiss CP.2 lenses, P2 Varicam, etc.
http://www.lacameraman.com -
[Helmut Kobler] “I can’t imagine someone editing a complex feature given how sluggish performance currently is”
They used new machines, which may have helped. When Mike Matzdorff’s workflow e-book is out, it may help to explain the workflow in ways that mitigate this issue.
[Helmut Kobler] “I agree with the “puff piece” designation.”
Since I said it, I want to clarify that I’m only talking about the way Apple wrote it, which is certainly to be expected. That’s Marketing 101. It’s still a nice process for those involved, especially given that they are trying to change the general way a feature is posted and that takes nerve (in a good way) in Hollywood. Same for Fincher’s crew.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “it doesn’t make a good selling point for FCP X.”
and
[Oliver Peters] “you’ll see that Adobe is making similar points in favor of their tools. Both are good moments – maybe even watershed moments, but neither is going to change the industry very much.”
I’m always amused by “The Cold Mountain moment.” I can’t think of anything that did more to cement Avid’s place in feature editing for the next 10 years than reading about the workflow on Cold Mountain.
On the contrary, I think the Cold Mountain Moment was a turning point for people who were already using FCP, an affirmation that they were on the right track, and that their faith in Apple wasn’t misplaced.
[Insert trenchant observation of your choice here.]
For THAT, the value of the Cold Mountain moment was incalculable.
As you note, Oliver, this doesn’t entirely apply to indie film. Although it does more than many people think. We can argue about the long-term costs, but for a project of finite duration, renting is cheaper, and for most of the past decade, even for purchase, the difference in cost between FCP and Media Composer wasn’t worth talking about.
It really REALLY doesn’t apply to the overwhelming majority of the early push into FCP from Media 100 guys who’d come to the end of that road, and would go on a murderous rampage culminating in self-immolation on the steps of One Infinite Loop, begging for mercy in the next life before they’d consider Avid.
None of which has anything to do with the notion that, whether one agrees it’s ready or not today, X will continue to get better and better for feature editing. There’s simply no question, at least not in the COW. There’s just not.
But it also has nothing to do with whether or not X is suitable, now or ever, to the way I want or need to work. Forget Cold Mountain. I need it to work on my molehill.
So “The Focus Moment” and Light Iron might tell someone everything they need to know about why NOT to use X…even as it will surely provide affirmation to people who already use it.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up