-
In-Action Story on FCPX and Focus
-
Has anyone seen the movie? Is it good? Is the editing good?
Thats really what it boils down to me.
For me its not wether FCPX can do it or not. Its wether you like the timeline or not. That all it really boils down to for me.
Its also funny that in this thread there are people who continually say there not worried or concerned with FCPX getting certain features because they are “niche” and only usefull in hollywood big budget features now are all excited thats theres press about it doing it now being in that “niche”.
As for those certain that Avid’s market share in this is dwindling – I bring up this post about from the wonderful Marianna over at Avid.
Every winner and nominee in the Best Picture, Film Editing, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing categories at the Academy Awards relied on Avid.
https://www.avid.com/US/press-room/AcademyAwards -
[Robin S. Kurz] “So you’ve seen them? Or you know that no one with skill in that area put them together? Because otherwise those seem like a lot of fairly random presumptions, no?”
“The directors were happy enough with the animated opening credits — created by editors using the standard text tool in Final Cut Pro X — that they decided to use them in the final movie, which is extremely rare for a high-production feature film.”
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
I’m just going to note here that we have to remember, that Focus is actually a snapshot of where X as an editing tool was about 12-18 months ago. The work was done without Libraries, or anything after 10.0.3, iirc.
Just as the movies that were honored with Oscars last week were also snapshots of where the editorial industry was about a year ago.
My personal belief is that X will do well in Hollywood mostly based on the fact that many of it’s metadata based processes do a superb job of carrying work from early in the filmmaking process into the later stages saving the need to re-do work that’s already been done. It’s the Intelligent Assistance wheelhouse.
That drives bottom line efficiency – and efficiency saves money – and saving money is ALWAYS a decision driver in every for profit enterprise on the planet.
“Great creative tools” are lovely. And everyone should celebrate them. But when push comes to shove, a great creative tool that ALSO saves money – well that’s a whole different ballgame.
Period.
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.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “they wanted to minimise the input from the editor and maximise their own.”
Maximizing the directors’ input doesn’t automatically mean minimizing the editor’s. It could be that, but somehow I doubt it. I see two likely scenarios.
One, they needed a seasoned FCPX editor for their film. Most of the studio film editors out there (hell, maybe all of them) don’t work with FCPX and probably don’t know how to use it. There may be a few out there but you also have to coordinate on schedule and such. So perhaps they needed to look outside of the usual suspects to find an experienced FCPX editor.
Two, (and my suspicion) this editor is a friend of theirs, perhaps even the guy that turned them on to FCPX in the first place. They got a big H-wood movie, and they brought their friends along. The hard part was convincing the studio to go with FCPX. Once that hurdle was over, they would’ve been able to hire whoever they wanted under the justification that “this guy knows X”.
I would be insulted if someone assumed I was basically a monkey, button-pusher on this film simply because the directors wanted a closer relationship to the post process. I don’t think it’s a good idea to make that assumption.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
[Neil Goodman] “As for those certain that Avid’s market share in this is dwindling – I bring up this post about from the wonderful Marianna over at Avid.
Every winner and nominee in the Best Picture, Film Editing, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing categories at the Academy Awards relied on Avid.
https://www.avid.com/US/press-room/AcademyAwards
“Doesn’t prove that their market share isn’t dwindling, Feature film Editing is not a very large part of the NLE market at all.
-
[Steve Connor] “Doesn’t prove that their market share isn’t dwindling, Feature film Editing is not a very large part of the NLE market at all.”
Exactly. (cue the car metaphor) That would be like using the cars of international bank managers as a measure for how well certain car companies are doing. By that logic 98+% of the car manufacturers (and NLEs) would be on the brink of extinction and Bentley et al would have the opposite in marketshare.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
Congrats to the Focus team on a job well done!
I am fascinated by the discussion on metadata here, because it almost sounds like people think it was invented in June of 2011. I know that it’s frowned upon here to critique software that one doesn’t use, so I’d be most interested to hear the Avid/Pr detractors above describe their experiences with metadata-driven workflows in those tools and outline with some specificity where they fall short.
I don’t mean this as a challenge or to prove anybody wrong — please keep in mind my long-held stance that FCPX uniquely offers digital asset management for the masses [link] — but rather to start some concrete discussion on workflow. If we’re going to talk about using metadata, let’s actually talk about using metadata.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Simon Ubsdell] “What was interesting about the Cold Mountain moment was that a legendary feature film editor made the choice to use FCP”
True enough. However in terms of non feature film market credibility there are a big number of production personnel working in commercials and corporate (I am talking about the UK only) who have heard bad stuff about FCPX. A lot of these (including editors) have never heard of Walter Murch (shame on them).
But they sure as hell have heard of Hollywood. Big budget Hollywood picture cut on FCPX. Box ticked.
I know Robin will say they amount to a tiny proportion of the market which I do not disagree with.
But we all look at what they are doing in Hollywood. And if I have a client who has doubts about FCPX because of something they have “heard” I can point to this movie and that’s the end of the conversation.
So hurrah for Apple marketing.
-
The article itself is just a marketing article about a feature cut on FCPX seen for other NLE sites as well.
So nothing exiting – though some are happy about it as shows Apple cares about pros.
As long nobody has seen the movie it’s hard to say whether it’s a good or bad cut. And even this will be subjective.
Probably Mikes book will be a better in depth reading.
– Andreas
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby
become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will
also gaze into thee.” – Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil -
[Steve Connor] “I note the usual “FCPX isn’t professional” c**p is still being spouted in reaction to this story on other forums.”
Real working editors still hold this opinion? What do they prefer?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn]
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up