-
In-Action Story on FCPX and Focus
-
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Mike’s book just went up for pre-orders on the iBookstores.
And FCP.co has a new announcement up today indicating they have TWO in-depth stories about to break that go into details about the workflow – talking to the entire team responsible for the effort.
So there will be all sorts of debate fodder to read up on during the coming few days.
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.
-
[Andy Neil] “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.”
This is the part I find really interesting. They thought it was more important to cut on FCP X than to draw on the talent of an experienced feature film editor.
Am I the only one who thinks this is quite surprising? Is the convenience of the software more important than the experience of the editor as this decision clearly implies?
I’m sure Jan Kovac knows what he’s doing and goodness knows everyone deserves a break but I’m sure he’d be the first to admit he’s not on anyone’s A-list of feature film editors. His highest profile job before that was “editor: syndication version” on three episodes of Curb your Enthusiasm.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[tony west] ““What I love about Final Cut Pro X is that it allowed me to be involved with, and in control of, every aspect of making our film.”
What does that statement mean to you?”
That the director likes and uses FCX. But there are many many directors that know and use Avid, or FCP. Michael Mann, for one, is always tinkering away on an Avid. James Cameron is credited as an editor on his films. There are many others that also know the software being used to edit, and like to cut along with the editor, or have their own pass, or whatever.
The fact that FCX was used in this case is no different. The only difference is that the director likes using it…and apparently so did the editor, so they did what they could to make it work. But it isn’t the sheer fact that FCX was used that allowed the director the creative freedom to work alongside the editor and also edit. This is done all the time with other NLEs. It’s not unique in that respect.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
Metadata, for me, has never been about a better Find tool. If you have a find tool, you have to know what you’re looking for.
With the workflow that seems to have been used in Focus, and what Cioni has talked about with the Light Iron developed (and other) tools, is that a lot of the data that is generated on set, really useful metadata, is teed up so well in FCPX, and an editor can choose to use that metadata, or start their own metadata, with absolutely zero penalty.
Look at Andrew’s story about trying to keep selects organized (and subsequently duplicated) in a bin structure.. It quickly becomes untenable as soon as someone starts to vary off of the structure. At that point, you have two choices, keep the organized structure, and don’t let anyone touch it, or abandon it and try to sort it all out later.
If I send you a Project XML, you get all of my tags and you can choose to use them, or not use them. It won’t effect what you’ve already done in your Library. If I start to use markers, then you have to know what to search for, with tags/collections, I can browse what I am looking for and know what I need when I see it.
I will be the first to admit, there is such a thing as too much metadata and you do have to curtail the overload, but that’s what nice about X, is that clips can have multiple tags, multiple properties, multiple uses, and the way that X allows the user access to that is better than a bin system. I’m not even going to add “in my personal opinion” to the end of that, because I feel so strongly about it. No, I’m just kidding, it is my opinion that tags are better than bins.
So, while metadata was certainly around before 2011, the access to it wasn’t all that great. I’ve been very interested in metadata form an editing standpoint, but also from an archive standpoint, for a long time. FCP7/Avid allowed you to enter a bunch of metadata, and it stored a whole bunch, but if you needed to find something with the find tool, it could be hard if you didn’t know exactly what you’re looking for, and the Find tool wasn’t 100% accurate. X’s find by sort system and Cioni gives a great demo of this with his Outpost/LivePlay software on the iPad which uses similar techniques is very very efficient.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyLTMgtE_PY
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Walter Soyka] ”
Real working editors still hold this opinion? What do they prefer?”Hard to get a sample of just those, Walter. But in the wider “editing” universe, the confusion lives on…
Below are some of the comments posted on MacRumors site after a feature story on the Focus Project was posted – every single tired meme about how X is not “professional” and how NOBODY with a clue about professional editing will EVER use it immediately all popped up again.
Some quotes from the comments section:
” Phew, they finally were able to pay someone to use their software for a movie! Final Cut X isn’t used by nearly anyone. It used to be but they ruined it.”
“nobody uses FCP X professionally, with the exception of this movie and one tv show. zero commercial houses. period. professional commercial/film/tv video editor here, freelancing in LA for the past 14 years….i have never seen anyone professional use X and i never will. congratulations apple, on killing the product that made me and many like me switch to using apple computers in the first place. enjoy your prosumers, because no professional editor will ever use you again.”
“But in all honesty it’s really not that big of a deal. FCPX was just used to assemble the film, and for them they found tagging the best. But all actual exporting happened from a Quantel system, all actual VSFX and green screening happened in another system, and all titles probably happened in a third system.”
“Dear Apple
FCPX is just a really bad program. You ****ed up. Never call me again.”My absolute favorite was this:
“I think the only things holding it back are now iMovie lingo and a lack of “folders” (in the traditional sense, anyway. I’m aware you end up making the same thing via tagging, but the lack of making folders/ flexibly arranging files in bins seems to really bother some of my coworkers).”
Note to the X team. Folders dudes. What X needs to really succeed is more FOLDERS!
Gotta LOVE the interwebs!
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] “This is the part I find really interesting. They thought it was more important to cut on FCP X than to draw on the talent of an experienced feature film editor. Am I the only one who thinks this is quite surprising? Is the convenience of the software more important than the experience of the editor as this decision clearly implies?”
Time for a new forum! It’s Not About the Tools, It’s About the Talent Or Not: The Debate.
Alternately, Feature Film Workflows Are Irrelevant to the Broader Editorial Market Or Not: The Debate.
Bonus points to anyone who can synthesize a back-and-forth argument by quoting only themselves from previous threads here! (I bet I could pick up a few points this way myself…)
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Neil Goodman] “Has anyone seen the movie? Is it good? Is the editing good?
Thats really what it boils down to me. “Only that’s not what this is about. It’s about whether or not an NLE—in this case FCP X, with Gone Girl it was PPro, etc.—is a viable candidate for feature film production at the Hollywood level. The quality of the editing or even of the movie itself is completely irrelevant in this context. Unless of course you want to tell me that every crap feature film cut with Avid (of which there are of course exponentially more at this point than have been cut with FCP X) was Avid’s fault? 🙂
Although feature film work per se is irrelevant to an easy 98% of the market, yes, it goes by the trickle-down logic. Along the lines of “If it’s good enough for them, it must be fine for me!”. In which case it’s very relevant for all users since it makes for far less tedious discussions with certain folk (and clients). 😉
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Bill Davis] “Hard to get a sample of just those, Walter. But in the wider “editing” universe, the confusion lives on… Below are some of the comments posted on MacRumors site after a feature story on the Focus Project was posted – every single tired meme about how X is not “professional” and how NOBODY with a clue about professional editing will EVER use it immediately all popped up again. “
Wow.
Some interesting nuggets in there when you read past the tone and emotion, though! A couple of those statements could have been things like:
“I’m not seeing opportunities for freelance FCPX editors in my niche.”
“FCPX has a really strong toolset for creative/offline editorial.”
Maybe those could have lead to more meaningful discussion.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Simon Ubsdell] “[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.””
Brilliant. No clue how that is an answer to the question. Since that obviously in itself says absolutely nothing about the quality, good or bad, of the actual titles, which you clearly are decreeing as most likely unacceptable, sight unseen. Nor does it say anything about the person’s (though it’s plural) qualifications in term of design etc. So I guess you’re simply dodging the questions, for whatever reason. Oh well.
Whatever. I for one will decide once I actually see the movie. If I even care. 😀
[Simon Ubsdell] “Is the convenience of the software more important than the experience of the editor as this decision clearly implies?”
Again, pure conjecture. But yeah, maybe the “came in on time and under budget” was actually another driving factor. And they clearly thought X could give them that, too. Aside from not seeing, outside of maybe LENGTH, which horrendously unique tasks Focus could have required above and beyond what something like Curb Your Enthusiasm would have needed when it comes to plain EDITING. We’re not talking celluloid or telecine here.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Shane Ross] “The only difference is that the director likes using it…and apparently so did the editor,”
Everyone say this very slowly. Out loud. Three times. Really fast.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up