-
In-Action Story on FCPX and Focus
-
[Oliver Peters] “It’s equally true that others try it and want to throw the computer against the wall.”
So basically the exact same reaction *I* would have, if I sat down at the most recent incarnation of say AVID for the first time in about 8 years. No surprise there.
And from 4 years experience on the subject, I think I can easily say that 99 out 100 times that is purely due to the fact that a) that person didn’t even learn the most basic basics of how things work/are different beforehand and/or b) tried using it like whatever other NLE they have been using, unwilling to rethink or give into even the most basic conceptual differences. Not because they wouldn’t have *factually* been unable to edit anything they wanted to with it. Because, you know, they’re the pros and know the best possible way to edit and ain’t havin’ APPLE tell them nuttin’. If Apple ain’t doin’ it THEIR way, then it’s the highway… yadda yadda yadda… 😉
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Walter Soyka] “It’s Not About the Tools, It’s About the Talent Or Not: The Debate.”
This does seem to be a particularly remarkable and high-profile example of the tools being considered more important than the talent. I wonder whether this is where things are ultimately trending with the film-makers taking far more control over the creative process and sidelining the specialist talent.
Maybe this is a great thing – but then again maybe it’s not. I genuinely don’t know – though you’d have to say it comes down to whether the film-maker has the requisite natural talent.
Of course, neither Ficarra not Requa has a single editing credit to their name if we can believe imdb, which makes it even more interesting.
[Walter Soyka] “Alternately, Feature Film Workflows Are Irrelevant to the Broader Editorial Market Or Not: The Debate.”
Oddly, the importance attached to the “Cold Mountain moment for FCP X” disregards the fact that feature film editing by no means represents the most complicated editing process for all that it is esteemed as the pinnacle of the profession. There’s no particular reason why you shouldn’t very successfully be able to cut a feature film on iMovie – the media wrangling would be a bit of a pain but then in Hollywood circles no-one cares about that, since it’s the job of the support staff to make happen whatever the creative team wants.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Jeremy Garchow] “So, while metadata was certainly around before 2011, the access to it wasn’t all that great.”
I agree with this. Apple has certainly raised the bar on in-NLE metadata tools with the immediacy of the feature set, but more importantly, they’ve elevated the visibility of metadata by popularlizing digital asset management (largely by removing bins and forcing tag-don’t-sort).
But I also think that FCP Legend editors tend not to think of all sortable columnar metadata that had been available to them — in part because the default size of the browser window hid them in list view mode.
[Jeremy Garchow] “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.”
Preface: I’m not trying to take anything away from FCPX on metadata.
But what about Premiere Pro and a Prelude Live Logger [link] workflow? Or what about any of the DAM panels [link] that integrate directly with Premiere?
Has anyone in this thread actually tried a heavy metadata-driven workflow with Premiere, or are we just saying that FCPX is uniquely positioned on metadata and disqualifying the other apps on principle?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Simon Ubsdell] “They thought it was more important to cut on FCP X than to draw on the talent of an experienced feature film editor.”
Productions make equipment-based decisions all the time, there’s nothing wrong with that. And feature film experience is no metric for editing talent. Mediocre films are cut all the time by mediocre film editors.
When digitial cinema was in its infancy, there were DPs who understood it, and others who did not. Some of the ones who worked only on film were probably highly experienced DPs and there was a new crop of DPs who were learning all there was to know about digital. If a production chose digital over film, they were making a business decision or aesthetics decision and its only natural to hire people who are comfortable working with that equipment.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
[Andy Neil] “Productions make equipment-based decisions all the time, there’s nothing wrong with that. And feature film experience is no metric for editing talent. Mediocre films are cut all the time by mediocre film editors. “
Why, in your estimation, did they not go with an editor with some feature film experience in this case?
It could well be true that as you say there are many mediocre feature film editors but I don’t see that as an argument for going with someone who’s never actually edited a feature film editor at all (until now).
This is a big-budget Will Smith movie – I’m not sure when a Will Smith movie was last edited by a complete tyro.
For example, Hughes Winborne who cut Seven Pounds has 33 feature editing credits, Steven Rosenblum who cut After Earth has 24 credits, and so on.
Surely you’ll admit this is an unusual choice in this case?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “Why, in your estimation, did they not go with an editor with some feature film experience in this case?
“I thought I answered that. They made an equipment decision and went with someone who could operate the equipment. Same as if they went with a digital camera at the start of the digital cinema age.
[Simon Ubsdell] “It could well be true that as you say there are many mediocre feature film editors but I don’t see that as an argument for going with someone who’s never actually edited a feature film editor at all (until now).”
You’re misinterpreting me. It’s NOT an argument to go with someone with no film credits. I’m saying that hiring someone with film experience is NO INDICATOR that you’re getting a good editor. They could have liked his interpretation of the film when they met with him, or they knew him already (as I mentioned before as a possibility). Who knows what went into their decision to hire a guy with no film credits. But guess what? He has one now.
[Simon Ubsdell] “This is a big-budget Will Smith movie – I’m not sure when a Will Smith movie was last edited by a complete tyro.”
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Those other editors you mentioned with all the film credits cut on Avid, right? Well, you can throw a rock and hit a feature film editor in LA who cuts on Avid. Nearly all the films of the past 30 years that came out of the studio system were cut on Avid. Finding a feature film editor with Avid credits isn’t hard. It might be hard to find one who can cut on FCPX (or wants to).
If they made an equipment decision (which I’ve now said multiple times), and it’s fine and not unusual that they did so (as evidenced by all the equipment decisions that get made all the time in film, then it’s also not unusual that they went with an FCPX editor even if he had no film credits to begin. So, no, I don’t find it an unusual choice.
As far as Will Smith goes, I have faith that the studio (or Smith himself) wasn’t going to let a shitty edit make it through to the theaters. Obviously this guy passed muster with the directors, the studio, and the star because the film is out. He didn’t get fired. Unlike the guy who cut Couples Retreat.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
[Walter Soyka] “But I also think that FCP Legend editors tend not to think of all sortable columnar metadata that had been available to them — in part because the default size of the browser window hid them in list view mode.
“But it is also the interface. When you do a find in FCP7, a new window pops up, shows you the relevant clips, you do what you want with it, and then close that window, losing that search forever.
And columns only work on bin level. If you have a bunch of bins, sorting by column does nothing for you when you need to backup and look at all of the media in the project (small p).
So while yes, FCP7 had a good find function, it was hard to use, and therein lies the difference. It assumes that you will want to use the find feature once, and never come back to it without searching it all again.
[Walter Soyka] “But what about Premiere Pro and a Prelude Live Logger [link] workflow? Or what about any of the DAM panels [link] that integrate directly with Premiere?
“I tried to like Prelude, but I didn’t prefer the marker ranges and subclips. It was a personal preference. They were hard to read and understand, especially once the edit started. They seemed a lot more permanent than tags, even though you could modify them whenever you needed, and a lot of it boiled down to interface for me. I just didn’t prefer the marker based interface, just like I didn’t really prefer subclips in FCP Legend.
I don’t use a DAM, so I can’t speak to that, but I have researched them. If you have a DAM, then you can send whatever you want to whatever NLE, and the sorting and tagging inside the NLE becomes a touch less relevant.
I am not disqualifying the other apps on principle. I think Prelude was invented to cater to a really specific user set, and that was mostly producers at really large media companies who needed simple assembly requirements, as well as some sort of transcoder to flip files to a common codec. I think that was a choice that wasn’t quite imaginative enough, and that is my personal opinion. It bothers me what Pl calls a “rough cut”. I just don’t see why this has to be a whole separate app, with a separate development process. Pl now has transitions. Soon, it will be very similar to Pr. I just don’t see the purpose.
-
[Andy Neil] “If they made an equipment decision (which I’ve now said multiple times), and it’s fine and not unusual that they did so (as evidenced by all the equipment decisions that get made all the time in film, then it’s also not unusual that they went with an FCPX editor even if he had no film credits to begin. So, no, I don’t find it an unusual choice.”
We’ll have to agree to differ here. I think you’re absolutely right that the decision was made to cut the film on FCP X and then a suitable editor was looked for.
This to me seems an extraordinary decision.
In the normal course of events it’s surely the case that the director and/or producer will first of all look for the editor whose track record tells them that s/he can best tell their story and the choice of NLE is virtually irrelevant in the scheme of things. Who wouldn’t consider the talent first and the kit later – if at all?
It would be equally bizarre to decide on the camera before hiring the cinematographer.
The presumption here that I find strange and revealing is that the editor’s skillset is less important that the kit he’s cutting on – which is a point that I think we’re agreeing on.
You don’t find anything odd in that – I do.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
Let me put it to you this way.
Before Avid, film was cut primarily on flatbeds, right? There were plenty of editors out there who could rock a Moviola or a Steenbeck. But probably not that many who could or even wanted to cut in the computer world. I’ve heard stories of editors resisting the idea of cutting a film on a computer. Seems strange to think of it nowadays.
To break that outdated notion that one way was better than another, someone had to make the decision to use Avid regardless of the people he’d be able to work with. Decide to go with the system and then find the people willing to join the revolution.
FCPX has a terrible (not wholly undeserved) reputation in Hollywood, and it’s probably worse with the higher echelon of film editors. It’s stupid to be so against a software for no good reason, just as it’s stupid to blindly follow a software and gloss over it’s imperfections and problems. The industry needs people like the Focus directors to help push Hollywood to look past the hype of a product and use it if it fits the workflow. That’s the smart way to work.
Eventually, there’ll be plenty of film editors who can edit on Premiere or FCPX. We’re just at the beginning stages right now.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
[Andy Neil] “To break that outdated notion that one way was better than another, someone had to make the decision to use Avid regardless of the people he’d be able to work with. Decide to go with the system and then find the people willing to join the revolution. “
Yes, this is clearly the thought process involved here.
But am I really the only person who is a bit stunned that the technology was put before the talent in this case?
Clearly the view was that the advantages of FCP X were so overwhelmingly convincing that finding an editor skilled in the craft of feature film editing was not considered to be of importance.
It’s the exact equivalent of a feature film production saying that a hypothetical new innovative camera is so much better than every other camera that’s come before it that it has to be used even though the only person who can be found to drive it has never shot a feature film before. The camera is so outstandingly good that a DP’s knowledge of lighting is just not needed.
Is it true to say that FCP X is so far superior to any other NLE that the editor’s actual experience becomes a distant second in the creative process?
That’s quite a claim.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up