-
In-Action Story on FCPX and Focus
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “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. “
I love smart collections and search bins. It’s a great way to manage high volumes of data.
Before I moved from editorial into design, I edited the way you describe above, going back to maybe the FCP3 days. I think Bill calls it browser-based editing. I logged before I captured. I subclipped everything. I used those columns (“Good” was like a favorite for me) and I spent a lot of time in the find window. The OCD way I liked to work matches up really nicely with the FCPX workflow.
[Jeremy Garchow] “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).”
True, but then you are really using a rigid bin workflow, not a fluid metadata workflow. It was a choice in how you laid out your project. If you minimized your bin use, there was a lot of power in the old columns and find window. If you made bad binning choices, you forced yourself into hierarchical review. If you made good binning choices (bins are metadata, too!), you made finding the thing you were looking for easier.
I’m not saying that this is on par with what’s available today in FCPX — far from it — but that really very few Legend editors practiced the metadata-driven workflows that were available to them even then.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Simon Ubsdell] “But am I really the only person who is a bit stunned that the technology was put before the talent in this case?”
Nope, I don’t think it’s just you. 🙂
Shawn
-
[Oliver Peters] “[tony west] “It makes people want to use it who previously didn’t want to be as involved with other NLEs
THAT’S what’s different about it. You keep trying to act like X is no different.”This is true for SOME. It’s equally true that others try it and want to throw the computer against the wall.”
But we are not talking about SOME. The article is not about SOME. This article is about a specific director in charge of a large budget Hollywood film. The kind of project that many said a director would not make this decision on. They were wrong, because he did. That’s all I’m saying.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I logged before I captured. I subclipped everything. I used those columns (“Good” was like a favorite for me) and I spent a lot of time in the find window. The OCD way I liked to work matches up really nicely with the FCPX workflow.”
In thinking about this a little more, another editor in my department worked exactly the opposite way. He always had the browser in big picon mode and he sprayed selects all over the nether regions of his active timeline, always dragging and sculpting with the mouse.
The genius in FCPX is that organizationally, through metadata ranging from simple favorites to complex smart collections in conjunction with the skimmer, it suits both of our opposing styles very well.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Shawn Miller] “Nope, I don’t think it’s just you. 🙂 “
Whew, I was getting worried 😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “But am I really the only person who is a bit stunned that the technology was put before the talent in this case?”
The most interesting talent in the world! “I don’t always cut feature films, but when I do, they have $50 million budgets.”
I’m kidding, of course, and I don’t know Jan Kovac or anyone involved in the production or intend any offense, but it would be interesting to know more about the politics behind the workflow as well as the workflow itself. An unproven editor using an unproven NLE doesn’t square with the risk-averse Hollywood image that’s so often painted here.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “True, but then you are really using a rigid bin workflow, not a fluid metadata workflow. It was a choice in how you laid out your project. If you minimized your bin use, there was a lot of power in the old columns and find window. If you made bad binning choices, you forced yourself into hierarchical review. If you made good binning choices (bins are metadata, too!), you made finding the thing you were looking for easier.”
The problem is, how do you know when you’ve made a bad binning mistake until you’ve realized you’ve made a bad binning mistake?
Again, to use Andrew’s example, they didn’t know it was bad, until they tried to do something that ended up being bad. They thought they were doing everything right.
What is nice about a tagging workflow (not even X, but the idea of it) is that things can be sorted multiple ways with no penalty. Be as sloppy or as methodical as you want, it can handle both.
-
[Walter Soyka] “The genius in FCPX is that organizationally, through metadata ranging from simple favorites to complex smart collections in conjunction with the skimmer, it suits both of our opposing styles very well.”
That’s right. With little to no penalty, as I mentioned earlier.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “The problem is, how do you know when you’ve made a bad binning mistake until you’ve realized you’ve made a bad binning mistake?”
Well, it’s not permanent.
How you know when you’ve made a bad tagging mistake until you’ve realized that you made a bad tagging mistake?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “it would be interesting to know more about the politics behind the workflow as well as the workflow itself. An unproven editor using an unproven NLE doesn’t square with the risk-averse Hollywood image that’s so often painted here.”
Yes, the decision is a really intriguing one from so many different perspectives.
What I think is definitely implicit here is a devaluing of the craft of editing at the highest level.
Maybe that’s a good thing – maybe there isn’t in fact anything special about being able to cut a feature film, but having seen close up the breathtaking brilliance of some of the world’s top feature editors and the utter havoc that inexperienced editors can wreak on the material, I have yet to be convinced that you’re not better off focusing on the talent rather than the tech.
But maybe FCP X is the turning point … maybe it’s the point at which directors start to cut their own material and the specialist editing discipline starts to die out.
In a sense of course, the Coen brothers started that process with FCP Legacy but I kind of think there’s something freakishly special about their all-round film-making talents rather than that all directors are automatically going to make the best editors.
The trouble with cutting your own material – and this applies at all levels of editing – is that you rarely have enough distance from the creation of it to make suitably objective judgements and I’ve seen this on loads of features where the director got too close (often the issue with novice film-makers). This is something that you lose if the editor gets replaced …
But maybe that’s were we’re headed – if so, please discuss as it’s genuinely fascinating, perhaps even more so than metadata 🙂
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up