-
Interview with Thomas Grove Carter
-
This is exactly the clarification I think the original discussion was lacking.
“Finishing” as a term of art, still means widely divergent things to different people.
One persons “finish” is another’s woefully amateurish and totally unacceptable effort.
At the other extreme, a different producer finds the look and sound of the submitted master file meets ALL their criteria for effective communications right off their desktop.For either party to get to tell the other that they must change their practices in order to be doing things “correctly” is more about defensiveness than it is about objectivity, IMO.
The producer paying big bills for outside expertise may find those increasingly unacceptable as the bottom rises and more grading and audio skills move into the general editing population.
And the less experienced folk NEED to constantly build appreciation and knowledge about the value of traditional post processes.
The middle ground will almost certainly expand. Less so, perhaps, the market for those who refuse to budge from a polar position.
Maybe.
Time will tell.
My 2 cents.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Tim Wilson] “The most characteristic characteristic of digital content creation in the 21st century’s second decade is exponentially expanding options for finishing, driven by real-world demand.”
You quite rightly emphasise the astonishing growth in the technical means for finishing, but does that give us the complete picture?
Are you perhaps not sidelining an equally important factor, namely the skill, experience and talent to operate them at the highest level?
While software and hardware continue to become exponentially more available, the same is (sadly) unlikely to be true of these human factors which cannot be bought off the shelf or acquired overnight, and sometimes can never be acquired at all. There are people with better eyes and better ears who are better equipped to maximise the potential this gifts them. That’s a playing field I just can’t see ever being levelled.
Of course, it’s an outrageous affront to democracy that this should be so, but it doesn’t make it any less true.
Iñárritu is still going to want to be grading and mixing his next movie with the most talented artists he can find. (I sincerely wish that he would turn to me but I have to accept the fact that he is never likely to in this lifetime.) And the most talented artists are always going to want to work in the best rooms using the best options that technology can currently offer because that allows them to deliver the best that their talent can achieve.
I doubt somehow that cheap software and hardware changes that picture at all.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
The tools to edit and completely finish have been available for a long time. I started grading in FCP4.5 and finishing for broadcast. This is over 12 years ago. All that has changed is the tools have gotten vastly more sophisticated and cheaper. What hasn’t changed is the skills and expertise.
I’ve had editors hand over picture and sound to me who possibly could have done a good job with grade or sound. But they didn’t want to. There is so much more to collaboration than just handing over from the edit experts software to finish experts software & hardware. It is a fresh set of eyes, ears and creative juice. This whole argument forgets the power of collaboration by getting bogged down in democratization of gear. With my background in broadcast telecine, news sound and camera, location docos including producing and then specialising in sound and picture post I can do everything. I now shoot, can do edits on small or basic things, finish and deliver.
But I don’t want to. On anything other than a simple little job I really want an editor. Not because they have software that I don’t. It’s the creative energy they bring, their point of view and skill in teasing out story nuance that I can’t see because I shot it and know the story. I will emp[loy a director writer just to get further point of view and to be able to interview while I worry about light and sound. When it comes to post I will employ a sound editor, even though I will mix it. I’ll grade my shows but with the director so I there is story perspective, not cinematographer bias to the look.
It’s not about the software or computer but making the creative experience fun.
-
I think Justin short sales himself a bit. He is very smart and talented. He’s also a good instructor. There are no wasted words in his presentation, just straight to the point and clear.
He points out one of the “real” game changers and that’s plugins. 20 years ago you had to make all those effects yourself from scratch and it cost more to do it. (He even had a plugin to straighten a shot. I didn’t know such a thing existed: )
The second game changer is of course there are tons of people like him on YT explaining how to do production for free.
20 years ago you had to figure it out on your own. -
[Bill Davis] “For either party to get to tell the other that they must change their practices in order to be doing things “correctly” is more about defensiveness than it is about objectivity, IMO.”
I don’t think anyone stated Youtubers should outsource their videos for finishing. You have implied time and time again that FCPX can do everything. For some FCPX is all that is needed but for others that is not the case.
[Bill Davis] “The producer paying big bills for outside expertise may find those increasingly unacceptable as the bottom rises and more grading and audio skills move into the general editing population.”
[Bill Davis] “And the less experienced folk NEED to constantly build appreciation and knowledge about the value of traditional post processes.”
I agree but some folks are stuck thinking FCXP can do everything when other FCPX users have stated Apple should have a graphic design/photo program. Will BMD introduce such a program at NAB 2018? Should Apple introduce 3-D software? The 3-D titling system of FCPX would not cut it for my clients. I could either use FCPX and outsource or learn how to do 3-D animation myself. 10 years ago some projects could be done entirely in FCP and Premiere Pro. Other projects needed more than what either software program had to offer and the same is true today. Keep in mind Avatar made use of InDesing, Photoshop, Premiere Pro, AE and Illustrator because they used the Adobe products for flyers and posters. I agree that one man bands are here to stay but they cannot rely on just one editing program if they want to meet the needs of everyone.
-
[Ronny Courtens] “I have really enjoyed reading this:”
He’s a really nice guy in person, too. And by far THE fastest Final Cut Pro X editor I have ever seen… mind-boggling.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
I think there is more demand for finishing now than ever before… and I think there is less need for finishing now than ever before. It just depends on what part of the market you are looking at. In terms of sheer volume, user generated content that is uploaded to YouTube, Vimeo, etc., outnumbers everything else, but with more and more outlets for ‘broadcast quality’ (for lack of a better term) original content such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, the premium side of YouTube, a plethora of cable channels, etc., I don’t think finishing is going to be less relevant any time soon (even if the toolset used to get there keeps expanding).
One thing I notice in many conversations here is when the discussion turns to Old Media and New Media we largely focus on the high end of Old Media and the lower end of New Media even though both have their own stratifications. New Media outlets produce/distribute high-end content (Man in the High Castle, House of Cards, The Handmaid’s Tale, etc.) and Old Media has lower production such as well (like local/regional programming). Sure, all programing intended for broadcast had to meet some basic technical standards (which brick wall limiters could brutally impose), but quality standards were all across the board. Do the local commercials for Crazy Eddie’s Crazy Car Emporium have the same spit and polish as The Abyss? Public Access Television has been around for decades and could be seen as the father of user generated content distributors like YouTube. The biggest difference is local/regional distribution vs global.
[Joe Marler] “However Youtube alone is estimated to have $27 billion in revenue by 2020, and the demographic chart on this page is interesting: https://www.tubefilter.com/2016/04/15/youtube-estimated-revenues-27-billion-...”
Google doesn’t split out specific numbers for YouTube, but from the analyst estimates I’ve read, YouTube has never turned a profit (their overhead is insane) and likely won’t until they get a handle on premium content because that’s what viewers and advertisers will pay for. Google knows this which is why they’ve launched things like YouTube Original Channel Innovative (now defunct), YouTube Red, and YouTube TV. YouTube is also becoming more and more advertiser friendly even if it’s to the detriment of traditional YouTubers. For example, YouTube recently changed some policies so that content deemed “inappropriate for advertising” can’t be monetized. “Violence” was one of the inappropriate categories so this meant that YouTubers covering video games containing violence (like the best selling Call of Duty series) have seen their revenue plummet even as their views go up. Their only recourse is to complain to YT and hope that something changes.
https://kotaku.com/youtubers-say-they-cant-make-money-covering-call-of-dut-1794884320
[Scott Witthaus] “Can there be such a thing as too MUCH content? The amount of content is now overwhelming to the point where (in my opinion) a lot of it is not very good and we are missing good stuff because it’s “lost in the sauce” of web content.”
I think so, which is why the New Media gatekeepers (Amazon, Hulu, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, etc.,) will become as powerful and influential as the Old Media gate keepers. On a related note, Indiewire recently had a piece about Netflix buying good movies that ultimately get buried and remain largely unseen ( https://www.indiewire.com/2017/04/netflix-bad-for-movies-theaters-okja-tramps-1201806272/ ). Making content is easier than ever. Distributing content is easier than ever. Garnering an audience and/or monetizing your content is whole other ball of wax.
-Andrew
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Making content is easier than ever. Distributing content is easier than ever. Garnering an audience and/or monetizing your content is whole other ball of wax.”
Lot of very reasonable observations in this post.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “[Andrew Kimery] “Making content is easier than ever. Distributing content is easier than ever. Garnering an audience and/or monetizing your content is whole other ball of wax.”
Lot of very reasonable observations in this post.
“It’s a giant, house-crushing ball of wax!
-
[Steve Connor] “It’s a giant, house-crushing ball of wax!”
Dude, it’s the biggest ball of wax you’ve ever seen, bro! 😉
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up