-
Lightworks
-
And in 12 months think of how much farther ahead Adobe and Avid will be…
ronpesteshdvideo.com
Apple Certified Master Pro FCS 2
Sony EX-3
MacBook Pro
New convert to Adobe CS5.5 Production Premium -
What’s BC Gold?
______________________________
The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert
https://vimeo.com/battistella -
[David Battistella] “What’s BC Gold?”
Sorry. BC Bud.
Hint: you smoke it.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
[David Cherniack] “Hint: you smoke it.”
OH!
I don’t smoke. Up not up on all the Cheech and Chong lingo.
I thought you were talking about the Olympics. 🙂
David
______________________________
The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert
https://vimeo.com/battistella -
[David Roth Weiss] “Never gonna happen.”
Never is a long time…
You’re probably right about Murch and the Coens, but some high-profile talent will use it on a major feature. Perhaps a Fincher or Jackson movie shot on EPIC, handled digitally from sensor through distribution? When you shed all the legacy celluloid requirements, the feature pipeline gets a lot more FCPX-friendly. It obviously can’t be done on 10.0, but maybe 10.1 or 10.2.
(PS, before anyone jumps on me for those version numbers thinking I mean minor updates, those are going to be how major revs are delineated, just like OS X. It says so in the EULA.)
Best,
Andy -
[Andrew Richards] “When you shed all the legacy celluloid requirements, the feature pipeline gets a lot more FCPX-friendly.”
they’re probably going to want to look at source, selects and monitor aren’t they? Or at least, that’s what that oscar winning editor chappie said in variety – no source monitor, no dice.
Also another film editor made the point on this forum that on a typical duration film selects reel, the skimmer becomes completely unusable.
I think if one were a film editor one would say pretty unequivocally that FCPX is not fit for purpose.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[David Battistella] “open FCP legacy”
Given that Apple has categorically stated they won’t be doing this, it is highly unlikely they’d do a 180 and deliver this feature. Certainly not in the first update.
My hunch is that Apple decided project translation into FCPX Event/Project combinations can’t be done to their own UX standards, but I don’t see any reason a third party couldn’t come up with a good-enough solution using the forthcoming AXEL XML API. Lots of assumptions would need to be made in terms of how to construct a magnetic timeline from a legacy timeline’s EDL, but I think a reasonable facsimile timeline could be extrapolated and then left to the editor to take the rest of the way to magnetic nirvana.
You might even get a range of tools that can do this, from the cheap and simple using legacy FCP XML to the expensive and complicated that can read legacy .fcp binaries and let the user define what assumptions are made in the extrapolation.
Best,
Andy -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “they’re probably going to want to look at source, selects and monitor aren’t they? Or at least, that’s what that oscar winning editor chappie said in variety – no source monitor, no dice.”
You mean this? He actually talks about having three monitors, which I guess means Viewer/Canvas/External, but the External is always mirroring whichever is active between the Viewer or Canvas, so it isn’t really three monitors if one is always mirroring another. I guess since I’m more of an engineer than an editor, I don’t fully understand the need for a persistent source monitor. Are you regularly playing back the two simultaneously, ganged? I never used that technique, and I’m interested in knowing why it is essential for feature work.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Also another film editor made the point on this forum that on a typical duration film selects reel, the skimmer becomes completely unusable.”
Selects reel? Swimming upstream. This is what metadata is for. Unless the cam op is not stopping record on cut, the clips off the camera will be short by nature. Like I said, non-celluloid workflows are much closer to the pin.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I think if one were a film editor one would say pretty unequivocally that FCPX is not fit for purpose.”
Today it isn’t. Saying it never will be is pretty bold. Unlikely? Fine. Never? I’ll take that bet.
Best,
Andy -
yeah that’s the one – but I think he’s actually talking three before you get to external – I don’t know features editing from a hole in the ground, but I think selects form a rather important part of the process – hence they typically have…
“we use source material, select material, and then our edit material, so we use three monitors. You can kind of force yourself to change, but why? It might be better if you’re working on a laptop, but if you’ve got three monitors to work from, then it’s not better — it’s constricting.”
He means that they habitually have, in effect, two source monitors. I think viewing the selects reels in pretty intrinsic to features editing, doesn’t really have anything to do with ganging or anything like that, they demand three sources – not one monitor flicking constantly between the timeline, the source monitor, and the selects stuff, which does sound amazingly stupid when you think about it. Apple have done it to squeeze the clip inspector and the skimmer stuff on a laptop destined GUI. its laptop interface logic – basically that Apple have gone way too far in removing the source monitor – I personally feel that strongly. I think its a giant mistake. I think the source monitor is intellectually valid and important. I think you need a persistent second window. Anyway multicam directly calls for a functioning source monitor of some kind – so they’re going to have to solve it one way or another.[Andrew Richards] “Selects reel? Swimming upstream. This is what metadata is for.”
I’m not sure that captures what a selects reel’s function is – but I’d let someone besides me who actually knows what they’re talking about step in on that one.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Andrew Richards] ”
I guess since I’m more of an engineer than an editor, I don’t fully understand the need for a persistent source monitor. Are you regularly playing back the two simultaneously, ganged? I never used that technique, and I’m interested in knowing why it is essential for feature work.
“Are you talking about the 2nd monitor in the UI? If so it’s a simple concept. One monitor for footage you are reviewing, and one for the timeline. It comes out of linear editing, but still makes a lot of sense. You do have the option of turning it off if you want though which I never would.
[Andrew Richards] “Selects reel? Swimming upstream. This is what metadata is for. Unless the cam op is not stopping record on cut, the clips off the camera will be short by nature. Like I said, non-celluloid workflows are much closer to the pin.
“Metadata is an addition to the process it doesn’t eliminate anything. Any good editor will want to see everything that was shot. Some segments go exactly as planned but inevitably as you get towards the end a project, you will have problems, or sections that aren’t working well and by seeing the footage sometimes you find something that can make it work. Having the computer scan and organize your footage for you is a gimmick – although it may be useful at times, but there will NEVER be a replacement for seeing the footage with your own eyes. That’s what editing is. Evaluating the media you have available and putting it into some sequence that makes sense or is compelling in some way. You have to see what you have in order to do that.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up