-
Markers or Metadata – The Debate!
-
[Joe Marler] “[Shawn Miller] “Wow, what level of compression and how many layers of Redcode Raw?”
That was three layers of 7:1 6k from a Red Weapon. However upon further testing it seems Premiere CC 2017.1 is actually faster than FCPX on the same 2015 iMac 27 for that codec. My recollection was a year or so ago FCPX was faster. Vashi was using Premiere from a year or more ago, so maybe today he wouldn’t need that many cores. Premiere seems to have gotten considerably faster over the last 1-2 years, especially for H264.”
That makes sense, the last time I used Redcode in Premiere, 4k was unusable at 4:1, but 8:1 was okay on a dual, quad core 2.4 Ghz PC running Windows 8 (it was a while ago).
[Joe Marler] “This shows how Apple cannot lollygag on performance issues, because the competition is always improving. While FCPX is generally very fast, it has less performance leeway than Premiere or any other editor. E.g, a slower version of Premiere is just a bit slower — you can still get work done. By contrast a slow skimmer or Event Browser is almost unusable — it essentially removes those features from the table.”
All good points, thanks for sharing.
Shawn
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “The string-out method is the same thing as laying out our ingredients on the work surface (albeit on a vastly long work surface where you can nonetheless grab anything instantly as if it were all within arm’s reach). The bin method is the same thing as hunting around through your kitchen storage for each ingredient in turn as you discover you need it.”
Poppycock. (respectfully)
Pancakers must lay out those ingredients because they’ve never had a systematic facility to call up a pre-measured amount of the substance/spice you want, when they want it – instantly. If there was, pre-lining up a bunch of ingredients in “semi-bulk” form on the counter would be silly. Particularly if the “call up” system can expand or reduce the actual measure used by the cook precisely enough to satisfy their desire to adjust on the fly.
I can arrange dozens of virtual “pancakes” via keyword collections and instantly switch between them – focusing on each as I choose. I can also aggregate more than one into a new assembly. That gives me ALL the visual cuing pancakers get – but in a system that lets me adjust my visual focus as I choose, fluidly and efficiently.
Once again you’re going to be hard pressed to convince me that the system based on the older style has more than a shadow of the utility of the newer system.
Both are functional, surely. One is MUCH more refined and is designed to present super-efficient previously undelivered options to the editor “in the flow” of content assembly.
IMO
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Joe Marler] “Avid thinks it’s very important for reality TV, and pitch their Interplay MAM for this: ‘The high shooting ratios and multiple camera angles of Reality TV and unscripted programming pose enormous challenges in managing and logging more media than ever before,” said Chris Gahagan, senior vice president of Products and Services at Avid.”‘ https://www.avid.com/fr/press-room/2013/04/avid-interplay-production-simplif...”
If productions find that it’s worth the cost they’ll use it, but that hasn’t been my experience on the reality shows I’ve worked on (including one that shot 250hrs of footage a day). Every project has a deadline and a budget which means everyone settles on what’s ‘good enough’ to get their project out the door on time, on budget and at the expected quality level. In my experience people don’t meticulously log all the footage on reality shows because there isn’t enough time, there isn’t enough money and it’s just overkill to do so.
For example, if I’m working on a home renovation show I don’t need a break down of every time Bob swings a
hammer in the kitchen on episode 604. “CU Bob hammer kitchen 16d nail”, “WS Bob hammer kitchen 16d nail”, “crane shot Bob hammer kitchen 16d nail”, “CU rack focus Bob hammer kitchen 16d nail”, “MS pan down from ceiling Bob hammer kitchen 16d nail”, “WS whip pan Bob hammer kitchen 16d nail”, etc., etc., etc.,. If I’m editing a scene where Bob is hanging new kitchen cabinets it’s a foregone conclusion that there will be footage of Bob hammering in the kitchen. A shot-by-shot breakdown of a camera that’s repositioning every 10-15 seconds is a waste of time. Scrolling through the selects I’ve been handed will be faster and once that scene is locked that footage is never needed again (yes, yes I know the joke about nothing ever being locked). All I really need to know is what the important beats of the scene are, along with the best broll shots, and that’s easy enough to get via stringouts, and/or markers. Story producers and AEs only have some much time so time in a day so it’s a matter of triage.Coming up I worked as a vault/library manager and then later as an Assistant Editor so I certainly know the power of organization, but one of the first things I realized about workflow development is there is usually a big difference between what would be an ‘ideal’ workflow and what’s realistically achievable given time, money and human nature. There’s always room for improvement, but perfect is the enemy of good, as they say.
[Joe Marler] “We widely accept the benefit of database tagging and keywording for stills, so why not video?”
Tagging/keywording for video is nothing new though. To be honest, I’ve never worked anywhere where editors haven’t used markers, placed subclips into categorically named folders/bins, given media descriptive file names and/or added keywords/tags into a notes/comments field.
[Joe Marler] “Then who is buying and using Interplay, CatDV, etc. and for what?”
Why do some people use Ford F-350 Super Duty pickup trucks while others use Honda Accords while still others use Vespa scooters?
Again, I think the MAMs are most useful for companies/productions that deal with lots of evergreen footage and for archiving (basically situations where institutional knowledge isn’t a viable option). For example, I used to work for a website that covered the video game industry (sorta like ESPN but for video games) and we reused footage on a regular basis so I setup a system that made it straight forward to find and retrieve game footage, event coverage and interviews (even if it had been archived offline). The metadata wasn’t very detailed (basically game name, event name, date, location, people on camera, etc.,) but it was enough that if someone asked “Hey, can we pull up all the times we interview Joe Blow at E3” we could easily find all that footage.
Another, and more rudimentary example, is I use NeoFinder as a poor mans MAM for my computers and backup HDDs (I’ve looked at CatDV, but it’s just overkill for my needs at this point in time). I used to be able to keep everything straight in my head, but I eventually got to a point where I kept asking myself “What’s on this drive again?” and that’s when I grabbed NeoFinder.
-
[Bill Davis] “I can arrange dozens of virtual “pancakes” via keyword collections and instantly switch between them – focusing on each as I choose. “
How about a screen grab of your virtual pancakes, Bill? I’m having a hard time visualizing how you achieve the same level of spatial mapping as is intrinsic to string-out sequences and markers.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~researchlinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
vimeo: vimeo.com/album/2271696
web: propaganda.com
facebook: /dlawrence
twitter: @dhl -
[David Lawrence] “How about a screen grab of your virtual pancakes, Bill? I’m having a hard time visualizing how you achieve the same level of spatial mapping as is intrinsic to string-out sequences and markers.”
On deadline today but will try to do some screen caps overnight if my schedule eases up later.
But the browser in X – after a keyword selection – set in thumbnail (not database) view and set up in a near full screen width layout presents the same information in nearly the same visual array that stringouts and pancakes manage in a traditional NLE, at least as I understand them. (granted, I’ve never had to peraonally pancake anything since I switched to X before that editing style became fashionable.)
And of course, each keyword collection, or smart collection can aggregate that basic view ACROSS keywords into the same visual display.
Grabbing a range in the Browser and executing an insert, connect, or append edit singe-keystroke is functionally akin to dragging a clip from the pancake into your timeline – and the visual representation is barely different. Unless there’s some special magic to a pancake arrangement that I’m unaware of.
Might be fun to have someone post a “traditional pancake” arrangement in a non-magnetic timeline – and then I can try to do the functional equivalent in X. Than we we can all compare the differences? Just a suggestion.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “Pancakers must lay out those ingredients because they’ve never had a systematic facility to call up a pre-measured amount of the substance/spice you want, when they want it – instantly. If there was, pre-lining up a bunch of ingredients in “semi-bulk” form on the counter would be silly. Particularly if the “call up” system can expand or reduce the actual measure used by the cook precisely enough to satisfy their desire to adjust on the fly.”
Pancake editing can be done really fast and you already have a visual workflow of how the project will be from start to finish. We can use a metadata with Premiere Pro but why wast the time if you can just apply markers super quick? Having said that it might be helpful to see a quick video of your workflow. I don’t edit feature films but when Vashi Nedomansky was mention using markers with ranges I think my editing style is probably about 80-90% the same as Vashi Nedomansky.
[Bill Davis] “I can arrange dozens of virtual “pancakes” via keyword collections and instantly switch between them – focusing on each as I choose. I can also aggregate more than one into a new assembly. That gives me ALL the visual cuing pancakers get – but in a system that lets me adjust my visual focus as I choose, fluidly and efficiently.”
Perhaps a video tutorial of your pancake editing method might be helpful. We may all be getting lost in equivocation.
[Bill Davis] “Once again you’re going to be hard pressed to convince me that the system based on the older style has more than a shadow of the utility of the newer system.”
Older or newer? Adobe Premiere Pro has allowed you to add metadata and create subclips for over ten years. Keywords with ranges act like subclips. Adobe Premiere Pro has metadata fields. You can add as many metadata fields as you want and search for content in specific metadata fields but why add metadata if you can avoid it?
-
[Bill Davis] “On deadline today but will try to do some screen caps overnight if my schedule eases up later.”
Great, thanks!
[Bill Davis] “set in thumbnail (not database) view and set up in a near full screen width layout presents the same information in nearly the same visual array that stringouts and pancakes manage in a traditional NLE, at least as I understand them. (granted, I’ve never had to peraonally pancake anything since I switched to X before that editing style became fashionable.) “
I think we’re still talking about two totally different approaches. It’s not even a matter of “old” vs “new”. Sure, FCPX’s database-driven approach is new, but even though string-out sequences have been around for awhile, Vashi’s “pancake” method is driven by the unique flexibility of the Pr Pro panel UI.
[Bill Davis] “Might be fun to have someone post a “traditional pancake” arrangement in a non-magnetic timeline – and then I can try to do the functional equivalent in X. Than we we can all compare the differences? Just a suggestion.”
I like it!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~researchlinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
vimeo: vimeo.com/album/2271696
web: propaganda.com
facebook: /dlawrence
twitter: @dhl -
[David Lawrence] “Vashi’s “pancake” method is driven by the unique flexibility of the Pr Pro panel UI.”
Actually, the same kind of pancaking was entirely possible in FCP Legacy too.
In FCP X, perhaps not so much. But obviously Mr Davis is poised to show that I am wrong in that regard.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Simon Ubsdell] “Actually, the same kind of pancaking was entirely possible in FCP Legacy too.”
Absolutely, also in Avid, but Premiere’s customizable doing panels makes it so much easier to actually do.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~researchlinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
vimeo: vimeo.com/album/2271696
web: propaganda.com
facebook: /dlawrence
twitter: @dhl -
Just poking my head back in on the way to dinner, and curious as to why if Pancaking is such a big efficiency driver – and it appears to have been available for such a long in other NLEs (as this thread implies) – I never heard about anyone using it much until months and months after X was released?
Anyone want to speculate?
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up