-
More Bricklayers and Sculptors from Oliver and Simon
-
[Tony West] “BTW you still haven’t answered my simple question. What is the method to find the clips that you cut out of the timeline? Just explain it. It shouldn’t be that hard since you supposedly use this method all the time.”
Not to answer for Oliver, but Simon covers this in his article.
“I duplicated that sequence five times to make sequences of all the material for each woman. Then I made duplicates of those duplicates and began removing everything I didn’t want.”
You string everything out, then duplicate your sequence. Cut away. If you need to go back to a clip, you open the original string out and grab it.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Walter Soyka] “Collections and bins hold clips. A string-out, being a sequence, is fundamentally different; it holds edits, or sets of clips that are juxtaposed linearly in time. That juxtaposition in time, the choices that Simon continuously iterates over in his method, is the “value” over a mere set of clips.”
But how many sets of edits do you need to complete a project? When I send out a review copy, I am only sending one set of edits.
I used to use string outs all of the time, only because it was the best way to handle all of the material in FCP7 (and Premiere). It was the easiest way to slog through lots and lots of footage. After a while, it becomes cumbersome, because you make many sequences, some for “organization” and some for the edit. I think ABE is still alive and well with FCPX. I am always editing in FCPX, even when I’m in the Browser. It is a constant mark up process, and I can choose when or where to get more granular with all the different sort and tag options. With FCPX I am a brick sculptor (get it?). And I know people have said the Auditions don’t work, but in my life, they do work. Auditions allow to store a set of different ideas, the difference being that they are right there in the timeline, instead of in some other timeline that I have to search for and implement (usually by making yet a different version of my current sequence all calling it v#b). With FCPX, some of the\ose options and decisions are in the timeline ready to go.
There is also nothing like twirling up (hiding) all of the keywords and collections, selecting one or more Events at root level, and simply skimming footage in FCPX. The skimmed event is a huge repository of organized piles of clay/bricks/stone/rebar/whatever the hell you need it to be. The Project timeline is the foundation from which all of the material is added, formed, and dried. Personally, it is that difference that originally drew me to X, and it has been working. I feel like I have been doing the best work I’ve ever done, and I owe a smidge of that to FCPX because it is such a creative tool for me.
And as far as happy accidents, they still happen. When skimming footage and seeing a lot of images all at once, you may see two images put together that aren’t together in space in the Browser or Timeline, but fit together visually. Those sets of images that zoom past inform ideas, and I then transfer those ideas to the timeline for further sculpting. This process works for me, and may not work for others. I get that, too.
Also, with FCPX, you can have different levels of organization in one area of the interface that aren’t as easy to implement in other NLEs, or at least not as easy to use.
-
[Michael Hancock] “”I duplicated that sequence five times to make sequences of all the material for each woman. Then I made duplicates of those duplicates and began removing everything I didn’t want.”
You string everything out, then duplicate your sequence. Cut away. If you need to go back to a clip, you open the original string out and grab it.”
I’m glad you posted that Michael because when I saw that section in the article it became really clear that it wouldn’t be more efficient.
Now that you have gotten this far go ahead and explain how that method would be more efficient than the two clicks to see the shot I want, as I posted in here earlier in the thread.
-
Which NLE are you using? In Avid, you load your original stringout into your source monitor and your cutdown into your record. When you need to find a shot you’ve cut out you just toggle your timeline view to the source monitor and everything is there.
In Premiere you pancake so everything is always visible to you, all the time. Or tab the sequences.
In FCPX you load the original stringout, toggle to it, find the clip you want and copy it, the toggle back and paste it. Ironically, FCPX is least friendly to this method. So maybe it’s because of this the browser seems to be the best option? If FCPX allowed you to skim a sequence in the event browser and see the edits in that sequence in a toggled timeline (like Avid) it wouldn’t be such a hassle. Or if they had tabbed sequences like FCP7 or Premiere so you could just click directly one sequence to another, it would be easier.
And remember, you can add markers like Andrew does to subdivide sections so it’s easy to find what you’re looking for, or to even add notes that are searchable.
Have you tried Simon’s method? I’ve never worked like he does but I’m trying it on two projects right now, and my early feelings are that I like it a lot. I typically use favorites, keywords, smart collections and detailed notes when I edit (in FCPX), and so far I haven’t felt like I’m missing anything by using string outs. It’s surprised me.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Michael Hancock] “Which NLE are you using?”
You must not have scrolled back to read my post if you are asking : ) That’s OK
[Michael Hancock] “Have you tried Simon’s method?”
I’m using a string-outt right now on a multi-cam interview but I’m keeping most of the material so it makes since.
In cutting something where you are using only say, 10 percent of the source material it makes less sense to me.
[Michael Hancock] “In FCPX you load the original stringout, toggle to it, find the clip you want and copy it, the toggle back and paste it.”
Now for me, that’s not more efficient than what I explained above in this thread but if it is for you, then keep doing it.
-
[Tony West] “What is the method to find the clips that you cut out of the timeline? Just explain it. It shouldn’t be that hard since you supposedly use this method all the time.”
Simply go back to the earlier version of the duped sequence/snapshot and look. Same as you would do in X, once you delete a clip from a project (sequence) in X.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Walter Soyka] “Collections and bins hold clips. A string-out, being a sequence, is fundamentally different; it holds edits, or sets of clips that are juxtaposed linearly in time. That juxtaposition in time, the choices that Simon continuously iterates over in his method, is the “value” over a mere set of clips.”
The string-out method starts out with all the clips laid out in the sequence in no order other than how the clips were shot and will be a sequence of clips in alphabetical order. So I see no difference than the clips in the FCP X browser. The clips are not juxtaposed until you start taking away clips you don’t want, (rejecting in FCP X) and creating another sequence, (keywording in FCP X or creating a new event).
-
[Tony West] “You must not have scrolled back to read my post if you are asking : ) That’s OK”
I know which NLE you use. ☺ My comment was more to illustrate how Avid and Premiere seem more adept at the stringout method because of FCPXs handling of sequences.
[Tony West] “Now for me, that’s not more efficient than what I explained above in this thread but if it is for you, then keep doing it.”
It’s less than ideal – I’d prefer to have a tabbed sequence, pancake, or better yet be able to scrub a sequence in the event browser and edit clips directly from it (without having to make a sequence a compound clip and lose all reference to the individual edits). I’ll send Apple another feature request.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Michael Hancock] “It’s surprised me.”
I’m very glad to hear you have found it useful, Michael.
I didn’t mean to start a war here.
I just wanted to share a method that I have found extremely useful both practically and creatively over many, many years of editing across many different genres. A lot of the editors that I have trained and worked with have agreed as to its benefits which in my view are many and varied. Some will disagree and prefer their own method and that’s all fine by me.
And apologies to everyone for my clumsy bricklayer metaphor. I have great respect for bricklayers of all kinds whether real or metaphorical.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Walter Soyka] “It’s clear to me that they don’t feel his method is effective. But I don’t think enough people have thought the ABE method through — or heaven forbid, actually tried it! — before making a snap judgement on its efficacy. “
Oh my…
how I yearn to be able to go back 4 years, substitute the word Magnetic for ABE – and post this in this very forum.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up