-
More Bricklayers and Sculptors from Oliver and Simon
-
From the same article:
If you’re a subtractive editor, Grandma gets most of the footage, except maybe where snow splattered on the lens, where a direct shot of the sun flared the image out to blinding white, and where you fell over a pile of snowboards with the camcorder. The result: heeeere’s Susie, zigzagging back and forth and back and forth and back and forth across the slope in a numbing repetition brightened only by brief interludes of windmilling into the powder.
Damn!
So that’s why my videos of Grandma are so bad.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Bill Davis] “That the original post “as written” was pretty rude. “
Call me an unreconstructed Marxist but I choose not to rank one person above another according to their socio-economic status.
I would certainly not rank a bricklayer above a sculptor and I would not think highly of anyone who did.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[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.”
Wow. That describes THE most counterproductive, hobbling, inefficient workflow I can think of in the context of X, yes. Whether “pancaked” or not.
[Michael Hancock] “Ironically, FCPX is least friendly to this method.”
Er, yeah. And why? Because: it makes absolutely no sense i.e. that would be by far the least efficient approach. So… absolutely no irony anywhere to be seen actually. Just common sense and unneeded. If you know the software and aren’t just simply bogged down but old habits of yesteryear.
[Michael Hancock] “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.”
I have no idea why I would want to do that, when I can get any and everything I’m looking for in a single click. Done. No marking, no skimming, no switching, not anything of such a convoluted nature. Be it I use Favorites, Keywords, Smart Keywords or any of the other endless filtering options X offers me.
And mind you, I’m not saying that the whole classic “string-out” method as described is a bad or useless approach per se (I’ll actually do it occasionally do it for e.g. interviews, to whittle them down to what it is I want/need said). I am — and I’d venture to say every other X user here arguing similarly are — merely saying it may be GREAT for any number of other NLEs and by all means, if it works for you and even improves something, go for it! But if that’s what someone’s doing in X, then they just plain haven’t understood the software and could be much more efficient using various other methods. With that, they’re just using X as if it were their old NLE, whichever that may have been. And they need to actually learn the software and their options and allow for at least a bit of rethinking, after which they’ll realize that this isn’t an efficient approach in comparison to what other options you’re given. Cuz sorry, but… five timelines??! ????????♂️ Ouch.
[Michael Hancock] “Have you tried Simon’s method?”
Yeah. I.e. something that only differed in some minor points. For well over 10 years prior to X. Which is why I can say from personal experience, that it’s a convoluted, messy habit I couldn’t have been happier to drop asap. Everything described can be done and done better long before you ever even create a timeline. In X.
– RK
-
[Tony West] “Doesn’t sound more efficient than favorites.”
OK. So let me turn the question around based on your scenario. You’ve assigned favorites and cut them into your sequence. After revisions, you decide to drop a lot of the shots. How do you know which of the favorites is no longer used in your cut? FCPX assigns “used” metadata, but no “previously used but removed” indicators. Seems like the same situation.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Tony West] “I just never heard of anybody putting say, 45 hours of interviews into a timeline. I’m going to go ahead and say it…..It just sounds made up to me.”
A bit dated, as this goes back to FCP ‘legacy” days, but the concept works fine with any modern NLE:
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/one-bite-at-a-time/
Typically these days, nearly every project I’m doing is based on interviews with coverage. There isn’t a single one of these that I don’t approach by structuring the interviews in timelines. And yes, I’ve used X’s “preferred” approach with favorites, markers, smart collections, etc. It simply doesn’t do what I need it to do. Yes, I’ll used keyword collections for coverage, but that’s the same as grouping footage into specific bins by topic/subject matter/location. Each of the clips (even if favorites have been assigned first) gets tossed into a separate sequence for further cutdowns, re-ordering, etc.
For example, I was working on a show yesterday that was originally shot as a travel-style TV show (1/2 hour episode). It’s getting repackaged for other use. There is 6 days of shooting, with 5-6 cameras per day (estimate about 4,000-5,000 clips total). I reorganized the Broll into about 20 bins (in Premiere), with each bin holding 100-200 clips. There are about 12 interviews (multicam, double-system sound) with each running about 1 hour in raw length.
For me, the stringout method is still the best choice. Create a sequence for each if these Broll groups and interviews and start whittling down from there.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “Perhaps I’m mistaken, but if one just dumps everything on a Timeline and then goes all sculptural – EVERYTIME you make a removal choice, you can’t really easily reconsider. You have to go out and get the whole chunk you’ve sculpted from – and start all over with it. “
But sculpting sounds so much superior to bricklaying. I must be so. ☺
I’m sure that this method works well for Simon and others. I’m also sure it doesn’t work well for me – because I apparently have a lot less time to put edits together than they do. What troubles me about this discussion is the superiority posturing.
————————–
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it\’s video related I\’ll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here. -
[Oliver Peters] “FCPX assigns “used” metadata, but no “previously used but removed” indicators.”
What could I possibly need that information for? Quite the red herring if you ask me. Never mind that there are always snapshots or various other options to give or retain that information to/for me if I actually think I might need it in the future.
So even if, for whatever abstrus reason I need that particular info, if I’ve done my homework, and that’s what this is all about, then I will know exactly what is or was where if needed. I for one know exactly where which footage is that could be or could have been of any interest at any time when I edit. Again, if not, then one simply doesn’t know the tools.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “What could I possibly need that information for? Quite the red herring if you ask me. Never mind that there are always snapshots or various other options to give or retain that information to/for me if I actually think I might need it in the future.”
It was a response to Tony’s original question about finding clips that were cut out of sequences in a stringout method. I already spelled out snapshots, etc. in my earlier reply.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “It was a response to Tony’s original question”
Which still doesn’t answer mine.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Oliver Peters] “no “previously used but removed” indicators.”
Robin already beat me to it so I will just say, anybody that has ever cut a doc as a producer or director knows that out of a 2 hour interview you are going to end up using maybe 10 minutes if that. You are looking for very specific sound bites on the topic being covered. Once they say that, THAT’S what’s going in the film. Most times you hear it when they say it during the interview. It was never a question in my mind which bites were going in.
If you are not the director it’s not going to be your call anyway, of what goes in my story. Back in the day they walked in and said go to this tc and go to that tc. They already had that info to cut down on the time they have to pay you. If they didn’t do that, then they don’t have a clue.
The concept of dumping hours and hours of footage into the timeline that you know very little of is going to stay, is not an efficient way of going about your work, and as somebody that has experience producing a doc I know would never pay anybody to sit there and do that.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up