-
More Bricklayers and Sculptors from Oliver and Simon
-
[greg janza] “In the editorial realm, serendipity is finding accidental gems that can be incorporated into a final cut. These items might be camera mistakes, nat sound finds, music tracks that might be placed in your timeline in an accidental way but which work well. “
What in the world makes you think X can’t work EXACTLY that way?
Any stringout is a subset of everything, right?
If an editor likes, in X they’re free to reject only what they think is pure crap. What’s left IS a stringout EXACTLY as if it had been done it in a pancake. In their NON-rejects – serendipity can arise EXACTLY as it does in any other NLE.
There is a difference In that the X system allows one to designate as many virtual string-outs as they may like – (should they elect to) and access and navigate between them instantly.
Add Favorites and they have a subset of their stringout – just with more focus – AND if they want to troll their footage for more serendipity – switch to Hide Rejects and more connections reveal themselves. Not enough? Show ALL and every frame including their rejects re-appears to let them mine the entire body of frames for connections at will.
Saying the X approach restricts the ability of an editor to make intuitive leaps across categories or concepts is patently stupid, IMO.
A contention like that says to me that an editor NEVER understood or explored how the database actually works and IMAGINES that it’s forcing them into some restriction that simply cannot exist unless they build it into their work habits via mis-applied effort or misunderstanding.
In the X database, the editor is given a box of information pastels, suitable for creating nearly infinite arrangements of data.
If an editors conditioning is such that given an organizational tool like that, all they can figure out how to do with it is to use use a few colors to write shopping lists – I don’t know what to tell you.
Except to say that they are missing a HUGE array of possibilities here.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[David Lawrence] “Great new post on Oliver’s blog, deep diving into Simon’s recent Bricklayers and Sculptors thread. Thanks for posting Oliver, and thanks Simon for giving us an in-depth look at how you organize and edit.
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/bricklayers-and-sculptors/“
And here is Simon’s own deep dive, Always Be Editing: Sculptors & Bricklayers Revisited
My favorite passage, which very much describes my own style of editing:
Let me be clear that I am working exclusively subtractively. A lot of people approach string-outs by successively adding selected clips from the Browser or Bins, but with this method all my clips are already on the timeline and I am taking away anything I don’t want. And by “removing” I mean performing Ripple Edits which reduce the overall length of my timeline.
(Some editors approach this subtractive method a different way, which is to shift the sections they don’t want onto a hidden track leaving gaps where it’s been removed. Although there’s a certain organisational elegance to this way of doing it, I believe it misses out on most of the key benefits of the method. You’re not getting the same instant feedback as to how much you are reducing the overall volume of source material and you are not reaping the huge benefits that flow from seeing one clip transition into another, which we’ll be looking at later.)
What is important for me about this process is that each edit is not a rough approximation but a very precise set of decisions about what I want to use. If you’re “editing in the Browser” (or in Bins), you’re simply not going to be making the kind of frame-accurate and value-laden edits that I am making every single time with this method.
The point to grasp is that instead of “making bricks” for use later on, I am already editing in the strictest sense. I am focused on a timeline that is going to form the basis of the final edit. I am already thinking editorially (in the sense of creative timeline-based editing) and not wasting any time merely thinking organisationally.
It’s an elegant argument laid out with considerable context and nuance, so please don’t respond too quickly to the comment here without reading that — and by all means, feel free to comment directly on the article of course! — but that really does get to the heart of it to me.
I used to feel guilty that I wasn’t doing nonlinear editing the “right” way because I was eschewing so many of the NLE-specific media management tools I was offered. I’d tried to, but I found that it was taking me ridiculously longer to edit in an NLE vs. what I’d been spending on tape. By getting all of that back out of my way, I was finally liberated to focus on the EDIT.
I’ll leave this part of the conversation to the folks who are still editing for a living, but I’m really enjoying this.
A reminder as you read it that Simon explicitly said that he wasn’t talking about choices in NLEs, but choices in editing style.
Take a read, and dive back in, either there or here.
Always Be Editing: Sculptors & Bricklayers Revisited
-
[Oliver Peters] “and have found it limiting and easy to miss things.”
Strangely enough I’ve found it to be exactly the opposite
-
[Bill Davis] “You know enough about the FCP X workflow, Andrew, to understand why the above sounds like a nightmare step backwards to any qualified FCP X editor.”
I freely admit it sounds like a nightmare, and like I said I pretty much stumbled into it by accident, but it worked out very well and certainly expanded my organizational vocabulary. After fifteen years of using NLEs (Premiere, FCP Legend, Avid) I never would’ve thought to try something like that, but I guess you never really know until you try something new, even if it’s out of your comfort zone and different than what you previously thought was viable. ????
[Tony West] “I find myself more and more not even labeling broll shots because I can see what they are. I don’t really have to type “front of plant” because I can see it.”
Yeah, once tapeless took off and we became besieged by a relentless sea of clips I got away from labeling individual clips too. I think that helped push me towards crafting a more sequence-based approach.
I’ve been trying to make time to get more familiar with X (slowly making my way through the Ripple Training) but something always comes up. I’ll get there eventually (though probably not until the end of August at the earliest since I have a big project about to start soon).
-
[greg janza] “I make stringouts of all of my material to start and then use those stringouts to do all searches. It’s a very efficient system overall and it eliminates the need to organize or tag material.”
Ironically, others would say the exact opposite. That organization (i.e favorites, rejects etc.) and tags eliminate the need for (imho complete outdated and comparatively highly inefficient) string outs.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “Ironically, others would say the exact opposite. “
This thread shows clearly that everyone approaches the edit in their own way. I don’t think of the edit process as an endless quest for speed. I like adding efficiency to my workflow but I also have learned over the years that the process of creating a compelling story takes time.
Adobe Premiere 2017.1.1
Windows 10 Pro
Samsung SSD 850 EVO system
Samsung SSD 850 EVO Adobe cache
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
OWC Thunderbay 12t x 2 in Raid10 configuration (thru Storage Spaces and Disk Management) -
[Robin S. Kurz] “That organization (i.e favorites, rejects etc.) and tags eliminate the need for (imho complete outdated and comparatively highly inefficient) string outs.
“Except that is breaks down when you need to make and retain direct comparisons.
For example, you have multiple good takes of several shots. You are only going to use one of each in the final at any given point. By sticking with the browser and being dependent on rejects/favorites, you are forced to reject/hide good alternate takes if you only want to see the “hero” take for each. If not, you always end up looking through all of the good options when you only want one.
OTOH, if you use stringouts, you can save a version with all the good takes, dupe the sequence, and then cut down the sequence to just one good option of each. You still have the earlier, longer sequence of all the options. Other editors might take the alternate options and slide them to the end of the sequence, just to have quick access to them.
One issue with browser organization and FCPX’s ability to play through the visible clips is that you always see them in the sorting order of the browser. Clip 1, then 2, then 3, and so on. The stringout lets you rearrange. So if you want to see the clip order as 5,2,3,1,4 – no problem – just arrange them that way.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “One issue with browser organization and FCPX’s ability to play through the visible clips is that you always see them in the sorting order of the browser. Clip 1, then 2, then 3, and so on.”
You could just change the number. IMG_4434 becomes IMG_ 4435
-
Well, Andrew –
Regarding learning X.
If you get stuck anywhere – at least you know a few people who can help you over the rough spots!
????
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[greg janza] “but I also have learned over the years that the process of creating a compelling story takes time.”
If you want to argue “only a SLOW edit is a GOOD edit”… that’s your prerogative. But I certainly beg to differ. Speed says absolutely nothing about quality. I’d generally consider that a straw man, if anything. But then, I’ve never seen your edits. The may well blow me away. ????
– RK
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up