-
Multicam “Focus”
-
[James Ewart] “I always used to stack them in the timeline so Auditions is a ‘better’ option than my previous workflow.”
Yes, I can see that it can work if that’s the preference.
In a typical dramatic scene shot with 2 cameras, let’s say you have 1 master and 4 additional angles (1, 1A-D) and three takes of each. That’s 30 variations, which doesn’t take into consideration resets or actors that ad lib and get dialogue sentences out of sequence. So for me, setting this up as one big multi-cam clip (aside from grouping the two camera angles per take) seems very unwieldy. I’d rather just review and start cutting.
A lot of editors prefer to build a string-out of each angle for each line reading and create one long scene sequence first (with repeated lines). This lets you quickly compare performances against each other.
[James Ewart] “But she told me she was more curious about FCPX than she had been about 7 or Premiere because it was so different which I thought was interesting.”
I can completely understand that. If you are a good MC editor and have no business reason to shift to FCP 7 in the past or PPro now, then you’ll stick with Avid. The paradigm is close enough that neither of these NLEs offers the typical Avid editor any real benefit. FCP X, OTOH, makes enough changes to how people work, that it peaks the curiosity. I can certainly attest to that on my end.
The only negative I see, is that performance on older machines, like any Mac Pro tower, is pretty bad with FCP X. This is going to give people a bad impression if they are just now shifting over. A new iMac, MBP or MP “tube” is a completely different experience.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “A lot of editors prefer to build a string-out of each angle for each line reading and create one long scene sequence first (with repeated lines). This lets you quickly compare performances against each other.”
I used to do this because it used to be the most logical way to do things. String everything out in a way that cuts down all the crap around the take.
Now with FCPX, I can see all the takes in context with the rest of the scene. In my opinion, this allows a much more relevant view of the material.
-
[Oliver Peters] “The only negative I see, is that performance on older machines, like any Mac Pro tower, is pretty bad with FCP X. This is going to give people a bad impression if they are just now shifting over. A new iMac, MBP or MP “tube” is a completely different experience.”
Very true… Honestly, X performs better on my mid 2012 MacBook Air then it ever did on my old, pretty beefed up, Mac Pro tower.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Jeremy Garchow] “I used to do this because it used to be the most logical way to do things. String everything out in a way that cuts down all the crap around the take.”
I’m not sure we are talking about exactly the same type of string-out. See the two quotes below from Tim Squyres and Kirk Baxter.
Tim Squyres says, “I typically build a sequence out of pieces of each take, which gives me a set of ‘pulls’ – my favorite readings from each setup strung together in script order. Then I’ll cut at least two versions of a scene based on structure or emotion – for example, a sad version and an angry version. When I’ve cut the first version, I try not to repeat shots in building the second version. By using the same timeline and turning on dupe detection, it’s easy to see if you’ve repeated something. Assembling is about getting a good cut, but it’s also about learning all the options and getting used to the footage. By having a few versions of each scene, you are already prepared when the director wants to explore alternatives.”
Kirk Baxter has a very specific way that he likes to tackle dailies. He said, “I typically start in reverse order. David tends to hone in on the performance with each successive take until he feels he’s got it. He’s not like other directors that may ask for completely different deliveries from the actors with each take. With David, the last take might not be the best, but it’s the best starting point from which to judge the other takes. Once I go through a master shot, I’ll cut it up at the points where I feel the edits will be made. Then I’ll have the assistants repeat these edit points on all takes and string out the line readings back-to-back, so that the auditioning process is more accurate. David is very gifted at blocking and staging, so it’s rare that you don’t use an angle that was shot for a scene. I’ll then go through this sequence and lift my selected takes for each line reading up to a higher track on the timeline. My assistants take the selects and assemble a sequence of all the angles in scene order. Once it’s hyper-organized, I’ll send it to David via PIX and get his feedback. After that, I’ll cut the scene.”
I realize that you could argue that this is what you are doing in X via an audition or multi-cam method, but it seems to me that it’s still a fundamentally different way of comparing the scene.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “[James Ewart] “But she told me she was more curious about FCPX than she had been about 7 or Premiere because it was so different which I thought was interesting.”
I can completely understand that. If you are a good MC editor and have no business reason to shift to FCP 7 in the past or PPro now, then you’ll stick with Avid. The paradigm is close enough that neither of these NLEs offers the typical Avid editor any real benefit. FCP X, OTOH, makes enough changes to how people work, that it peaks the curiosity. I can certainly attest to that on my end.”
I was about to say “I hate to say I told you so,” because I LOVE saying “I told you so,” but in fact, I said this in 2011, from the beginning. The hype about Avid editors converting to FCP, some notably exceptions notwithstanding, was mostly hype. There wasn’t a compelling artistic or workflow advantage for switching, which is why, in the markets Avid has been strongest in, there wasn’t a wholesale shift. There just wasn’t. If it COULD have moved the needle in Avid’s strongholds, it WOULD have.
I’m not saying X is going to flip the switch that 7 couldn’t, but I HAVE been saying that it has a far better shot. The difference between 7 and MC was barely worth talking about…but “hey, what’s that you’re working on? That’s FCPX? NOW you have my attention.”
Needless to say, I have no numbers to back this up. I don’t know that we ever will. But here we are 4 years into Apple’s stated 10 year plan for FCPX (assuming that the 10 year plan started upon launch, rather than upon the commencement of major development), and we just now have our first high-profile project.
So maybe I’m wrong. Maybe X is going to make even less impact in Avid’s strongholds than 7 did…but I still think that X is gonna take a much bigger bite than 7 was ever going to be able to, just because it provides some compelling scenarios that 7 never did.
-
[Oliver Peters] “I realize that you could argue that this is what you are doing in X via an audition or multi-cam method, but it seems to me that it’s still a fundamentally different way of comparing the scene.”
I think it’s very similar. They even use terms that are available in FCPX. How about that for a stroke of irony?
Baxter used an assisstant to get things in line, when X does this with an Audition clip. When you switch to each Audition, the in and out of the clip changes, and since that clip is probably in the primary, the rest of the cut flows around it as well. I know you know all of this, I am just talking out loud to those that are listening.
[Oliver Peters] “Kirk Baxter: Once I go through a master shot, I’ll cut it up at the points where I feel the edits will be made. Then I’ll have the assistants repeat these edit points on all takes and string out the line readings back-to-back, so that the auditioning process is more accurate.”
You could setup all the takes in an Audition clip, and hit a key command to view the next take. You could do this in context of the scene, or choose to just play that one clip.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “You could setup all the takes in an Audition clip, and hit a key command to view the next take. You could do this in context of the scene, or choose to just play that one clip.”
I think there’s one very important difference. In the string-out method, once you’ve set this up, you can simply let the sequence play without editor involvement. This means that the differences can “wash” over you and you can focus only on the dramatic, rather than the mechanics of backing up, changing the audition clip and moving on. Also, having 30 (my example from before) possible clips in an audition just seems unmanageable to me. How do you remember which one you liked once you viewed all 30?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Tim Wilson] “So maybe I’m wrong. Maybe X is going to make even less impact in Avid’s strongholds than 7 did…but I still think that X is gonna take a much bigger bite than 7 was ever going to be able to, just because it provides some compelling scenarios that 7 never did.”
I would tend to agree, in large part because the basic concepts used in MC haven’t significantly changed in the intervening dozen or more years since “Cold Mountain”.
However, I think we are also ready to see more high-profile examples of Premiere, so that will add some counteracting balance.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Also, having 30 (my example from before) possible clips in an audition just seems unmanageable to me. How do you remember which one you liked once you viewed all 30?”
So you put thirty different takes in one string out?
I think we can make some decisions from logging no?
-
[Oliver Peters] “How do you remember which one you liked once you viewed all 30?”
I immediately get rid of the ones I don’t like, and keep the ones I do and add a marker. Since things can be named by take, you can remember what take or takes were good.
And even if you did create a string out compound clip or sequence (which I used to do a lot in FCP7, but don’t anymore in X), you are generally going to get down to a small handful of takes. Once you have that small handful, you can literally preview watch one in the context of the scene. This is way more valuable to me when the take is in context, rather than sitting on a timeline of selects, especially if you need to match action/continuity.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up