Murch and NLEs from IBC

[David Roth weiss]

Tony, what you keep forgetting is that you can’t just kick the tires on FCP X, which is the application’s #1 problem for experienced editors. There’s a significant learning curve for X that many experienced editors simply aren’t willing to invest their time in.

You can try your best to counter that argument, but I’ll tell you in advance that even your own home team will probably not agree with you.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.

[David Roth weiss]

He says right in the video that he’s tried X, so the argument that he’d like it better if he tried it is just not applicable.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.

[Devin Crane]

Maybe the tide has turned, however FCPX is a well capable editor and is hear to stay. It truly works wonderfully for our production and don’t every seeing us pay per month for an edit suite.

[Tim Wilson]

[Tony West] “I would like to see if he changed his mind about X and using it if he knew more about it.”

[David Lawrence] “Audio is a second-class citizen on the FCPX timeline. As long as that remains true, I think it’s unlikely editors like Murch will be interested.”

This exchange. This one right here.

Tony, I don’t mean to suggest that you’re one of THOSE Guys, because you are NOT one of Those Guys, but it’s still a very easy easily to fall into the conversational habits of Those Guys, and use language that suggests that somebody choosing not-X as some deficiency on THEIR part — they haven’t tried it, they don’t understand, they haven’t tried it LONG enough, they haven’t tried the new version, they’re not flexible, they’re stuck in old ways….on and on. Take your pick.

Again noting that I know you get this…but it really is an easy habit.

But as David notes, Walter has very simple needs, really. Two of them. Picture and Sound.

The reason why I mentioned that IMDb lists him first as a sound guy, and the biggest films he’s worked on have been as a sound guy (exception being Apocalypse, in which he did the almost inconceivable feat of BOTH picture AND sound) is that the whole English Patient (won an Oscar for editing a picture he cut with Avid Film Composer)/ Cold Mountain (nominated for editing for a picture he cut with FCP) thing is obscuring the fact that HE’S NOT PRIMARILY A PICTURE EDITOR.

He obviously IS a picture editor, and a great one….but as long as sound is AT LEAST as important to him, and for some movies he works on, the MAIN thing…FCPX is a non-starter.

This is not at ALL disrespectful to FCPX. It has other strengths. But there’s no point in saying that this is one of them.

In a little fairness (and I’m rarely more than a LITTLE fair LOL), I’m not sure that there’s ANY NLE that’s equally adept at video and audio (maybe Sony Vegas?)….but at least Media Composer and Premiere Pro acknowledge that the best way to work with both picture and sound on one project is an organizational structure that works for both picture and sound, and robustly roundtrips with Pro Tools sessions in particular as a core value.

So it is NEITHER the case that Walter doesn’t understand FCPX or that FCPX doesn’t understand Walter. It’s that Apple absolutely DID understand what Walter needs, and used to provide it (!!!! no argument there, RIGHT?), and at a certain point, explicitly chose NOT to continue to provide it!!!!

[Ronny Courtens] “I felt I needed to set this straight to keep the discussion honest.”

Quite so. I continue my essay here trying to meet that standard.

We rightly talk about Randy Ubillos, and we should, but in doing so, we ignore somebody we should not: Steve Bayes, who has been the senior product manager for FCP/X since January 2006.

I just doublechecked at LinkedIn — yep, 9 years 10 months. Is there anybody at Apple who has managed a product that long? Not that I’m aware of. Maybe ever.

I’m not calling him out for any reason but to praise him. A terrific guy. Call him the father of Avid Symphony if you want o. He was at Avid for 10 years, becoming Principle Product Designer at Avid just after Avid bought Pro Tools. Before that, he was an online editor, and has a film degree from Northeastern (arguably the best east coast film program that’s not NYU), and was the world’s first certified Avid instructor.

(In a bizarre little coincidence, he interviewed me for the job I wound up taking at Avid in 2003, left before I took the job, and a year later, had taken the job I’d left at Boris FX!!!)

In other words, he knows EXACTLY how important sound is to picture….and the product team he leads at Apple CHOSE to go in a different direction.

[Ronny Courtens] “I felt I needed to set this straight to keep the discussion honest.”

Likewise. 🙂

WHICH IS FINE for Apple to have done. Product teams SHOULD follow their own visions. They SHOULD focus their visions over team. They SHOULD be willing to sacrifice products, features, and even business models AND CUSTOMERS if that’s what they believe it takes for them to reach their highest goals.

And it’s fine for those teams to expect US to follow follow THEM. I’m 100% onboard with this.

But more than 4 years into this thing, I’m sorry and a little surprised to not hear reflected more often that Apple knew what EXACTLY they were doing, and explicitly CHOSE not to meet all the customer needs they used to reach.

WHICH IS FINE.

And some users with those needs — intelligent, capable, bold, visionary, willing-to-try-anything users who love Apple — have acknowledged Apple’s choice to go in other directions, WHICH APPLE HAS, and have chosen from among contemporary options for their next project. NOT because of any deficiency in themselves, but BECAUSE of choices that Apple made KNOWING that Apple was leaving those customers behind.

And the not-X choosers like Walter aren’t necessarily riled up about it. They understand that it’s not all about them. It was nothing personal. But another alternative is in order.

WHICH IS FINE.

[Tony West] “I’m going to use it even if he never does though hehehe”

Which is also fine. LOL

I don’t take your choice as any kind of disrespect for other options, though. Nor do I assume that you haven’t spent enough time kicking other people’s tires, so to speak.

I’d love to see more people who chose X assume that people who choose anything else are as reasonable and forward-looking anyone was in choosing X.

A final observation following Ronny’s exhortation to keep the discussion honest:

[David Lawrence] “I would like to be surprised but I wouldn’t bet my business needs on being happily surprised by Apple.”

There ya go.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[David Lawrence] “Especially since it’s always proposed as the solution whenever someone brings up the deficiencies of a trackless timeline for complex audio mixing.”

This statement makes a rather bold assumption – one that I see repeated frequently, as if it were an accepted fact: the assumption that a “trackless” timeline is unsuitable for complex mixing. How so?

Point 1:
A roles-based mixer is proposed as a response to the desire to buss audio. As of the current release, putting audio into compound clips is one solution. It is a somewhat imperfect analogue to assigning tracks to a buss. I can put all the dialogue, or all of “Bob’s” dialogue, into a compound clip, then process it as I wish. Same with any other group of clips. Assigning proper roles makes it simple to bundle specific clips into a compound. (Grouping clips as secondary storylines is a less effective means of dealing with audio bussing.)

Compound clips is not an ideal way of bussing. Perhaps the main flaw is that compounds can’t be “opened” in place. They open in a new timeline, and so the clips are not heard in context with the main video in the main timeline. I find this limitation (both audio and video) frustrating and puzzling. Less frustrating with audio, but still…

Point 2:
The characterization of “trackless timelines” as being “deficient” for complex mixing. I keep asking, “why?”
How does not seeing audio visually linked to specific tracks prevent complex mixing? What can one NOT do in FCP X that one CAN do in Avid? Or Premiere Pro? X has virtually unlimited layers (think of them as tracks, if you wish), as does Premiere Pro. Avid is limited to 24 (or is it 25?). X has a large variety of filters and processors available (as do the others) which can be manipulated in real time (not so for Avid). Within any given audio clip container, one has multiple channels that can be turned on or off, set as stereo or mono or surround, even edited within the clip container. They can be viewed with all channels expanded for viewing, or collapsed into a single container. If the audio is attached to a video clip, the audio can be manipulated independently of the video, while staying in synch by default. Unless you choose to detach to audio.

Where, exactly, does this fall short for complex mixes? Compare to Avid and Premiere Pro. What makes either of them more suitable for complex mixing?

Not a “fanboi,” not being defensive. Truly don’t see the evidence to support the assumption.

[Jeff Markgraf]

He says he’s tried X, but not on anything substantial, and definitely not on a paying gig.

So, for professional purposes, he hasn’t tried X. He doesn’t say he doesn’t like it; nor does he say he likes it. He says nothing about its suitability for professional movie work. He says nothing about its audio capabilities or limitations.

Walter Murch certainly doesn’t HAVE to play with or deep-dive-into or seriously use X. As far as I know, he doesn’t use Resolve, either. Or Lightworks.

So what?

This willingness to put words in his mouth, and to then hold these supposed words up as evidence of X’s deficiencies, is ludicrous.

[David Roth weiss]

Sorry your Cubs got clobbered, I was pulling for them…

Meanwhile, Jeff there don’t have to be deficiencies in certain tools or in the people who choose not to use them, for those tools to be rejected by some, adopted by others.

For the record, for those who work with tracks, have worked with tracks for their entire careers, and who don’t find tracks inhibiting or in need of change, it should be easy to understand why they might not want to take the time to become proficient at X, especially as it has a fairly substantial learning curve.

In pointing out that tracks make the product unsuitable for them, why does that have mean that either X is deficient or the person rejecting it for their purposes is deficient?

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.

[Michael Gissing]

[Tim Wilson] “I’d love to see more people who chose X assume that people who choose anything else are as reasonable and forward-looking anyone was in choosing X.”

Amen brother.

[David Roth weiss]

I’m not religious, but I’ll ditto that amen…

And, just as one does not have to jump off a cliff to know it’s not right for them, no experienced editor has to become fully proficient with an app to know its not a good fit for there needs. I made the decision after just three edits… I later went back and cut a project with X, and arrived at the same conclusion. Does that make me somehow deficient?

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Tim, I don’t generally respond to your posts, because they are unfailingly well though out, and “me too” is just a waste of bandwidth. But, in this case…

[Tim Wilson] “for some movies he works on, the MAIN thing…FCPX is a non-starter.
“

I know I’m a broken record on this, but I still can’t get an answer. Why is X a non-starter? The only system Murch called a non-starter is Avid, because of only 25 audio tracks. He never addresses X. So why do you consider X a non-starter for audio?

[Tim Wilson] “the best way to work with both picture and sound on one project is an organizational structure that works for both picture and sound, and robustly roundtrips with Pro Tools sessions in particular as a core value.”

Avid and PPro don’t roundtrip with Pro Tools. It’s a one way trip with AAF to Pro Tools, and a final mix back into the NLE. Unless I’ve missed something really big, you can’t open a Pro tools session in Avid or in PPro. You take the mix as provided, and whatever stems the mixer may provide. I don’t consider importing that final mix from an AAF file vs. an AIFF or a QT as “roundtrip.”

[Tim Wilson] “at a certain point, explicitly chose NOT to continue to provide it!!!! “

Umm…evidence to support this? Again, Murch says nothing about X’s capabilities or limitations.

As far as Apple not being responsive, ala Adobe: very true. Same to be said for Avid. So we have evidence of Apple being Apple, not of X being inherently unable to do the job. And this is news, why?

[Tim Wilson] “In other words, he knows EXACTLY how important sound is to picture….and the product team he leads at Apple CHOSE to go in a different direction.”

Again…what? What different direction? Someone, PLEASE explain this. My head explodes every time I see this notion that Apple and X have abandoned audio presented as gospel truth.