-
Murch and NLEs from IBC
-
Tim, thanks for this post and I must say, this thread more than any other in a long time opens my eyes.
[Tim Wilson] “The reason why I mentioned that IMDb lists him first as a sound guy, “
I think I finally see it. THIS is not me as an editor.
I have always been about the visual first. I understand the power the visual image has on people.
What made the Ray Rice incident worst than other fools who beat up woman is there was a “video” of it.
You could ‘see” it and that was jarring to people. In a way that talking about other incidents weren’t.The reason that those fishermen fought so hard in Japan to keep that crew from shooting the Cove was because they knew that if the world ever “saw” what they were doing it would be over for them.
When you walk out of THE COVE you are not thinking about the sound mix. It’s the slaughter scene that will stay with you the rest of your life. It’s the violence and the blood in the water. It’s seeing someone lay their emotions out there in a way that makes you care about them even though you have never met them.
That is the power of images. I always tell people, if a picture is worth a thousand words then a video is worth a million.
When I cut, most times my focus begins with the images, it’s not that I don’t think audio is important, I know it is. But I’m all about the way the images come on that screen and effect people, and that’s why I love X. I can move images around quickly so I can “see” how effective the images will effect the audience.
I care more about organizing my IMAGES and finding them than organizing my audio in the timeline.
I thought that Murch was going to get into the weeds in that interview in a way that would allow me to learn something that I didn’t already know about X
I actually got more out of that discussion that Michael and Jeff had because they both got into details that Murch didn’t. That’s fine, it’s hard to do in a interview.
But their back and fourth opened my eyes. I can not mix like Michael, but I know what bad audio sounds like and I know how to fix it. I might have to do it differently in X but that doesn’t matter to me. What matters is what it sounds like in the end.
Everyone has their own priorities and I respect them.
I just want to make it clear for those who don’t know.
My priority is not being a fan of Apple or any other company. It’s not about ignoring deficiencies.My priority, is blood in the water.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “There’s a significant learning curve for X “
That that is in fact not true, but rather the exact opposite more often than not, has been said by many here. Repeatedly. By both users and teachers/trainers, who⎯I’m going to go out on a limb to say⎯are actually the ones that are in the best (if not only) position to be the judge of that. Even if we’ve established that it’s anecdotal, there’s certainly a pattern. That is, people that in fact didn’t make “the decision after just three edits” but dared give it a serious, legitimate shot and had the willingness to learn the few differences X presents them with.
Are there exceptions to the (learning) rule? Sure. As there is to everything. For many of those exceptions, simple habit and lack of familiarity gets in the way of the most simple but key concepts. But then the basics are the exact same in X. “Bins”, clips, timeline. The rest is just up to said habit and familiarity.
[David Roth Weiss] “many experienced editors simply aren’t willing to invest their time in.”
But still… so many have. Weird. Makes you wonder which are the better for it? Willingness is certainly a pre-requisite. You’re definitely right about that. Or maybe that is now some “deficiency” of those that chose to invest that time? They somehow had no other options? I guess they had to force themselves and hated it every inch of the way and saw no gain in it in the end? My experience tells me: nope.
[David Roth Weiss] “Does your head explode when your clients disagree with you or when they opt to choose a different creative direction from the one you’ve chosen?”
From everything you have written, I actually find it rather ironic that you should be asking others that. But then I don’t see how the creative choices of my clients, people I edit for, are in any way relevant to my own. Hasn’t been in 20+ years.
[David Roth Weiss] “As I’ve said for more than four years, as far I’m concerned, the trackless timeline is a solution looking for a problem.”
And you can go on saying it for another 10 years. But that thought certainly does not come into play for those that have understood the idea and concept behind roles and, again, learned their benefits. ( https://bit.ly/1MX0xMW ) In which case roles are recognized to be far more powerful and certainly far more flexible than working with tracks in most any situation. As e.g. in this very real example https://bit.ly/1Xoc7DN clearly illustrating how roles are superior for that task (and many others).
May not have “solved a problem” (which nobody ever claimed roles do per se anyway) in any sense that it couldn’t have been done otherwise (he says how), but sure makes for some very welcome, more efficient alternatives.
Unless of course you want to argue the “do it the good ol’, familiar way, because that’s the only way I know” approach. Never mind it being more tedious. Then, I guess you’re right. I can only speak for myself and say that roles/trackless editing make loads of sense and may not solve any “problem”, but certainly offer me many possibilities and alternatives that I FAR prefer. And yes, a far more efficient workflow overall.
Again, those that have actually shown the willingness to learn what those things mean and use them (kind of a key part that), know how, why and where they’re far superior to tracks. Anyone that thinks that Apple could ever consider bringing tracks back simply doesn’t understand the most basic concept of X and for me that’s a completely ludicrous notion. If someone’s world only allows for tracks, there are options. Everyone’s happy.
[Michael Gissing] “Why not have a mode where clips are displayed based on roles,”
Erm… there is. There are in fact a couple of ways of doing that.
– RK
-
[Tony West] “I hear you, I don’t think they would bring back tracks for him.”
Mostly because that would simply not make any sense whatsoever and undermine the most basic principle/concept of X. Essentially rendering the brilliance of the magnetic timeline (and various other things) ineffective.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “[Tony West] “I hear you, I don’t think they would bring back tracks for him.”
Mostly because that would simply not make any sense whatsoever and undermine the most basic principle/concept of X. Essentially rendering the brilliance of the magnetic timeline (and various other things) ineffective.
– RK”
Agree totally
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “I know PPro has a track mixer, so I guess you can link a couple of tracks and control them together. Not bussing, per se, but it may help get the job done.”
Premiere pro has a bussing structure. You can create submix channels (mono stereo and 5.1) and send any (or multiple) track output(s) to any submix. You can also assign any submix to any other (or multiple) submix channel(s). The same is true for Sony Vegas.
Shawn
-
[Shawn Miller] ”
Premiere pro has a bussing structure. You can create submix channels (mono stereo and 5.1) and send any (or multiple) track output(s) to any submix. You can also assign any submix to any other (or multiple) submix channel(s). The same is true for Sony Vegas.”And, don’t forget about Adobe Audition, a very capable app that’s fully integrated with Premiere, which has very sophisticated busing and a plethora of other very sophisticated audio editing and processing tools.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los AngelesDavid is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “[Shawn Miller] ”
Premiere pro has a bussing structure. You can create submix channels (mono stereo and 5.1) and send any (or multiple) track output(s) to any submix. You can also assign any submix to any other (or multiple) submix channel(s). The same is true for Sony Vegas.”And, don’t forget about Adobe Audition, a very capable app that’s fully integrated with Premiere, which has very sophisticated busing and a plethora of other very sophisticated audio editing and processing tools.”
Absolutely! I’ve been using Audition since it was Cool Edit Pro v1. I rarely complete a project without touching Audition at some point. 🙂
Shawn
-
[David Roth Weiss] “And, don’t forget about Adobe Audition, a very capable app that’s fully integrated with Premiere, which has very sophisticated busing and a plethora of other very sophisticated audio editing and processing tools.”
If only Logic was as well integrated with FCPX
-
[Shawn Miller] “Absolutely! I’ve been using Audition since it was Cool Edit Pro v1. I rarely complete a project without touching Audition at some point. :-)”
Since you guys keep talking about Audition, how does its audio repair tools compare to something like iZotope’s RX 5Audio Editor?
-Andrew
-
[Andrew Kimery] “[Shawn Miller] “Absolutely! I’ve been using Audition since it was Cool Edit Pro v1. I rarely complete a project without touching Audition at some point. :-)”
Since you guys keep talking about Audition, how does its audio repair tools compare to something like iZotope’s RX 5Audio Editor?
-Andrew”
I haven’t used iZotope’s repair tools, so I can’t really compare them. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the RX 5 Audio Editor was more sophisticated though, those guys just make magic. I’ve always preferred their compression and EQ tools.
Shawn
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up