-
Murch and NLEs from IBC
-
Now Morph Cut for FCP X thanks to Szymon and the elves at MotionVFX…
https://www.facebook.com/motionvfx/videos/903340409743758/Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “Nevertheless, I’m certain if Walter Murch decided to learn FCPX, he’d do the same kind of complex mixes. Because that’s what he does. “
Maybe or maybe he’d find X not to his liking and he’d decide not to use it because something else suits his personal needs/wants better. That’s basically what happened with Avid. It’s not that he can’t edit in Avid it’s just he finds it easier to edit how he likes in FCP Legend and now PPro (and possibly X down the road). Reasons like these aren’t indicative of anything other than personal workflow preferences.
-
[Michael Gissing] “But X remains a tool with limitations in audio processing that an editor like Murch finds a deal breaker. “
Not sure how you get this from the interview. The only deal breaker Murch spoke of is Avid’s 25 track limitation.
And what are the audio processing limitations in FCP X that were not present in FCP 7?[Michael Gissing] “Of course he carries that sensibility into picture editing and I am not the least bit surprised he favours a track based NLE, simply because he knows that it is a better approach for complicated sound workflows.”
Again – where does Murch say this or anything like this?
He has worked with traditional track-based editing systems. He has not worked with FCP X, except in an undefined casual, non-professional way. It very well could be that he will not favor the “trackless” system of X. But he hasn’t made that judgment, since he hasn’t really used X.
Furthermore, why is a traditional tracked system better for a complicated workflow? He never said that. I’ve never seen him offer that opinion in any book or interview thatI’ve seen.
[Michael Gissing] ” I wondered how magnetic timeline plus roles could ever hope to mirror the complex layering of mix processing that a clip, track, bus & master bus approach can give. Here we are these years later and many editors are still hoping Roles can be augmented by sub roles and roles based plugins/mix automation.
“Lack of implementation does not equal lack of ability.
Like most others, I would dearly love to see a means to buss audio in FCP X. I do think roles and subroles can provide adequate fine breakdown of audio. It’s the bussing that’s currently lacking. Compound clips and secondary storylines cover many of the functions one typically accomplishes with bussing, but both techniques have some limitations.
There’s really no excuse for not having some kind of bussing architecture at this point. But I think it’s quite a leap from Apple’s lack of implementation back to some kind of inherent inability of X to allow for such a thing.
As far as automation, I guess that’s where the bussing comes in. Applying automation to a track or to a group of tracks via a track-based mixer. Automating a mix via a role or subrole-based mixer is functionally equivalent. If X had it, it would be great. But, really, “track” = “role/subrole” is kinda obvious, isn’t it.
For the record (not that it matters to someone who actually uses automated mixing in their NLE), I’ve never used nor seen any editor use the automated mixing capability of FCP7 or (I presume) PPro or the more limited version in Avid. Either via a mouse inside the program or via an outboard mixer. Ever. Well, maybe once or twice just to see if it worked. But never for real, on a real spot or a real promo or a real show segment or a real movie. That’s what audio sweetening is for, with real mixers on a real stage who do it for living.
I get that many people on this forum do not and will not accept the “trackless” audio of X. OK. To each his own. But attributing such views to Walter Murch, who has not made any actual statements about the issue, is simply inaccurate.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Reasons like these aren’t indicative of anything other than personal workflow preferences.”
Exactly. Hence my frustration with those in this thread who are essentially putting words in Murch’s mouth. It would be just fine with me if Murch someday gives X a serious spin and ends up hating it. But he’s done nothing of the sort at this point. And the number of posts this thread suggesting Murch doesn’t care for X or “trackless” audio (or video, for that matter), even finding it unsuitable for professional work, is disheartening. I though we’d moved beyond this silliness.
-
[Bill Davis] “I’m still convinced the actual damage being done to ALL of us is actually the changing landscape of MONEY flow that Adobe has elected (their legal option) to be an early leader in. “
I’m just quoting you for context Bill, but I’m not meaning to single you out because many people have said the similar things.
While picking on Adobe’s decision to go subscription-only is en vogue I rarely see a broader discussion about possibly why Adobe went the route it did or even an acknowledgment of the changing face of software monetization in general (increasing use of subscriptions, ad supported and/or freemium business models). Apple and Blackmagic get a lot of love these days in part because they give away/practically give away fully functioning software that’s tied to their hardware. Everyone loves ‘free’, right? But what’s the long term effect of treating professional software like an add-on?
Could devaluation of software make it harder for software companies to charge a profitable price for their wares? Might they then have to explore other business models to make ends meet? Could hardware companies offering software at everyday low prices actually be detrimental in the long term even though they are so attractive in the short term?
Let’s say the whole subscription-only thing fails, Adobe’s stock crashes and AJA ends up buying them and tries to mirror Blackmagic. So now perpetual licenses of Adobe software are basically free yet the catch is the software isn’t fully functional unless you have an piece of AJA hardware. Oh joy. So now I’m compelled to buy AJA hardware to get Premiere to work and compelled to buy BM hardware to get Resolve to work. What could possibly go wrong? Mmmm… I’m already getting flashbacks to the mid 2000’s where it was pretty much one NLE per computer due to headaches caused by hardware/driver conflicts.
Are there potential pitfalls with Adobe’s business model? Sure. There are also potential pitfalls with Apple’s and Blackmagic’s business model too.
-
[Oliver Peters] “I’m not sure that’s a valid comparison.”
Sure it is. If you’re going to argue on mere update count, which he was doing, how couldn’t it be? No mention of WHAT those individual updates brought with them.
[Oliver Peters] “Everything up to 10.0.6 was likely in the original design but not ready at the time of launch. “
Erm… even assuming that that wasn’t pure conjecture…so? So only Apple knows what they’re working on for future releases a few months (if not years) in advance but launch the current release anyway (knowing what is “missing”) works out to being “too early” or “incomplete”? Not sure how that exactly works. But I guess then legacy FCP was only 1.0 with the actual 3.5 version? I’d say that’s all very much a matter of personal perception and preference in the end, little more. An odd position to suggest as fact.
[Oliver Peters] “I think you can consider that version to be the true 1.0 release of FCP X and then start counting from there.”
Well, I don’t actually. That’s a logic that can be said of any and every software that has ever been released and gotten an update shortly afterwards. Never mind that things such as the XML exchange, multicam, broadcast monitoring and a plethora of other things were already released a few months after its release. An easy six months before your 10.0.6/1.0. So again… no, not something I think I would logically consider. But then a large part of what came with 10.0.6 was comparatively irrelevant to me. Go figure. There were a lot of things that came much much later that were much more relevant. But I wouldn’t go around calling that release the only true 1.0 because of it. I’m also still missing stuff, so I guess I’m still in beta? 😀
[Oliver Peters] “Now look at the last release, which gave us 3D text and little else.”
Sorry, wrong again. Aside from that in fact being TWO releases ago, there were, again, a long long list of other new and/or much improved features included. Whether those were of any use or interest to you (or me) personally is actually extraneous. Big flashy features to add to some already overcrowded PR bullet list? No. But certainly a LOT that clearly shows that Apple is listing to their users just as much as others… they just don’t do it on public boards et al. But to seemingly suggest that every CC update in the same timeframe somehow ALL included some amazing new, life-changing features (such as the amazing, indispensable morph cut technology :P) in comparison and functionality would also be highly disingenuous at best imho. Not to mention that many of those “new” features looked strangely familiar or were also things that, according to it’s users, many many years overdue. So I guess that door swings both ways.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “No. But certainly a LOT that clearly shows that Apple is listing to their users just as much as others”
Just for the sake of argument can you give us list of a LOT of things Apple have added in the last couple of years that us users have been asking for
-
“Yeah, but you’ve got to admit it’s different now, Oliver. There used to be a chasm between the top end and the low end in performance. Now the top end is slowly coming down (Panavision to Red/Alexa) while the low end has made AMAZING strides.”
Sure, the cost of ownership for end-to-end prod, post and finishing has come down drastically, but if we’re talking about creative editing, it has always been at the low end of the relative cost scale. Moviolas versus a full fledged film lab to complete the process. Low-res Avids versus large online suites. So I don’t think that much has changed, merely that cost as a bar to entry has dropped.
But I’m not sure how that ties into the discussion, which has nothing to do with cost. However, there is relevance in listening to folks who are at the top of their game if you are at a different point. Mainly you learn ideas, concepts, techniques and processes that might be applicable to lower cost productions or systems. Even if Walter Murch isn’t using X, it has relevance, just like absorbing the workflow Mike Matzdorff set up for “Focus” or the facility-wide X implementations being done by Ronny Courtens and others. And these are definitely not low-cost solutions.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Steve Connor] “Just for the sake of argument can you give us list”
I would think simply looking through the version history should be telling enough. On the other hand I can’t know which of each change/addition was or wasn’t something you or anyone else may or may not have been asking for or needed. It will obviously be more for some, less for others. But which in and of itself does not put the legitimacy of any one feature or function in question as a whole, just because someone may feel their unfulfilled request was way mo’ betta important. I for example felt that the addition of a second viewer was completely superfluous, but that was definitely an option born out of user request. Did nothing for me, a LOT for others. So the overall definition of amount is a personal one in the end. I’m also not really interested in playing the game of listing a feature just to have the usual subjects answer with “Pffff, should have been in there since day one!” or “NLE xyz has had that for years!” yadda yadda yadda either. 😉
I just know that for me and my workflow there has been a lot, some big, some small, and all for just a small lump sum that I paid a very long time ago. And yeah, a number of things still pending. But I’m also very active in terms of feedback where many (oddly, often the ones screaming the loudest) don’t even know that the feedback page even exists. Then maybe, some day, I too will have that utopian ultra-perfect NLE that some seem to already have found, where there is nothing left to be changed or improved!
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
“I for example felt that the addition of a second viewer was completely superfluous, but that was definitely an option born out of user request. Did nothing for me, a LOT for others.”
This is often cited as an example of Apple listening to customers and in fact it might be. But if so, it was poorly and half-heartedly implemented, which is why it’s not very useful. All they did was split the existing features of the unified viewer into two windows. Hardly a functional dual-viewer situation.
Multicam is another feature said to be a response. That’s one I view as always in the works, but just not ready at launch.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up