-
New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Looking on the bright side of this, if your deadline is Friday, and you’re done shooting the Friday before, instead of having three prep days and four edit days, you might have six edit days.”
Maybe, it depends how much task overlap you’ll be able to squeeze. I’m with Walter in that those three prep days still need to happen at some point. It’s a question of when and who does it.
Also,
[Jeremy Garchow] “You feed fcpx or an application a final script with scenes, fcpx then lays out the entire script by scene (which of course the order could be user defined), and each scene now has an audition clip of all the takes per scene sorted by rating.”
AVID ScriptSync has been doing something like this for years now so the concept isn’t new or unique to FCPX.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Oliver Peters] “I think in this whole break down you are making some incorrect assumptions about workflow.”
This whole thing is an assumption. There are many things that aren’t in place for this to happen, I think the blog is clear on that.
[Oliver Peters] “1. A film is never cut according to “best” takes decided on set. When I deliver a “first assembly” it is almost never made up completely of the “circle” takes. I have made my own judgement calls about what I think is best and that’s not always what was picked on set or location. Sometimes I’ll use pieces of all takes to build a scene, because an actor might have been better at the beginning of a “bad” take than in the supposed “best” take.”
I understand, Oliver. As I said, this in will no way represent the final episode, and the role of the editor (your judgment) is not removed form this process). A scene isn’t complete until you edit it all together. With Audition clips, you could have everything sorted, or sorted by rating (which you can then ignore if you want) it’s really easy to choose the next take without even having to find it, it’s there in your timeline, the magnetic timeline makes reviewing these very easy in context. I don’t care, don’t sort them by rating, sort them by take. Whatever, it’s your choice.
[Oliver Peters] “2. If an assistant has to load info anyway, then from the editor’s POV, both systems are equal. It may be faster for the assistant, but it’s irrelevant for the editor. Unfortunately there’s no way to know, because collaborative editing – as is possible in Media Composer, Lightworks or FCP 7 – is all but impossible in FCP X.”
Load info? Meaning footage? Metadata? All of the above?
[Oliver Peters] “3. Not all scene/take data is always entered. If you are going from the written script supervisor’s notes, then that is already sorted out for you. Simply pick your favorites or subclip then – either way, one NLE is about as fast as the other.”
I undertand that, but what if it was? What if in order to meet this deadline, it had to be? If people want to move faster, they better use the tools to do so.
[Oliver Peters] “4. If you are working on a film show, a lot of the scene/take info was already organized by the colorist. If you get an ALE or an XML, then no need to re-enter it. Many digital shows still go through a telecine process so the workflow is the same.”
OK, so does it come in edited by scene with all the clips stacked in a timeline? Or do you have to still go through and organize those clips? It’s not about the addtion of scene and take info, it’s about what you do with it.
[Oliver Peters] “5. If the editor wants to use Avid’s ScriptSync, then FCP 7 or FCP X are completely inadequate. Although ScriptSync requires some assistant prep work before editing can begin, it has one distinct advantage over all other NLEs. You can click on a line of dialogue in a bin (script text is displayed) and all coverage can be reviewed for that line of dialogue, even though it occurs within the body of each media clip.”
Similar to soundbite, sorta kinda, but without the in app text and direct interaction. yes, ScriptSync is proprietary, so if you want to use it, you have to use Avid.
[Oliver Peters] “The reason to view all the footage is not to generate a bunch of metadata, it’s to make creative editorial decisions based on camera work and acting performances. One NLE isn’t going to make this any faster than another. It’s just whether you like one mode of organization or another.”
I disagree.
-
[David Lawrence] “Maybe, it depends how much task overlap you’ll be able to squeeze. I’m with Walter in that those three prep days still need to happen at some point. It’s a question of when and who does it.”
I disagree.
[David Lawrence] “AVID ScriptSync has been doing something like this for years now so the concept isn’t new or unique to FCPX.”
It assembles the edit for you with all the takes? What about reviewing other takes in the context of the timeline? Is it as easy as an audition clip, or do you have to manually move every new take around?
Again, it’s not about having the script in the program, it’s what you do with it.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I’m challenging that. Shane is challenging that. I’m asking who is now taking a day and a half with FCPX to finish a week’s worth of work, because that idea is a little hard to believe”
What is a week worth of work when it comes to post? Isn’t that the challenge in this whole scenario?
Is it a weeks worth of work, or do you have a week to do it?
-
[David Lawrence] “Maybe, it depends how much task overlap you’ll be able to squeeze. I’m with Walter in that those three prep days still need to happen at some point. It’s a question of when and who does it.”
[Jeremy Garchow] “I disagree.”
Jeremy, where do you see the time savings happening?
I understand that FCPX lets you manage metadata more easily than other NLEs — but if you’re depending on that metadata for your edit, isn’t any time saved from entering metadata offset by the increased volume and granularity of metadata you’d need to enter?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Jeremy Garchow] “With Audition clips, you could have everything sorted, or sorted by rating”
Then every clip in the timeline for an edited scene would have to be an audition clip.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Load info? Meaning footage? Metadata? All of the above?”
All of the above.
[Jeremy Garchow] “What if in order to meet this deadline, it had to be? If people want to move faster, they better use the tools to do so.”
Then that means imposing a rather inflexible and closed method of organization that not everyone agrees is better nor that they want.
[Jeremy Garchow] “OK, so does it come in edited by scene with all the clips stacked in a timeline? Or do you have to still go through and organize those clips?”
When an XML or ALE file is used, that gives you clip name, scene/take, synced audio, TC, reel number, etc. You can certainly organize as you want, but there’s no speed lost to manual data entry. The trouble with relying on this based on electronic data entry on location, is that invariably it’s wrong. I frequently get P2 clips where the clip long name is incorrect, because the operator never set it right on the shoot. Or it was never updated after Day 1 of a shoot. The less you expect the crew to do the better off you are as an editor. They have their hands full and cameras like RED have made that exponentially worse.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Similar to soundbite, sorta kinda, but without the in app text and direct interaction. yes, ScriptSync is proprietary, so if you want to use it, you have to use Avid.”
Not really similar to SoundBite at all. SB is like PhraseFind. It’s a search tool. SB, PF and SS are all based on Nexidia’s dialogue search engine. The script-based editing part of Avid has been in Media Composer for years and doesn’t require Nexidia’s proprietary engine. The paid option part of it, makes the dialogue analysis and sync-to-text automatic, but it can be done manually by the editor or assistant. But yes, script-based editing is only available on Avids because it’s IP they own based on acquiring IP from Cinedco. The lined-script editing concept dates back to EdiFlex (Cinedco) in the late-80s/early-90s.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Walter Soyka] “I’m challenging that. Shane is challenging that. I’m asking who is now taking a day and a half with FCPX to finish a week’s worth of work, because that idea is a little hard to believe””
[Jeremy Garchow] “What is a week worth of work when it comes to post? Isn’t that the challenge in this whole scenario? Is it a weeks worth of work, or do you have a week to do it?”
Fair question. Here’s Philip’s set up (emphasis his):
I haven’t been using Final Cut Pro X on a huge project (yet, check back with me late next year) but I follow a lot of people who are and they universally comment that Final Cut Pro X is “200 to 400% faster” for them. As near as I can tell these people are doing the same sort of work on Final Cut Pro X as they were on Final Cut Pro 7 and finding that they get to a result from twice as fast to four times as fast. Twice as fast to four times as fast!
He closes with:
Even if it’s not there yet, the design intention and production reality seem destined to make Final Cut Pro X’s market share increase, even among the pros. (They won’t like it, but twice as fast can’t be ignored, let alone “four times faster”.)
He’s saying by using FCPX instead of FCP7, you can get the same results in only a quarter of the time! It’s a very, very bold claim. Late night, infomercial weight-loss program bold. Maybe it’s true for some specific cases. Maybe it’s true in the general case. I don’t know, and that’s why I’m asking. What do you think from your experience?
Incidentally, this prediction on FCPX uptake cannot fail unless Apple pulls FCPX from the market. FCPX’s market share started at zero. Nowhere to go but up!
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “but if you’re depending on that metadata for your edit, isn’t any time saved from entering metadata offset by the increased volume and granularity of metadata you’d need to enter?”
I guess it depends on how far you go. Even entering rudimentary data is much more simple and fast in FCPX. It’s also flexible and most importantly easy to retrieve. FCP X moves faster than FCP7. It reminds me of using P2 Flow which was a metadata tee up to 7. I could definitely organize a shoot in minutes which would have taken hours in FCP7 including import time. (Name, angle, job#, Location, Scene, take, and other things).
As far as granularity, sure, that might slow the whole thing down as it would with anything, but since FCPX is so dynamic in it’s data presentation, it works more quickly, and that’s my opinion. It’s extremely hard to quantify, and it’s really hard to defend, especially when someone says “prove it”. All the bin searching and double clicks add up when compared to a scrubbing of a refined search. My answer to prove it is, “it just does”. I can’t answer for Philip, though.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Even entering rudimentary data is much more simple and fast in FCPX. It’s also flexible and most importantly easy to retrieve. FCP X moves faster than FCP7. It reminds me of using P2 Flow which was a metadata tee up to 7. I could definitely organize a shoot in minutes which would have taken hours in FCP7 including import time. (Name, angle, job#, Location, Scene, take, and other things).”
I believe that.
[Jeremy Garchow] “As far as granularity, sure, that might slow the whole thing down as it would with anything, but since FCPX is so dynamic in it’s data presentation, it works more quickly, and that’s my opinion. It’s extremely hard to quantify, and it’s really hard to defend, especially when someone says “prove it”. All the bin searching and double clicks add up when compared to a scrubbing of a refined search. My answer to prove it is, “it just does”. I can’t answer for Philip, though.”
You’re claiming it’s faster, and saying you can’t quantify how much. That’s fair.
If you had made a specific and quantified claim, like getting comparable work done in a quarter of the time, why would it be hard to prove or at least describe in greater detail? You’d know that you did a job last week on FCP7 that took 20 hours, and you’d know that doing a similar job this week on FCPX only took you 5 hours. I’m curious about the nature of the work and where the phenomenal speed increase came from. Aren’t you?
I’m not trying to be a jerk (which is probably how I’m coming across). I know that this isn’t even Philip’s own claim — he’s reporting what he’s heard from others — but if it’s quantifiable, it’s provable, and if it’s true, it’s an incredibly important contribution to the conversation here.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Oliver Peters] “Then every clip in the timeline for an edited scene would have to be an audition clip.”
That was what I proposed, maybe you missed it.
[Oliver Peters] “All of the above.”
I have talked about how loading footage and adding metadata is really easy in FCPX, even if making high or low quality transcodes from the original.
[Oliver Peters] “Then that means imposing a rather inflexible and closed method of organization that not everyone agrees is better nor that they want.”
Fine, form the producer’s pov, then maybe you don’t get the job??? If unrelaistic demands are being set, then something has to give. Throw us editors a bone. At least give me scene/take. I don’t see how attaching scene/take to clips is a closed form of organization, but whatever. have you seen: This from: this article?
[Oliver Peters] “SB is like PhraseFind. It’s a search tool. “
For now. Or do you think they are done developing it?
Just to be clear, all of this is all based on assumptions; the blog post, the technology and it’s adoption, and our jobs as editors and our role in the process.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up