-
New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
-
[Philip Hodgetts] “I then pointed out that those who are using FCP X are reporting that it is much faster for the work they’re doing than the same work in FCP 7.
“We are and it is.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[Walter Soyka] ”
I’ll second Chris’s statement.I doubt I’d still be following this forum if it weren’t for you and your contributions, Jeremy — so thanks again for sharing your perspective. It is very valuable.”
Thank you, Walter. I enjoy the healthy conversations! I like some of what I see in FCPX, and of course there’s some things that just aren’t ready. I do not post from the perspective of an Apple fanboy/diehard even though at times I might sound like one. If there was another program that handled footage in this way (and from an earlier post, it sounds like Smoke/Lightworks might have versions of this as well) I would be excited about this too.
I edit, I have pretty decent amounts of work that I shuffle around, and if X fits the bill, I’m all for it. The database approach to it I find to be great and rather unique. It keeps me interested despite in the missing interchange language, more professional tools, and instability.
[Walter Soyka] “As much as I love the skimmer and metadata, even a perfectly implemented NLE will not watch your footage for you in the first place, and that’s where the time crunch is hitting.”
I agree, but FCP X allows much faster and direct access to the footage more so than PPro and Avid. And tagging as you watch or as you go is great. I maintain that FCPX allows you to dive in much sooner than other applications, at least that’s what I find.
[Walter Soyka] “Another issue that PH seems to think that FCPX solves is that no one knows how to watch a rough cut anyone, “
I greatly relate to this. Certain people in the biz have no idea what a first cut is, even people that work at places that you would think would know what a first cut is and this relates to what I was saying before about most of our clients being removed from the edit process. They don’t sit there while I bring in and organize the footage, while I sync audio, while I watch slates and add in scene and take number to match the audio log/script notes/storyboards, while I make window burn transcription copies before I can even GET to the edit. They have no idea how long this might take, or why after spending a coupe of days getting all this stuff in, I might need to walk away for a second. We do not have assistants, we handle all of it.
There’s certain people when I’m editing a job, that I know I can explain to them that this is simply a first cut and they can fill in the blanks. Others, I simply cannot give them this responsibility. So, in the interest of keeping good client relations, I need to polish, and (it’s really a spit shine) as much as possible before they can fully grasp the concepts. If I don’t spit shine, the client is really unhappy or starts changing things before they are even conceived because they simply “don’t get it” or see the whole picture. Of course, that brings us to here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MNg3sSZ9F8
So, this leaves me with a choice to make. I can do like Shane and Rafael are going to do, and push it back at them and say “you just have to wait a minute” or I can rush rush rush, spit shine it to get initial approval more quickly to buy me some time down the road a piece. The client does not care, and if I show what they might perceive as a substandard piece of work for the first review out of the gate, it might poison the rest of the process. If I have to bust my hump to have an initial “buy in”, then so be it. I feel this is part of what’s being brought up by the editors and subsequently Philip Hodgetts. I really wish I could tell everyone to hold on, but sometimes I can’t.
That Smoke doc you sent is great, but the starting point is an 8 minute edited sequence, which is what this 80% seems to allude to in the blog post (From Smoke article: “Starting point for the benchmark was a basic 8 minute segment of the project edited in a multi-product workflow, comprising all the sequences.”). This has nothing to do with actually bringing in , organizing and editing the footage. Let me try and say this another way. FCPX allows you to start bringing in footage and tagging it immediately, even if there’s transcoding to do. This is unique to X. Even if the footage transcodes during an idle time or finishes transcoding overnight while I get some sleep, all of the simultaneous tagging that I did on the temp files (even if it’s rudimentary tagging at first) is not lost. With FCP7, if I had to log and transfer, I would have to log all the footage first, then keep adding it to the queue, and every time a new clip starts transferring, the log and transfer window keeps popping back to the front (I don’t know if you’ve ever logged and transferred, but try naming files while FCP7 L&Ts in the “Background”. It can be maddening). You cannot set multiple bins for log and transferred footage, so you either have to drag the clips to a bin while they come in, or wait until the end to sort the footage. X, again, simplifies this as there are no bins, yet the clips can live in simultaneous places. I can’t stress how this is completely awesome, although some people really hate it for some reason. Then, there’s the tagging of ranges. Again, I find it really really handy, and removes the containerly nature of camera starts/stops, and moves it to the containerly nature of bits of hardcore organization no matter what clip the footage is in. The browser allows you to mentally grasp rather large quantities of footage almost at a glance. You can keyword or tag it with multiple references, even obscure ones, for easier finding later. Now, there’s the whole metadata section (separate from the browser) of FCPX in which you can rename your clips in your browser based on whatever criteria you want. It is immensely powerful. And fast. Aindreas (but not Andreas) might be on to something that some craziness going on at Apple, but there’s quite a bit of the good kind of crazy in there.
This to me, is FCPX’s greatest strength, and I think what Philip is talking about. The pressures of getting stuff done faster is real, very real, for me so I imagine it is for a lot of other people as well. If FCPX helps get me to the first cut faster, then I feel OK about that. I truly appreciate FCPX treating my video clips as data, because that’s exactly what they are. The database simultaneously allows me to remember my clips as a big group, or in granular collections, as well identifying things in a extremely fast physical manipulation. Again, I am Ok with that, it helps me creatively as I don’t have to remember the physical binned location of each shot, I just have to remember how I remembered (and subsequently tagged) the shot when I viewed it. This is huge. The collections also give a location if that’s what I need.
Some people might not like this approach. Personally, I think it helps the creative process, even it didn’t save time. But it seems to be saving time as well.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Have you really never negotiated on points of schedule?”
Sometimes you can’t. Of course we try and make it the best of all worlds, but it’s hardly ever an ideal world.
-
[Shawn Miller] “Yes, I use PPro with Blackmagic capture cards for all editing projects. I haven’t worked with a lot of Red footage, but when I do, it’s a pretty smooth experience. It’s about equal to editing H.264 @ 1080 24p. I can add filters, stack graphics and audio without major playback issues. Though I must confess, I haven’t had to cut a heavy 4K RAW project yet. Then again, I’m not a Mac user so my user experiences may be different. “
And you have a CUDA as part of your setup?
-
Phillip,
If you read my post below, it outlines why I don’t think you’ve addressed the concerns of editors as expressed in the original video.
But I’ll add this here since I think it underscores the debate:
[Philip Hodgetts] “I then pointed out that those who are using FCP X are reporting that it is much faster for the work they’re doing than the same work in FCP 7.”
This seems an odd point of departure for considering NLEs.
Two year old software? It is not a continuation as many people are so careful to point out. Why not compare to the other options out there? I suppose it was the comparison that “a lot of people you knew” were making, but you should probably consider a larger perspective on a post that asks if FCPX is “favoured” on a blog about “The present and future of post production business and technology”.
Franz.
-
[Philip Hodgetts] “I then pointed out that those who are using FCP X are reporting that it is much faster for the work they’re doing than the same work in FCP 7.”
It’s much faster than working with a moviola as well, but what’s the point of that comparison? FCP was 2 years out of date last spring, which is why many of us who had been waiting for an upgrade went a little ballistic when instead of an upgrade we got a Beta release of a new Ap that wouldn’t be ready for complex workflows for at least another year, if ever.
Comparing FCPX to Legacy is ridiculous, compare it to PPro, Avid or any other active NLE if you want to talk about it’s speed and efficiency.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Jeremy,
I suppose.
But to me this discussion really metastasizes from that original concern that most editors face: the issue of time.
It’s funny to me that most here seem to fall back on the old chestnut of how important “storytelling” is (my thoughts on that word for another time) – but that takes thinking and feeling.
I’m not sure that Phillip’s post (or FCPX) really addresses that issue in the broad ways suggested.
“Two times faster!” makes a good headline though.
To wit: sometimes negotiating a longer schedule might be the answer (and should probably be considered). I have turned down projects with unrealistic schedules (though, it is true, I don’t always have that option).
Franz.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “That Smoke doc you sent is great, but the starting point is an 8 minute edited sequence”
Sheesh! Why is Smoke even part of this discussion? Smoke is a very advanced finishing system that *can* be used for creative (rough cut) editing. FCP X is creative (rough cut) editing tool that *can* be used for finishing. I see VERY LITTLE overlap. If anything, they are complementary – start on FCP X and add the finesse in Smoke. Seems like potentially an ideal set-up for a larger shop: numerous FCP X stations with a few Smokes. At some point down the road, networked into some viable fashion for effective collaboration. Toss in Resolve and maybe Logic and it could be a strong mix.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Philip Hodgetts] “lack of time (to see all footage, to contemplatively edit) “
Something I don’t see how FCX can improve. SKim quicker…OK. But actually SEE the footage. AVID, FCP, Premiere Pro, FCX…all take the same amount of time.
[Philip Hodgetts] “and pressure for more finished rough cuts. “
Finding the RIGHT music for a scene or a spot won’t improve with FCX. It will still take us time to lisen and try them out. NLE cannot improve that. Mix sound effects, music…adjust audio levels….do a temp mix. Maybe people who know FCX can do things fast, but for me, FCP 7 is the fastest at that. Adjusting levels with a keyboard I am very fast.
But those factors cannot be sped up with an NLE. Watching the footage, knowing what you have and finding the best moments. And finding the right music cue for a scene…again, that takes time and an ear for the music and how it will make the scene feel. No way will an NLE make me hear music faster and determine how it will work with a scene, or project.
[Philip Hodgetts] “Producers are not going to revert to giving 3 weeks for the 3 week job, just 1 as the editors’ in the video noted. “
I know. So they cannot complain when the temp music isn’t quite right, or the scene isn’t as strong as it can be. That I might not have used the best take…that I didn’t have time to find the perfect music cue. Because they are impatient and want a cut scene NOW…fully mixed. OK, I can do that. Will it be my best work? No. Will FCX speed things up so that I can view all the footage faster? Find the perfect music cue quicker? I don’t see how.
Oh, because the time I need to import and convert or transcode the footage will be shortened? I can transcode/import over night when I go home…let it churn. And with many NLEs, I can access the footage right away…start working, transcode when I leave, then relink to the new files when I get back. I need to render? That time has always been a small part of my day. If it’s a big render, I do that when I go to lunch, or go home for the night.
[Philip Hodgetts] ” then pointed out that those who are using FCP X are reporting that it is much faster for the work they’re doing than the same work in FCP 7.”
WHich editors? Working on what type of projects? Small fast promos? Sizzle reels? News broadcast? ENG? WHO is seeing the speed increase in their day? And really, is it making so that what you used to do in 10 hours, you now do in 5? 7.5?
The NLE cannot speed up my process of looking at footage, and listening to music. If the producers want things faster, then they’ll get something that is “good enough.” Because that is all they are giving me time for.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Oliver Peters] “Why is Smoke even part of this discussion?”
A better question is this: Why is FCP7?
People are looking for a way forward. Good comparisons are hard to come by; good discussions, harder.
Franz.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up