-
Old dogs new tricks
-
[Oliver Peters] “Remember that if you’ve never dealt with editing software before or even something like After Effects, then all software looks completely daunting at the start.”
To a certain extent.
A client was watching me cut on X one day.
A few days later he showed up with his laptop and had bought PrP (he is a pc guy)
He had no experience editing at all and is close to retirement in a totally different field. He said he want to make some home videos as a hobby.He opened up PrP and had this look on his face
Totally lost.
I told him that program may be a little much for his needs and it was going to take him some time to learn it. He closed it up and I don’t has opened it since.
I can’t be for sure, but I think looking at X he thought, that looks like fun and I want to try it.
Oh well.
-
[Justin Crowell] ” being generally unuseable”
I don’t know where you are getting that. It’s not unusable at all.
First of all, when you are working with a top end crew you are not dealing with horrible audio anyway.
You have a good sound man that tells you when the sound is clear. The director is standing there with an fib off the mixer listing himself and if I’m shooing I’m also listing.That’s 3 people hearing the sound in the field. On the kind of jobs I do all you are doing is tweaking at best.
If I were to post 10 sound samples, some I did in RX 4 and some in X are you telling me you could pick all 10 out?
I don’t believe you could.
-
That’s fine, but that’s not really how noise removal is tested. It’s fine for when it’s not stressed–but the FCP X version really breaks down where I need to do specific things like take noise prints (for things like crowd noise), remove hums that are fairly broad spectrum, and remove audio problems of shorter duration. It’s nice that you have the opportunity to control all of the material that you work with, but I don’t do most of my shooting, and what I’m delivered is what I’m delivered.
Editor, Producer, DP
JustinCrowell.com -
[Justin Crowell] “what I’m delivered is what I’m delivered.
“I totally get that, and I’m often in the same boat. I just find that when I’m delivered something from a higher budget the sound is very good and what I’m having to do with it is limited. That’s why we hired the best person in the market to do audio. Its when they cut back and tell the shooter to go out one man band style and they are out there just trying to do the best they can when there are problems.
Every situation is different. I do more live television than anything and time becomes a factor. Somebody runs into a locker room and shoots an interview that needs to be turned around and on the air in minutes.
Do I not do anything with the audio because I don’t have time to get into RX or fix it the best I can for the time I’m allowed?
I would teach students both. At lest I’m glad I can do both, because sometimes I have to. -
For me, the key issue is time in these editing classes. I typically split the class into 2 sessions – morning and afternoon. So with each group, I have about 16-20 hours over the course of 2 weeks of lab time to get a class for no knowledge to a low level of proficiency. There are plenty of things I skip. The second part is that this is a film program designed around the structure of film workflow. So things like sound design and dialogue clean up fall to the audio post instructor and are focused on Pro Tools.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Man, I am not sure why this thread was even started, unless Oliver was bored. 😉
I have known Oliver for a while now and respect the hell out of him. But of course, being the PITA I have been called every now and again, I have a couple alternative viewpoints!
[Oliver Peters] “1. There is nothing that says FCP X or Media Composer or Premiere Pro are any more innovative, superior or advanced than the other tools.”
I don’t understand this. If you are saying they all are the same except for the tools, then the product with the best tools for a workflow is superior. For example, I find X data management, organization and effects handling (to name a few) far superior to MC. Therefore X is the superior product for me. You have to have some criteria to judge a product on. It’s like saying “if you take away the engine, systems, and drivetrain, there is no difference between a Ferarri and a Yugo. They are pretty much the same”. For others MC and Premiere are superior based on their particular criteria. Don’t get me wrong, I have made a ton of money cutting on MC, XpressPro, DS, Symphony and such but for me, right now, X is a superior product based on my criteria.
[Oliver Peters] “2. Many “film” editors that you guys like to malign – who are heavy Avid users – also use other software when not at work.”
Yes, but they would rather not, unless you are talking about hobby and home stuff. Having lived through the transition of Softimage|DS to Avid|DS the superior product (see # 1 above), DS, was much maligned by Avid editors because “it wasn’t like an MC and they didn’t want to learn it”. Trust me, I saw it first hand. Suits at Avid picked up on that and let DS wander and die a slow death. Times have changed, for sure, and Avid editors MUST know other platforms (it’s easier that they are all so cheap or free), but the reputation of Avid editors being smug in their comfort zone has some validity (I was one of those “smug” editors and turned my nose up at FCP when it first came out).
Until FCP5 came out, or there about, Avid as a company carried itself with a certain amount of corporate arrogance that translated down to upgrades, pricing and customer service. IMO (which I have stated directly to Avid folks), they felt that they were the only game in town, had Hollywood and you had to pay them to play with them. Whoops, my my, have times changed. Even when X was released (while Avid was losing money quarter after quarter) they went back to “well, if you’re a professional you have to work with us” attitude. Obviously Avid’s definition of professional is limited to their base. If you ignore history it’s bound to repeat itself.
[Oliver Peters] “4. The experience of folks in major markets (like LA or NY) at least, is that jobs where Media Composer is used often paid more than jobs where FCP “legacy” was used. So that would tend to reinforce why someone should stay with Media Composer skills”
If you want to live and work in those markets, which could be considered “niche” when looking at the entire visual storytelling landscape. For example, I would cut my ear off rather than cut reality TV in a major market. That’s just my choice.
[Oliver Peters] “5. Media Composer continues to be dominant in film and TV work because many contracts require Media Composer project files as a deliverable. This includes all working versions and not just the final sequence. So it’s not merely a matter of converting the final sequence and delivering that.”
See above.
[Oliver Peters] “6. FCP X is not easier for young folks nor harder for old folks to pick up on. In the circle of folks I know, it’s more graybeards who are running FCP X than young folks. I see just as many young folks gravitate to Premiere Pro as I do to FCP X. This includes younger editors and college students.”
I see the opposite with the 100 students I teach each year. New students, who have no previous editorial background, pick up X much faster than Legacy. I am two years into teaching X exclusively and it’s just amazing how X makes sense to them where Legacy seemed not to. However, I don’t think it has to do with age, rather the fact that there are no old habits to break. And I see more students breaking towards X versus PP when given the choice, which we do (I do only teach X in the lab, however).
[Oliver Peters] “Speed as an editor is a valued asset by clients. Speed comes in part when the software gets out of the way. This comes through muscle memory and intuitive knowledge of the software. That also makes you a more creative editor. If you are strong at Media Composer – or FCP 7 and Premiere is thus the easiest transition – why should you change to something else, unless it’s costing you business?”
I was fast as hell on EMC too, but switched to Avid when it came along. Why not look outside the box that something that can perhaps make you faster? If you are using MC in a non-broadcast or major market and you don’t have to have certain deliverables (corporate, educational, web-based markets for example), why wouldn’t you look into something else? The attitude of “keep your head in the sand and keep telling yourself MC is better” is on that has been around for a long time and I just don’t get it.
[Oliver Peters] “In the end, it depends on what’s best for your business, your market, your clientele and your own style.”
Agree! This is all you had to say right up front! 🙂
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Oliver Peters] “Do you think you can try to dial the ego down?”
Wow… the irony of that coming from you of all people in the context of this thread is exquisite.
Fine, Oliver. You want to stoop down to the usual ad hominem personal attack level. We’re that desperate I guess. Auguring points that were never made other than by yourself. Shifting the goal posts as you go along. Especially since I’m not even the one using his personal experience exclusively… speaking of ego… posing it as the ultimate yardstick. (the definition of solipsism btw)
There are at least two other trainers here that will say the same when it comes to learning curve. Oh well. I guess it’s up to the individual who he’s going to trust on the matter. But the mere claim that FCP X’s GUI is equally as “daunting” when simply looked at as e.g. Avid’s is, is just simply ludicrous imho. The mere fact that everyone doing nothing BUT looking at it call it “iMovie Pro” makes that notion supremely nonsensical.
Therefore this is clearly not a discussion I need a part of. Sorry if we can’t all be the echo-chamber you are apparently seeking.
I’m actually surprised that various others haven’t already chimed in to drag the level down much earlier. 😀 Must have been the weekend.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Justin Crowell] “but the FCP X version really breaks down where I need to do specific things like take noise prints (for things like crowd noise), remove hums that are fairly broad spectrum, and remove audio problems of shorter duration.”
Considering the exponentially broader spectrum of editors that FCP X caters to compared to others, those tools are more than sufficient for a lot of them, often not having had anything of the sorts before, and certainly nothing so simple. And yes, that’s in fact a good thing. Because they’re still very effective for many situations nonetheless. I don’t see anyone here claiming FCP X to be everything to everyone, especially in terms of audio (which goes for ANY NLE for that matter). To lump in every possible more higher-end and demanding situation where those automatic tools AREN’T sufficient, to then seemingly point to them as some sort of proof how useless they are as a whole, is rather injudicious to say the least. We’re (i.e. I am) talking about beginners here. I excluded the burdened-by-previous-NLE quite clearly, but I’m not surprised others bring them back in to tip the scale in terms of learnability to facilitate their position. 😉
There are still MANY situations where using those one-click-filters (with adjustments) is still a helluva lot better than doing nothing at all. And yes, they’re mainly geared towards those that have no clue what a compressor etc. is or how to use it, not the ones that DO. I see no shame in that. Quite the opposite.
I for one teach the tools and show what they can and can’t do and always tell students to learn where the limitations are and decide for themselves what works for them and what not. Everything else can and will be sent to a DAW accordingly. But they ARE in fact a brilliant entry into basic audio sweetening, since learning what it is those automatic tools actually do (when explained and not just switched on) is a huge help for later audio work. They see, hear and understand the basics of compressors, noise gates, notch filters etc. do, should they prefer to do it themselves more manually. All without the confusion of endless buttons and sliders. But I can even call on those if I want to go that deep, since each is of course available in form of AU filters also. If you’re unable to squeeze useful information out of even the most simple function to both your and your students’ advantage, then you’re clearly doing it wrong and might consider not teaching at all… and apparently that’s the problem some people are having.
I just love the obvious double-standard of some in that some things that can’t be done directly with X (in general) are cherry-picked as an example of how insufficient it is (“You need external apps!”) in comparison to others. But anything that can’t be done well in another or ALL other NLEs, well, that’s fine. Cause, you know, they’re not FCP. In their case it’s suddenly the truly professional way to do things! 😀
– RK
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “I’m sorry, but to say that an NLE that only NOW is starting to support things like 4K and resolution independence (yes, Avid) and has only very recently become 64bit when the others have had both for several years, is equally advanced? Not to mention the months and months it takes for “qualifying” it to most recent OS releases. For ME that has very little to do with innovative, superior or advanced.”
Let’s just get this out of the way: I’m not Avid’s biggest fan. I have written here before about how ridiculous it was that their solution to the problem of hard-coded SD resolutions as HD came around was… hard-coded HD resolutions as 4K was coming around.
But even I’m not sure your criticism of Avid is fair.
1) Avid has maintained unmatched superiority on collaborative workflow for years.
2) Avid’s 64-bitness came later than the others, but it was absolutely seamless. They updated the application in pieces over several releases, re-writing portions to be 64-bit safe, then flipped the 64-bit switch when everything was ready. (Citation: https://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/11/64-bit/)
3) Building on that last point, keeping a common user interface over a period of years doesn’t necessarily indicate old code; it just means that the interface hasn’t changed (which itself may actually require a significant amount of work). Media Composer has undergone major architectural changes in the last few years: Open I/O, AMA, resolution independence. Of course, the interface has actually changed, too, gaining tabs, so that’s another significant architectural change. Taken together, this represents a huge amount of real and valuable under-the-hood work that is superficially dismissed here because Avid’s user-facing conventions have been maintained.
I’m sympathetic to the argument that Avid has shown very little innovation lately, but I think it’s hard to argue that Avid is in no way “superior” or “advanced.”
A final thought on Avid: I know many here consider Media Composer to be a stagnant application, but I think that an Avid editor would view it as a stable platform. Avid provides this to their user base in a way that Adobe does to an extent and Apple does not at all. Perhaps the old-fashioned idea of continuity is innovative in today’s environment after all.
Despite the tired, worn meme of the ossified Avid editor, valuing stability is not the same as fear of change. We do still teach new dogs old tricks, too.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “But even I’m not sure your criticism of Avid is fair. “
I wasn’t belittling the engineering efforts themselves by any means. Nor Avid themselves for that matter. I’m quite aware of the fact that going 64bit in itself was a huge undertaking for many, especially after the deprecation of the Carbon API. Let’s not forget those that in fact killed a or all products just because of it for either a few years if not altogether. In fact making a 64bit version of—who’d have guessed it—FCP itself such an undertaking, that a rebuild from the ground up was necessary. In which case I highly commend the maracas it took to seize the moment to in fact completely rethink everything else from the ground up also. Instead of just slapping the old and worn on top of everything new as a (much!) easy(er) way out.
As I’m sure some will completely disagree with. 🙂
My point was merely that if you are effectively playing catch-up with such essential features and tech for literally years, then you don’t, in my book, qualify as “innovative, superior or advanced” by any stretch of the imagination, as I said. Especially in light of what others did in the same timeframe, and not just Apple. There are other things to be said about Avid without having to result to such—again, imho—overdrawn and misleading comparisons. In which case you, if anything, belittle the achievements of others. I’m sure Avid is a superb NLE… in the meantime. 😛
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up