-
Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
-
[Bill Davis] “How would you know? “
I know because as I just detailed in the previous post there is no possible way X could be faster for any editor that needs both tape output and the ability to see time code sync indicators. Since it lacks both of those features completely it has zero, no, nada, null chance of being faster than Legend in my workflow. If it isn’t faster in every regular workflow than by definition it can’t be claimed as being “faster” without the qualification of “in such and such a workflow.”
This is pretty basic reasoning here Bill. I agree that it’s faster in your workflow, it might be faster in many workflows, it’s possible, although I doubt it highly, that it is faster in most workflows, but it definitely ain’t faster in all workflows. And since it isn’t faster in all workflows than making the unqualified statement “X is faster than Legacy” is pure unsubstantiated BS.
What I’ve also said, but your too defensive to get it, is that no software that I’m aware of can lay the claim to being “Faster” than any other unless you specify the exact workflow. I’m not calling out X on this, I’m calling out the idea of anyone labeling any NLE software as generically and absolutely “The Fastest.”
What’s wrong with being happy to say it’s faster than FCP7 for me, or just that it’s lightning fast. Why are you so invested in being “the fastest?” Someone with a psychological bent might be using phrases like “overcompensating” – but I won’t.
[Bill Davis] “Are you hearing “Heck, I took six months working with it regularly until I know how the darn thing really works – and in the end decided it was crap?””
If it’s so fast than how come Jeremy ain’t using it? How come Walter is using PPro? David Lawrence doesn’t use it regularly, is it because he likes to edit slowly? Has Oliver Peters moved his business over to X?
I can’t think of any professorial editor who would struggle with a new program for 6 weeks, let alone 6 months unless he had no other options, and there are plenty of other options. But since ease of use is one of X’s calling cards this shouldn’t be necessary.
[Bill Davis] “By your standard we should have heard from a litany of pros of all stripes who put it through serious paces and have come back to say that the whole experience was just a big waste of time. But that’s kinda NOT what’s happening, is it? “
Yes, there are legions of editors who have tried X and then moved on. Some remarking they’ll come back for a look when it matures, others saying that it would never work for them. They don’t tend to hang out on this forum, but I’ve just described the views of the overwhelming number of editors I have heard from on this subject, admittedly a narrow sample.
Did they give it a serious enough try – well who are you to be the judge of that; do they have to come up to the Bill Davis standard or can they just decide for themselves?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “no seriously jeremy – I do actually think a structured exposed finder backend for third parties outside the editor is a thing, if a hack – you guys probably have a default folder asset system right? if you were trucking FCP? It just comes up so often? “
I guess I see it differently.
As an anecdote, FCPX offers similar functionality, but in many ways it is “better”, or should I say, will be better, at least in my silly opinion. Of course, the jury is still out on the reliability of FCPX for some people, but you can import folders as Keyword collections similar to importing a folder as a bin in FCP Legend. We won’t even get in to the useful and user selectable symbolic link method that FCPX employs, and also some pretty decent, albeit rudimentary media management options that are already better than FCP7s Media Manager in some ways.
Anyway, yes, we employ a loose organizational structure. It could vary from project to project (hence the term “loose” as it changes because our projects are shot on a wide variety of media), and it takes human interaction and thought, especially when it comes time to ingest, and then archive. P2 is handled differently than R3D which is handled differently than AVCHD which is handled differently then DSLR which is handled differently than Arri Alexa which is handled differently than tape which is handled differently than user created animations/gfx. All of those format require different hand holding, XML jockeying at points, differing interfaces, and various states of native support in FCP7 which means tracking multiple versions of offline files, color corrected files, RAW files, camera original, and proxies. All of those have differing camera metadata varieties too, and none of them sync or match, mostly because they vary wildly in implementation, and in the case of RAW workflows, the metadata controls much more than some fancy logging varietals.
In short, it’s a f*cking mess if you aren’t really careful or have some semblance of a workflow setup.
What I think is a strength of FCP7 is that even though it took longer, it often forces you to organize while transcoding/ingest as you have to transcode most materials first before you can even view them in FCP or the Finder. But of course, you have to actually take the time to do this organizing. And it does take time as FCP7 doesn’t have a really great way of selecting, say, 150 clips and renaming all of them in succession once they are tucked away in their dutifully organized bins**.
If you capture from tape and are a kind and caring person and actually give a crap about the welfare of the work/life balance of the people sitting around you, you will diligently log and capture a tape and make sure you catch any tc breaks, rather than rip in a whole tape and hope for the best on a recapture.
In an earlier post, I said the selects reels were just about the “only” if not “best” way to have easy access to a load of related material to quickly buzz through if you need to, and this was partly because that’s how FCP7 works. If there was a way to achieve this easily in the Browser, we would probably do it in the Browser, alas, it’s not available, so making selects sequences is what a lot of editors that I know, and surprisingly it seems, many editors on the cow do as well. At least, that’s what it I have picked up at the cow after reading zillions of posts from fellow professionals.
So, your example of “the finder is the organization” is, I feel, another example of how FCP7 works the best, but it’s not necessarily by design. It’s that easy. I don’t know if it was intentional, or if it’s just the way it shook out after people learned FCP7. Avid certainly employs another method (let’s not forget, Avid is always touted for having rock solid media management), Adobe, another method still (shotty media management), Autodesk Smoke yet another (also good media management).
With todays tapeless formats, and tomorrows tapeless formats, and the elusive Cloud that is coming to hang over all of our heads, the Finder as file organizer is about to get blown to bits in a shower of fireworks. Someday relatively soon, there won’t even be a Finder.
I don’t know if you use Google Apps at all, but if you want to see a potential cloud future and what autosave is SUPPOSED to be like, and what true and direct collaboration on one singular “document” is MIGHT work, have a look at Google Apps, and then multiply the bandwidth it takes to run it by 1000x, and you will see the future of editing, not only that, but of computing in general. It will take a while, but it will get there.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “say when you want to check assets for a previous project or whatever – specifically within GFX renders, scripts, PSDs, audio tracks, clean plates that fcp sent, dated draft edits to get a notion, VO for the most recent, FC server didn’t even do some of this stuff as well I think.”
At this point, and I’m sure everyone does this but we have to be very careful on naming the containers our VO/GFX/Plates/all the things you mention. We have to make folders. Sometimes they are dated folders, sometimes, we simply version files (v1 or v158). Mostly, though, we use the FCP project as it is the most concise, and we can go to the “final” timeline and see exactly what was used as sometimes v154 was what made it in the show when the latest v158 didn’t, because the Finder won’t tell us that but the FCP database will. Even if the footage is offline, it doesn’t matter, we can still see what was used.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “It’s not legend, but it’s certainly usable working practise?”
The Legend of FCP Legend.
In my mind it is a bit of legend that FCP is good at this sort of thing (really it is the humans that have to be mindful and good at it), and it will also turn in to a tale of FCP Legend that FCP actually had decent media handling and management.
Jeremy
**Sidenote, to Paul Dickin, it’s great trying to keep that “first impression” viewing in your film analogy, but I have projects that have been going on for 1.5 years, and our client seems to work in fits and starts. We will work like mad for a week or so, then sit for two months, work for two weeks then sit for three moths. After those long sit and wait times, I have worked on countless other projects and slogged through many many other files and frames. My first impression is gone, I need extremely thorough organization, and I also a need a way to quickly look at footage. The timeline selects reels have been invaluable in that project. Perhaps I’m not a worthy editor because I can’t hang on to the nuance of every frame from 1.5 years ago, but it seems to work. If all I was doing was working on one movie, and all of the footage was already shot by the time I started editing, you method makes a lot of sense.
-
[Herb Sevush] “I know because as I just detailed in the previous post there is no possible way X could be faster for any editor that needs both tape output and the ability to see time code sync indicators. Since it lacks both of those features completely it has zero, no, nada, null chance of being faster than Legend in my workflow. If it isn’t faster in every regular workflow than by definition it can’t be claimed as being “faster” without the qualification of “in such and such a workflow.””
Ok. Now I get it.
Guy A. “That Lamborgini over there. It’s not faster than the Rolls. ”
Guy B. “Huh?”
Guy A. “Really, i tested it myself and it’s no faster.”
Guy B. “But I watched you do the test. You never drove over 30 mph – and only in a straight line – and you made 15 stops between the starting line and the finish line – and you delivered MAIL at each stop and some of those mail deliveries took more time when you were driving the Lambo compared to the Bentley!!!”
Guy A. “Well, that’s my “workflow” and the Bentley was faster.”
Guy B. (shakes his head and walks away.)[Herb Sevush] “Why are you so invested in being “the fastest?” Someone with a psychological bent might be using phrases like “overcompensating” – but I won’t. “
I’ll see your “overcompensation” and raise you an “anxiety disorder” – seems to me that some here just can’t deal with the fact that there’s a new tool to deal with the fact that the editing industry is changing away from some of the kinds of traditional workflows you’re invested in – and new ones are appearing that are better suited for the kind of work that the market seems to increasingly value.
(I guess we agree on one thing … there’s nothing more fun than engaging in “psychological analysis done by abjectly unqualified guys like us, huh!)
[Herb Sevush] “If it’s so fast than how come Jeremy ain’t using it? How come Walter is using PPro? David Lawrence doesn’t use it regularly, is it because he likes to edit slowly? Has Oliver Peters moved his business over to X?
“Real answer? OK. They don’t use it because it doesn’t currently fit what they need. BUT each of them is keeping an extremely close eye on it aren’t they?. Investing HUGE amounts of time looking at it, discussing it here, and debating it’s strengths and weaknesses. Only D. Lawrence, AFAIK has picked an alternative solution and has largely stopped exploring X. But even HE keeps an eye over here and pops up to comment. Why, I wonder? The truth is that every single one of editors you mention, are keeping an EAGLE eye on it – which includes regularly using and exploring it. And the rest of YOU guys – even the ones who keep trashing it – STILL come back here nearly daily. Why? If their examinations had uncovered it as “useless” wouldn’t they all have just moved on? Wouldn’t YOU have?
And yet here everyone is. Including you. Why do you think that is if X isn’t worthy of professional editing notice?
(want to go on, but I’m on deadline… drat)
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Bill Davis] “Real answer? OK. They don’t use it because it doesn’t currently fit what they need.”
The basic definition of not only ain’t it faster, I can’t even use it.
[Bill Davis] “Why do you think that is if X isn’t worthy of professional editing notice?”
Do you understand that the statement “you can’t substantiate a claim to being faster” does not inevitably lead to”it’s not worthy of professional editing notice”? Apparently not.
[Bill Davis] “new ones (editing tools)are appearing that are better suited for the kind of work that the market seems to increasingly value.”
My market doesn’t increasingly value the kind of work that you are so proud of talking about, my market is broadcast TV, and as I turn the channels I haven’t noticed any of them going dark yet.
[Bill Davis] “And the rest of YOU guys – even the ones who keep trashing it – STILL come back here nearly daily. Why?”
I need the eggs.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
I know we have sang Kumbaya and all, but I did want to revisit this for a moment.
[Bill Davis] ” Are you hearing “Heck, I took six months working with it regularly until I know how the darn thing really works – and in the end decided it was crap?””
Brooks Tomlinson
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/39665Neil Goodman
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/40440Not trying to be petty about this, but here are 2 cases in the last 3 weeks. Neither one says X is crap, nobody is saying it’s unprofessional, nobody is saying anyone who uses it is an idiot, but after giving it a serious look neither one is using it. So yes there are editors who have taken a serious look and said “it’s not for me.”
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to scare you away with that long post, Aindreas.
I understand, it was long and boring.
However, I will keep that theme going.
Here’s a post about what I DO like about FCPX’s management. It needs work, it needs refinement, but if I can step away for a second, look at the big picture and the big ideas, keep in mind that this won’t get real good until about v2.5, they aren’t so bad, and actually, these ideas are decently good. I do think it’s important, whether we like it or not, as we are well on the way to a data driven architecture, and so far, FCPX is leading the charge at least in what would be my limited view. I personally like it as I will find it useful for our business. Others, I’m sure, won’t find it useful as they have no use for it, or disagree with the methods.
FCPX is almost making drive location irrelevant, and when I say this, I have had the luxury to look at what a “San Location” is. Basically, you tell FCPX where the database is, and FCPX handles the rest. This means you can mount multiple databases and whatever drive level and store them where you want. It also means that I don’t have to relink anything, I simply mount the database from within FCPX, and FCPX takes care of the rest. I can store the media separate from the database if I want to, or I can bring it in to the database location. To move an entire edit to a new location, we can use the FCPX application (and not track down something in the Finder with all of it’s disparate parts), if someone wants to look at what I’ve done, I dismount, the other persons remounts, and off they go. If I want to move this to another drive, I send it over to a drive in a “Final Cut Events” folder, and that person opens FCPX. There’s no relinking, there’s no “Where are my files???”, there’s no confusion. For collaborative and sharing workflows, or moving edits to other machines/drives, FCPX is getting there, and is “better” than other options in my opinion.
In the Project LIbrary, I can make multiple folders. When I make multiple folders, that structure is mirrored in the Final Cut Projects folder, making tracking the organization easy for archive/relocation. Here’s pics:
Project Library:
Finder:
If I change any of the Folder names in FCPX, they are changed in the Finder, I don’t have to touch anything.
You can also part out different sections. Need to send a few files? Make a new Event, copy the files in to it from your current Event, and send that folder that’s in your Finder that’s named after the Event. Alternatively, you can take a Project (or timeline, or cut, whatever you want to call it) and send it to another drive using a command to ‘send only the used (but not trimmed) clips’. This will create a new and separate Event and Project on the destination drive in tidy little self contained packets. You carry that drive to another machine, or ship it to a colleague, or bring it to a finishing studio, plug it in, and launch FCPX. Again, no relinking, no fuss, no warnings about missing media, it just shows up in the application.
All of this represents good thinking to me. It is not oversight.
Yes, timeline mechanics needs work, yes, there’s some real live performance issues, yes, FCPX needs time to mature, yes, Apple blew up the exalted FCP7 foundation, but they have also created something brand new in the process, and the start of this style of media management is pretty decent and useful. Media management, in my opinion, is the hardest to get change and get right. Our editing lives in terms of the sheer amount of differing tapeless standards and formats is not getting any easier. FCPX has a pretty decent backbone already, and I hope that Apple stays focused and makes it even better. Not to mention, you can create proxies and high quality versions of the media at any time and flip a switch to access one or the other and nothing is lost, stolen, or broken along the way.
I’ve always said that I have been looking for “better” and not necessarily “faster”. To me, better actually has a meaning something and if speed comes along as a result, that’s great. So far, this database style of thinking seems like it might have a chance of being better, at least for me. Everyone’s mileage will certainly vary.
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Here’s a post about what I DO like about FCPX’s management. It needs work, it needs refinement, but if I can step away for a second, look at the big picture and the big ideas, keep in mind that this won’t get real good until about v2.5, they aren’t so bad, and actually, these ideas are decently good. “
Great post Jeremy, thank you.
FCPX has so many good ideas. Especially in media management and organization. I wish the “Anchored Timeline” paradigm wasn’t a deal-killer for me but unless and until it gets much better, I have to pass.
Maybe by v2.5…
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “Great post Jeremy, thank you.”
No, thank you! I wrote in a hurry and left the building, sorry for the messy writing.
[David Lawrence] ” I wish the “Anchored Timeline” paradigm wasn’t a deal-killer for me but unless and until it gets much better, I have to pass. “
Certainly the biggest point of contention, and certainly an area that certainly needs the most work.
I’m not against the anchored timeline, it just needs more time and attention.
Yesterday, I was trying to select everything in an audio role. It’s possible to do, and actually really awesome as I could manipulate everything in that Role at once in the inspector, but it takes many more steps than seems necessary to get there.
Jeremy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up