-
Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
-
[Herb Sevush] “Ah yes, the chart. Now I understand. Apparently it is faster. My bad.
“I have taken Herbs comments into account and I have updated the chart
Steve Connor
“The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel”
Adrenalin Television -
[Walter Soyka] “Whether you’re a Frederick Winslow Taylor and Frank Gilbreth fan or not, time and motion study demonstrably improved productivity, and FCPX’s small improvements to commonly-performed functions should result in overall time savings.”
The difference is that editing is not an assembly line process, where physical activities are reproduced over and over again at very quick intervals. Under assembly line conditions, these small improvements do add up to something significant. But in editing most of the time spent “goign thru tons of footage” is spent watching the footage – quickly where it’s obviously NG, but at near real time when you’re evaluating. The percentage of time saving, if at all, by adding a click here or there is often beneath effective notice in these type of situations. Any system that can smoothly show you the material at high speed and then immediately slow down to near real time speed will work just about as well as another. If you tell me that one system will allow me to evaluate the material at 10x speed, then now you’ve got something. If you show me a system that doesn’t require you to mark in and outs but can read your thoughts, then now you’ve got something. Otherwise the statement that one system “is simply” the fastest seems specious.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Was there “backlash” in my post?”
I’m talking about the general disdain for those who feel betrayed starting on June 21, 2011. You know, the backlash of fcpx’s design choices that have been the foundation of this forum.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I was trying to articulate an underlying design approach – quite beyond semantics. Are you suggesting there is no difference, or that my characterization was wrong? Your post seems to confirm that FCPX is designed around what I’m calling “clip-based” editing. Or I’m misinterpreting your post.”
I’m not saying you’re wrong. There is a difference in how it looks and operates, but if we break it down to what it is, making selects and arraging them in order for viewing, FCPX does the same thing, you just don’t HAVE to use a sequence to string a large amount of selects together, although you can.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I could introduce you to Avid and FCP editors who “sort a mass of selects” in bins every day.”
Oh yeah? And how would you do that and view them from the bin? You can’t, you have to double click each clip in the viewer and watch them separately, or lay them all in a sequence and watch them as a string out. I’m talking FCP here, Avid has different methodologies.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I don’t work that way, though.”
And if you have been following closely, a lot of FCP editors make selects sequences. I feel this is not by mistake, it’s because it’s really how FCP7 works the best. I am sure you will give me shit about it, but I would go so far as to say that really, it’s how it was designed, perhaps more accurately, it’s how to do what you need to do within the limits of the FPC7 bin structure design. The only way to get a birds eye view of all of your selects in one playable selection is to string them out in a sequence. Are we not in agreement here?
FCPX offers more ways, mostly through skimming, which is what this subthread is about. This stemmed from going through 10 hours of footage with 3 hours to edit from 6-9AM after who knows how little sleep, direction, and a wad of general charsima.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “[Jeremy Garchow] “You simply cannot do this in FCP7 without stringing everything out in a sequence and then double clicking that sequence or moving back to that tab, then finding what you want, copy, move back to the other tab, paste, rinse repeat”
I’m not sure what you’re doing here, but this isn’t the way I work. But if it works for you …
“
You yourself said that you’re a sequence editor. Do you not string out selects on a sequence? if not I am misunderstanding this:
[Franz Bieberkopf] “One of my (many) realizations over the past year in this forum has been realizing the difference between what I call “sequence-based” editing practice versus what I call call “clip-based” editing practice.
Those names may not be the best way of delineating them, but I think you understand what I mean.
I am very much a sequence-based editor and FCPX looks to me designed around clip-based editing. (Not to say it can’t be used as a sequence-based editor, just that it was designed around a different practice.)”
What I am saying above is that I use a sequence to make selects, then I have an “edit” sequence, and I copy and paste from my selects “sequences” to the “edit” sequence. Are you saying you don’t work that way or that it doesn’t work for some reason? If you don’t, then what do you mean by a sequence editor?
-
[Steve Connor] “I have taken Herbs comments into account and I have updated the chart”
It just keeps getting better and better, and by better, I mean more accurate.
Good show. Submit it to Google for further data analysis.
-
[Walter Soyka] “From my perspective, the advantage of the skimmer is not in the mechanics of preparing selects; it’s in shuttling through your selects while you’re working, looking for that specific moment that you remember seeing in the footage.”
This entire sub thread is based on Steve’s assertion about X’s superiority in preparing selects.
Walter I believe you when you say that the skimmer gives better feedback when searching thru material – I don’t understand it, but I figure it’s something I will have to try for myself to get. And I’m also quite interested in a lot of what Jeremy has to say about the many interesting attributes of X when it comes to searching for clips. If I ever try to work with X I will be quite disappointed if he hasn’t written a tutorial by that time.
For me X will get a thorough look at when they come up with a time-code sync indicator that is in some way similar to Legend. This is now the last deal breaker for me and keeps me from evaluating PPro more thoroughly as well.
However it still irks me when people make unsubstantiated absolutest statements, whether it was Jerry Hoffman last week or Steve today.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
It should be stated that “in your opinion, or your experience, or from your point of view, etc … no Cheetah’s were harmed” before I would approve this revision.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “However it still irks me”
Sometimes it’s fun to be irksome
Steve Connor
“The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel”
Adrenalin Television -
[Jeremy Garchow] “… you just don’t HAVE to use a sequence to string a large amount of selects together …”
[Jeremy Garchow] “… or lay them all in a sequence and watch them as a string out.”
[Jeremy Garchow] “… all of your selects in one playable selection is to string them out in a sequence.”
Jeremy,
The difference here being that, as far as I can tell, what I’m calling “clip based” editors don’t want “one playable selection”. They seem to use clips, subclips, and sometimes sequences in bins to organize. I don’t work that way so I can’t say much about it. I’ve seen it a lot, though never really discussed in detail their practices.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I copy and paste from my selects “sequences” to the “edit” sequence.”
While I do use copy and paste, it really isn’t the main tool. Generally I’m reducing from a raw sequence to selects, and the selects (duplicated) form the basis of the assembly (meaning a duplicate sequence). While this may involve copying and pasting all material from a few selects sequences to begin an assembly sequence (ie 3 or 4 select sequences for the basis of one assembly), generally all work is done within one sequence. I’m not really moving around tabs or double clicking a lot once I’ve started. It sounds like you move between sequences a lot, thus more tab clicking and double-clicking, as well as more copy and paste operations.
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Generally I’m reducing from a raw sequence to selects, and the selects (duplicated) form the basis of the assembly (meaning a duplicate sequence). While this may involve copying and pasting all material from a few selects sequences to begin an assembly sequence (ie 3 or 4 select sequences for the basis of one assembly), generally all work is done within one sequence. I’m not really moving around tabs or double clicking a lot once I’ve started. “
That is exactly the way I work as well. The multiple timelines are a history of the process, but I’m generally staying within the timeline I’m working on when actually cutting. Master assembly, refine, duplicate, assembly 2, refine duplicate, rough 3 refine duplicate – till your done. Occasionally I go back to an earlier timeline, and it’s a good habit to review the master assembly before you finalize the job, but mostly it’s like whittling away to reveal the final sequence.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “While I do use copy and paste, it really isn’t the main tool. Generally I’m reducing from a raw sequence to selects, and the selects (duplicated) form the basis of the assembly (meaning a duplicate sequence). While this may involve copying and pasting all material from a few selects sequences to begin an assembly sequence (ie 3 or 4 select sequences for the basis of one assembly), generally all work is done within one sequence. I’m not really moving around tabs or double clicking a lot once I’ve started. It sounds like you move between sequences a lot, thus more tab clicking and double-clicking, as well as more copy and paste operations.”
I see. Yes, we work differently as our projects are probably different.
I am a stickler for organization. We share projects between multiple users and the best way to do this is to stay very organized. There’s nothing worse than receiving someone else’s project and you can’t find anything due to shotty organization.
When I have projects with lots of footage, I make bins of selects. Then, I usually make a sequence for each bin and string out all of those clips for that bin. I then copy and paste from the selects sequences to the main “edit” sequence which will eventually become the finished sequence. Depending on the project, this means I can have a lot of sequences open at any given time.
FCPX does this for me with much less clicking, with greater speed, and I don’t have to constantly switch back and forth between sequences.
That’s why I like it, and why I like skimming. It is actually helpful and a step forward to how I was already using FCP7. I can then combine all of this with FCPX’s other organization methods (smart collections, keywords, et al) and it’s very tidy, very fast, and also very organized.
Now, let’s say that I can’t quite remember where I put something, or can’t remember what I tagged it.
I can select the Event and simply skim every last bit of media that is in the Event from top to bottom, extremely quickly and easily without having to double click multiple clips, without having to search multiple sequences. I simply skim.
To me, it is the best of both worlds. It allows for accurate searching, and it also allows for visual footage discovery without the database feel.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up