-
Olympics Editing (not FCP-X)
-
[Walter Soyka] “Search … Evaluate … Reduce … Cut.”
Walter,
I think part of the issue is that the process is quite varied. What you’ve described strikes me more as “clip-based” approach. I wouldn’t describe my process that way. Something like “Screen & Select, Assemble, Structure” might be closer but I’d have to give it more thought.
[Walter Soyka] “How can we legitimately talk about speed?”
… echoes by Herb and myself below. Speed means many things in terms of NLE.
Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] ”
Essentially, if you’re trying to decide how good competing brands of cars are – don’t you give slightly more weight to the opinions of those who have driven BOTH?”Bill,
Do you know of good comparisons between X, PPro, and Avid?
Did you do your comparison before deciding?
Franz.
-
[Steve Connor] “… get through…”
… meaning?
Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] “Essentially, if you’re trying to decide how good competing brands of cars are – don’t you give slightly more weight to the opinions of those who have driven BOTH? “
The problem with that argument is that if you think something sucks your not going to try it for long enough to satisfy your definition of competency. There are many qualified editors who have tried X and think it’s shit. Your argument is that they haven’t tried it enough. Their argument is that shit is shit.
I’m the most neutral observer you can find. I’ve never tried X and openly admit I have no working knowledge of it. I merely ask that if someone makes extravagant claims that they back it up with some specific info. Walter and Jeremy have done that in a way that makes me more interested in exploring X when it’s ready for my workflow. That all I ask, if your going to make a claim, explain the reasoning.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “[Steve Connor] “… get through…”
… meaning?”
View, evaluate etc
Steve Connor
“The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel”
Adrenalin Television -
Steve,
“The skimmer is simply the fastest way to view and evaluate (etc.) lots of footage on any NLE that exists today”
So that’s your claim? You can view and evaluate footage faster.
I’m with Herb. Colour me sceptical.
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I find these kinds of posts much more interesting and constructive than claims of “fastest NLE”.”
I think “fast” is very hard to define as it means different things to different people, you are absolutely right.
I find the recent barefeats benchmarks to be some of the most confusing lists to date. It doesn’t add up and frankly It’s not the kind of speed I necessarily need. If I was rendering 5k 3D, I know what I would need, it’s easy to pick the newest, fastest, most plentifully cored/GPUd, expensive processor from a list and say, “Load it up gobs of RAM and ship me that one”.
CS6 is much faster, processing wise, than FCP7 in my trials, but there are other things, organization being one of them, that feel much slower. Can I measure that speed? i don’t know, and I’m not sure if it matters on a benchmark. If it breaks my creativity, it’s slower, even if it’s technically moving faster. It’s not the fault of Pr CS6, it’s probably that I want it to do things that it doesn’t do currently.
Fast, to me, is being able quickly tag/rename/organize large selections of footage so I can get to editing quickly.
Fast to me is being able to try all kinds of creative decisions without having to pick apart autoselects and track assignments and clip collisions. I dealt with it in FCP7 and I know my way around very well, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best design. It doesn’t mean that FCPX is better either, but it is different and does address some of the shortcomings of FCP7 (and of course, there are many shortcomings in X). I like being able to rough in things with minimal hurt to the “edit” timeline and refine, refine, refine as I go. I find the grouping and connections in X allow a lot of exploring with minimal hurt. Ironically, refining is currently more challenging and it mostly has to do with audio capabilities for me.
Like you and Herb (and probably many editors), I start very broad.
Fast, to me, is organization of creativity, and X is looking very good to me from that stand point. It needs a bit of mechanics refinement and some technical features, no doubt about that, but I personally like where it’s starting from, but I’m sure my needs are different from everyone else.
-
[Bill Davis] “Essentially, if you’re trying to decide how good competing brands of cars are – don’t you give slightly more weight to the opinions of those who have driven BOTH?
“Clearly not
Steve Connor
“The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel”
Adrenalin Television -
[Jeremy Garchow] ” but I’m sure my needs are different from everyone else.”
The one thing you can count on is that every editor’s needs are different from everyone else.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I think part of the issue is that the process is quite varied. What you’ve described strikes me more as “clip-based” approach. I wouldn’t describe my process that way. Something like “Screen & Select, Assemble, Structure” might be closer but I’d have to give it more thought.”
Agreed that there are different processes, and the flow I laid out as written is biased toward assembly, so please allow me to take a step back.
I think that underlying editorial mechanics are fundamentally the same, no matter what the process may be: reviewing footage in isolation, making new edits, reviewing footage in the context of an edit or series of edits, and modifying existing edits. Different processes may order or prioritize these mechanics differently, but I don’t think you can edit without reviewing and cutting.
The skimmer is purely mechanical; it doesn’t impose a particular editorial philosophy like I’ve argued the magnetic timeline does. I think its benefits are visible across different processes, since it comes into play every time review occurs.
I think that Steve’s claim rests on two assumptions: that constant footage and edit review is fundamental to editorial, and that the skimmer offers improvements over other tools for review.
Do you disagree with the logic (perhaps I’ve left something out) or the assumptions (perhaps you think the skimmer is overrated)?
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
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up