Real World job on FCPX

[Paul Jay]

In the end it’s about the shots and the story.
FCPX is a great tool. Not a FCP7 Upgrade, but a great new tool.

[Clint Wardlow]

Been wondering whether I should go with FCPX. I am not a pro in the traditional sense, but more of an experimental filmmaker. I do a lot of projections and non-linear narrative (along with more traditional stuff). However, I currently use tracks extensively to layer audio & video and my biggest fear is that the magnetic timeline will limit my ability to control these elements to the degree I want. Now that you have worked on a real project, I thought I would ask: is FCPX flexible enough to edit audio position with the precision I need or does the automatic functions make this unworkable. Now that all the pro&anti FCPX rhetoric has died down a bit, I was hoping maybe you might be able to give me an answer. Whether I stick with FCP or move to Adobe is a big financial decision for someone like me.

[Tom Wolsky]

Can you get to an Apple store? Many of them have it installed now. You should try it.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press

[Clint Wardlow]

That is actually a great idea, Tom. Don’t know why I didn’t think of it before. I have looked at many a tutorial and found them more aimed at traditional linear narrative that didn’t answer my questions. I really didn’t want to sink $399 plus the $499 for automatic duck (I do need the ability to send audio to Pro Tools on occasion). I there is an apple store close by, and maybe they well let me take FCPX for a spin. Thanks again….it is really hard to get straight answers with all the emotions flying around FCPX…especially for someone like me with such non-traditional needs and workflow.

[Rafael Amador]

[Craig RussillRoy] ” i can see Apple are focusing completely on the DSLR/Prosumer market with these tools “
I see Apple focusing on Apple.
[Paul Jay] “In the end it’s about the shots and the story. “
As a video-editor, working for who knows, I don’t give a dam about the shots and the story.
I will have the same shoots to cut and the same story to tell whatever the NLE I use.
I care about working comfortable and with full control on my processes.
Right what i don’t get with FCPX.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Bill Davis]

Just on the “non-traditional workflow” comment…

Nobody seems to know the source, but the “if the tool you’re holding is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail” meme is pretty powerful, IMO.

To me, it speaks to how organized thinkers who learn particular linear process tend to see there world in relation to that process. This is maybe part of why FCP-X has annoyed so very many people so very much.

FCP-X is clearly forcing some people to re-consider some fundamental editing traditions.

The interesting proposition is whether these less “invested” and perhaps more “non-linear” thinkers (please, this is not pejorative – only descriptive in this particular very narrow sense!) who seem to be having a lot easier a time with FCP-X will also be the folks who figure out new ways of doing new things with the new toolset.

After all, this is the original tradition of the first FCP.

It was absolutely not the DigiBeta drivers who were responsible for it’s early success, it was all of the upstart DV folks who kept arguing that 25mbps was fine for a lot of practical video tasks.

In the modern era, the most successful digital video revolutions have been those that percolated “bottom up” rather than dripping “top down.”

Worth considering, anyway.

“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

[Chris Harlan]

[Bill Davis] “In the modern era, the most successful digital video revolutions have been those that percolated “bottom up” rather than dripping “top down.””

That’s probably true, Bill. What you might want to consider, however, is the degree to which FCP X is actually from “the top down,” no matter how hard the marketing department and unrelated boosters tout its revolutionary qualities. About the only thing “bottom up” is the way it works with dslrs; everything else is dictated down. Not being able to mix well just so you don’t have clip collisions ain’t no revolution. In fact, it is the kind of bureaucratic thinking that tends to foster them.

[Scott Sheriff]

[Paul Jay] “In the end it’s about the shots and the story.
FCPX is a great tool. Not a FCP7 Upgrade, but a great new tool.”

Well, not so much.
In the end it’s a business, and it’s about the bottom line, and the folks that control the checkbook. Which is easy for a lot of youtubers to forget since they operate in a vacuum. In the professional world, editors are far removed from the decision making process, and the opinions of EP’s, Producers and Directors carry a lot more weight than an editors. Here’s an example.
I recently finished a long format shoot and post for a national level non-profit. I received the usual phone call from the producer (a national level freelancer) about what camera I have, edit platform etc. In that conversation, the red flag went up when I said I used FCP. With it only moving forward on my assurance that I was not using “the new Final Cut”. Without boring everyone with the minutia of that, and subsequent conversations about the Producers preferences, let me paraphrase some of what she said;
A flashy demo reel is meaningless, since there is often no way of knowing the true origin of the material, or how long the person spent on what is in it, even if it was all done by them.
If you are not using Avid, or Final Cut 6/7, you’re probably an amateur or inexperienced editor.
She knew Avid and Final Cut well enough to keep up with what was going on in the session by watching the timeline, and had no interest in learning a new UI, and could not see any benefit in doing so.
The ability to open legacy projects, and the confidence that the edit platform generate a project that can be opened in the future is of utmost importance. The ability to share the project with other professionals for sweetening, etc, was equally important.
I’ll skip the inflammatory remarks she used in describing the proponents of Final Cut X, but let me say she had a rather low opinion of their skills and judgement, and thought of them more as computer geeks, and less like editors.
As I said, this Producer had the clients checkbook, and was the decision maker on who got what work on this project, as well as others. So if you intend to work in the business in a national, or even semi-national level, where working as part of a team is the norm, and that team is often comprised of others who don’t know you, a lot of ‘first impression’ others have about you as a craftsman is your choice of tools.
Incidentally, this project went to DVD, and not the web. The CEO wanted a tangible to hand out at a meeting, so having DVDSP was also helpful.

Scott Sheriff
Director
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” —Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?

[Mark Dobson]

Scott,

Your producer, like many people, seems to have a lot of uneducated preconceptions about FCP X. does she edit herself? Has she spent time with the programme?

Basically FCP X was probably more than adequate for the job you did for her. Maybe you could have shown her some of the features, maybe you could have turned the job around faster through using the new software?

To catagorise the wide range of editors who are learning to use FCP X as amateur or inexperienced editor is just expressing ignorance.

Bad workmen blame their tools. A craftsman will produce good work using the most basic tools because it’s what’s in your head, the experience you draw on, that’s more important.

Sure there are loads of things that will need to be incorporated into and improved with FCP X, the I/O situation being the most crucial, but it is deceptively complex and certainly up for a wide range of professional work at both
the entry level and at the high end of digital video editing.

But maybe it’s all just about image.

[Chris Harlan]

I don’t know where you located, Mark, but as someone who was part of the push over the last decade to convince Los Angeles producers that FCS was a viable professional tool, I can tell you with confidence that FCP X has done serious damage to that movement. And you know what, I think that is a GOOD thing. After years of being and FCP evangelist, I’m extremely happy that word is out about FCP X’s shortcomings. By the way, the “bad workman” mantra is getting a little tired. Could I make something good with FCP X? Certainly. Thank goodness I don’t have to.