-
Thank you Apple – and don’t change course. Please
-
[Oliver Peters] “1. Two primary storyline clips, each with a connected clip attached. P1 with C1, P2 with C2. Now, swap the P1 and P2 clips with each other WITHOUT swapping the order of the connected clips. So P2 with C1 and P1 with C2. This would require 1 keystroke with a modifier in most NLEs. It takes 3 or 4 with X and the exact locations of where C1 and C2 end up are very imprecise.
“Isn’t this precisely what Auditions is built to enable? Build P1 with C1 and C2 in Auditions – do the same with P2. Arrange and re-arrange magnetically as you like, and pick your Cutaway. What’s the problem?
[Oliver Peters] “2. When you have a nice, tighly organized timeline and the client asks you to “open it all up a bit”, letting it be longer. This is reasonably easy with asymmetrical trimming in most NLEs. In X you end up adjusting primary storyline clips, often have to change connecting points and adjust each and every connecting clip.
“Not sure I’m understanding this second point either Re-trimming the clips in the precision editor to new lengths seems like all you’d need to do – and magnetism keeps the connected clip relationships intact globally.
I must not be understanding what you’re trying to do that X makes unnecessarily difficult.
(But maybe that says more about my lack of understanding of your issues than anything else! ; )
“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] “Geez, dude. Your slip may not be, but you’re arrogance is showing.”
What? Because I went to film school? Because I edit for a living? Because I engage in continued education?
[Bill Davis] “In your world the only editor worth listening to is one who can drop by an AFI “new media convergence seminar” at the drop of a hat. Or for whom unionization is a functional issue. “
THAT conclusion is completely in your head, not from anything I said. I can’t even figure out how you’ve arrived at it. And, yeah, film and television production is one of our local industries? Is that somehow a problem for you?
[Bill Davis] “News flash. Over the globe, that’s a fraction of a fraction of the people who edit for money. Some for a LOT of money.”
Yeah, but News Flash, pal. YOU were the one who was talking about the broadcast industry. You brought it up. So don’t get all “news flash” when all I’m doing is responding to you. Maybe YOU should stop fixating on it so much.
[Bill Davis] “And for sure, let’s not tell the poor folks outside LA, NY, Chicago, and London that they’re just dismissible rubes – might make them feel like their editing isn’t REAL editing, okay?
“Again–totally out of context, and completely unfair, like many of your posts. That’s horrible cr@p to put in my mouth, and doesn’t reflect anything that I’ve said. Now or ever on this site.
[Bill Davis] “Well Chris, if you’re correct and what’s happening in editing is “just ain’t that special” – then this whole forum is a waste of time. Isn’t it.
“Again, no relation to what I was talking about or what I said. This forum has been very useful to me and a lot of other people. I was simply addressing the fact the you seem rather convinced that FCP X has some sort of secret sauce for the next generation of editors, and that I don’t see it. It’s FCP X that “ain’t that special,” not what’s happening in editing.
[Bill Davis] “We’ve spent a year talking about what X and it’s competitors strategies might be for the future -and what that might mean to ALL editors. Not just those who have Broadcast Engineering sitting on the coffee table in the waiting room of their stand-alone production building.
“I don’t even know what this means, or what it has to do with me. Again, YOU broached the subject.
[Bill Davis] “You actually amaze me with your single-minded focus that all “worthwhile” editing must be what’s done by people just like you.
“Again, your projection from your head. You don’t have to look any further than this actual thread to find evidence that your assessment of me isn’t true. Just read my earlier response to Carsten, and you’ll see how completely out of line you are.
[Bill Davis] “And screw the poor saps working everywhere else. Anything that meets their needs, but not yours is crap. I get it now.”
Wow. I think what’s particularly funny about your method, is that you have no compunction what-so-ever about making statements up and attributing them to me. That way I don’t actually have to say something you loathe, you can just put the words in my mouth and growl away at me.
[Bill Davis] “I’ll get right to work on a new T-shirt for you. “If you don’t cut in LA, you don’t really count.’
I’m sure you’ll wear it with tremendous pride.
“Oh, dude; go to bed.
-
[Chris Harlan] “[Bill Davis] “Geez, dude. Your slip may not be, but you’re arrogance is showing.”
What? Because I went to film school? Because I edit for a living? Because I engage in continued education?
“No, because you have a single focus and point of view in these discussions. You purport to represent the “hollywood industrial view” and you do so consistently and clearly by your own writing.
You’re the one who invoked AFI seminars and unionization as part of your foundational construct of what constitutes “professional” editing. You used that as a bit of a cudgel to try to make my initial post seem like it was coming from someone who didn’t “get” the fact that what I’m arguing for is already so widely incorporated in global editing that X’s propagation of it in a low priced tool is dismissible.
I think you’re dead wrong in that assessment and it’s evidence that you’re out of touch with other editing requirements that don’t dovetail with your parochial experience in Hollywood.
So it’s completely fair for me to point out that your thinking might be every bit as skewed as the thinking of someone like me who isn’t saddled with the “industry town” mindset that you espouse.
I’m suggesting readers here consider how new tools like FCP-X might impact an editor who works in the larger arena. You’re often trashing it as “not a big deal” largely because you elevate workflows in which it doesn’t excel (primarily precisely those large company workflows that hollywood values) and thereby skewing the discussion away form what may well be more universal concerns for working editors in a larger and more ecumenical pool.
I believe that’s a completely fair criticism of your posts above.
The readership here will determine for themselves whether my points are valid and whether their experiences better match mine or yours.
Simple as that.
BTW, I wasn’t lucky enough to do the film school thing. We hicks out her in Arizona were lucky to get “Radio and Television Broadcasting” in College. So I got sucked into Radio to start my career. But I can likely go toe to toe with you in aggregate hours in the editors chair and “continuing education” in the modern era must be a push since nobody survives without it on the planet as fast as things move today.
Heck, without “continuing education” I likely wouldn’t be in the Techniques forum so much trying to help other understand how to operate many of the functions of X they have trouble grasping. So I suppose while I don’t have someone tracking my CE credits, I’m doing just fine in that area too!
I only point this out as part of the larger theme that just because you’re in Hollywood, don’t think there’s not some editor in Cleveland who, without the benefits you enjoy of the seat in the “company town” surrounding you – might still be every bit as skilled an editor of the two of us combined.
And if the next editor gets there via X, instead of Legacy, PPro or a Steenbeck, so what?
That’s the real point of all this.
“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
-
https://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL2135/12119137/22241745/368720116.jpg
seriously – he just snaffled the equivalent of a pastrami reuben and a slice of cake.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Bill Davis] “Isn’t this precisely what Auditions is built to enable? Build P1 with C1 and C2 in Auditions – do the same with P2. Arrange and re-arrange magnetically as you like, and pick your Cutaway. What’s the problem?”
I agree this works, but the issue is that I’m trying to make one simple edit change in the fewest number of keystrokes. Doing this with Auditions now adds considerably more moves than even the example I cited. And Auditions only makes sense when you know you are going to have to present options in the first place. Not always the case when responding to the client over your shoulder.
[Bill Davis] “Re-trimming the clips in the precision editor to new lengths seems like all you’d need to do – and magnetism keeps the connected clip relationships intact globally.”
This is still more moves than asymmetrical trimming would involve. But let’s look at another variation. Your suggestion is absolutely correct when everything was built on the primary storyline with connected clips. However, as we’ve discussed in various threads, that’s not always ideal. For example on a current project, my primary storyline is mainly a gap with a composite VO as a connected clip and then picture edits as a secondary storyline connected at the head. Making rather simple “opening up” changes in 7 becomes a real exercise in editing gymnastics in X with this type of build.
My real concern is not whether it can be done – rather, that quite a few simple functions actually take more steps. In my example above, I feel I approached the edit in the “wrong” tactical manner. This is the only NLE I can think of where you really have to think tactically about how you even start the edit. Should I start by editing to the primary storyline or connect clips to a placeholder gap? Making the wrong choice at the beginning complicates your life later on. That’s never been the case with a “standard” track-based NLE. With tracks, you can simply toss it on the timeline and re-arrange as needed. A clip on V1 does not inherently have different properties and behaviors than a clip on V2.
[Bill Davis] “(But maybe that says more about my lack of understanding of your issues than anything else! ; )”
No problem. We’re only hashing out ways to try to make this thing work 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Pure white noise Bill…not one word relates to me. At all. And I find your post complete rot. In fact, I don’t think you have actually read (or understood) a thing I wrote and have gone totally off the rails. But it isn’t the first time
-
[Bill Davis] “No, because you have a single focus and point of view in these discussions. You purport to represent the “hollywood industrial view” and you do so consistently and clearly by your own writing.
“That’s a lie, Bill. The only thing I’ve ever purported to represent is my own personal work experience. I’ve never claimed to represent anybody’s pov other than the people I work with or talk to. You do the exact same thing, in fact far more so than I do. Aren’t you always cutting something in some client’s lobby.
[Bill Davis] “You’re the one who invoked AFI seminars and unionization as part of your foundational construct of what constitutes “professional” editing.”
Are you crazy? Are you drunk? How did you even get to that? Invoked? Foundational construct? How is mentioning AFI or the fact that two nasty labor disputes were centered on digital/Internet delivery issues of any significance? Is it name-dropping to you? Well, you just spent weeks detailing your experiences at NAB. What is it that makes you able to throw that name around?
[Bill Davis] “You used that as a bit of a cudgel to try to make my initial post seem like it was coming from someone who didn’t “get” the fact that what I’m arguing for is already so widely incorporated in global editing that X’s propagation of it in a low priced tool is dismissible.”
Again, huh? You were going on about “elephant’s in the room,” and “studios” and “broadcast.” I was simply making the point that is was NOT an elephant in the room, and hasn’t been for a long time. As far as YOU accusing me of accusing someone of not getting it, that’s got to be the biggest joke of the week. I know of no one else, Bill, who throws around that “you’re just too out of it to get it” meme as often as you.
[Bill Davis] “I think you’re dead wrong in that assessment and it’s evidence that you’re out of touch with other editing requirements that don’t dovetail with your parochial experience in Hollywood.
“I’m certainly less familiar with the requirements and/or demands of things that aren’t part of my work routine. Isn’t everybody? Aren’t you?
[Bill Davis] “So it’s completely fair for me to point out that your thinking might be every bit as skewed as the thinking of someone like me who isn’t saddled with the “industry town” mindset that you espouse.
“How completely fair of you to judge yourself as being completely fair.
[Bill Davis] “I’m suggesting readers here consider how new tools like FCP-X might impact an editor who works in the larger arena. You’re often trashing it as “not a big deal” largely because you elevate workflows in which it doesn’t excel (primarily precisely those large company workflows that hollywood values) and thereby skewing the discussion away form what may well be more universal concerns for working editors in a larger and more ecumenical pool.
“No. I’m often a one-man band, and I like tools that let me easily deliver the things that I’m required to deliver. BTW, for someone who drones on and on about their super-big time corporate clients, tv spots, and national campaigns, how exactly do YOU become Mr. Ecumenical?
[Bill Davis] ” believe that’s a completely fair criticism of your posts above.
“Okay. And I believe that your head is in a place that, if you were wearing a headlamp, you’d have a clear view of your lower intestines.
[Bill Davis] “The readership here will determine for themselves whether my points are valid and whether their experiences better match mine or yours.
“Okay. As to commenting on the rest? What’s the point? I think you’re fighting your own demons here, Bill, and you just stuck my face on ’em.
-
[Jamie Franklin] “Pure white noise Bill…not one word relates to me. At all. And I find your post complete rot. In fact, I don’t think you have actually read a thing I wrote and have gone totally off the rails. But it isn’t the first time
“He’s a trip. He was hurling out invective at me last night, too. The thing that always blows me away about Bill’s posts is how willing he is to make things up and put them in your mouth, and then to chastise you for saying them.
-
[Scott Sheriff] “And that we have some pretty big investments tied to the apple brand, in both hardware and software, and in that respect apple has let us down, and failed to meet our expectations. This is why we are passionate about this.”
But what did you think when you actually used the Software (FCP X)?
-
I was going to suggest that he put his Sandra Day O’Connor quote at the beginning and end of all paragraphs in his posts but I’m not sure it would do any good.
Tim
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up