-
The Mother of All NLE Demos
-
Hi Andrew.
Preaching to the choir on ISIS. I think it’s Avid’s single biggest deal maker for any operation with more than 2 seats. Add in Interplay, and it’s really hard to beat. But expensive! No way around that. I think I’d go with a fancy MAM setup like Cantemo Portal or some such product if I needed ISIS-style multiuser workflow for X.
[Andrew Kimery] “Avid’s great trim tool (which apparently is it’s own debate). ;)”
Uhh…no. Been down that rabbit hole. I appreciate the efforts of all involved, but Avid’s trim mode is probably never going to be duplicated. I assume it’s got patents attached to it. Now, I have no problems trimming in X (or in FCP Legacy before). And I really do appreciate not having to switch modes to trim. (That may be the one thing I don’t like about Avid’s trim.) I’ve done movies, docs, short form and tons of promo in X. I don’t find myself yearning for Avid whenever I trim in X. But let’s not pretend that X does dynamic trimming like Avid does. It doesn’t. What it does do is close enough for my needs. It’s just different.
[Andrew Kimery] “know more than a few Avid editors that will probably always think FCP (any version) is second rate.”
Yep. We may know some of the same people! They’ll never be convinced. That’s OK. I have work to do, and life’s too short to get that horse to drink the damn water.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “I’d look forward to reading that. Your suggestion, if I’m understanding it correctly, sounds a bit limited though since I would have to select the “temp” role then look at the timeline, then select the “master” roll and look at the timeline and then select the ” this has to be replaced” roll and look at the timeline, etc., where as now I just look at the timeline. Color coding would certainly help fix that problem though (as would the seemingly popular feature request of being able to easily ‘pin’ things in the timeline).”
I guess it depends on what you feel is limiting. I can open an index, type “DO NOT” and see, exactly and navigate to clips that shouldn’t go in an AAF. This gives me both a list, and then if I select those clips, a visual reference. It isn’t limiting to me.
Also, I can export an FCPXML, take it to X2Pro (or Xto7) and those programs give me the option to turn off the “DO NOT AAF” or “TEMP” Role so I don’t do any translation on them. It’s very easy, and doesn’t require doing anything but turning off a checkbox, similar to turning off a track. It is a different way of thinking about the media, about the timeline, and about what a Project means.
[Andrew Kimery] “So, for example, I don’t explicitly need tracks for visual organization but I need the visual organization and currently I use tracks to help achieve it. Your roles suggestion (if X had color coding) would help to meet my visual organization needs.
“I get that, but I also think with a more metadata based approach, X could achieve what you want if you liked the software and wanted to employ a logical workflow to the media management of FCPX. Conceivably, everything is already pre-organized/labeled for them, it has the right Role, and you could even get down to the detail of every audio channel being pre named when it goes down to mix (in ProTools). It is a completely different looking but similar approach to color coding. Instead of sending over Orange labeled media, you send over an XML with Roles that tell you what is temporary and what isn’t.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Currently in X are there a better solutions to Oliver and Herb’s examples than what Carsten suggested? Because Carsten’s suggestions sound more labor intensive and less effective from a workflow stand point.”
Sure, but try and export 4 channels of audio from a stereo Pr timeline, and then do the same thing from a stereo Project in X. X’s is much easier, like eons easier, and will save you time. Each NLE has their strengths. Audio bussing is not a strength in FCPX. Multichannel export is not a strength in Pr without a whole lot of clicking, routing, and patching.
[Andrew Kimery] “Of course this all comes back again to individual needs and preferences.”
And here I thought there was one kingdom to rule them all? 🙂
-
Warning – kinda long and contains some well-known trigger words 😉
I often feel that Bill and some of the “opposition” (just a word to describe the not-Bill group…don’t anyone get their jimmies all rustled…) are talking past each other. Here’s what I see as the crux of Bill’s argument:
[Andrew Kimery] “how someone else likes to work”
is not the same as
[Andrew Kimery] “what’s best for a given user on a given project.
“Many find that the hardest part of really, deeply learning X is to realize that the correct answer to “how do I do ____ (which I do now in Legacy/PPro/Avid) in X” is “you don’t – X does this instead to achieve the desired result.”
So I think the frustration that often comes through in Bill’s posts is a reflection of this disconnect. It’s not that there’s anything inherently wrong with a vertically stacked series of longitudinal tracks. The visual arrangement does look tailor made to roll past a head stack on old analog 24 track deck. It’s how it’s been done for decades. Even though the old film mag recorders ran vertically, if you flip them on their sides it would fit the visual metaphor perfectly.
Hollywood (aka profesional film and television production) has a method of working that goes back almost a hundred years. So much of what we do, especially with sound, is rooted in and based on that very old workflow. And it works, so why change it?
I think Bill’s point is that “I like working this way/I’ve always worked this way” is absolutely NOT equivalent to “I MUST work this way.” If we stay focused on the result, rather than the process, we can evaluate and perhaps adopt new and different ways of working.
At some point, most of us (I hope) have said, “I wish I could do this, but it’s hard/not practical with the available tools and process.” Frankly, after many years of doing what we do, it’s all too easy to stop wishing and just get on with it. And when something different, and potentially better, comes along, we may have to push ourselves out of our comfort zone in order to “wish” again and see if the new tool might help achieve that goal.
“Focus” showed that X could play in a professional environment by taking in and spitting out audio and video in a way that conformed to long-established industry workflows. Yay. Good job. But listen to Mike Matzdorff (who has sufficient industry experience to be taken seriously) talk about what could be and what should be. Just because a sound editor wants an EDL doesn’t mean that’s still the best way to accomplish his ultimate goal. By all means, give the man his EDL — but don’t insist it isn’t a relic of an earlier time that could, and should, be done away with, if only the sound editor decided to (or felt empowered to) do it differently.
Please note that no individual COW is being called out or having his professional integrity questioned.
Bill, please correct me If I’ve misunderstood or misrepresented you here. -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Each NLE has their strengths. Audio bussing is not a strength in FCPX. Multichannel export is not a strength in Pr without a whole lot of clicking, routing, and patching.”
Well….. Multichannel audio export from X is only easy and simple IF you’ve already spent the time to specifically assign the correct roles and often subroles and then to properly select these upon export. And that could be made easier, if X allowed you to assign roles at the time of import. Right now it defaults to “dialogue”, even when you are importing music or SFX files, because it doesn’t know any better.
I know you are comparing PPro in these comments, but MC has a very nice track assignment panel for these sorts of mix/mix-minus and stems exports. So there are different ways to slice the same pie.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Jeremy Garchow] “I guess it depends on what you feel is limiting. “
Limiting in the sense that in the current version of X I would have to keep redoing the query anytime I wanted the information where as in Avid, PPro, Legend, etc., the information is persistent in the timeline (the clip is blue, the clip is orange, the clip is on V7, etc.,.) until I actively alter the metadata associated with that media (I change its color, move it to a different track, remove it from the timeline entirely, etc.,).
Also, just to be clear, in my example I’m talking about video, not audio.
[Jeremy Garchow] ” Each NLE has their strengths.”
Exactly, and this goes all the back to one of my original points which is, why are some posters catching flak for talking about things that other NLEs do better than X when Carsten specifically asked people to talk about things that other NLEs to better than X?
-
[Oliver Peters] “Well….. Multichannel audio export from X is only easy and simple IF you’ve already spent the time to specifically assign the correct roles and often subroles and then to properly select these upon export. “
Who doesn’t setup Roles when using FCPX? It’s so easy?
-
I don’t know why I have to answer for Carsten.
-
[Andrew Kimery] ” In response to Oliver and Herb’s examples, Carsten says manipulating audio in that fashion is something he does maybe 2% of the time yet for Herb it’s something he does multiple times a day. Given the vast difference between “I need to do XYZ all the time” and “I need to do XYZ rarely” it makes since that maybe these two people just might be better off using different tools at this point in time.”
Just to be clear, Carsten asked for examples where a track-based system might be superior. I described two such examples. In that context, weighting by percentage is completely irrelevant. OTOH, these needs are certainly based on individual workflows and pain points, and as such, are valid in the overall discussion. So for me, mixing by tracks is very important, so much so that I’ll bounce out of X whenever the mix gets past simple requirements. That works for me. I’d rather it worked like PPro or MC or even Logic, but it doesn’t. Just one of the many reasons that each project poses the need to make a choice by weighing all the advantages of one NLE over the other. Sorry, but no “one NLE to rule them all” at this end. 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Andrew Kimery] “Limiting in the sense that in the current version of X I would have to keep redoing the query anytime I wanted the information where as in Avid, PPro, Legend, etc., the information is persistent in the timeline (the clip is blue, the clip is orange, the clip is on V7, etc.,.) until I actively alter the metadata associated with that media (I change its color, move it to a different track, remove it from the timeline entirely, etc.,).”
My guess is that if you developed a truly metadata centric workflow with FCPX, it wouldn’t be near as daunting or limiting as it seems to be. You’d have to get used to it though, and that part is really tough for some people. It takes a little while, and yes, some of it isn’t as efficient as putting things on v7, but the parts that are more efficient are truly more efficient, at least in my view, but you have to use it that way. If you don’t setup your media and libraries that way, you lose the efficiency, just like Oliver points out, if you don’t take the (short) amount of time to assign a simple Role, it can cost you.
The trick to staying organized is starting organized.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up