-
The NLE that keeps moving forward?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “if you go on shoots im sure youve heard we need more rembrandt or for the follicly challenged you might need a picard light”
A Picard light was named after an actor, not a DP, just like an “Obie” light was named after Merle Oberon, not the DP who came up with it (I believe it was Lucien Ballard.) I don’t think anyone really believes that Rembrandt invented 3/4 back light. Many young people actually believe that KB invented the KB effect, especially because it’s almost impossible to get them to watch anything made before they were born. Hence the history lessons.
[Jeremy Garchow] “relax its going to be ok no need to adamantly shove everything down youngsters throats”
Wait till your my age.
[Jeremy Garchow] “all is not lost”
Incorrigible optimist.
[Jeremy Garchow] “a rose is still a rose”
But who was it named after.
[Jeremy Garchow] “punctuation is for the weak”
It still has it’s uses 😉
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Chris Harlan] “Speaking of which, I’m going to get to go see both Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon on the big screen this weekend. They’re using this very old process by which they shoot a powerful light beam through a series of plasticish connected stills. It seems farfetched to me, but it will probably work.
“Sounds like the future!
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure” -
[Steve Connor] “Sounds like the future!”
Even more shocking, the still images seem to be “printed” on something that sounded like cellulite, which sounds quite gross, but I’ve been promised that there is no liposuction tie-in.
-
dont worry
i am going to film an interview soon
on videotape
-
[Herb Sevush] “[Jeremy Garchow] “a rose is still a rose”
But who was it named after.”
romeo montague duh
wink emoticon
-
Chris,
… took me a while to find this (recently read and half-forgotten). There isn’t much in there that you don’t know already, but the last paragraph is a bit despairing:
“In the meantime, it’s viewer beware. To celebrate Cinerama’s 60th anniversary, earlier this fall Arclight Cinemas showed 12 Cinerama productions, some in the original three-strip process, at its Cinerama Dome theater in Los Angeles. How The West Was Won was screened in authentic Cinerama. 2001: A Space Odyssey, on the other hand, was a DCP presentation of the 2K scan: not exactly a Blu-ray, but the master used to make the Blu-ray. As author Mike Gebert put it to me, “Is that all there is to project 2001 with these days? That’s sad.””
Franz.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “But who was it named after.”
romeo montague duh”
beautiful.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “In the meantime, it’s viewer beware. To celebrate Cinerama’s 60th anniversary, earlier this fall Arclight Cinemas showed 12 Cinerama productions, some in the original three-strip process, at its Cinerama Dome theater in Los Angeles. How The West Was Won was screened in authentic Cinerama. 2001: A Space Odyssey, on the other hand, was a DCP presentation of the 2K scan: not exactly a Blu-ray, but the master used to make the Blu-ray. As author Mike Gebert put it to me, “Is that all there is to project 2001 with these days? That’s sad.””
“How sad. I went to a LACMA (our art museum) screening of Spartacus a couple of weeks ago. They showed the Academy’s 70mm Restoration print (I think Spartacus was originally 65mm) which was glorious, but 3/4s of the way through something went wrong, maybe with the film gate, the lights came up, and we all sat there wondering how much of the reel had spooled off into the booth. Five minutes later we were watching again, right where we left off, so no damage. The few minutes we were all holding our collective breath makes me appreciate the need for good 4k (dare I ask for 6k?) projection all the more.
-
for starters – FCPX is not a prius, its the google auto-drive car, if we’re going that way.
you can say its going to keep moving forward, but I really wonder. and seeing as how you’ve got quite the little flamebait thread going – here is some brandy on the crepe, this is as best as i can explain my issue with the software:
OK – say for kicks editing is post modern, in that the modernist era of formal contextual shark icon experimentation – it could be argued – is over.
we are all now aware say, after a decade and a half on the ground, that a true track timeline can faithfully represent any given expression of editing in any context.
it appears to be that bullet proof.
say we know this because it is currently handling all editing tasks, from the guardian, to the NYT, to the BBC, to film, documentary, to every corporate entity, to near every single instance you can think of.
the true multi-track timeline, the core of any NLE to this point, is fit for all instances. It’s a functioning word processing construct say – although it’s way more complex than typing on a keyboard – let’s all forget that editing is the new vernacular of literacy.
nobody is crying out now for a light works shark icon, or an attic metaphor – there was a period of true experimentation running over a number of years – does anyone remember the “judgement 3D” timeline? It bulged out in the middle. that one, from memory, weirdly came from the lara croft game publishers.
FCP via macromedia didn’t copy Avid all those years ago – (I’m riffing madly here) but they had arrived at similar conclusions about the broad shape of the issue – apple heavily innovated within an open timeline allied to physical object malleability – but the open tracked timeline itself was never in question.
Apple, I would vehemently argue, are not truly innovating the timeline here with FCPX -and even if they are – they are simply doing it all ten years too late.
this is not a tape to tape meets linear conceptual break – this is Apple messing around with, and reducing in scope, agreed fundamental non-linear open track timeline methodology?
they are boiling it down to what they feel is an essence. You talk a lot about a new wave coming, that actually bothers me as an idea that they would grasp editing through FCPX.
So lets just say I know that clips are connected.
I know because when you hit the space playbar – it tells you. Playback alone declares live relationships and their faults.
editing isn’t a nodal parent child analysis operation like compositing – its a playback operation.so lets presume that anyone in their first week of college realises that clips have an intrinsic connection.
because a single second’s bad drip of clip overhanging a music beat will teach them that right?
you know it the second you begin to realise it jars. when you hit the spacebar.
live editing playback failure instructs and so you need to act immediately on the live objects. Right? they are just bits of that moving image
but ok – so then –
– why exactly are apple casting this critical, and (necessarily failed initially) live relationship in a hard to unpick connected clip concrete mess?
Its not, at all, difficult to interrogate V/A relationships in editing. it only requires looking at the timeline. Indeed, openly judging and critiquing those relationships, forms a half decent definition of editing sort of?
Editing is meant to be live sensitive jelly – between the clips, the intent, the music, the VO – so then why please did the engineers in apple decide they should set canonical parent child relationships at timeline entry? that then have to be unpicked later when those relationships run out of date?
in educational terms, by robbing all that sensory per clip malleability, by deadening whole chunks of the timeline into predisposed lego super objects the minute they meet each other, objects that you can mindlessly heft around like a pick up truck, by doing this –
I would argue very strongly that apple have effectively lobotomised whole sections of the personal editing exploratory process by making these default decisions.
by casting simplified concrete b-roll in software, that acts like a multi-story pick-up mechanism – this deadens the questions that might arise later in the students mind because well, sure its all glued together now so why bother – not that they would – but the software lends itself to moving on.
I would personally argue that apple are anti-intellectual here, that their decisions – the pre-jointed lego they have constructed for editing – is fundamentally anti-intellectual.
not so much maybe for the seasoned practitioner who can side step the gross simplification of process – but what kind of educational basis for editing is clip super-glue by default?
isn’t this rather intellectually dodgy for that kid in college?
Isn’t his or her’s perception of editing fundamentally altered by the initial affirmation in picking up those whole chunks of an early edit, with a massive, simplified contextual thumbs up from apple?
Fine that FCPX has some role: but as to any primary role, for people starting out, or as a real editing environment – my personal view is no.
Its not so much that I don’t want FCPX to succeed, it’s that I don’t think it should. Its bad candy.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
A very eloquent and interesting post Aindreas, it almost makes me want to free my creative mind from the shackles of the FCPX timeline and go back to the mystical promise of the magical open timeline where anything is possible.
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure”
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up