-
The Question – An Update On My Choices In NLEs
-
Wow average over 100 sequences in any given (FCP 7) project? that’s a lot. What sort of duration is each sequence out of interest?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I am now getting confused as to an “open” standard. “
Fair! Maybe I’m not using the right language.
I don’t care if a standard is free (to implement or to use), but it should be documented, and where IP is concerned, it should be able to be licensed in a non-discriminatory manner.
Control should exist with a consortium or NPO, not a specific company.
[Jeremy Garchow] “The problem with open standards, is that you need someone to implement them in whatever it is you need to do, like, make a plugin to export to AS-11, or wrap your finished movie in MXF with a codec, or transcode then rewrap, and usually you have to either pay someone to do it, or pay some sort of fee like a subscription to CC or a purchase of a piece of software, in order to make these things happen.”
For me, that’s the benefit of an open standard: that you CAN pay someone to implement them. Again, this is something I’m actually doing right now.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Apple, I think, does a lot for security. “
Well, maybe that’s good [link]. (I think that Kaspersky exaggerated.)
[Jeremy Garchow] “One of the reasons of getting rid of reference movies was supposedly, to close a security risk. Is that an exaggeration of the truth? It could be, I don’t know, and probably will never really know.”
QuickTime was a multimedia framework that did so much more than AV Foundation does. You could open web pages and run Flash and do all kinds of other stuff from within QuickTime, so a reference movie could hypothetically point to a payload that the local system couldn’t vet.
AV Foundation is a much simpler framework that drops all the multimedia stuff that nobody used since authoring CD-ROMs was cool. It’s kind of automatically more secure. A codec has to receive binary data from the image stream and return an image buffer in a pixel format already known to the system. This can be aggressively sandboxed and doesn’t present the same kind of security risks that even AppleScript does.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Adobe handles all of this internally with their own media library. I am sure that they go back and forth with camera companies in order to gain support. You can’t simply start using a brand new format in any Adobe product without that capability being built in to the software, and with CC, you will have to constantly pay for that service. Since this is the case, we all need to pause, and Apple is not the only weapon wielding dominatrix, right?”
Adobe has an SDK available. You can write your own importers/exporters. When I launch the Keen Cinema Camera, I could also publish plugins to let you access Keen Cinema footage in Adobe software.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[James Ewart] “What sort of duration is each sequence out of interest?”
James,
Source sequences will be anything from 10mins to 6 hours or more depending on the shoots.
Selects and collection sequences vary as well, really anything from 10mins to a couple hours or more.
Cuts vary depending on the stage, but again 10mins to maybe half hour or hour so for assemblies, and full cuts ranging from about 3 hours down to 90 mins or so.
Franz.
-
Would it be nosey to enquire as to the genre of programme you are making?
-
[Walter Soyka] “When I launch the Keen Cinema Camera, I could also publish plugins to let you access Keen Cinema footage in Adobe software.”
And of course publish the specs so you could write your own!
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Yes. At some point. That’s why I’m surprised by the claim that FCP X doesn’t have these limitations. You seem defensive that I would question it, but seem to agree it’s a questionable claim.”
I’m not being defensive, I just want to know. I know that you constantly ask about sequence quantity in FCPX, and I would think that it would be totally insane to have 10,000 sequences in any NLE, and I was wondering if you’d tried that with 7. That would be impressive!
X certainly has limitations. It’s not a golden god, but it’s also not a pariah anymore, it’s an NLE. There are limitations to everything. You will never see me say that X has no limits.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “A number! An experience! Thanks. This is helpful.”
It was something like 94 Projects, and it was in version 10.1 (before the Great Cache Divide™).
[Franz Bieberkopf] “It’s also lower than the typical number of sequences I have in any given project, but it’s a data point.”
How many do you typically have?
Going back to another taking point about selects sequences (or pancakes, or whatever the kids are calling them these days), I used to do this in 7 all the time. Every project has not only the working edit sequences and versions, but a huge list of selects reels. Because the FCP7 browser isn’t very good, this is a really easy way to group certain clips together and even though its’ probably not by “design” per sé, the FCP7 method supports this method very well (having multiple timelines open). In X, I find I don’t need those sequences anymore, and all of my Projects and really only edit versions. Also, with Audition clips, compound clips, secondary story lines, and connected clips, I find that I can store a lot more decisions in one single timeline than I do with other NLE’s. I also use the Browser to group clips because it’s so damn good at it, and then add skimming on top of that, and for me, it’s way more visual and creative than selects reels.
Another difference in the way I work in X, is that I typically have one sequence open per “version” of what I need to deliver (if I have three commercials to deliver, I will have three separate timelines to keep versioning) and with FCPX’s snapshot system, I typically don’t make new versions of the Project. In 7, I would duplicate the current sequence, rename it the dupe to title_version#+1, close title_version#-1, and then open title_version#+1 (or some combination of those steps). In X, I simply keep the current version open, and snapshot different versions for later retrieval. It doesn’t seem like a big difference, but in practice, it’s a huge difference in focus. When I need to switch to a different commercial, I open that Project, and snapshot that one to “save as I go”.
But, this is all very subjective. I find that it has helped me in my work. It won’t help for everyone.
-
[James Ewart] ” Would it be nosey to enquire as to the genre of programme you are making?”
James,
I try to do a range of different sorts of things; most work I would describe as unscripted non-fiction, long form. But, for example, I work the same way with scripted or performance material.
Franz.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Because the FCP7 browser isn’t very good, this is a really easy way to group certain clips together and even though its’ probably not by “design” per sé, the FCP7 method supports this method very well (having multiple timelines open).”
Jeremy,
Yes, if you’re using sequence-based editing only because the browser isn’t very good, as I have said elsewhere I feel FCP X is designed for browser-based editing and will probably prove a better match than FCP 7.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Also, with Audition clips, compound clips, secondary story lines, and connected clips, I find that I can store a lot more decisions in one single timeline than I do with other NLE’s.”
I’m aware of these functions and I like aspects of them. I’m not sure they would change much of the way I work though. (They didn’t in the one project I collaborated on in X.)
[Jeremy Garchow] “In X, I simply keep the current version open, and snapshot different versions for later retrieval. It doesn’t seem like a big difference, but in practice, it’s a huge difference in focus.”
I’m not familiar with the snapshot function in practice – is there a difference in terms of how you retrieve these to screen or recover all or part?
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I don’t care if a standard is free (to implement or to use), but it should be documented, and where IP is concerned, it should be able to be licensed in a non-discriminatory manner.
Control should exist with a consortium or NPO, not a specific company.”
But this goes back to what was said earlier. MXF is an open standard that can be propritized rather quickly, or have a proprietary element (such as a codec) in it. In these cases, who really has control? I just can’t see consortium control actually working or being a benefit other than in where there is a measurable benefit, perhaps I am too naive.
[Walter Soyka] “For me, that’s the benefit of an open standard: that you CAN pay someone to implement them. Again, this is something I’m actually doing right now.”
I understand. And just for reference, why do you have to do that instead of using something else? I’m (naturally) curious.
[Walter Soyka] “QuickTime was a multimedia framework that did so much more than AV Foundation does. You could open web pages and run Flash and do all kinds of other stuff from within QuickTime, so a reference movie could hypothetically point to a payload that the local system couldn’t vet.
AV Foundation is a much simpler framework that drops all the multimedia stuff that nobody used since authoring CD-ROMs was cool. It’s kind of automatically more secure. A codec has to receive binary data from the image stream and return an image buffer in a pixel format already known to the system. This can be aggressively sandboxed and doesn’t present the same kind of security risks that even AppleScript does.”
I get it. But you said it, it’s more secure by default, even if some of the capability is taken away. Now that it’s been taken away, can’t it be added back in? And yes, Apple now has to play with the security big boys due to the success. I don’t know if it’s good or bad, again, it just is.
[Walter Soyka] “Adobe has an SDK available. You can write your own importers/exporters. When I launch the Keen Cinema Camera, I could also publish plugins to let you access Keen Cinema footage in Adobe software.”
And I assume that this is going to record CineForm RAW? 😉
I’m not up to speed on the state of third party import and export for Pr. What is being done in third parties that Adobe isn’t handling natively?
Jeremy
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Yes, if you’re using sequence-based editing only because the browser isn’t very good, as I have said elsewhere I feel FCP X is designed for browser-based editing and will probably prove a better match than FCP 7.”
But my argument is that sequence based editing is necessary in FCP7 because it’s really the only good way to do it.
You can also do it in X, there’s nothing stopping you.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I’m aware of these functions and I like aspects of them. I’m not sure they would change much of the way I work though. (They didn’t in the one project I collaborated on in X.)”
Well, yes. You didn’t do the organization right? The first project I did in X, Itried to make it work just like I did in FCP7. Now, after three years (sheesh), I don’t work like that anymore. X takes more than one project to get used to, as does any new NLE no matter any similarities.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I’m not familiar with the snapshot function in practice – is there a difference in terms of how you retrieve these to screen or recover all or part?”
You just double click it and it opens the sequence at the time you took the snapshot.
Jeremy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up