-
The Question – An Update On My Choices In NLEs
-
[tony west] “If a client is paying by the hour, and they are paying more because a editor is using a program that is not 64 bit, seems like they would complain. Or just go someplace else.”
Tony,
First, the review (still needed in 2014) of the benefits of 64bit:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/44437If work bogs down, people want to know what it is that causes delays.
Outside of specific tasks (ie transcoding) I’ve never had producers aware of what software or hardware might be faster or slower. If we talk about “editing”, software almost never comes up. I have heard producers talk about “fast” or “slow” editors, but even then that’s pretty rare.
Franz.
-
[Richard Herd] “What I said has nothing to do with any other NLE: The more footage a project has the better X is at doing what X does.”
Richard,
This may or may not be true, but it does not follow that this makes FCP X “faster” than other NLEs. (If you were not comparing it other NLEs then you need to explain.)
[Richard Herd] “… the more footage you throw at X the better X is and therefore it can be used on large projects.”
I’m still waiting for reports of performance under load. Someone said they had about 60 sequences at some point but I’ve not read reports of more than that. Clips and sequences seem to stress NLEs in different ways and the design has to accommodate high numbers of both for my workflow.
Franz.
-
[Chris Harlan] “And, of course, I work exclusively within that Los Angeles environment you are talking about, so MC skills are pretty much required whether you like it or not”
Which brings up a slightly off topic question, if you don’t mind.
How is the deliverable working between editor and post house? Are they putting clauses in the contract that say: here is the footage. Deliver an Avid project file. I guess I don’t understand if the place says deliver a thing why they also require a route to get there.(I get it if you’re working in a studio/workflow that has their media on their network on their systems. They want you to sit down and work, in their office and in their way.)
This is also relevant in another capacity mentioned here https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/17/880228 If someone is saying “cut on my machine, my way, on my dime, during these hourse” then is the editor really a freelancer/contractor or an employee?
-
Here’s the quote: [David Roth Weiss] “So, while you and others might find X faster for short form projects, many may argue that it’s not necessarily so fast when working on long form projects, such as feature films.”
Imagine a scenario where a post supervisor is figuring out the details of a particular feature. They may investigate many software packages. While there may be some reasons to avoid X, one of those reasons is not “the project is long form.”
Now to repeat myself: The line of reasoning raised in the DRW quote is the last bit of an older argument: X is not for professional work.
On small projects, there is no need for keywording because there is nothing to keep track of. The larger the project gets the better X is at doing what it does best. Strike that, what it is designed to do. I see the confusion is that “best” can be construed as “better than PP” or “better than Avid.” But I’m talking about the best feature of X is its keywording.
To be fair, Adobe needed Prelude for a similar task. If/when I move to LA or NY, then I will re-learn Avid–haven’t used it since 2003 and I opened up the trial versions in 2010, but I was under dead line and because I needed AE/AI/PS in the work, I just moved over to Premiere.
-
[Richard Herd] “I see the confusion is that “best” can be construed as “better than PP” or “better than Avid.””
Richard,
I see. To be clear, I understood “best” as meaning it is FCP X’s best feature. (I’ll leave others to brew that controversy.) And I’ll leave DRW to respond regarding his own statements, but I was responding to this:
[Richard Herd] “I would be curious why folks think it is not faster for a feature or a documentary.”
“Faster” is a comparison. What are you implying it is faster than?
Franz.
-
I’m not quite sure I understand your question or questions. But, I–as many who work like me–wear many hats. Sometimes I’m sitting in someone else’s chair, sometimes my own. Sometimes its my equipment, sometimes it belongs to them.
Tape is no longer a de facto delivery format, and source files are most readily available as either DNx or ProRes HQ, though other formats are sometimes available. Similarly, delivery requirements are usually one or the other above formats. Some deliveries will require project files, some will not, but if a major studio is making that request, then you are expected to deal with it.
Things are very project, season, or show based. A large number of people are often involved at a variety of different levels. You may have to take snippets of someone else’s work, or plug into someone else’s group project. Perhaps its better to think of Avid as a shared language rather than an NLE. If you can’t speak that language, there are a whole lot of things you may not have access to.
-
[Chris Harlan] “I felt an obligation to sing a bit.”
Chris,
In the spirit of soothing the hangover with narcotics, can you summarize the features or aspects of MC that you feel are strongest or that you miss while working in other software?
Franz.
-
[Richard Herd] “The design of X is meant to cull through massive amounts footage. The more footage a project has the better X is at doing what X does. “
[Aindreas Gallagher] “How has it been logging? if you’re not making monster timelines do you like the performance?”
There’s no question in my mind that X is a fast and efficient logging tool. Really the best I’ve ever used and excellent for larges amounts of footage.
Unfortunately, I still find the timeline unusable for my specific tasks. Not because I haven’t spent time learning it or don’t understand it. It simply doesn’t do basic things I need it to do. Not that you can’t get the exact same results in X, the problem is the needed workarounds make it much less efficient.
It’s all about the right tool for the job, right? I’m very happy with X for logging. For cutting I go elsewhere.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Walter Soyka] “If ProRes were an open standard, yes. I’m not comfortable with the degree of industry reliance on proprietary Apple technology.
In other news, GoPro’s CineForm is now SMPTE VC-5.”
You see though, I am all for making things better, and maybe easier. Truly.
But what does Cineform as VC-5 truly get me? And by me, I mean us.
Avid has a SMPTE approved format, and it means almost nothing, in practice to me and everyone I work with.
GoPro says this:
“SMPTE standardization of the GoPro CineForm codec as the VC-5 standard now means the professional production and post production community can access SMPTE-standardized codec technology for presenting high resolution imagery with a high speed, low-compute intensive workflow. The new VC-5 standard will provide a more efficient, cost effective and higher-performance workflow, delivering an 8x performance boost over the current JPEG 2000 format with higher resolution.”
Is this better than a ProRes file that everyone seems to accept, understand, and receive?
ProRes isn’t a formal standard, but somehow it’s an industry standard. Why is that, and how did it become to be?
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] ” can you summarize the features or aspects of MC that you feel are strongest or that you miss while working in other software?
“I fear I don’t really have the time to detail it today, but have done so elsewhere. Trim mode, once you really get the hang of it it, is a very nice thing. And the Source Timeline–that’s probably my favorite Avid exclusive. In fact, yes, that’s the thing I miss when I’m using Pr.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up