-
The Question – An Update On My Choices In NLEs
-
[Richard Herd] “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.”
I agree here Richard.
For me, I don’t see a better use for X than a documentary.
1. Skimmer lets you fly throughout tons of footage.
2. tagging helps you find surf quickly
3. In many doc you are constantly making moves on pics and that KB set up is fast
4. In a doc it’s not scripted so you may get whole section complete and then find another interview and have to make room for it. That timeline lets you pic up whole sections in a simple drag and just drop it in.People always talk about building. For me it’s the corrections that really fly. When you have to go back into the edit to make changes. That timeline is made for that.
-
For those who do promo work outside the networks, but for the networks, delivery usually means sending a rough cut and the accompanying project file to the network for online/finishing. Like it or not, if you cut promos for NBC, you’re going to have to cut in Avid and send them the projects. ABC gets FCP7, at least until they switch to Premiere (he says as tears begin to fall…).
Amusingly enough, even when the source material for the rough cuts is the same hi-res footage as what is back at the network, the finishing is always done there, even if it’s just tweaking the color and doing the audio sweetening. Plus versioning, of course.
So I’ll probably never get to cut anything for the networks on FCP-X, even though it’s far and away my preferred NLE. A shame, since this stuff is always flat fee, not hourly, so there’s no benefit in taking longer with Avid.
-
After all these years I had never, before today, explored the notion of having two timelines open at the same time and using one as a source. Never seen that way of working before. Makes me feel ridiculous – what planet have I been on? What’s even more annoying is I think I like it!
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “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.”
Re: “Performance under load” you might want to read this.
Or perhaps 64 streams of full HD being run simultaneously isn’t “under load” in your thinking?
And the article writer from the largest creative shop in Denmark clearly says that if he had to do anything remotely this complex again, he’d absolutely do it again in FCP X rather than the other tools the shop uses which include both AVID and Premier.
Just saying’
I hate these articles. Over and over it’s the rest of the world and NOT US editors that appear to be open minded and ready to move forward rather than sitting back and waiting for some earth shaking consensus to form before they adopt new thinking.
It’s kinda depressing, actually.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
Pancaking in FCPX is awful (I’m doing it right now). If you’re trying to make a highlight out of a large live sequence (multi cam), there is no fast way to do this in FCPX. Browser based editing is the only only way to gain speed in X. Now if a nest could retain markers from the sequence, and you could cut into the timeline without having to go the extra step of breaking apart a clip every time, we’d have something comparable. Btw, if you nest a multi-clip and cut it back in from the browser, the clip loses it’s angle. Huge pita.
One thing that drives me crazy is that in every other NLE, I can use I/O points to quickly jump from anywhere in the timeline back to where I was cutting. So if I have a string out and want to pull something from later in the TL, I just set an in point, go find my clip and “go to in” (if I was not pancaking/Avid source side sequencing). Since we lost I/O for range, there’s no way to do this. So big sequences become huge hassles. Also if there were a way to make a secondary retain position (like a track) and all clips could be turned off at once, this too would help and could be possibly used as a faux pancake technique.
-
[Bill Davis] “Or perhaps 64 streams of full HD being run simultaneously isn’t “under load” in your thinking?”
Bill,
This is certainly one way of describing capabilities, and certainly you could call this “under load”.
Also, it is not what I was talking about. I thought it was clear, but my interest is in how it can handle many many sequences.
Franz.
-
[tony west] “they are paying more because a editor is using a program that is not 64 bit”
[tony west] “In Legacy, if you were cutting, say a doc and just grab a photo and drug it into the timeline you would have to wait and render that.”
Tony,
Claiming that producers pay more for work done on 32 bit software is different from discussing what features you find better in one NLE vs. another.
I agree that stills are a bit of pain in FCP7.
But since we still seem to be stuck on the idea of speed, I’ll try to clarify further. The only “speed” that matters really is from shoot to picture lock (or others would say delivery). During that time there are many complex interrelated tasks. It’s one thing to discuss and compare certain tasks. It’s another to claim that you can get from day one to picture lock faster.
I have no doubt that for certain types of work, the difference in certain tasks makes a marked difference in overall “speed”. But it is pointless to talk about that unless you give the context. One size does not fit all.
It’s important to remember too that speed isn’t a priority in all work. Some will have other priorities.
It seems to need repeating that all editors do not do the same kind of work. All editors don’t work the same way. Editors have different needs. Those needs will be reflected in features and aspects they are attracted to in the tools they use.
For those interested in something other than scoring points, a discussion of the workflow and how software helps may be of benefit to others.
My intention wasn’t to convince anyone to use one NLE or another. It was simply to give a reflection on my own choices after three and a half years. That may be of use to some, and not to others.
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “It’s important to remember too that speed isn’t a priority in all work. Some will have other priorities.”
Indeed,
I thought you were asking for specific tasks that would make working with a 64 bit program faster than that of a non 64 bit program.
I thought I was answering that with the example of a still because in a doc (as you also discussed) folks use a great deal of pics. Having to look at that red bar slows things down.
I’m not really trying to convince you.
At the end of the day I’m gonna use what I want to use and so will others. I was just trying to answer your question.
-
[tony west] “I thought you were asking for specific tasks that would make working with a 64 bit program faster than that of a non 64 bit program.”
Tony,
I’m not convinced the implementation of stills in FCP 7 is necessarily a result of 32 bit limits. I think it’s just a poor implementation. I’d be interested if you know otherwise (speculation aside).
Franz.
-
[James Ewart] “I think I like it”
James,
One school of editing can be described as “sequence-based” (in differentiation from “browser-based”). The distinction can be thought of in terms of the tool or place you do your main organizing.
We’ve discussed it before here – some references:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/71347Franz.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up