-
Walter Murch won’t use FCX
-
“In my experience, I have almost never seen novice users become power users without training.”
Absolutely. I don’t disagree at all.
“I would suggest that many feature film editors are also not power users of NLEs.”
Indeed. So often I have taught advanced classes where on the first day, what I call “remedial FCP” I am interrupted by someone who says, “Wait, what did you just do,” and it’s the simplest shortcut, some basic thing they never learned when teaching themselves.
Perhaps that’s why Mr. Murch’s timeline looks so strangely layered to Jeremy.
All the best,
Tom
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Complete Training for FCPX” from Class on Demand
“Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press -
[Jeremy Garchow] “While I too am intrigued with Jim’s workflow, I think it breaks the magnetic timeline in dramatic fashion (no offense, Jim. I enjoyed your post). “
Hey Jeremy, Remember, the idea of using the one frame “anchor” at the top of the Primary doesn’t have anything to do with my basic points about mixing and mastering with Compound Clips and Secondaries.
The demagnetizing thing was just a separate idea for anyone who wants to, for instance, glue a music bed as a defacto fixed timeline for editing.
You can use Secondaries and CCs to emulate and give the visual reference of tracks without anchoring them that way.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Apple’s argument is false, mendacious, and will create harm to the basic craft of editing if it comes to pass as they wish it.
As currently envisioned, this application not only may fail – it actually should fail, and needs to fail. comprehensively.”
I know you go for the bombastic Aindreas, but c’mon.
It’s not a conspiracy to destroy editing, just a new approach to the concept and a good one in my experience so far.
And regarding existing skills – I wouldn’t be flying along in X after two weeks if not for my existing skills from fcp7
-
[Oliver Peters] “I find it a bit ironic that, in spite of the fact that Apple’s design direction is to simplify and be intuitive, FCP X is anything but that, once you get past the basics. Just look at how much folks in this forum are struggling to make sense out of it.”
But Oliver, that’s how these things always go with new programs and hardly an accurate assessment or some scientific poll.
In my experience, once you get past the basics, you’re off to the races. There’s very little to make sense of once you get past the basics. You can edit, experiment with looks, audition, mix audio, work with text, organize and search faster than any program I’ve used.
I can imagine why X would be an issue for the reasons we’ve all discussed.
But I can’t imagine anyone struggling with it once they learn it – it’s a very fast, intuitive program. -
[Tom Wolsky] “Perhaps that’s why Mr. Murch’s timeline looks so strangely layered to Jeremy.”
It doesnt look strangely layered, it actually looks simple, there’s just a lot of it. I’m sure there’s good reason and FCP7’s timeline almost dictates that style of organization (as much as people say its an “open” timeline, it’s still a constructional method, like it or not). Exporting tracks was one, or perhaps it has to do with the shots from certain cameras for conform (like those shots are 1080 instead of 2k, or shot on SxS instead of codex), or some other tag, Perhaps there’s a specific cc or treatment that needs to be done to those shots. I do the same thing on a smaller scale. It seems to me it’s there for organization, not real estate efficiency. I am just speculating. I think I’ve been around long enough to be able to read a timeline, even if my career didn’t start in film. 🙂
My point is that with Roles and a database driven structure, all that info will be able to exported/extracted as it is now in a fraction of the screen space and in fewer clicks. Hey, perhaps that’s a new paradigm?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Hard to tell from a fuzzy screengrab, but take a really good look at that timeline. I see a bunch if clips, and a bunch of cuts, it’s nothing really complex in terms of composites/layers, The Federline timeline was more complex in its compositing nature. Perhaps those clips are all stacked on different tracks because he needs to export those tracks separately for whatever reason. I think Roles would allow all this separation to be consolidated and allow you to work more with less space.”
Maybe it’s not just about compositing, maybe he’s using tracks for entirely different editorial purposes. Maybe he assigns tracks to characters or has some other organizational scheme in place. That’s the beauty of the open timeline and tracks. You can use them any way you like. They’re totally flexible.
I guess I don’t understand why you would want to consolidate this. I don’t see any benefit. WM isn’t cutting on a laptop — no doubt he’s working with the biggest screens he can get his hands on with one dedicated to the timeline. If you have the screen real estate and you’re working spatially, why not take up as much space as you need? What’s the downside?
[Jeremy Garchow] “Do you think he works that way because he wants to, or because the FCP7 interface dictates he has to?”
I think he works the way he wants and the reason he likes FCP7 is because the FCP7 interface allows him to. I remember reading somewhere that the fact that FCP allows 99 audio and 99 video tracks was a big deal for him and helped win him over to FCP.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I’m telling you, a really good assistant, one that embraces the organizational structure of X could make a strong case. To me, it is obvious his mind his open. I’d love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.”
Seriously? I’d love to have a hit of whatever you’re smoking 😉
I’m really looking forward to hearing him talk about the magnetic timeline after he actually trys it, hands-on. I don’t get the impression he’s gotten that deep into it. I wonder how he’ll respond to how it feels and behaves. Do you think he knows it’s ripple only? I wonder what he’ll think about that. Especially given his background in sound. Or the way it rearranges clip layer order (possibly changing the edit) on its own to avoid collisions. Because clip collisions and the unbearable difficulty of managing tracks are surely at the top of his list of problems with FCP7, right?
I’d love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation too! 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
David, I know you like to mention it a lot but the FCPX timeline is NOT ripple only!
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
No more than the FCP7 timeline is lift only.
All the best,
Tom
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Complete Training for FCPX” from Class on Demand
“Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press -
[David Lawrence] “Maybe it’s not just about compositing, maybe he’s using tracks for entirely different editorial purposes. Maybe he assigns tracks to characters or has some other organizational scheme in place. That’s the beauty of the open timeline and tracks. You can use them any way you like. They’re totally flexible.”
Yes, that’s what I mentioned. Different track, different reason. Character would be a good one, too.
Of course, I see it differently David. With FCP7, there is no other way. In order to keep track of the information, you MUST organize your timeline like this, you have to create all those tracks. You are locked on to a certain way of doing things, which is to fragment everything in to oblivion. Imagine moving that timeline around, perhaos you had to trim a certain area, and in order to do so, you had to select 50 cut points. To me, it seems a little unnecessary, but maybe that’s what people enjoy about editing.
You see it as open, I might see it as unnecessary. Since FCP7 is still a database (let’s no forget that) the only way you can really keep track of things is through methods such as Murch’s timeline as FCP7s database was not very user controllable. Admittedly, I do some of the same things, just on a much smaller scale. Personally, I’m OK with giving a new method a shot. I’m all right with letting the software allowing me to assign organizational methods. Yes. X still needs some work in this area.
[David Lawrence] “I guess I don’t understand why you would want to consolidate this. I don’t see any benefit. WM isn’t cutting on a laptop — no doubt he’s working with the biggest screens he can get his hands on with one dedicated to the timeline. If you have the screen real estate and you’re working spatially, why not take up as much space as you need? What’s the downside?”
I guess it’s all in how a person looks at it. My FCPX machine has a 30″ monitor. I arrange my timeline so I can see everything. I simply don’t need as much space, but I still use two monitors. I’m sure he works that way because he has to. There’s no other way. At least no other way that makes sense. You say Fcp7 allows it, I say FCP7 mandates it, but really we are both saying the same thing, it’s how FCP7 works. X works differently.
Anyway, if you’re in the states, good morning and happy Monday everyone. If you’re across the ponds, hope your Monday is wrapping up nicely.
-
I want to move to FCPX. I plan to, and I’m loving hearing how the Logic sound editing capabilities are up to scratch. A video tutorial showcasing the latest audio discoveries and a video ‘how to’ (buses and submixes within FCPX) would be amazing if that’s possible for Creative Cow to rustle up? Once I’m totally convinced by the audio capabilities, I’m making the leap from Final Cut Studio to FCPX.
Jim, your thread about the audio capabilities for FCPX has given me great hope.
Peter Dunphy
2 x 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 8 GB 1066 MHz DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4870, ATTO ExpressSAS R380, Sonnet D800 Raid 5
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up