-
Walter Murch won’t use FCX
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” since SAN support and a new version of XML has been released since the last time you two talked.”
Please clarify “SAN support”, because what I see about the update in no way, shape or form qualifies as SAN support. In fact, I asked that question in the FCP X Techniques forum and as yet have no replies. This leads me to believe no one has done it yet.
It’s my understanding that currently you can have a single FCP X user deal with one Events and Projects folder on the SAN. It would seem to mean that you can’t have multiple editors tie into Xsan or any other SAN network to collaborate on a single project or to bounce around on multiple projects. I get that they could have local Events & Projects folders and access common media from a SAN, but that was possible before the update. It might also work in a volume-based SAN, since each user can only write to their own partition.
If this is incorrect, then I would welcome an in-depth explanation of how it can work, because I have at least one client, where this is a critical ingredient. They are running 4 stations on FibreJet using FC Server and FCP 7.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[WM] ” “If you didn’t use FCP, where would you go? “I’ve used Avid in the past, so I know it well. There are some very good things that Avid has, but I’m also curious about Premiere since I’m interested in technology.””
Yes, in the essence of speed I attempted to paraphrase and got that one imprecisely, but I think his first thought was Avid.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I have no authority”
That part went over my head… But, I’ll see what Ramy has to say and I’ll get back to you on it right here. Okay?
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing “The Whale” to the Big Screen:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfitandSuzanneChisholm/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Please clarify “SAN support”, because what I see about the update in no way, shape or form qualifies as SAN support. In fact, I asked that question in the FCP X Techniques forum and as yet have no replies. This leads me to believe no one has done it yet.”
I’ve done it with only two machines, as we are still testing FCPX on limited machines, but I’m sure it would work with any and all machines. I didn’t see your question over there, sorry.
[Oliver Peters] “It’s my understanding that currently you can have a single FCP X user deal with one Events and Projects folder on the SAN. It would seem to mean that you can’t have multiple editors tie into Xsan or any other SAN network to collaborate on a single project or to bounce around on multiple projects. I get that they could have local Events & Projects folders and access common media from a SAN, but that was possible before the update. It might also work in a volume-based SAN, since each user can only write to their own partition.”
There’s a bunch of ways to do it, and I find it rather flexible if you will believe me.
Our SAN is one big 42 TB Volume using metaSAN (storage is Windows server NTFS package from Sonnet called the VFibre). Everyone can read and write to the volume. It connects through Fibre and LAN depending on the machine (desktops are Fibre, iMac and Laptops are LAN). You can add a SAN location to whatever folder you want on the SAN in FCPX, but every computer must be in it’s own folder on the root level as FCPX does not allow you to “nest” SAN Locations. This is more than they allow on local drives, so they must be thinking SAN is important, in my opinion.
Form there, you would import footage as references (not copying them to the event) if you wanted to share media, or you can create proxies in every Event very easily for later conform/match back.
If you want to move an Event/Project to another machine, you can have the first machine remove the SAN location, and then have the other machine add that SAN location, or you can use the media manager to dupe it so both people can work on the same Event/Project, but that would be determined by your clients needs. You can later merge events, but I honestly haven’t done a whole lot of testing in that arena quite yet. Baby steps. I’m just glad it’s working as it didn’t at all in FCP 10.0
At this time, you cannot share events or projects, but that’s nothing new to FCP (can’t have two people on the same Event/Project or load the same SAN location). The media management is actually way easier than in FCP7, even if it doesn’t have total handle control quite yet. Custom Motion filters are a bit tricky as they need to be local to every machine. at first it looks liek the media is offline, but it’s a different icon with a filter on it.
Does that help? Feel free to ask any question, or you can call me if you want to chat about it. I’d even be willing to test any specific workflow for you, although I have metaSAN and not XSan so ymmv.
Jeremy
-
[David Roth Weiss] “But, I’ll see what Ramy has to say and I’ll get back to you on it right here. Okay?”
Surely.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Does that help? Feel free to ask any question….”
Thanks. That helps a lot. I’ll follow up if it turns out that my client goes in that direction.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[David Roth Weiss] “Like it or not, the visual nature of tracked audio provides instant recognition and instant feedback for many who may never be able to get around it. The ultimate success or failure of FCPX may well prove to be dependent on this one aspect of Apple’s radical departure from the tracked standard.”
So then the next question that pops up for me is whether in the past, those who succeeded as “editors” were largely those who’s brains could be most comfortable in a “linear display of everything” mode – and those who were wired to naturally think differently found editing more frustrating than their “other wired” brethren.
I’m not making ANY value judgements about this. Not trying to shoehorn editors into a box, or even presume that someone “wired for linear display” (if anything even remotely like that exists) might have the same natural affinity to editing akin to how someone who genetically has a large physique and robust musculature might be attracted to sports.
I’m just broadly postulating whether having another approach to editing available might, in the longer run, make it more attractive to those who don’t quite so naturally “resonate” with the timeline approach we’ve had up to now.
Maybe this is totally “over thinking” things and it will turn out that like driving a car, nearly anyone can do it competently regardless of how their brain naturally functions.
And that this will reflect on not only the initial resistance of the “Legacy” trained editors, but eventually lead to their seeing that learning the new process embodied in X is actually no more difficult than learning, perhaps, to move from driving a manual transmission car, to a diesel truck. Most stuff the same, some things like double-clutching different, but on the whole, not as daunting as it looks at first glance up at that big cab – which actually has no more levers and buttons than a Mercades, but many of them DO have different functions and tasks attached.
That would go a tiny way to explain why there was such a large rapid hue and cry about the change to something that is actually such a small part of the entire process of competent digital storytelling.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Murch’s whole speech posted.
Can’t wait to check it out:
Jeremy
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
Actually Tom, I believe the track/timeline is a metaphor for running a series of tracks — film and magnetic — through a synchonizer block (and a Moviescope viewer). Even when an editor would cut on an upright Moviola, an assistant would be at the bench, pulling multiple video and audio tracks in sync from left to right, the footage representing time in the way we now look at timecode. He/she would move clips in and out of sync (by inserting filler, a metaphor some like in the way magnetic timeline works BTW) and basically assemble the multi-track movie according to directions from the editor.
I said this many months ago: the legacy NLEs are all a crazy mixed metaphor, taking the best interface elements from older technologies: the Source/Record monitors are from tape editing. The Timeline is from film. And the Browsers and Bins are a combination of physical film organization and the Mac/Windows Finder/Desktop.
Doug D
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up