-
Walter Murch won’t use FCX
-
[David Lawrence] “There was also this:
“The lack of tracks was another killer for him. While he doesn’t really need to work with 50 tracks, he does need to leverage the ability to selectively raise or lower the levels very specifically.”
“Which doesn’t make sense. It’s like the claim that’s been said that FCPX can’t edit video and audio or add text. It’s just plain false.
[David Lawrence] “Did you look at his timeline for Hemingway & Gellhorn?
His Final Cut Pro project consisted of 22 video tracks and 50 audio tracks, combining sound elements ranging from 8 tracks of dialogue, to 24 tracks of mono and stereo sound effects with and without low frequency enhancements (LFE)!!”I did. The thing that struck me was all the empty space. You can see he used disabled tracks as an organizer. FCPX just works differently. I wonder if a really good assistant showed him some of the different ways of utilizing FCPX, I wonder he would think. He said he likes technology. He obviously needs organization, so much so, FCP7 wasn’t good enough to give him the “at a glance” overview he needed.
I think he also bounces out to DAWs quite often. This is certainly a show stopper for him at the moment, I’m sure. I seem to remember the Apple promo materials showing him working in STP which might have been marketing, or maybe it was real (I’m sure final audio post wasn’t done in STP), I wonder what he would think of the built in Logic effects.
[David Lawrence] “So messy! We can’t have that! Who could possibly understand it? And everyone knows FCP7’s audio tools are way too lousy to do any serious mixing and sound design.”
In all honesty, no one would have just by looking at the timeline. It wasn’t until the huge labels came up that it made sense. Looks like he needed a third party app (shudder!) in Filemaker Pro as a database manger to keep it all straight.
[David Lawrence] “I doubt WM will have any interest in FCPX unless it seriously changes. But he did have some thoughts on where to go.”
Of course, I would seriously beg to differ. 🙂
-
[David Lawrence] “And everyone knows FCP7’s audio tools are way too lousy to do any serious mixing and sound design.”
I think you can do sound design in FCP7, but it’s not very easy nor does it have any serious sound design tools at the level of DP MasterWorks or Logic stuff, so I’ve always done our post there.
It’s the ability to now sculpt audio with the high end Logic tools in X and to apply them to individual clips, quickly selectable groups and Master buss that makes finishing audio the real deal.
It needs a ton of refinement, but it can already do what you can’t do in 7 in my experience.
-
sorry my connections wigging out. First snow storm.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” (I’m sure final audio post wasn’t done in STP), I wonder what he would think of the built in Logic effects.
“I’m sure it wasn’t either. I’ve never considered STP to be a serious mastering tool. I can’t imagine how he wouldn’t be impressed with Logic being in X…it brings the sonic quality of Logic.
-
[Jim Giberti] “I can’t imagine how he wouldn’t be impressed with Logic being in X…it brings the sonic quality of Logic.”
Right in the FCPX timeline as well.*
And now that Autoduck is free…..!
https://www.automaticduck.com/products/download/index.html
*(I don’t know what a timeliness well is, but sound fun and dangerous all at the same time)
-
You guys crack me up. Like WM would actually mix a movie in any NLE, STP or Logic. As re-recording mixer he strictly works on Pro Tools. As such, in his recent films that’s typically a 2-man operation using an Avid Icon control surface. This FCP timeline layout you see is strictly a temp mix for screening purposes. Like all good film editors, he’s trying to flesh out as full of a sound track as he can for the director or anyone else who screens the film. If he’s working with broadcast wave files from the location mixer, that’s going to be 8 or more tracks per take. If you have overlapping dialogue edits, 16 or more tracks are going to be tied up checkerboarding these tracks. His use of STP has been very limited. Mainly to clean up location mics for the temp tracks. Nothing permanent and not for mixing. This all has to go via OMF to the audio editors.
As far as the FMP database, this is a freeform database he has evolved over numerous films and it replaces hand written notes and tracks absolutely everything about each take. This is made available to his team on a network, I believe so anyone can cross-reference it. It has to stay independent of the NLE because it has to be available at any location he may be. It has also transcended various NLE changes.
It should be noted, that although Murch is an A-list Oscar winner, he still can’t always dictate the system he will use. Like most of us freelancers, often others make that decision. When he took on “Wolfman” the project had already been started on Media Composer and so he continued on the same system.
I think it’s incredibly presumptuous to suggest that a good assistant could show him how to use FCP X to his advantage. Most films have a very unique workflow. In WM’s case he has had very savvy assistants, which is how he ended up on FCP in the first place. As such he and his team have taken on more than the usual film editors. For instance on “Youth Without Youth” and I believe “Tetro” as well, his assistants tackled some of the set extensions in Shake and also conformed the files into DPX sequences for the final DI. That’s something most creative film editorial teams would never touch.
I think the reason there’s a big surprise about how this was handled is that he has had over the years regular meetings with the ProApps boys to offer suggestions for FCP improvements. If they took the time to have these meetings, then why ignore the input?
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
You guys are funny. Like WM would actually mix a movie in any NLE, STP or Logic. As re-recording mixer he strictly works on Pro Tools. As such, in his recent films that’s typically a 2-man operation using an Avid Icon control surface. This FCP timeline layout you see is strictly a temp mix for screening purposes. Like all good film editors, he’s trying to flesh out as full of a sound track as he can for the director or anyone else who screens the film. If he’s working with broadcast wave files from the location mixer, that’s going to be 8 or more tracks per take. If you have overlapping dialogue edits, 16 or more tracks are going to be tied up checkerboarding these tracks. His use of STP has been very limited. Mainly to clean up location mics for the temp tracks. Nothing permanent and not for mixing. This all has to go via OMF to the audio editors.
As far as the FMP database, this is a freeform database he has evolved over numerous films and it replaces hand written notes and tracks absolutely everything about each take. This is made available to his team on a network, I believe so anyone can cross-reference it. It has to stay independent of the NLE because it has to be available at any location he may be. It has also transcended various NLE changes.
It should be noted, that although Murch is an A-list Oscar winner, he still can’t always dictate the system he will use. Like most of us freelancers, often others make that decision. When he took on “Wolfman” the project had already been started on Media Composer and so he continued on the same system.
I think it’s incredibly presumptuous to suggest that a good assistant could show him how to use FCP X to his advantage. Most films have a very unique workflow. In WM’s case he has had very savvy assistants, which is how he ended up on FCP in the first place. As such he and his team have taken on more than the usual film editors. For instance on “Youth Without Youth” and I believe “Tetro” as well, his assistants tackled some of the set extensions in Shake and also conformed the files into DPX sequences for the final DI. That’s something most creative film editorial teams would never touch.
I think the reason there’s a big surprise about how this was handled is that he has had over the years regular meetings with the ProApps boys to offer suggestions of improvements. If they take the time to have these meetings, then why ignore the input?
FWIW – to my knowledge, none of the other prominent FCP film editors are ready to jump on the FCP X bandwagon either at this time.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
So, I presume. So you know Mr Murch?
And if his assistants got him to FCP, then couldn’t one of those savvy one’s get to him to take a good look at FCPX?
It takes more than a “quick” look.
The app is 4 months old, doesn’t have video out, and just got free OMF out this evening.
Of course people should tread lightly.
And as far as audio mix, he can get a lot done for rough cuts at a better quality in X than in 7, that’s all I’m saying. I know that STP is not going to be the final out. I don’t edit features, but I’m not a foo’.
I would just be curious to see what he thought is all, and yeah, that’s presuming something, I guess.
Glad we at least made you laugh.
Hey, have you checked out the Pomfort Alexa Log-C transform plug?
-
[Oliver Peters] “You guys crack me up. Like WM would actually mix a movie in any NLE, STP or Logic. As re-recording mixer he strictly works on Pro Tools.”
It’s good you’re entertained Oliver. It’s interesting that you think that he wouldn’t mix a film in Logic though. Because he works in Pro Tools doesn’t mean that it’s superior. I’m sure he’s like every other creative pro – he uses what’s he’s most comfortable using out of a range of quality tools.
I’ve had all three in my studios and much prefer Digital Performer 7 to Pro Tools, as do many pro engineers and producers at the highest level.
I did make the point that I don’t consider either FCP 7 or STP to be a real tool for audio post, but Logic?
Of course it is, and it’s why you can do a really good job sculpting audio in X.Of course not for a major or even minor film release but for TV spots, for instance, absolutely.
It’s been long established at this point that FCP X is not ready for the upper end of the editing industry, but to deny it’s unique capabilities (like finishing audio better than any NLE I know) is selling it short.
The real point is that the vast majority of people on the Cow, who edit in any version of FCP or any NLE, will never handle the audio at the level of Mr. Murch.
Like the vast majority of FCP editors have learned to do their own grading, so could they do their own in-house audio post if they learn the chops, and now X will let them.
I’m talking the great unwashed masses…and I suppose I’m one of them.
-
My problem with FCPX is not about tracks, but about playing complex sequences being able to SEE what doesn’t work and have it ready to fix it with a click of the mouse.
Showing every single element that runs below the play head and a second window are fundamental.[Bill Davis] “Most people don’t edit movies. OR TV shows, for that matter.
Most people edit to communicate. “
That makes no much sense.
Video is video whatever you want to use it it for.
A video editor, and so his tools, must be market agnostic.
My tools can’t not restrict my markets or my “field of action”.
I can have a tool for editing video, another for Color Grading and another for Audio finishing, but I can’t think of trying to mastering a complex NLE just for “communication” and another one for everything else.
If Apple had in mind a restricted use/market should have changed the name of the application.And again, FCP shortcomings doesn’t make a great application of FCPX. The few things that really shine in FCPX should have been in FCP.8. FCP shortcomings are but Apple fault.
rafael
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up