-
Walter Murch won’t use FCX
-
[Tom Wolsky] “you’re focused on YOUR tools.”
god, utterly wrong. surely, as with any given craft, are we not only meant to have shared tools, we have to have shared tools?
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Devin Crane] “It’s funny how people read things differently, from what I read, he’s not using it now but is cautiously optimistic about it. Never in the article does it say however that he “won’t use it” as the post replies.”
Is not about interpreting Murch’s words but that time-line.
Does people think that is possible to do that in FCPX?
Would people spend time learning FCPX to try to do that job?
rafael -
[Tom Wolsky] “Oddly FCPX with its magnetic timeline and spacing mirrors film editing more closely than the video based paradigm used in legacy versions.”
Please Tom, can you provide us with some details? Other than the similarity to inserting “fill” when cutting mag track, how else does X mirror film editing? What else are you referring to?
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.
-
A single monitor. Most film on Moviola and Steenbeck was cut on a single video display. Dual monitors are really a development of video tape production. Holding up two pieces of film for match framing an edit is comparable to the two up display in FCP. In film audio was connected, either as part of the film or rolled together with the film. They behaved as part of the film or as connected clips very similar to the way audio is connected to specific clips in FCP. There is much in compound clips that parallel the way sections of film were assembled and grouped together in reels that were handled and mixed as units. I’m sure there are other resemblances but those come to mind. Together with layered behavior those are significant similarities. The whole idea of tracks with free-floating content is a creation of digital editing and has no comparable basis in film. Much of the NLE timeline and editing behavior and paradigm draws more on videotape antecedents than film.
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 -
About language I could not agree more. Apple started abusing terminology in the very first version of FCP and has been doing it ever since, and continues with that tradition in X.
Not sure if there is anything wrong with changing the tools. Changing the tools might change the way you work, just as moving from a gang sync to a Moviola to a Steenbeck changed how you edited film, so moving from traditional NLEs to FCP will change the way you edit digitally. And as so often happens changing the tools will likely change what they produce. New cameras and lens change the way people shoot and the type of shots people take. Changing the tools in editing will probably have a similar effect.
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 -
[Bill Davis] “In the beginning nearly EVERYONE got FCP-X significantly wrong. We did that because it was nothing like we expected. It was significantly harder to understand it’s new way of approaching NLE operation than everyone thought. That’s, IMO, partly because it was so fundamentally different”
I – since day one – strongly disagree with that statement. It is not at all hard to understand and it is even much easier to grasp by newbies. I used Liquid Chrome and other tools (Edius, Speed Razor, Edit*, FCP) and FCPX seems to combine the good features of many of them while eliminating the bad ones of FCP7.
What is hard to understand? Once you know a Project is now called Event, and your sequence is the project you are set. From then on: Import, sort, edit, export.
The only feature that is hard to grasp for me is the colour-board. While it is great for quick fixes, I fight when using the vectorscope and want to shift the colour into a certain direction.
Did I edit from day one like today? No, of course not. Of course there are moments at first where you look for stuff or you are baffled by buggy-behaviour of the early release (boy do I hate it when I copy effects and forget I also wrote over the audio-compressors with the colour-look). So I know it is not finished and I am surprised how Apple handled the release. But the software´s set-up is extremely easy to understand, elegant to work with and will be changing the way people edit ON ALL LEVELS.
-
[David Lawrence] “Keep in mind that all that empty space is actually information. When you’re using space as an organizing tool, the negative space is just as important as the where the clips are in showing patterns and flow. Even though he said he could consolidate, I find it interesting that he hadn’t.”
I completely understand and I get it. That doesn’t mean that there’s not a better way, or maybe just a different way. Having a two hour timeline with 50 tracks, and 10 of those tracks have but a few elements in them seems a bit inefficient, but may e that’s just me. The timeline seems over complicated, and perhaps doesn’t need to be. Perhaps, with Roles, you can get the exports you need without having to segregate everything
There’s no question that audio organization needs a bit of help in FCPX.
[David Lawrence] “This would be great, but I still think the biggest architectural constraint is the single primary storyline.
When you look at WM’s timeline, do you see anything that looks like “primary” and “secondary” content?
I don’t. What I see looks like a musical score. Everything look primary in terms of time, irregardless of narrative. I’m sure you could map his timeline into FCPX after the fact, but I have a hard time imagining FCPX’s single primary is robust enough to compete with the flexibility of multiple open tracks during the editorial process.WM’s timeline screenshot really shows how reductive Apple’s thinking is with their new timeline paradigm. I look forward to seeing how they will support his level of editorial complexity.”
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.
Do you think he works that way because he wants to, or because the FCP7 interface dictates he has to? If you need to export separate tracks, there’s no other way to do it but to put everything on its own track. X solves that with Roles.
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.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Do you think he works that way because he wants to, or because the FCP7 interface dictates he has to? If you need to export separate tracks, there’s no other way to do it but to put everything on its own track. X solves that with Roles.”
The main reason he has for grouping his tracks the way he does is that (as he explained) he likes to “live mix” the different stems (dialogue, effects, music) through a basic desk. You can’t yet do this sort of output routing with FCPX – even with Roles. Maybe that will arrive in later incarnations of the Roles idea …
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “i hold my opinions genuinely here. I think the goals of this software are intrinsically invalid.
there are some incredibly interesting tidbits to be had about the war in apple over what this software was meant to be.
the idea that the provision of persistent in out markers for clips being a current on the record “furious debate” in apple (Larry Jordan), I found truly show stopping in terms of their care and duty as editing software providers right?”I do know you are genuine. It wasn’t a backhanded compliment. It was a compliment.
I don’t see as show stopping. I see it as a technical hurdle. I thought you might have been on that thread about how fcp7 is constantly caching. Think for a second that evey in and out that you make needs to be coached, now think how dynamic the browser is, persistent in and out points perhaps might represent a system slow down. It’s just a theory, I don’t really know. Perhaps this is naive of me, but I don’t think the furious debate is functional in nature, my guess is it’s a technical hurdle. If they could do it and it wouldn’t present any system inefficiencies, why wouldn’t they do it? Or are you too distrusting of Apple and you think they just don’t want to? If you are that skeptical, I’d say you should seriously consider moving to another package and platform all together. At some point, I have to trust that they know more about certain things than I do, and programming the interface is definitely one of those areas.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “what kind of people do we think are having that argument in apple? who are they? how well versed in editing practise do we think they are? No one in apple coded the FCP we use.”
I have no idea about any of these questions inckuding who was flet go for what. If we made our decisions on people being let go,, then none fo us would go to Acid as they just laid off 200 people. Its a silly argument, as we dont know what the real motivations are. I don’t know the people behind the closed doors, but I will say this. Just because you aren’t a great editor does not mean you can’t write a great program. I can’t really speculate who they are or what their motivation is. I think that FCPX is a complicated undertaking wrapped in perhaps an over simplified presentation. It is not iMovie, it takes more than a few hours to “get it” and it needs some more functionality and finesse. but it’s young. It’s four months old. Even with Apple’s resources it takes time to write this stuff and get it right. In my opinion, it is for this reason they rolling it out as slowly as they are, so that they can QC as they go. As we all know, no matter how much you test, you won’t find the true problems until you get it out in the real world. If they would have released all features on day 1, it would be a disaster, even more so than it might be now. You can look at other examples of this. Red, Alexa, AJA, they all release products that are feature incomplete. Apple is no exception.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “the amount of chrome on the editing items themselves – does that feel on the ball?”
As opposed to the drab grey of FCP Legacy? Not sure how this is going to destroy the craft of editing as you claimed in your last post. As far as the “gluey” interface, yeah there’s some effienicies that need to be and there. To me if feels like it’s GPU related. Again, it’s new. These things are going to happen. 10.0.1 feels better than 10.0.0. It’s a brand new program.
That article you linked to also said this:
“Final Cut Pro 1.0 didn’t win over every Avid user, and Final Cut Pro X won’t win over every Final Cut Pro user. But they’ve laid the foundation for something incredible, and I can’t wait to see where it goes from here.
Congrats to all my friends on the Final Cut Pro team who shipped this incredible release!”
[Aindreas Gallagher] “we’re talking about a hatchet being taken to the basic tentents of editing by software teams who know barely anything about it. Software teams who are on the record from Larry Jordan and others as having totally ignored all feedback.”
Andy, I love you buddy, but you didn’t annswer any of my questions in the last post, but you seem to have preheated that Apple is destroying something again. How?
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Jeremy – in MS word terms, as outlined by walter murch, they produced a version of microsoft word that cannot open any previous versions of written documents created in Microsoft word, not a single written word.
and, continuing the thought experiment, given that editing is close to the written word of the moving image, they also killed the only standing version of microsoft word that could support those written words – nevermind the hacks out now – that is what they presented to the world.
let that sink in for a bit.”It’s at the bottom of the ocean.
This is not an apt analogy. Video editing is not typing. The very underpinnings of computerized video or drastically changing every single day. Last time I checked the English alphabet hasn’t added any new letters recently, while there has been a ton of new and complicated video formats added over the last decade. There has also been a dramatic increase in viewing outlets. Now, and certainly in the future, video is data. It is. We will need new and better ways to describe this data, and FCP7 fell way short (as did XML in some ways). Apple decided to not drag that legacy around anymore. It is these legacies that cause massive ineffiencies. Look at Avid, the oldest player on the block, right? They are dragging a massive, massive legacy and it’s literally killing them, if you ask me. No offense to Avid employees. New does not always equal better, but what I see in FCPX isn’t better because it’s new, it’s better because it’s better. If cutting the legacy was the way to do that, then I guess it’s the way it goes. Also, all is not lost. There are already some translators out there, and perhaps more will come, we already know its possible.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Jeremy: in truth, I simply find all this somewhat utterly enraging from a company that so, so so loves to wrap itself in the flag of the band creative.
I just don’t know these guys.”
How well can you really know a company? Nothing is guaranteed. Any company can kill off any product at any time without asking you first. It’s reality. I’m not making excuses for Apple, they could and should have handled the psychology of this whole thing differently, but really, they are just a company like any other. Why so disillusioned all of a sudden? Apple has never been one to let the cat out of the bag.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “The main reason he has for grouping his tracks the way he does is that (as he explained) he likes to “live mix” the different stems (dialogue, effects, music) through a basic desk. You can’t yet do this sort of output routing with FCPX – even with Roles. Maybe that will arrive in later incarnations of the Roles idea …”
Sorry, should have been more specific. Yes, you point out the audio capabilities, I was talking about video at that point. If he needed to export audio, he could do that through OMF if he didn’t need stems. I was specifically talking about video track exprt there, sorry.
Look at the video tracks, there’s no reason why those couldn’t be more consolidated if following the export structure of roles.
Audio still needs to be more connected through metadata for proper bussing. Hopefully, when we get video out, some of these will get further addressed. We will need a way to get audio out to specific channels. Roles will get us there, I think.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up