-
what is editing speed ?
-
[Bill Davis] “playing in the footage WAS editing. Making choices and judging narrative elements and SAVING those decisions – on the fly – before a timeline even existed.”
I see people say this alot when working with FCPX.
This has always been the way i worked in all NLE’s. Spot the footage – make markers – subclips, in and out selections, really whittle it down in the bins so I’m educated before i hit the timeline. I make stringout timelines too but theres alot that goes on before i get ot that point.
How is that unique to X? And what was stopping you from doing it in 7 or one of the other NLE’s?
-
[Neil Goodman] “How is that unique to X?”
Neil,
Nobody is saying it is UNIQUE to X. What I’m saying is X is uniquely built in a way that greatly ENHANCES this process for me.. From the first time you confront any asset at any stage in X editing – As you start to understand the shape of and essential character of those assets – X uniquely gives you an internal tool – the keyword database – purpose designed to let you instantly select, tag, refine, notate, and SAVE your thinking about them.
Sure people did this before X. In fact there’s an argument that you can’t edit without doing it.
But X is structured into a system of tools (keywords, magnetic behavior and more) that arguably make it more intuitive, flexible and, yes, fast – in which to express and SAVE your editing ideas as you work.
Nobody has ever argued that you can’t do these things without X.
It’s the re-thinkiing that everyone found so STRANGE about X initially – that is EXACTLY what makes it fast and fluid.
It’s our old argument. X is less because it’s TOO different – verses X allows you more speed and freedom exactly because it IS different.
In the beginning, there were very few of us saying the latter. Now there are wordwide cadres of editors who are saying this.
That still says nothing about whether it will be faster or better for YOU. It just says that beneath the difference, was a lot of smart re-thinking and careful analysis by the X development team – led by Randy U – that had REASONS for the change they coded into X.
At first, MANY people couldn’t really see the value of the differences. But now that’s changed. Those of us who love it – large swaths of fellow editors worldwide now – are there with whom we can share our constant excitement about how it’s changed what we do – how we think – and how we approach our working days.
And a LOT of us find it just more fun to cut in.
I know I do.
That’s all.
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.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I feel terrible saying it. Is that what this is? That seems such an awful irresponsible thing to have said. Well now I feel bad.”
Priceless. Guilt comes to the forum.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Bill Davis] “And a LOT of us find it just more fun to cut in. “
This is my experience. It brought some joy back to an often tedious process and gives me more time to color grade or play with other ideas for the edit.
Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production… with style!Check out my Mormon.org profile.
-
[Herb Sevush] “I do remember “NLE shoot-outs” years ago where teams of editors using different NLE’s worked against the clock on the same project. These tests were as inconclusive and silly as they sound.”
The other variable is that NLEs don’t perform the same in all situations so even though NLE ABC might be really good in one scenario it might not be quite as good as NLE XYZ in a different scenario.
[Michael Gissing] “Redundant key strokes or excessive mouse movement are a pet peeve when it comes to software but often that changes with dedicated control hardware. I am far more likely to edit with Resolve than Pr now as I have the Tangent Wave controller. “
Yeah, once you get use a control surface for grading there is no going back. It’s the difference between playing a piano with both hands vs 1 finger.
On a similar note, I’ve largely retired the keyboard from my setup. In it’s place is a Logitech G13 game controller. It takes a bit to get dialed in, because you really start thinking about what shortcuts you use the most and why, but I love it. I’ve always been a custom keyboard layout guy though. I also use a 6 button programmable mouse so I only need the keyboard for text entry and not frequently used keyboard shortcuts. For a long time I used a Wacom but I gravitated back to mice a couple years ago (have a vertical mouse currently for ergonomics).
[Bill Davis] “Yes it’s a Rabbit hole to define.
But for me the change in productivity is clear and quite simple. “
This is probably the best description I’ve read about X in this regard. I know you’ve raised the same points many times before, but this seems the most concise and effectively illustrative of what you are trying to get across.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I feel terrible saying it. Is that what this is? That seems such an awful irresponsible thing to have said. Well now I feel bad.”
Aindreas.
I know EXACTLY what it is.
You’ve misunderstood the entire essence of X from day one. And you’re STILL stuck there. Unchanged.
Every single thing that triggers “constrained” in your thinking – is just as likely something that triggers *FREEDOM*!! in someone else. .
It’s not X. Its you. But there’s nothing to feel bad about.
A guitar player doesn’t feel constrained by frets. They just make it a tiny bit easier to make accurate sounds. Violinists don’t need them. Haven’t for 500 years.They make accurate notes all day long without frets.
I drive X and it feels fretless. And after I learned to play – I got music as nice as when I ONLY had FRETS.
You drive Premier and think THAT is fretless.
Who cares if it’s Lindsey Sterling or Rodrigo Sanchez playing. Or whether their style preference is frets or not?
What is DUMB is saying that because an instrument has (or doesn’t have) frets – it is IINHERABTLY not as good an instrument. And that’s kinda been your mode from day one. You critique an instrument you don’t play. And in trying to IMAGINE how it works, you’re typically extremely off base. It’s a dumb idea at it’s core.
You IMAGINE these huge flaws in X (NO FRETS! The SKY Is falling) But it’s as dumb as arguing that you can’t create accurate notes without frets. Nobody is buying the arguments any more because they have proved to be silly from the start. You were TRYING to make software you never understood into something it never was.
You like frets? Great. Play with frets. But just be quiet about violins. You don’t understand that actual nuances of playing them at all. And fretless isn’t really a problem.No matter how much you TRY to make up reasons as to why it is.
Period.
Wait, did I say fretless? I really meant trackless.
Or not.
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.
-
[Herb Sevush] ” what is editing speed ?”
Moore’s law divided by the Society of Instagram Commenteers compounded by high streaming content provision to the power of the length of a Vine and corresponding attention span….
Plus 2.
Someone check my math, but I think that equals editing speed.
-
[Bill Davis] “Neil,
Nobody is saying it is UNIQUE to X. What I’m saying is X is uniquely built in a way that greatly ENHANCES this process for me.. From the first time you confront any asset at any stage in X editing – As you start to understand the shape of and essential character of those assets – X uniquely gives you an internal tool – the keyword database – purpose designed to let you instantly select, tag, refine, notate, and SAVE your thinking about them.
Sure people did this before X. In fact there’s an argument that you can’t edit without doing it.
But X is structured into a system of tools (keywords, magnetic behavior and more) that arguably make it more intuitive, flexible and, yes, fast – in which to express and SAVE your editing ideas as you work.
Nobody has ever argued that you can’t do these things without X.
It’s the re-thinkiing that everyone found so STRANGE about X initially – that is EXACTLY what makes it fast and fluid.
It’s our old argument. X is less because it’s TOO different – verses X allows you more speed and freedom exactly because it IS different.
In the beginning, there were very few of us saying the latter. Now there are wordwide cadres of editors who are saying this.
That still says nothing about whether it will be faster or better for YOU. It just says that beneath the difference, was a lot of smart re-thinking and careful analysis by the X development team – led by Randy U – that had REASONS for the change they coded into X.
At first, MANY people couldn’t really see the value of the differences. But now that’s changed. Those of us who love it – large swaths of fellow editors worldwide now – are there with whom we can share our constant excitement about how it’s changed what we do – how we think – and how we approach our working days.
And a LOT of us find it just more fun to cut in.
I know I do.
That’s all.
“Appreciate the response.
Theres alot of things I do like about X – and I consider myself to be pretty versed in it by now. Just havent drank the kool-aid full on yet.
Theres just too many options out there at the moment that are “Normal” and do the job just as quick.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “[Herb Sevush] ” what is editing speed ?”
Moore’s law divided by the Society of Instagram Commenteers compounded by high streaming content provision to the power of the length of a Vine and corresponding attention span….
Plus 2.
Someone check my math, but I think that equals editing speed.”
https://youtu.be/1uXEVRaTpdQ?t=14
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.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “The overweening presumption that this is somehow true for all types of editing is insufferable to me.
Apologies in advance to anyone whom this might offend.”
Don’t worry Simon. It’s impossible to offend me on this. And I’m sorry it’s causing you such Angst.
So, if I understand you – you can’t conceive of a communication type where horizontal stringout to establish rhythm isn’t the ultimate soul of the exercise? Strange, I can.
The way you and I are trained to notice and work within a traditional visual rhythm, perhaps, but maybe there’s a kid out there who thinks of rhythm differently?. Maybe he or she wants to build emotional constructs instead of story flows FIRST and would rather spend time thinking about whether there’s enough Aggressive tagged clips for a needed flow of narrative IN ADVANCE of setting up for failure because there is NOT. And maybe he or she wants to LAYER those for emotional build – but ONLY if there are enough pieces to fit inn the time slot being imagined. X can do that in seconds. A string out to do that? No thanks.
In X. Tag for Aggressive. RATE for Aggressive. Rate for Sad. Where does it show me SAD in your string-out? WHY DOESN”T IT? I have to squint and GUESS which is the most AGGRESSIVE asset. Why? Because only some of those concepts can be as easily attached to a traditional assembly. The same clip CERTAINLY can’t occupy ALL those same tagged folders in a traditional timeline without wasteful duplication.
In X you can do all that right now. Establish thinking that INFORMES your architecture in advance of your stroyline rhythmic work. If you think the ONLY BEST way to do that is folders full of clip copies or linear stringouts – I call BS. Could I argue that an editor hasn’t really gone beyond what you’re used to – if the idea that noticing that you’ve tagged parts of the same clips as Silly, Excellent AND Sad – is a higher level of thinking than “”What was that scene that was all over the emotional map? 105 take 2 or 105 take 6??? In X, it doesn’t matter. want it (those/simiar) and it’s THERE.
That fact alone may codify new thinking for you. Or it may not. You might stop your tagging at at B-roll. And Scene 105. That’s fine. But it’s not interesting.
Look at how the older arts have confronted prior traditions. Can it be fine art without traditional representation? Ask Jackson Pollack or Joan Miro. Can there be music without melody? Sure. Without Rhythm. Also sure. So why do moving pictures need the tyranny of traditional linear string-out structure? I might like that scaffold. And you might. But maybe somebody else won”t.
Again, this doesn’t argue it’s not useful. I’m just not willing to stop thinking because you tell me it’s NECESSARY and get mad when I think about a space where it might be less constraining.
The problem is that seems to be ALL you are willing to allow with your strain of argument. If you don’t STRING-OUT for horizontal timing you’re NOT a good editor. – you are not allowed to do something different FIRST – THEN maybe re-visit for pace and rhythm. Well, maybe editors will find new ways to establish pace and rhythm?
I’m just disappointed that you are so stuck on this way being WRONG. It would like somebody saying Schoenburg was WRONG because he didn’t use a “proper” scale. (Wait, they DID say that didn’t they? Oops.)
As far as X has dragged me away from my traditions, I’m still stuck thinking mostly like a traditional editor.
And sorry, but it’s BECAUSE that’s all I could learn with the rigid rules of my training period.
When Tom Carter put the audio tracks UP in the Honda Ad, – it freaked me out. I’d never seen that before. But he’s young. He didn’t know he shouldn’t – so he did it naturally – and won every award in sight because his editing thinking was FAR less constipated than mine.
I won’t soon forget that.
And perhaps the next big surprise for me will be seeing an edit some kid does where the rhythm takes place in VERTICAL X-connected blocks rather than horizontal crawling over clips like we think now. Maybe he’s in his room with a loop running half a second duration while he works ONLY vertically in connected clips playing the V key like a maestro. Good for him. He’s diminished the idea of UNFOLDING – in favor of looped EVOLVING. Whatever. I just don’t want him NOT trying it because he reads here that you MUST have String outs to be a good editor.
(by the way, II don’t even know that might look or sound like. But maybe someday I will!)
That’s the fun of X. I’m no longer quite so sure about what I CANNOT do -BECAUSE I’ve realized that a good number of the rules may have changed because there’s a new tool available.
Arguments that NO tool that doesn’t work the traditional way (HORIZONTAL STRING-OUTS or GO AWAY?
Nope. NOT going to struggle to stay in that world.
There MAY ACTUALLY not EVER be a better way to edit than what we were doing 15 years ago. It IS a possibility. But if so, the world is a sadder place than I thought.
And that’s NOT where I want to live.
Just some rambling thoughts. But what do I know.
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.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up