Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

  • Steve Connor

    October 2, 2017 at 1:24 pm
  • Michael Hancock

    October 2, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    From the article:

    “I was impressed with the cost savings: FCP X was so inexpensive, particularly when I considered what the system was able to save me as far as deliverables.”

    What exactly are these cost savings and deliverables, and how much are they? Can we get a breakdown of where the money is being saved in FCPX versus cutting in Avid or Premiere? It must have been a huge amount, since “Honestly, had it not been for the FCP X savings, the movie Daisy Winters would have sacrificed in ways that would have been detrimental to the film.” That’s huge! So, where are the details?

    —————-
    Michael Hancock
    Editor

  • Lance Bachelder

    October 2, 2017 at 4:15 pm

    Sounds like the show was probably set up with a traditional post workflow which may have included weekly Avid system rentals etc. So a Producer who had never worked on a real Indie would naturally freak out seeing their show cut on a laptop with $300 software. I’ve delivered several feature films now via FCPX and must say if every Editor in Hollywood (where FCPX still has the stigma from its disastrous roll-out) knew what I know about the depth of the program they wouldn’t use anything else – mainly because there is no other NLE with the picture and sound capabilities of FCPX. And when it comes time to deliver a master with 16 tracks of audio according to studio specs it’s easy peezy.

    It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

    Lance Bachelder
    Writer, Editor, Director
    Downtown Long Beach, California
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

  • Bill Davis

    October 2, 2017 at 6:43 pm

    Lance here (And Darren Rourke, from the article) both have something in common.

    Back when everyone was trashing X – they saw something valuable in it worth learning about. IIRC Lance went through significant hot and cold periods about X for his needs. And Darren and I have been having long chats for more than 5 years at trade shows and on the phone discussing X issues.

    I note this just to point out that high level X specific skills really do take significant time to master. (True of all software, but perhaps particularly true of X)

    It’s only after you make the climb, that you really see how its system often makes many editing tasks a whole lot easier. Not all. Nor always. And no, neither I nor anyone else has the time or interest to interpret all that for specific others unless we feel like doing so for some personal reason.

    If you want to embrace it or ignore it, that’s fine.

    It is what it is.

    ????

    Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
    The shortest path to FCP X mastery.

  • Michael Hancock

    October 2, 2017 at 7:22 pm

    [Lance Bachelder] “Sounds like the show was probably set up with a traditional post workflow which may have included weekly Avid system rentals etc. So a Producer who had never worked on a real Indie would naturally freak out seeing their show cut on a laptop with $300 software. “

    That’s kind of how I was reading it too, but that’s a pretty bad comparison of cost savings then, isn’t it? They could run Avid or Premiere on the same laptop and seen the same savings (minus the higher cost to buy Avid/rent Premiere). Unless there’s more to it than that?

    That’s why I wish the article would have gone into real detail about where the savings were actually realized, how significant the savings were, and why.

    You mentioned that exporting a master file with 16 channels of audio per studio specs is easy in FCPX – maybe that’s a lot more time consuming in Avid or Premiere and would have cost them an extra day in post. That could easily be a couple grand in savings right there!

    I guess we’ll never know.

    —————-
    Michael Hancock
    Editor

  • Charlie Austin

    October 2, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    [Michael Hancock] “I guess we’ll never know.”

    The savings were real, significant, and realized by leveraging FCP X specific workflows and tools. I’ll see if Darren wants to pop in and add some details, but he’s probably not up for the arguments that would erupt. ????

    ————————————————————-

    ~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
    ~\”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.\”~
    ~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
    ~\”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented\”~

  • Michael Hancock

    October 2, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    [Charlie Austin] “I’ll see if Darren wants to pop in and add some details, but he’s probably not up for the arguments that would erupt.”

    LOL. I’m not looking to argue – I’m just looking for actual details about what workflows saved time and money. They cite “specific workflows and tools”, but never get specific. Hopefully he’ll pop over with more info.

    —————-
    Michael Hancock
    Editor

  • Charlie Austin

    October 2, 2017 at 8:59 pm

    [Michael Hancock] “LOL. I’m not looking to argue – I’m just looking for actual details about what workflows saved time and money. They cite “specific workflows and tools”, but never get specific. Hopefully he’ll pop over with more info.”

    I’m speaking in.. generalities. ☺

    I agree the article is short on detail, and sadly, my memory isn’t good enough to recount anything I was told about this… It came up in conversation while the production was ongoing and I’d get it wrong if I tried to post it. I do know that it ran the gamut from software cost to ingest to edit to color/mix etc. I’ll bug him for some bullet points…

    ————————————————————-

    ~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
    ~\”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.\”~
    ~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
    ~\”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented\”~

  • Steve Connor

    October 2, 2017 at 9:13 pm

    [Bill Davis] “And no, neither I nor anyone else has the time or interest to interpret all that for specific others”

    They can always subscribe to xintwo.com if they want to find out more 🙂

  • Don Scioli

    October 2, 2017 at 9:34 pm

    I do not see the big deal…I’ve cut 4 future length docs and 1 theatrical horror film on FCPX and never had a problem, worked smooth, quickly and output quality was superb. The last 2 aired on PBS, which is a stickler for standards.

Viewing 1 - 10 of 198 posts

Log in to reply.

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy