-
“Why I like Premiere Pro” – looking for serious discussion
-
[Oliver Peters] “LOL. There are certainly a lot of editors who would vehemently disagree. I’m not saying you are wrong, but it’s simply two different working styles.”
Absolutely.
When you’ve done nothing but pick from stringouts for years – it’s how you think.
A couple of years ago when I was doing some work with transitioning editors, that’s ALWYS where they went directly after the IMPORT stage..
“How do we make a quick timeline so we can spread out selects and start to work with them?”
“Uh. You don’t need to in X.”Confused the heck out of them at first. Then they’d finally “get” ranges and the database and I’d never hear about it again.
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.
-
[Bill Davis] “When you’ve done nothing but pick from stringouts for years – it’s how you think.”
There are many valid reasons for doing this. Certainly FCPX’s method has a lot of strengths, but let me explains a workflow on a documentary I cut back in the FCP7 days. About 65 hours of footage, mostly interviews.
1. Stingout selects by person
2. Rearrange selects (new sequences) according to topics
3. Rearrange item 2 (new sequences) to use the best person’s statements about each topic making sure to stay diverse – thus eliminating repeated statements on the same topic
4. Combine item 3 (new sequences) into story flow
5. Rearrange/recut/refine item 4 (new sequences) to get to a final versionWhile FCPX’s methods would let you do some of this, you completely miss the flow going from person to person as you try to assess content, but also nuances, like facial expressions, emotions, etc. You also miss the way your brain reacts when going from one person to the next, depending on how you’ve juxtaposed them.
A lot of feature editors have their assistants create selects stringouts that go like this. Every line reading within a scene from every take and every angle is edited back-to-back-to-back with shots in the order of wide to close-up for each line. This creates one long sequence for the scene with lots of repeats. The editor can immediately see all the coverage for a scene and immediately compare performances, camera angles, camera moves, framing, etc. Again the FCPX database permits some of this, but not all of it.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
The different organizational style in X is probably the thing I’m most curious about digging into. I’ve had some stops and starts recently w/X but I’ve ended being too busy with one thing or another to commit any serious time to it.
I have a love/hate relationship with pulling selects (in any capacity) because what’s usable and what’s unusable changes so often throughout the course of a documentary. On one hand I have to pare down the footage to get it manageable, but on the other hand I hate banishing footage to a dark corner where I might forget about it. Hence the reason I’m experimenting with an 11hr selects reel. I drop markers (all searchable) on things I think might be useful, but I also leave super fat handles so I can quickly look around those areas of interest if need be. Even with the fat handles I’ll still often match frame back to the source clip and scour through that looking for just the right shot or sound bite.
Many times zipping through footage for the umpteenth time looking for the shot I want will allow me to find the shot I need.
-
because, taken as a whole, it’s the best editing system on the market by a country mile, but I fully understand that some aspects of the are “meh”. 🙂
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Oliver Peters] “While FCPX’s methods would let you do some of this, you completely miss the flow going from person to person as you try to assess content, but also nuances, like facial expressions, emotions, etc. You also miss the way your brain reacts when going from one person to the next, depending on how you’ve juxtaposed them.”
Sorry, Oliver but I almost totally reject that reasoning.
Here’s some of a current X project I’m editing.
It too, is non-scripted and interview-driven.
Step 1 Import EVERYTHING. (this is what X looks like – (non-X editors note the ALL CLIPS filter in the upper left corner of the thumnails)
Step 2 REJECT TAG anything but when the interviewees are talking coherently or when you have usable material, so tumbles, blown takes, etc. HIDE REJECT – and VOILA – you have ONLY the possible soundbites and USEFUL shots left. Her 20 minute interview is now maybe 15 pre-trimmed USEFUL clips – everything else is hidden – but retrievable with a click.
This is what X looks like then: (note Hide Rejected filter.)
Step 3 TAG just these possibles by individual and class (B-Roll, Interview, Patrick, Graphics, etc.) This is EASY because it’s visual and you can take every clip of, for example, Jenny as a talking head – and just drop it on the Jenny Keyword and those clips ALL inherit the keyword. It’s lightening fast to tag stuff once you learn how.
NOW…
Step 4. Need a “string-out?” do a virtual one. Heck, do 10. There’s no bloat penalty. Just open a Project. Go to the PATRICK keyword, or the INTERVIEWS keyword, or any other bucket. Sort, select all. And tap Q.
And here’s where X gets REALLY interesting. I get an INSTANT string-out upon which I can slap timecode and quick email or web export a window burn of the result like this…
And it’s suddenly my “inside collaborators cut” to email out.
We discuss the stuff, pick our favorites then do our “outside collaborators cut” like this…
.Every “best take” gets an ID tag. (Basically, circle takes get circle tags, so to speak.) NOW we’ve got something to discuss easily with producers, clients or other stakeholders.
Order of scenes problems? Magnetism to the rescue. Grab the scene and drag it where you like – everything closes up and stays perfect. It’s the ULTIMATE “let me see my rough-cut with everything in context and yet easy to change” arrangement. Better than any non-magnetic string-out I’ve ever seen.
Basically, I’m doing EXACTLY what you’re doing – but with the HUGE advantage of the database nand magnetism helping me at every turn – saving ALL my thinking and choices as I go. I can just click the class in my keyword collection, target the needed clip – and BOOM – it’s in my story as an insert, connected clip, or audition.
My old string-outs were just disconnected clips on a disconnected timeline – learning from nothing and communicating with nothing. Mine are live, connected and interactive.
And remember, I can reorder and re-sort at ANY project stage. Magnetically. swap clips with abandon. Before, during and after they arrive on the storyline. Thats what databases DO.
And I have ALL the facial expressions, nuances and even actual performances I could possibly ever want while I’m editing.
It gives me everything I had organizing the old way – but with major new capabilities and speed.
Which, yes, requires new thinking, new learning, and even some new creativity as you architect your tagging, sorting and workflow preferences. But it seems like I have everything you have AND some outstanding new tools I can use to make things easier. It’s a no-brainer for me.
Just how I think as a editor with new tools.
FWIW.
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.
-
[Bill Davis] “Just how I think as a editor with new tools. “
Zero sum gain. Two ways to get to the same result with no advantage of one over the other. Just preference. And yes, I use keywording, favorites and rejects, too.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
All of which works fluidly in X.
Everything is just a metadata pointer to the defined range of the clip sequestered in storage. So no matter what you do to trim or reject anything – even if you’ve only used a tiny sliver of it where you’re working now – you have the ability to look upstream or downstream, roll out the boundaries, or just go hunting amongst all your original footage at any point.
Super flexible for those with a “footage miner” perspective.
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.
-
[Bill Davis] “Super flexible for those with a “footage miner” perspective.”
Footage miner… I’m going to use that. 😉
The Smart Collections auto update, right, so every time I give a clip the proper keyword it will automatically show up in the corresponding Smart Collection? If I create a timeline (sequence? you know what I mean…) from a smart collection will the timeline auto update as well when something is added to the smart collection?
-
[Bill Davis] “Just how I think as a editor with new tools.
“In a way I’m not surprised you think you have that, given apple want you to think that. On some level, you got sold. FCPX is a carny circus really. They reformulated all basic edit operations into a three shell game and waited for the rubes at the door. You were the rubes.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
Sigh. Aindreas, I know you enjoy trolling. But “best…by a country mile” says exactly nothing of use.
What, for you, makes PPro the best? In this case, I’m asking about specifics of the day to day editing process. Like, “love the way trim mode can be selected with a right-click” or “man, right clicking to set the dissolve rate is so much better than the dissolve dialogue box that avid puts up every time…and I sure don’t miss having it remember my last duration!”
For that matter, what do YOU find “meh” about PPro?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up