-
Why is Larry Jordan making up stories?
-
Thanks for clearing that up Sam, looking forward to hearing the details on the “other” movie.
Steve Connor
There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum
-
[Nicholas Kleczewski] “narrative features are actually some of the “easiest” things to cut, in any editor. Easiest I mean, in the technical sense.”
Well, sort of. While the initial cut is easy, making revisions with a director, producer, etc. involved can get tricky and speaks to the heart of how well the organization is within an NLE. When you get to recutting or fine-cutting a film, that organization – and how well an NLE lets you find things – makes the difference between good response (where the software lets you look like a hero) and stumbling and fumbling. Even a small indie film will have as many as 2,000 short clips to slog through. Overall, FCP X is well situated for this circumstance, though some things are pretty rudimentary – match framing for example.
On the technical side, the primary storyline concept plays well into cutting narrative. It’s the ideal scenario for the application. Where the concept gets dicey is when you add a lot of temp elements, like SFX, music etc. There, visual organization helps and that’s a weak point for X thanks to the way connected clips behave. The trade-off is that the magnetic timeline concept actually helps in making trimming changes on large sequences.
[Nicholas Kleczewski] ” FCPX was ready the minute its XML export/import took hold to accomplish the needs of I’d say 90 percent of big budget feature film editing”
That’s basically the crux of Larry’s presentation. However, FCPXML is about as far from a standard as you can get. The only industry standards for exchange are OMF. AAF, EDL and CDL files. If anything, Apple has avoided industry standards whenever it felt it knew a better way and could create its own de factor standard, like QuickTime or ProRes. The only reason FCPXML works at all is because third-party developers have created translations. Some are good, some not very good. All are constantly tweaking these to make them better or when an Apple change throws them a curve ball. FCPXML might become another de facto standard, simply due to sheer mass. I doubt it will be accepted as a deliverable at any time in the near future.
[Nicholas Kleczewski] “The EPKs for that mystery film will tax the editing tool more than most likely the whole feature will”
Having done both, I would disagree.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Hey, sure me all stirring the pot here –
So just to clear then, when larry was talking about X cutting a 100 million dollar feature at the supermeet, where he had talked to you and the editor – he was talking about this second totally different one hundred million dollar feature? this other one is in the states where he spoke to you and the film’s editor about the decision to employ X – a decision making process that started six months ago, (when did this film go into production? that’s not giving much away, can you give the date when this second other 100 million dollar US major feature went into production?) – but so again: that other editor is editing a 100 million dollar feature for a major six studio, you were involved in setting it up, and it is being edited in FCPX?
I keep trying to re-state this more clearly: there basically is an entirely different 100 million dollar feature, that no one has really spoken about until now, that you were involved in the edit setup of, where it is being cut on X, and that’s what Larry was talking about? this other major studio feature you haven’t written about, not the bulgarian 100 million dollar feature you have written about?
me so stupid, this super confusing.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “he was talking about this second totally different one hundred million dollar feature? “
If I might interject, you seem to be hung up on this for some reason. There are multiple films around the world in the $100M budget range. That’s not a huge figure for a studio-level feature film anymore. Quite likely worldwide, several of these – not just 2 – are being cut using FCP X. And Premiere Pro CC, too. Because of the timing and how long it takes to get a film out, you won’t start seeing any press on these until next year at the earliest.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I assume Aindreas is just trying to make absolutely sure that his original post that accused Larry of “making up stories” definitely wasn’t correct.
Steve Connor
There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum
-
hey just checking is all – this is a separate second feature, that also has a hundred million dollar budget, and its being cut on X – just wanted to make sure that was clear, that’s a pretty big deal. As Sam states, for what he understands is the first US studio feature to be cut on X, that the studio entrusted a 100 million dollar production feature to X for “post production” is a pretty big deal, although the editor the director of this feature decided to work with must have been on board right?
I’m curious about the six months of negotiation to use X for post production editing of this feature – that must have been the editor arguing for it you’d think? Or was it sam arguing for it in the six months of negotiations? Really just curious is all – its a pretty big deal?
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Steve Connor] “I assume Aindreas is just trying to make absolutely sure that his original post that accused Larry of “making up stories” definitely wasn’t correct.”
Maybe it’s just his disbelief that anyone is using it for feature work. From personal experience I can say it’s up to the task. I might be more critical of it than others and it definitely has its rough edges, but in the end, it’s just another tool.
Heck, Thelma Schoonmaker cuts on Lightworks. Then the assistants conform the cut on Media Composer to have the proper interchange with color correction, VFX, sound, etc. Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall cut Fincher’s films on FCP 7, but the assistant used Premiere and AE to conform the files for the DI finish. We all use whatever gets the job done.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I’ve always liked Larry Jordan, I think he’s an excellent trainer. I saw him speak at the supermeet in London when FCPX was first released and I’ve spent the last 6 or 7 years reading his newsletters (I miss his old ones for FCP7). I have to say though that since X was released he seems a little biased towards it. Not blindly so but I think he initially gambled his reputation somewhat on X ‘succeeding’ so he does have a vested interest in it. If you look at his newsletters the top tips are usually all for X, with a few Adobe ones thrown in. Actually his newsletters are a little more like adverts or flyers now compared to the FCP7 ones he used to do. I still think he’s an excellent trainer (I’ve learned loads from his videos over the years) and he comes across as a really nice guy too so I don’t wish to knock him but he definitely roots for X over anything else, which is a choice he’s certainly entitled to.
-
When FCP7 was used for a feature film the first time it was pretty much the same discussion. Some were confirmed in their believe others claimed it cannot be used for the actual edit.
I guess if they told Mr. Jordan they tested for 6 months then they did so. And I doubt they test software for dailies or BTS for 6 months even on a big budget production.
The good news is that we are actually discussing if FCPX is used or not. 2 years ago we early adopters got thrown under the bus for even considering “iMovie Pro” as a professional tool. And now we might see this $ 300 NLE getting its foot into the door of major studios with all that comes as a result of that development.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “although the editor the director of this feature decided to work with must have been on board right?
I’m curious about the six months of negotiation to use X for post production editing of this feature – that must have been the editor arguing for it you’d think? Or was it sam arguing for it in the six months of negotiations? “These decisions are NEVER made unless the director – and possibly the studio – is on board. Remember there’s insurance bonding money involved. As well as the possibility someone could get fired and another have to pick up where they left off. In some cases, the director is cool with whatever the editor wants. In other cases, the director has an interest and urges the editor in that direction. With all due respect to Sam, it’s highly unlikely that he would have any influence, except in assisting in the testing and workflow set-up. But he can confirm or deny that for himself.
Take Murch as an example. On his FCP films he was allowed to make the decision for FCP, but the Coens had already gone before him. Therefore he had a successful case to point to. When he cut “Wolfman”, the decision had already been made for Avid, so he didn’t change systems midway through the production.
In interviews that Fincher and his post supervisor had done around the time of “Zodiac”, the point was made that their digital post production workflow was challenged by the studio. It was only because Fincher pushed for it – and he backed his post team – that their methodology was allowed to happen.
Part of the equation is not WHAT you cut with. Rather, can you guarantee the product and the schedule that an established workflow is known to supply? That’s the key.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up