-
Why is Larry Jordan making up stories?
-
[Oliver Peters] “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.
“And the point of all this – strongly emphasized by Larry Jordan’s presentation, is that the largest reason X is getting inserted in the workflow of these huge films is that the way it handles XML and Metadata allow for the automatation of hugely cumbersome – and very time-consuming traditional tasks such as double system sync across massive groups of files through Intelligent Assistant’s new workflow tools like Sync&Link, that accomplished what used to be days of work almost instantly.
One of the points that Mr. Mestman was emphasizing was that if they can get to the point that they can rapidly sync double system dailies ON THE SET via metadata tools – that may provide the director and the entire production team with exciting new efficiencies.
X has a basic structure optimized to work with metadata of this type. It ALSO has the plumbing via AV Foundation to maintain optimal quality across all manner of source resolutions. So it’s not hard to see why it would be an attractive proposition for a movie maker generating a massive amount of very high resolution A/V files on a daily basis.
All the NLE programs are heading this way. X is just one of them. But the structural re-build – and the modest entry price enabling an increasingly global cadre of those with X experience are probably factors.
(Did you notice the number of hands in Larry’s IBC presentation that went up when he asked how many people in the crowd were editing in X? Mike mentioned that it was a solid 50% of what looked to be a VERY large crowd of editors.)
Change continues to be the constant. And it’s hard to fault much of Larry’s introductory logic as to why X is becoming a very important video editing tool (among many others.)
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] “the largest reason X is getting inserted in the workflow of these huge films is that the way it handles XML and Metadata”
I think you adding 1+1 to get 3. XML in feature film workflows is not especially useful. It’s because of IA and XMiL and Marquee that FCPXML can be turned into something that IS useful. FCPXML in and of itself is a detriment, not a boon to efficiency at this stage of the game.
[Bill Davis] “One of the points that Mr. Mestman was emphasizing was that if they can get to the point that they can rapidly sync double system dailies ON THE SET via metadata tools – that may provide the director and the entire production team with exciting new efficiencies”
In theory that’s correct. In actual practice, I doubt that it will be. Nothing ever goes perfectly on set, and this process only works when timecode is perfect. Most of the time things don’t work out that way. In my experience, the LESS you do on set, the better off you are. The more attention a director pays to what the DIT and an on-set editor are doing instead of DIRECTING, the worse the production becomes. Not true for all, but true for many directors. That’s one of the reasons many still like film and choose to trust their DP instead of a monitor on set.
[Bill Davis] ” It ALSO has the plumbing via AV Foundation to maintain optimal quality across all manner of source resolutions.”
AV Foundation is completely irrelevant in this type of production. Sure, it’s possible to finish out of FCP X. But you could do that with “legacy”, too. Many have and continue to do it. But at this level, the finishing steps are handled elsewhere. AV Foundation is a factor as more native codecs are supported and because it’s not tied to 32-bit QT. But for a feature film edit, it has no bearing whatsoever.
[Bill Davis] “Did you notice the number of hands in Larry’s IBC presentation that went up when he asked how many people in the crowd were editing in X? Mike mentioned that it was a solid 50% of what looked to be a VERY large crowd of editors.”
Would you expect otherwise? It’s a presentation preaching to the choir. Insert Premiere Pro CC into the title instead of FCP X and the percentages in the audience would have reflected that NLE.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “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.”
Bingo.
-
[Oliver Peters] “FCPXML in and of itself is a detriment, not a boon to efficiency at this stage of the game.”
So what’s your contention here, Oliver. Apple was just too dumb to make an XML implementation that could make editors “happy” from square one?
That doesn’t sound like Apple to me. The Apple the world knows has pretty high standards for user experience and product capabilities. So I’ve got to think that FCPXML is part of an overall plan.
Now that plan certainly might revolve around licensing issues, or some internal vision of future capabilities, or something I have no clue about. But actually, I’ve come to TRUST them more and more and more over the years.
Even when I imaged for a second that they were messing up my workflow, time demonstrated to me that they had very carefully looked down the road and were tearing up the street to put in a new landscape that I would find superior to the old one.
So I can see your “at this stage of the game.” point – I just don’t have the same respect for the current point in the game that you do. The overall “game” for the past two years has seemed awfully tired and shop worn. High time for a refresh, IMO. Exactly what Apple appears to have set out (patiently) to do.
[Oliver Peters] “Would you expect otherwise? It’s a presentation preaching to the choir. Insert Premiere Pro CC into the title instead of FCP X and the percentages in the audience would have reflected that NLE.
“Here we completely disagree.
“The SuperMeet” is a show that Mike and Dan have CLEARLY spent huge effort over the past two years “re-branding” as software agnostic – to the point of removing FINAL CUT from the very event NAME – is NOT something you can expect to be full of FCP_X fanatics.
Remember, I’ve helped RUN those meeting for the past 10 years at NAB. The presentation directly before the RAFFLE is a full “main-stage” presentation at the core of the nights activities. So this could NOT be expected to be a FCP-X crowd any more than last year at NAB where I helped run the show that virtually didn’t even MENTION FCP-X from the stage. The show closer last year was the presentation about Union issues for Editors and trying to stop “Runaway production” in the US Film industry. Before that Adobe and other software . No FCP-X in view. So that Amsterdam had roughly 50% adopters is a MAJOR shift from common industry perceptions as reflected right here.
Even if the other half o the crowd was ALL Premier, (which I doubt) it still shows that X is getting WAY more traction than many here would allow.
(Not to mention that the folks there were willing to ADMIT to using X? How weird is that? I guess I have to seriously reconsider my self-identity as an oppressed minority, huh?)
So I think it’s a fair contention that this represents an extremely fair cross section of general editors interests in Amsterdam and Europe in general.
I’ve posted elsewhere that I suspect X is doing better Globally than it is in the Hollywood or US TV markets in general.
And I’ll stand by that impression until someone shows me evidence of something different. And this IBC Amsterdam crowd’s adoption of FCP-X is support for that contention, IMO, pure and simple.
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] “So what’s your contention here, Oliver. Apple was just too dumb to make an XML implementation that could make editors “happy” from square one?”
Not dumb at all. Merely playing by their own rules and ignoring industry standards or even their own de facto standards for that matter. And one that two years later still doesn’t deliver what FCP7’s flavor of XML delivered in 2009 and before. And yes, I acknowledge that there might be licensing issues IF they simply bolted in the old modules for OMFs and EDLs. Granted they had no interest in rewriting that code.
By avoiding existing standards, they side-stepped a lot of internal and external issues. But, by encouraging third-party developers to fill in the gaps, the ecosystem services the needs of a small part of the total user base. That is intelligent on Apple’s part, but please don’t imply that this somehow makes for better workflows for feature films, than when a company takes ownership of the interchange of their own project files according to expected guidelines.
[Bill Davis] “So I think it’s a fair contention that this represents an extremely fair cross section of general editors interests in Amsterdam and Europe in general.
I’ve posted elsewhere that I suspect X is doing better Globally than it is in the Hollywood or US TV markets in general.”You may be right. I certainly see the same uptick of X internationally and even here in the US, as well. Right now it’s still for the adventurous editors, as Premiere Pro CC is the safer bet. At least there’s more serious interest, with even detractors using it to some level in their workflows – if not as the main tool.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[alban egger] “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.”
Couldn’t agree more with the quote above. I’m just glad to see people starting to take it seriously and look at it with open eyes. I’m looking forward even more to focusing on specific features, workflow use cases, and the actual merits of the program which can be discussed collectively and gradually improved by Apple. Everything else is kind of irrelevant.
Anyway, here’s all I have left to say about the studio movie in terms of clarification. I’ve never seen the budget (not my department) so can’t officially sign off on a number, but based on the catering, cast, crew, and shooting schedule… it’s no indie, and is on the highest level of production.
In terms of the 6 months of research… yes, it was done, although I came on later into the process, and was only there for about 3 months of it. I certainly, as stated above, was in no position to tell the studio, editors, or directors what they were going to cut with. They chose it because they wanted to use it, and then did the necessary to research to fit it into the pipeline, and are now in production using it as their primary editing tool. I was just lucky enough to be invited on board and become a part of it.
Sam Mestman
Chief Workflow Architect – Lumaforge
http://www.lumaforge.com
http://www.wemakemovies.org -
[Oliver Peters] “That is intelligent on Apple’s part, but please don’t imply that this somehow makes for better workflows for feature films, than when a company takes ownership of the interchange of their own project files according to expected guidelines.”
That is fair and I respect the point.
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.
-
[Sam Mestman] “Wow, guys… for a second I thought this thread was about Roswell or the JFK assassination.”
It’s a conspiraXy.
There is no way two movies can being produced at the same time, on opposite sides of the world, involving one you, similar budgets, FCPX, and to top it all, Larry Jordan knows about both of them?
Puh-leeze.
Final ConspiraXy Pro. Coming soonish, perhaps to theaters near you.
In all seriousness, thanks for posting, Sam. I hope this won’t be the proverbial “Final Post”.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “It’s a conspiraXy. “
I prefer conspiraCC.
-
Indeed… but Aindreas has been on a personal crusade to discredit FCPX for as long as I have been checking these forums so I don’t really take anything he writes seriously any more.
Why does the majority of the professional editing community in the UK seize every opportunity to do this?
Some people are slagging it off and migrating back to Avid (ay there’s the rub… is this all some sinister pro Avid anti Apple conspiracy?) who have done no more with FCPX than launch it, see the interface looks a bit like Imovie and jump ship.
Maybe Larry just made a mistake.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up