[Andy Neil]

Hold the shift down and you’ll temporarily have a hand tool without losing the pen tool.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Bret Williams] “I prefer the old fashioned way because it preserves the timing of your sequence and I really dislike X screwing with the timing of my sequence”

You can use auditions as a connected clip as well. Different lengths won’t screw up your timing then.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

Yes. It’s cleaner, and easier. Use Auditions. FCPX allows you to stack shots, even if they have different lengths inside a container where you can swap shots out as often as you like until you’ve made a decision.

Just put one shot in the primary and then drag your next shot on top of the first. When you release, a menu will pop up and you can choose: Add to Audition. Do this as many times as you want.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[James Ewart] “Is this FCPX’s most powerful feature?”

It’s definitely one of its most powerful features. FCPX multicam is far and away better than any other NLE I’ve tried owing to its versatility.

[James Ewart] “I have no idea if I could have worked this way in Legacy or could work this way in Avid or Premiere.”

You would not want to try that workflow in Avid or FCP7 as making changes to existing multiclips is difficult at best. Although, I did work on a show where we did recreations and I asked the AEs to multigroup the takes for me with limited success. So, I suppose it’s not completely out of the realm for those NLEs. It’s just you gain a lot by being able to open a multiclip and adjust it. I’m not positive, but I think you can adjust Premiere multiclips in a similar way to FCPX.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

The sort by function depends on whether you’re viewing clips in list or thumbnail view.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

If you highlight the keyframes on the ends of the bar, you can use CTL +/- to raise and lower that section. You can use the range tool (R) to lasso keyframes.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

Hey Nick,

You can get your stacks from FCP7 into X by using 7toX. Unfortunately, you can’t create multi clips from the timeline that you’ll get it. What you have to do is Matchframe each stacked clip in your timeline and create markers at the same sync point. Then just use final cuts sync feature.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Simon Ubsdell] “Are you really saying that the “skill” of operating the kit is all that it actually takes to cut a feature film?”

If I didn’t know you on this forum, Simon, I would assume you were just trolling. Of course that’s not what I said. Here’s my quote again:

[Andy Neil] “The same skills are required for editing a good story whether it’s on TV, film, or the web”

Translation: If you want to tell a good story, you need to understand character, pacing, plot, tone, theme, etc. This has nothing to do what you cut on. The difference between you and me is that you seem to think you have to have at least 10 IMDB credits on your resume before you’re qualified to do that kind of editing.

[Simon Ubsdell] “OK, so what was so vital in terms of their workflow that meant it was so completely unachievable in Media Composer or Premiere that the only option was to hire a novice in order to be able to cut it in FCP X?”

Again, you’re going off the reservation with your assumptions. Nobody said anything about this workflow being unachievable in another program. Only that the directors obviously believed that FCPX was the BEST option.

[Simon Ubsdell] “I’m not sure I believe this. I’m sure there are plenty of experienced editors who if approached would have agreed to get sufficiently familiar with X to be able to take on this job and do it very well.”

Well, I’m not so sure. I work in TV and I have a hard time convincing my peers to even look at FCPX. I think you underestimate both the reticence in Hollywood for FCPX and the “grumpy-old-manishness” of experienced film editors. Of course, this is conjecture on my part, I could be completely off base so who knows? I only know a few film editors and none very well. But the idea that FCPX is not a professional tool still sits like a festering sore over a lot of editor’s opinions.

[Simon Ubsdell] “There is a desire on the part of X enthusiasts to claim that it is so ridiculously complex that it takes years of dedicated training to achieve anything like proficiency.”

Who are you talking to that says anything of the sort about FCPX? Pretty much every single person on this forum and others who you would classify as FCPX enthusiasts, are constantly talking about how easy it is to use. We all agree that it’s different and may require a different approach, but that’s not the same thing as calling it complex. It’s FCPX dis-enthusiasts who think X is some weird, mythical creature that can’t be understood.

[Simon Ubsdell] “The notion that all experienced editors are resistant to FCP X and therefore the only editors who can be employed to use X are those with assistant-level editing experience seems pretty far-fetched.”

Wow, you must really have something against this editor. He went from inexperienced in film, to novice, to assistant editor as your replies have continued. I’m an experienced editor. I have over 15 years experience in broadcast tv. I even have two film credits. And I like and use FCPX. So clearly, I’m not saying that experienced editors can’t or won’t learn FCPX. You, on the other hand are suggesting quite adamantly that if you don’t have IMDB credits to your name, you must be a newb to editing in general. You’re so shocked that experience has taken a backseat in the editing workflow for this film, but you seem to have no care for skill or talent or any of the other things that make an editor. Credits are the only measure by which you seem to judge Jan’s abilities. Let’s hope he doesn’t get regulated to “intern” on your next reply.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Simon Ubsdell] “Clearly the view was that the advantages of FCP X were so overwhelmingly convincing that finding an editor skilled in the craft of feature film editing was not considered to be of importance.
“

Be careful that you don’t equate experience with skill. Clearly Jan has the skill to cut a feature film. It was just not quantified (in IMDB credits). There’s no magic amulet required for cutting a film. The same skills are required for editing a good story whether it’s on TV, film, or the web.

Your hypothetical is also flawed because no one (not myself nor the directors) is saying that FCPX is a “superior” NLE. Only that it was the best choice for their chosen workflow. A better comparison would be the choice of a digital camera over a film camera. Sure, you can make a VFX spectacle on both, but the VFX workflow is a lot more streamlined when your entire workflow is digital. The decision to use a digital camera is one to fit the overall workflow of the film. You still need someone to frame and light the shots and shoot the thing, but maybe you want someone more versed with VFX workflows than one who isn’t so you can avoid the kinds of “gotchas” that have already happened when these types of workflows were in their infancy.

The unique element in this example is that FCPX is still a pretty new program comparatively, and with the resistance from the film editor community, they probably found it impossible to hire a veteran film editor who was willing or able to cut in FCPX. Probably wouldn’t have been an issue with Premiere because it shares a paradigm with Avid and Premiere doesn’t have the unreasonable hate attached to it that FCPX does. Does this mean they should throw out their entire proposed workflow because one guy doesn’t want to use one program? Or do you find a good editor and give him a break?

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

Let me put it to you this way.

Before Avid, film was cut primarily on flatbeds, right? There were plenty of editors out there who could rock a Moviola or a Steenbeck. But probably not that many who could or even wanted to cut in the computer world. I’ve heard stories of editors resisting the idea of cutting a film on a computer. Seems strange to think of it nowadays.

To break that outdated notion that one way was better than another, someone had to make the decision to use Avid regardless of the people he’d be able to work with. Decide to go with the system and then find the people willing to join the revolution.

FCPX has a terrible (not wholly undeserved) reputation in Hollywood, and it’s probably worse with the higher echelon of film editors. It’s stupid to be so against a software for no good reason, just as it’s stupid to blindly follow a software and gloss over it’s imperfections and problems. The industry needs people like the Focus directors to help push Hollywood to look past the hype of a product and use it if it fits the workflow. That’s the smart way to work.

Eventually, there’ll be plenty of film editors who can edit on Premiere or FCPX. We’re just at the beginning stages right now.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos