[Andy Neil]

[Simon Ubsdell] “Why, in your estimation, did they not go with an editor with some feature film experience in this case?
“

I thought I answered that. They made an equipment decision and went with someone who could operate the equipment. Same as if they went with a digital camera at the start of the digital cinema age.

[Simon Ubsdell] “It could well be true that as you say there are many mediocre feature film editors but I don’t see that as an argument for going with someone who’s never actually edited a feature film editor at all (until now).”

You’re misinterpreting me. It’s NOT an argument to go with someone with no film credits. I’m saying that hiring someone with film experience is NO INDICATOR that you’re getting a good editor. They could have liked his interpretation of the film when they met with him, or they knew him already (as I mentioned before as a possibility). Who knows what went into their decision to hire a guy with no film credits. But guess what? He has one now.

[Simon Ubsdell] “This is a big-budget Will Smith movie – I’m not sure when a Will Smith movie was last edited by a complete tyro.”

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Those other editors you mentioned with all the film credits cut on Avid, right? Well, you can throw a rock and hit a feature film editor in LA who cuts on Avid. Nearly all the films of the past 30 years that came out of the studio system were cut on Avid. Finding a feature film editor with Avid credits isn’t hard. It might be hard to find one who can cut on FCPX (or wants to).

If they made an equipment decision (which I’ve now said multiple times), and it’s fine and not unusual that they did so (as evidenced by all the equipment decisions that get made all the time in film, then it’s also not unusual that they went with an FCPX editor even if he had no film credits to begin. So, no, I don’t find it an unusual choice.

As far as Will Smith goes, I have faith that the studio (or Smith himself) wasn’t going to let a shitty edit make it through to the theaters. Obviously this guy passed muster with the directors, the studio, and the star because the film is out. He didn’t get fired. Unlike the guy who cut Couples Retreat.

Andy

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

[Andy Neil]

[Simon Ubsdell] “They thought it was more important to cut on FCP X than to draw on the talent of an experienced feature film editor.”

Productions make equipment-based decisions all the time, there’s nothing wrong with that. And feature film experience is no metric for editing talent. Mediocre films are cut all the time by mediocre film editors.

When digitial cinema was in its infancy, there were DPs who understood it, and others who did not. Some of the ones who worked only on film were probably highly experienced DPs and there was a new crop of DPs who were learning all there was to know about digital. If a production chose digital over film, they were making a business decision or aesthetics decision and its only natural to hire people who are comfortable working with that equipment.

Andy

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

[Andy Neil]

[Simon Ubsdell] “they wanted to minimise the input from the editor and maximise their own.”

Maximizing the directors’ input doesn’t automatically mean minimizing the editor’s. It could be that, but somehow I doubt it. I see two likely scenarios.

One, they needed a seasoned FCPX editor for their film. Most of the studio film editors out there (hell, maybe all of them) don’t work with FCPX and probably don’t know how to use it. There may be a few out there but you also have to coordinate on schedule and such. So perhaps they needed to look outside of the usual suspects to find an experienced FCPX editor.

Two, (and my suspicion) this editor is a friend of theirs, perhaps even the guy that turned them on to FCPX in the first place. They got a big H-wood movie, and they brought their friends along. The hard part was convincing the studio to go with FCPX. Once that hurdle was over, they would’ve been able to hire whoever they wanted under the justification that “this guy knows X”.

I would be insulted if someone assumed I was basically a monkey, button-pusher on this film simply because the directors wanted a closer relationship to the post process. I don’t think it’s a good idea to make that assumption.

Andy

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

[Andy Neil]

Is it wrong for me to be more excited about the curves than the wheels?

Andy

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

[Andy Neil]

[Oliver Peters] “Well, that saves time for the assistant, but not necessarily the editor nor the overall post schedule.”

I don’t see how that doesn’t qualify as a benefit. Also, time savings is time savings, and I completely disagree on it not saving time for the editor. If you have detailed smart collections and regular collections of clips that fit the way the editor works, of course it will save the editor time. A big difference is how smart collections don’t require clip moving or duplication like they do in Avid; they’re sorted automatically. And a single clip can appear in multiple places without duplication simple by how the collections are sorting things.

[Oliver Peters] “Remember that these solutions are a way of giving FCP X what Avid editors have when they use script-based editing (aka ScriptSync)”

I don’t think they’re the same thing or even trying to be. ScriptSync is a very specific use and FCPX doesn’t have anything like that. But then again, you have to purchase ScriptSync so it’s not like it’s a part of the base Avid software. And ScriptSync also has a great deal of set up involved. It’s magic when it gets to me, but I do realize that AEs put in a lot of work getting the clips synched to the scripts.

My issue was that, despite this being a puff piece, there were legitimate FCPX features being touted that are beyond the scope of Avid and Premiere. It wasn’t all about native workflow.

Andy

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

[Andy Neil]

[Oliver Peters] “The biggest benefits touted in the article are not really FCP X, but rather in using a native workflow”

Well, except for the whole bit about searchable metadata and smart collections to grab clips based on script supervisor info.

Andy

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

[Andy Neil]

[Jeff Markgraf] “But you must dive in and try a real project on it and give it more than a week to wrap your head around the differences.”

Took me at least 3 weeks before I started to feel comfortable, myself.

Andy

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

[Andy Neil]

Not sure it’s what everyone wanted. After all, the magnetic timeline is not going away and some people can’t get past that. But if you know how to use it, it’s very useful.

However, it’s compatible with multiple monitors, 4K, multicam (best around IMO), roundtrip to Resolve, and in general a very pro app. You’d need to purchase some 3rd party add-ons depending on your workflow, but those are one-time purchases that still add up to less than Avid’s suite of programs, or Adobe’s persistent rent charge.

Andy

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

[Andy Neil]

Not sure what you’re doing wrong, but I can change the reel name in the event without any problem. Just select the clips you want to change and open the inspector, go to the info tab and change the reel.

Andy

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

[Andy Neil]

How are you importing the footage in the first place? It sounds like you’re converting the camera files into QT movies and organizing them before importing into FCPX, is that correct?

Andy

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