Bill Davis
Forum Replies Created
-
Mr. Weiss,
That’s just total and utter hogwash.
I had my copy for all of half an hour and I was able to take more than an hour of field interviews , overlay a timecode window burn, cut out selects – then turn that window dub around and email it to a client for their paper edit. The process took LESS time than it would have in FCP 7 precisely because I didn’t have to wait for the timecode to fully render before I could start cutting selects with it.
It’s an area where X performs BETTER than 7. Period.
You can argue that that’s “not real editing” all you like – but I doubt any one else here thinks that basic preparation tasks like this aren’t “real editing” and they can be done just fine in FCP-X with little or no training.
Look, just because it doesn’t do what you’d like it to do – precisely the way you’re stuck in doing it – your attitude that it’s total dreck for everyone else says much more about your personality at this point than it does about the product.
Sorry to sound harsh, but my personal opinion is that you have one, single, solitary note that you keep playing over and over and over again in this forum. Normally I kind of shrug it off, but sometimes your willingness to make these sweeping, unsupportable, attacks just seems silly.
We get it. You don’t like it. That’s fine. But at this point you’re sounding a bit like the grumpy old guy who nobody want to hang with because all he ever does is complain endlessly about his sciatica.
The way to stop the pain is to CHANGE SOFTWARE. You’ll feel a LOT better. Trust me.
BTW, remember how you took me personally to task for what you felt were my overly histrionic capitalizations?
What precisely makes snarky underscores any different?
Just sayin.
Peace.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
I was reading with much interest until I got here…
“Incidentally, this project went to DVD, and not the web. The CEO wanted a tangible to hand out at a meeting, so having DVDSP was also helpful.”
And every thing crashed down in my thinking.
DVD? Really. That’s the level the CEO is stuck at? Plastic discs for a meeting. Wow.If the CEO had a clue, he would have simply ended his presentation with a slide containing a QR code – and told anyone wanting a link to the video to take a picture of it with their phones. Or put the same QR code on an easel at the exits. Of course there are people who don’t have smart phones – but many, MANY do – and that’s orders of magnitude more efficient than producing and passing out plastic discs.
If the point is to send out something that people perceive a valuable “take away”, a branded thumb drive on a lanyard would have made a hundred times the impression at little extra cost and has the attendant glow of giving someone a thing that remains USEFUL if they no longer need the content.
DVD’s and CD’s have little to NO perception of value any more. They are rapidly becoming “landfill fodder” because the moment a person comes to realize you don’t NEED a plastic disc to access the content anymore, the very concept becomes kinda quaint.
Plastic discs are a sure sign that you’re thinking backward, not forward.
How many of them will YOU be throwing out in the next few years? I bet that CEO’s disc will be at the top of the heap – and his “producer” will have her “awakening” not long after.
The physical “production suite” is an endangered species, IMO. It’s rapidly following the monolithic “Recording Studios” in music. Every large town had those once upon a time. Today, outside of big media centers like LA, Nashville, or NYC, they’re GONE. Like “video production facilities” they were an artifact of the need for big power, big air conditioning and big engineering staffs, and folks who felt that spending the day sitting on someone’s couch at a remote edit suite in order to “supervise” was a smart business model.
I’m sorry, It’s NOT. I still have my edit suite and couch, but I’ve known for a while that it’s only a matter of time before it goes away!. That’s because my client is as likely to be sitting in San Diego or St. Louis as here on my couch watching me push buttons for hours at a time.
The experience Scott describes is very real. Still very much alive. But it’s aged, inefficient, and under huge pressure from the economic realities of the ACTUAL needs of the production process. The “video editing suite” approach with racks and racks of rapidly depreciating gear, miles of wiring, massive electrical and AC loads all around a “client chair” where people have to come, sit and make one comment every half hour is silly. That’s where that particular “producer” is stuck. She’s bought into a “this is professional” and nothing else is as professional mindset and holding that is what’s keeping her from even CONSIDERING stuff like QR codes and thumb drives.
She doesn’t see that if the same skilled editor cutting in the fancy “edit suite” took his or her laptop down the street to Starbucks – they could most likely sit down there and apply the SAME talent and achieve the same quality they can get back in the studio – with NONE of the overhead.
That’s the massive change. And it’s unavoidable.
My 2 cent’s anyway.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
I hear what you’re saying.
I’m just thinking of two things. First, a few years ago on one of these boards, somebody was doing a commercial spot – and I was telling them that it was important that it not go “a frame over 30 seconds.”
They popped back to report that the “commercial” was not for broadcast, but for the web only and therefore no 30 second requirement. In my traditional brain, the entire definition of a “commercial” was built around time avail conformance that was an absolute industry standard. But the poster wasn’t playing the game the way I was thinking of it. I had to broaden my personal definition of what a “commercial” might be or risk becoming irrelevant myself.
That was a powerful lesson for me. I have to constantly re-assess what my former “standards” might be and whether they’re still active in this particular situation.
If you MUST conform to :29 second 29 frame timeslot (or a 43:15) one – then a rigid timeline is a very useful thing. But if not, maybe not.
Secondly, the real point I’m exploring is whether what they “ripped out” of FCP to make X – while it might be VERY relevant to a particular well-established linear tradition – might spawn some new traditions that might be even more relevant to the way people will want to get things done in the future.
We’re ALL guessing about that. Apple included. They’re a business full of smart people who can get access to anything they might want or need by virtue of their current industry stature.. They saw the need to re-imagine editing. Why? I have to suspect that this was the result of their team members (or at least Randy U and Brian M and the other core team leaders) seeing some possibilities that simply weren’t on the table within the classic FCP code base. So they bit the bullet and took the big step.
Only time will tell if it was a smart one. But I don’t think the contention that they did it capriciously holds any water. I say that because you can be SURE they mix with people at the VERY top end of many disciplines in the digital realm. Chip architects, coders, human interface designers, etc. And with access to all that expertise, there will a zillion voices who could tell them that what they thought would be possible in the long range was either likely or not likely. I have to believe that they coded FCP-X with an eye to what will be likely. With that in-house expertise and access to any human or physical resources they needed, they decided to make a HUGE change in direction.What we’re all debating is whether that was a foolish mis-step to force people to do things that aren’t as efficient or natural, or a smart bet based on real changes in digital manipulations of visual data that are coming toward us that most of us don’t yet see.
I’m not saying I have any answers. I just know that remaining focused on the past is NOT usually the smoothest path to the future.
We’ll see.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Sorry, but this is a geometry problem.
The cards are laid flat on the table. The camera is 180degrees overhead.
I also presume that during play, cards are passed across, anti’d into a pile in the center, or other wise must cross the geometrical center of the playing surface. If so, ANY camera position light source will reflect hot spots from the reflective card cases.
If you dropped a “flubber” ball (old disney movie reference, look it up) from the camera lens, at angles from the camera lens – out to the actual card case positions at the players seats – those balls would rocket away at an equal and opposite angle. That’s the geometry of your lighting problem.
If your lights are ANYWHERE inside that “angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection” path, you’ll get case flare.
I’d set up a series of soft banks just OUTSIDE this angle, flown as high as possible. And think of the entire area above the table as a necessary DEAD ZONE – the darker the better.
I suppose if this is impossible, you might try buying a ton of “hero” card holders, treat them with anti-glare coating, buy a box of white cotton photographers gloves and re-case all the cards that will be in play before each game and then get the “special cases” back after the shoot. But I’d try it with a sample before I invested too much because it might not be good in played card close ups.
My 2 cents. Your mileage may vary.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
My wife works as on-air talent at a large local television station
At the lunch for the departing crop of interns, the “best of the bunch” young female was asked if she would now apply for a full time job at the station…
“No. TV is yesterday. I’ve got a job with a major web developer…”
Intern at a major market TV station with all the big toys and a huge audience was once the ULTIMATE score for the top 1% smart, bright, beautiful teens. Now in modern text speak, it’s “meh.”
Depressing, huh?
What the heck does anyone do if yesterday’s “large post house” becomes the hardware in someone’s briefcase – and the “staff” is now a bunch of connected people on laptops living anyplace they find pretty or interesting or just plain cheap?
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Just on the “non-traditional workflow” comment…
Nobody seems to know the source, but the “if the tool you’re holding is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail” meme is pretty powerful, IMO.
To me, it speaks to how organized thinkers who learn particular linear process tend to see there world in relation to that process. This is maybe part of why FCP-X has annoyed so very many people so very much.
FCP-X is clearly forcing some people to re-consider some fundamental editing traditions.
The interesting proposition is whether these less “invested” and perhaps more “non-linear” thinkers (please, this is not pejorative – only descriptive in this particular very narrow sense!) who seem to be having a lot easier a time with FCP-X will also be the folks who figure out new ways of doing new things with the new toolset.
After all, this is the original tradition of the first FCP.
It was absolutely not the DigiBeta drivers who were responsible for it’s early success, it was all of the upstart DV folks who kept arguing that 25mbps was fine for a lot of practical video tasks.
In the modern era, the most successful digital video revolutions have been those that percolated “bottom up” rather than dripping “top down.”
Worth considering, anyway.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Edward,
You’ve defined an extremely wide set of judgement criteria.
There are literally hundreds of different software audio programs that can create audio files that you can then use to “complement” MC5.
There is not single “standard” for the Mac.
Yes, ProTools is an industry standard that is found in the finest audio suites in Hollywood. That says nothing, however, about whether your investing the time it takes to become truly fluent in it’s use will be a smart choice or a foolish one.
Adobe Audition, FCP’s Soundtrack Pro, and yes, even the built in audio capabilities of the much, MUCH misunderstood FCP-X will be all the tools that many people will EVER need to do fine audio work.
Heck, on my laptop, I spent a couple of years doing lots and lots of voiceover work using nothing but Audacity, the free 2-track virtual deck. It created files that I could pop into FCP-7 for audio editing – I’d add some occasional breath suppression and basic compression and deliver work that went out on radio and TV transmitters all the time. The simple job required only simple tools, so trying to run that stuff through pro tools would have been a total waste of effort and money.
So the larger question is “what are you going to DO with your software.” Are you doing music composition? Film sweetening? Do you need multi-track stems for delivery into OMF capable systems? Are you just looking to capture and edit clean dialog tracks? Or is there something more specific that’s required for what you want to do.
Figuring THAT out is what sets you on the path to the proper software choice.
Because specific tasks often requires tools at specific levels of sophistication.
So ProTools – while it’s a very safe choice if you see yourself moving toward a career in the audio-manipuation arts – might be a massive distraction and a waste of money if all you ever actually do with it is cut small business videos.
Oddly, one of the things I’ve seen way too often over the years is people driving sophisticated software in situations that aren’t even set up to HEAR the results of their choices! Like someone doing EQ at their home computer desk using $90 dollar computer speakers and wondering why they can’t hear any difference when they’re moving the 75hz slider up and down!
Those folks would have been MUCH better served paying less for their software – and more to buy good transducers and surround them with a better prepared listening environment.
Just one guys perspective… for what it’s worth.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
From working with artists a good bit, I think that overall this is a LOT easier than you think – provided you can assemble the right assets in advance of production.
The key asset is to hire an extremely talented and skilled cartoonist. This person has to have the skills necessary to execute the overall drawing.
Then, the process is to simply shoot him/her as they build the final composition in real-time – then time-remap that so that you speed past the drudgery of the actual drawing to get your narration points to synchronize with the drawing.
If your artist isn’t quite as skilled as you’d like, you can make a virtual “crib sheet” by pre-visualizing the drawing and loading it on a projector of some kind, and while the camera is stopped, you can switch on and project the final “pre-visualized” drawing onto the white board so that the artist can “see” where the drawing has to go next.
It’s “plan your work – then work your plan” on a white board.
Nothing particularly complicated.
Like most very good work, this is nothing more complex than a very good plan, very well executed.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
I’m surprised the sales didn’t stop sooner. This is WAY more complex a change than any of us suspected.
It’s still largely a puzzle to many people. (In many ways, myself very much included) And I’m saying that as someone who makes a significant part of my living based on editing for pay.
Like it or not, what they hatched in Cupertino was a kitten in a world of dogs. Kittens are WAY different than dogs. Some people like one or the other. Some like both. If the world is farms full of sheep, dogs will probably always be the preferred field companions. If you have a barn, however and the mice are driving you nuts – then all the dogs in the world won’t make your life as satisfied as a good cat.
FCP-X is a kitten now. It may only ever grow into a scrawny under-nourished tabby – but I wouldn’t bet on that. The owners are REALLY animal savvy, and they know how to feed, vaccinate, and support animals of all types. In fact they’re EXPERTS at exactly that. So the kitten might grow into a Ocelot or a Bengal Tiger. But it won’t ever be a Border Collie. So get over it.
(Just playing with words today – so don’t take this too seriously. Just come up with your own piece explaining while I’m an idiot and this is actually all about kiddie cars and Shelby Cobras, or paper airplanes and dirigibles, or just have your own fun with it. After all, writing for fun is it’s own reward, no?”)
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Slow motion is change over time.
The more data relative to time, the generally better your chance of successfully converting that to a different frame rate. So in an apples to apple comparison, you’d want to shoot 60fps rather than 50fps (provided both are progressive or interlaced, not one of each) to take advantage of the additional data in the form of extra frames.
In real life, it can get a lot more complicated. The size, speed and very nature of the object being recorded might cause one temporal rate to work a lot better than another.
A great example is a pan across a picket fence. Depending on your shutter speed relative to the picket spacing, you could get anything from pristine slow mo – to a ghastly ghosted mess if the frequency of the pickets and the frequency of the pan conflict. Does motion blur help or hurt you’re particular use? If you want the impression of smooth speed, a low shutter speed will get you more inter-frame blur which makes a moving object look smoother. OTOH, if you want as much clarity as possible in each frame, a higher shutter speed is better. But of course, higher shutter speeds require more light at a given aperture.
1080 at what resolution and what data rate? How do they map pixels to video lines. Is everything uncompressed? Or did the camera manufacturer do some compression tricks in implementing their particular “1080” over “720”
Like much in video, most things are trade offs. When in doubt – test, test, test.
My 2 cents, anyway. Good luck.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner