Bill Davis
Forum Replies Created
-
[Herb Sevush] “I understand going to this extreme for a feature or a commercial, where post expense and effort are a minor part of the picture, but for most broadcast or corporate work, I don’t get it.”
Obviously if you have “end to end” production control – you shouldn’t have to mess with very much “base grade” stuff, if any.
But when you’re receiving and working on footage from varied sources, it’s s very different story.
Right now, I’m working on a set of commercials featuring interview footage of customers shot in three batches – some in 2015, some in 2016, and some in 2017.
So multiple years, multiple days, multiple camera types, multiple setups.
It doesn’t need a ton of tweaking, because it was all shot very competently, but even the matched C-500s vary from day to day – and definitely year to year.
Having a system directly “plumbed in” to FCP X that lets me correct and match different source cameras in pre- and then have those corrections flow into all the subsequent work becomes a “fix it once – then forget about it” thing that I love.
I’ve always said that X seems to me to be built on a conceptual foundation of cascading metadata flow. If you take the time to improve something upstream via metadata – tag a set of frames, apply a base grade, assign an audio role – whatever – that fix essentially flows through everything subsequently, And arrives in all your exports (comp, working and potentially even final) – already improved.
X leverages preparation better than anything else I’ve ever used. Not just prep of editorial organization, but actual prep of the digital stream.
As much as “fix it in post” was a terrible concept – “fix it in pre” is kinda glorious.
Massive overall timesaver, IME.
FWIW.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Oliver Peters] “But thank you for taking the effort to spell out your thought process on the matter. I appreciate it.”
No problem.
I kinda formulated the “pools” metaphor as a reaction to explaining the X proxy workflow back when it was introduced at the X debut in 2011.
Talking about the “instant switch” from optimized to proxy and back – seemed to make the most sense by describing entirely identical “pools” of content – each in a different compression/codec – and when you switched between them, all the software does is swap the footage pointers between the structurally identical pools.
It seemed to help people make sense of why it worked like it did.
FWIW.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Michael Gissing] “After all these years you can still say something that genuinely surprises me.”
Thank you!
Without stirring the pot occasionally, an ugly skin may form – and eventually, the contents dry out and start cracking.
????
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Oliver Peters] “My take now is that a file is imported and THEN analysed.”
The analysis stage is optional and user triggered.
[Oliver Peters] “In that analysis a waveform cache is created and silent tracks are hidden, but not removed. This all happens AFTER the file is actually imported – either an actual import/copy or just a link. Analysis doesn’t actually happen before or during import.”
The “import” process as I understand it in x is composed of two “stages”. First, the metadata is grabbed which makes pure metadata manipulation editing possible. This enables the “get to work NOW” aspects of X.
Concurrently, the digital footage data is copied in. That process is subject to user decision forks, depending on whether it’s managed, or referenced, local or remote.
But regardless, eventually a cohesive “pool” (or “pools” if you’re doing optimized or proxy) of sequestered digital content is created.
It is in how you elect to create these – that I was discussing.
You can create a pool of a single entire card volume. Or, if your footage storage media has a volume structure X understands, you can limit the digitalization to importing only a subsection of the whole storage volume that you specify at time of import.
Is that clearer?
Whether waveform generation applies to everything, or just SOME things – is entirely dependent on the POOL X sees that the user specifies for import.
Basically, in your workflow – are you presented with the “interim stage” of being able to click on a card file – and RANGE SELECT only what you WISH to import – or are you constrained by the “volume structure” of your footage type, so you are just having to grab EVERYTHING as a video file with a dozen audio files.
The answer has a ton to do with the amount of work you’ll have to do later.
But in NEITHER is it possible to extract only certain audio tracks.
And as I understand it, this applies to ALL NLEs – not just X.
Correct me if you think I’m wrong and let me know what system actually allows you to “break into” modern digital video storage volumes and carve out specific digital things like “channels” from during the ingest process.
That would be awesome. But I’ve never heard of any system that can do that.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
Great question.
The client communication pipeline has changed as much as any other aspect of my practice over the past 10 years.
Lots of factors in play…
My “first drafts” now look very much like my finished work used to.
In my FCP X workflow, my Browser footage universally gets a fast “base grade” for a pleasing, viewable watching experience. And that flows into every subsequent project.
So visably “unpolished” quality video is gone now.
For some clients, that’s nothing but excellent. For others, I find myself getting in the weeds of minuscule “pick at it for perfection” discussions WAY too early in the process. (That “should we use a comma or semi-colon here” discussion can seriously wait, folks – it’s just a draft!) or worse, the comp gets posted around the company for review – and somebody cluelessly slaps it in a deck and USES it!
Yikes.
I mostly use Frame.io and LOVE it.
It really helps to keep the first line review pool contained, since the early access group isn’t just going to a “common space” like a YouTube or Vimeo.
But even faster, easier feedback notes linked to the frames in discussion – is not always the same as BETTER feedback. And sadly, the old system where only internal players conditioned to viewing work in progress – got work in progress – Is kinda over. Now EVERYONE wants to weigh in on the video.
So if you let ANY draft file out “into the wild” and people treat it like any other attachable video. And it’s GONE.
I find I tend to use a LOT of screen overlays these days at the early stages of distributing work for review to insure stakeholders don’t mistake drafts for finals.
Just some thoughts.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Oliver Peters] “Actually, no. On the face of it, I don’t understand what you are trying to say in this sentence.”
Merely that if X recognizes the volume structure and codec of an import candidate – it lets you pre edit via selection before you import – IF the source volume is one X can parse.
If it doesn’t, then you can be constrained to capturing entire whole files as you noted, but it’s conditional.
Right volume structure, you can do targeted footage “pruning” on import. Unsupported volume structure, and all you can do is grab the whole digital enchilada.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Would that help a new Mercedes mechanic that joins this discussion, to feel better about being a new Mercedes mechanic?”
Maybe that’s my issue.
It feels exactly like you describe. A few mechanics huddled around the coffee machine shooting the s**t with the same old car club buddies.
What this place isn’t doing is attracting much of the new X talent springing up globally. .
There are plenty of competing forums for X, and actually most of the ones I spend most of my time in nowadays attract FAR, far, far more professional editors interested in X than typically appear here. That includes the public as well as private sites.
Heck, in one just today, someone asked a pretty complex workflow related question about a popular piece of X related software – and the owner of the company that sells it popped in to answer questions from the dozen interested parties who were participating in the discussion.
It just bums me out that instead of this, my traditional longtime FCP X forum, following X’s robust ongoing growth – it’s more likely morphing into that neighborhood garage that only the locals much care about.
By rights we could have dozens or even hundreds of new voices participating here.
But we don’t.
Oh well.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
Well, completely relieved to see this…
“APFS supports 64-bit inode numbers, supporting over 9 quintillion files on a single volume”
Cuz I’m pretty sure we’re already pushing that boundry for internet cat videos.
Just sayin’
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Oliver Peters] “So what you are acknowledging is that this setting in the import window is essentially useless, since all of the tracks – silent or not – still have to be analyzed.”
Like much of X, import options are contextual.
So the “import window” controls more or less – depending on the incoming configuration, codec, wrapper and file types it is presented.
You know that.
If a file has 8 audio tracks muxed in the digital file, like for example a MultiCam BlackMagic Terrenex/Atom output, I know of NO system that will unpack that and let you pick and choose your audio tracks for import.
As you also know well, Oliver, EACH hardware manufacturer controls how their digital streams flow and are packetized.
So “useless” for one editor – becomes “mission critical” for another.
Simple as that.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Oliver Peters] “Isn’t it more helpful to discuss the actual technical issues involved, rather than merely to throw out random positive, but unrelated comments?”
Sure. But for YEARS This forum has been awash in constant NEGATIVE but often (IMO) un-related to reality comments about X. So why is THIS the point when we need to change the rules?
When forum newbies still arrive with what seems to be a strong desire to trash every little element of X because it makes them uncomfortable, so why NOT push back?
If the X debate had been mostly factual – I’d have zero issues with it. But it’s going to be hard to argue against the fact that the anti-X arguments are STILL as much waged on ignorance and angst as fact in the industry overall.
In some of the discussion places I hang out – I can guarantee that virtually EVERY discussion about X I engage in, a handful of working editors will bring up “the botched launch”, and Apple “abandoning the professionals” six years ago.
Ask what they thought (at the time) about about the keywording, its innovative share system, how magnetism speeds 3-point edits, Auditions, or a half dozen other aspects of 1.0 and they don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Then you ask them if they like proxy editing or skimming – they light up – and scowl when you let them know X had that stuff six years ago.
And if you mention Roles, Pro Codec support, Red 8K workflows – they just mutter that nobody “serious” (meaning none of the people like them, of course) would ever think of using X still today – cuz it’s just so lame…
So I stand by my strategy.
Total diss met with total praise. More balanced questions met with more balanced responses.
So if someone starts a thread implying that X FAILS in some way – and I think there is another balancing interpretation, you’ll hear it.
Past that, explanations and shared expertise when I think I can help.
Simple really.
????
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.