Brett Sherman
7
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
Nothing in the media changed as evidenced by the manual backup version opening fine with the same media.
For attempt one which was just opening a backup file directly:
I understand that backups require relinking. So I started relinking. But it failed. Only 50% of the clips relinked. I’d even get a clip with the same camera on the same day that would relink next to one that would not. Perhaps I could have dragged all the media files into the project and it would have relinked that way. I didn’t try it since I wanted a faster route.For attempt two, which was to get an older working version of the library and opening a backup with that library:
My understanding is that if you have a library open and you select “Open from backup” it should not require relinking. In my case almost everything was unlinked.Finally attempt three worked. Grab the project I was working on in the backup library with all media unlinked. Drag it into the older working library.
I have a time machine running on the machine, and backups are always stored on the local computer. So I could have pulled a backup off the time machine. Maybe I’ll try it for posterity. Somehow I think it’s going to have the same issue.
-
My library is stored in a sparse bundle on a server. Unfortunately, that’s the only way I’ve figured out to manage library files so multiple workstations can access them and the media. I got a message like, “cannot save changes”, something like that. I’m not sure exactly what happened.
For me that’s neither here nor there. S*** happens. The point of backups is you should be able to restore a project from them. That was not the case. I don’t know if I need to think about an alternative way of backing up. I’d be happy to ditch sparse bundles, but don’t really have any better ideas to centrally store library files.
-
At this point, I’d probably go with the iMac (I have a new Mac Pro). The Xeon processors are getting a bit dated. My Mac Book Pro decompresses H.264 footage much faster because it’s built into the i7 processor.
If you’re doing a lot of rendering then the Mac Pro will probably trump the iMac. But, for editing I’m not sure there is much advantage. For less money your getting a great monitor.
One thing I would definitely do is spring for an SSD over the Fusion drive. Personally I wouldn’t want anything less than 1 TB SSD.
-
The more interesting thing about this is the tea leaves of USB C for higher end laptops, iMacs and Mac Pros. Personally, I think USB C spells the death of thunderbolt and lightning connectors. I don’t think I’m sad to see either go. Thunderbolt has been a fail in a lot of ways. I find the lightning connections finicky, a cord will work on one phone but not another. And why have multiple styles of connections when you can use one?
Yes, thunderbolt is faster but I’d imagine the next generation of USB C would surpass it. Probably the next version of Mac Pros will have both USB C and thunderbolt. Then the generation after might drop thunderbolt completely.
-
[Walter Soyka] ” still think big numbers deserve skepticism. I have no trouble believing that many editorial tasks are 2x-3x faster (or more), but it’s not clear what exactly is said to be so much faster — the whole process?”
I don’t think the 2-3X faster is really a scientifically derived statistic. And no doubt is exaggerated. The way you might read it, is it “feels 2-3X faster”. Which in itself is not insignificant, meaning anything that feels faster helps maintain focus and reduce burnout.
As you well know, time gets sucked up regardless of how efficient your software is. Remember when we moved from linear editing to non-linear? There were studies done that showed the time on editing did not decrease. However, the quality of the edit increased. There could be a similar effect here. There could also be the effect of reducing staff required for editing a video. Which also is not insignificant. Brooks Law suggests that fewer staff leads to more efficient outcomes. Something I’ve found matches my experience.
-
[Neil Goodman] “I hear this quite a bit – its faster, its faster, its faster..
No one ever says specifically what made it faster ?”
Keep in mind this is a director, not the editor. So undoubtedly speed advantages would be less so with an editor that knows either product in and out. But…
Here is the full quote, and I think it’s fairly clear what he’s saying:
“That’s when we noticed that it was designed to cut digital video from the ground up, not just made to emulate the film experience, it was really appealing. And then when we found how easy it was, it was amazing, I could cut at least twice as fast if not three times as fast on Final Cut Pro X as I could on Avid. There was so much less thinking and less clicking than that flatbed emulation.”
On a more general note, I’ve outlined probably at least 5 to 10 times on this board what makes FCP X faster for my workflows. There have been hundreds of posts from others about this. So it simply is not true that no one ever says what makes it faster.
-
I know a lot of discussion is around heavy use of metadata with Focus. However, I think any NLE can probably do similar things with enough time and effort. I’ll leave it to those who do it to discuss the finer details of that. I don’t use Smart Collections and extremely rarely, sub-folder keywords.
Where I think FCP X really excels in comparison to bin structures is light-use Metadata. I spend very little time organizing my materials. But with light use of keywords and favoriting I can easily tame my footage in a few minutes at the beginning and continuously throughout the editing process.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “One rather curious aspect of this production for me is that this is the very first feature film of any kind that the Editor Jan Kovac has cut, acccording to his imdb entry.”
Perhaps, this relative newbie status allowed him to evaluate the tools based on their merit and not on preconceived notions or inertia. I’m not sure it takes anything away. Proof is in the pudding as they say.
[Simon Ubsdell] “Why would you not want a graphics expert to do the titles for a movie of this scale in a dedicated graphics environment? Bizarre.”
Really? For some productions, overwrought title sequences distract from the movie. I personally eschew any fancy-pants lower thirds for my videos. I think they are just terrible. That’s not to say there isn’t a place and time for fancier graphics, but it doesn’t need to be all (or even most) of the time.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Most editors, let alone FCP X editors, have no interest in using Resolve, nor have much of a clue as to how to use it once they open it up.”
Sure there are those who wouldn’t have a clue as to how to use it. There are others like me, where it is just impractical, and not a good use of time, for the type of videos I make. My edits tend to take between 4 and 20 hours. Distribution is social media where my videos tend to get a thousand or so views. It simply a waste of my time to go to Resolve for improvements that would not drive more viewers to the videos. I have other things to work on.
Also, I have to worry about future accessibility. When you go to Resolve you to an extent lock-in an edit. I’m am always pilfering from previous projects. I’d lose my color corrections in those cases if I used Resolve.
This is why I like this type of plug-in. It doesn’t add a lot more hours to a project but gives you more powerful tools than the color board offers.
-
Nice. I love that it stays open and you can move from clip to clip without having to reopen. It makes for fast color correction. And the interface is nice and tidy and doesn’t take over a whole screen like Magic Bullet. Most of the functions don’t really work for me in Mavericks, so it looks like I’m moving to Yosemite.