Douglas K. dempsey
Forum Replies Created
-
Small private school, video class size 4 to 10 students any given semester. Have taught using FCP 6 edu version (non upgradable) for several years. Advantage of that interface? I can point to Avid, Premiere and other NLEs with same Timeline and Viewer interface. Occasionally kids will do work at home on Premiere Elements, Vegas, etc, and it all makes sense.
For kids who have toyed with iMovie, of course, they have to learn all over with FCP.
This year, school got donation of a dozen more iMacs, with FCPX installed. I have been teaching it to some kids, and it has it’s simplicity/idiot proofing advantages. But IMHO these are a wash after considering the oddities, including at a basic level the stupid idea of referring to clips you import as “Events.” I found it barely tolerable in iPhoto, the presumption that anytime you turn on your camera, everything that happens that day is one “event.” In video edit it is just an absurd notion.
Some of the more serious kids, juniors and seniors, have already heard from their friends that NYU undergrad film school is switching to Avid, as FCP7 is no longer supported. So they come in thinking FCPX is indeed iMovie Pro. Even though it is a silly distinction at their unschooled level.
But I am giving FCPX the benefit of the doubt, and showing it to newbies who are welcome to learn it, if it appeals. And learning it myself, for all the GOOD things like meta-data, multi-cam, better clarity in using Motion and so on.
But then, I have the luxury of having CS6 installed on the same machines, and so can now go to FCPX, FCP6 or PPro 6 at my discretion.
Doug D
-
Paul, FYI regarding budgets: for years we used FCP 6 (educational) exclusively, along with the free OSX-included iMovie if so desired, on only a half-dozen machines.
But a parent/donor came up with the Digital Arts Studio iMacs, desks and chairs, glassed-in separate room, and the software. The idea being to continue the small video classes, but make the gear available to the entire student population.
So this is an anomaly, to have all these riches. The argument for our school, and perhaps any school is, “let’s fund-raise for the digital arts, because we NEED it for our kids to stay competitive with the rest of the world.”
Having said that, the site license deals on 20+ seats, from both Apple and Adobe, are pretty good.
Doug D
-
The question was raised, what about collaboration? I always encourage the kids to collaborate, pointing out that most of filmmaking in the real world works that way. And it allows you to concentrate on your own perceived strengths and joys. Often one kid will want to “act” and/or direct. Another wants to shoot and/or edit. So it works itself out; the techies get to pick the editing app, or if no preferences, I make the call based on my gut. Still, like a science lab, EVERYBODY must complete an ingest, organization, edit in timeline and output exercise. Just so they know the concepts.
Doug D
-
I don’t mind having the choice; I can deal with the widely-varying experience level of my students. One kid came in bragging about how good he is with Vegas on his home computer. So I showed him a few things in FCP7 (it could have just as easily been Premiere Pro). He quickly adopted, and was pleased to “master” another app. Sometimes you need to throw those challenges at the “know it all” kids to keep them engaged. In his case it worked, he did a great documentary on dance, applied a number of effects, and made a multi-track mix using keyframes and the Audio Tool in FCP7. He was happy.
Other kids are incredibly insecure about the technology of filmmaking; one kid told me his family thinks of him as the one who always “breaks the camera.” I handed him an old Canon GL1 and told him he would being doing the department a favor if it broke, and just concentrate on the compositions. We put him right into FCPX and the interface seemed simple enough that he “got it.” And he liked the shiny, colorful look. It is less drab and utilitarian-looking than FCP7.
Others have made endless iMovies and are either a)happy to use FCPX because it looks familiar, or b) want to try out more “serious” software.
I don’t preach that FCPX is the app of the future; I don’t lament that FCP7 is out of date and discontinued. I do tell them that they are likely to run into Premiere as a very popular cross-platform, “bundled” app (i.e. part of Creative Suite), so it might be more professionally useful. Mostly though, I allow them to reach their own conclusions.
So far, I must say that it seems to be more about the way different people work and think. If I had to generalize, the more meticulous types, who require more control, want to use FCP7 and PPro look because they feel more in control. That may simply be because I don’t know as many tricks in FCPX yet!
I predict, though, that when the more advanced students start to mess with effects, and see how effects and motion work in FCPX, they may leave FCP7 behind for that reason alone.
I may have to convince the department to buy me Phil Hodgett’s “7toX!”
Doug D
-
I teach film/video at a private school, grades 9-12. Small classes, have used FCP 7 for reasons stated, good intro to the mostly universal track-based NLE.
However this year we got 20 new iMacs, some in a Digital lab for ALL students, K-12. Eight machines are for my class, 9-12 serious art students only.
All have iMovie of course, FCPX w/Motion and CS6. I kept a few FCP legacy seats as well.
Little kids mess with iMovie. Upper School welcome to try out FCPX and CS.
In my class I start with FCPX for reasons stated, nice quick easy to use for casual users and art students.
The more serious film students are encouraged to look at Premiere and FCP7 for reason stated above, to see traditional NLE.
So I’m covering the waterfront. BTW edu price on FCPX with 20 minimum I believe is $150 each. Also good site license deal on the Creative Suite.
Doug D
-
And to bring it all back to FCPX or Not:
FCP 7 is a highly-featured app with many options, tools and redundant choices for particular tasks and workflows. But we work in a Timeline with tracks and clips.
FCPX pushes language like “Primary Storyline” and Secondary Storyline to the fore.
Perhaps this is the part of “democratization” of filmmaking that’s a good thing; an acknowledgment that Editing is not simply a tech job for software geeks… it is ground zero for film & video storytelling.
Whether you are a Producer, a Director or a Shooter… once you sit down at FCPX, you are reminded that you’d better get to work on your Storyline!
Doug D
-
I was in the Writers Guild many years ago, when I worked as a story editor for Director John Avildsen. I learned that WGA rules and arbitrations over credit are mostly about structure, which is how an original screenwriter can retain credit even when a team of “script doctors” comes in and rewrites all of the dialogue and numerous scenes.
In documentaries it’s fuzzier. As some have noted above, the editor’s job is not just making smooth cuts, but the larger structural task of storytelling using the available material.
Normally, that “storytelling” aspect would seem to be part of the job description for an Editor. And for a Director and a Cameraperson as well; they are all “writing” a draft of the story with their choices.
And in cinema verite or “direct cinema” as the Maysles Brothers liked to call it, you have no narrator. So a dedicated “writer” never comes near the film. Sometimes these films are credited as “A Film By” to acknowledge the shared “writing” and structuring among all parties.
But sometimes it gets fuzzy, and Editors take a writing credit to make things more equitable. Often in an unscripted, “reality” or cinema verite documentary, the “Director” is more of a Producer, setting up the situation, instigating, but not guiding a performance or manipulating a storyline. So the Editor takes on what is really a co-director role, having an equal say in identifying the story and how it should be told.
In these situations, an Editor may negotiate a writing credit — often shared with the Director — to indicate that on this film, the Editor was more than simply”a pair of hands” for the Director.
In terms of WGA arbitration, an Editor might have to show some notes, emails etc, to prove they were co-authoring the story structure and deserve a writing credit. But I have not heard of much arbitration in documentary writing credits. Hence the Editor mentioned above, who “demands” a writing credit up front, and apparently she gets it.
Doug D
-
Funny but a school just gave our town public access some old gear, and one item was Final Cut 4. Turns out the disks are not even there, but the nostalgia of lifting and ready the hefty manuals is the real treat. You can’t beat printed manual for the ability to flip between two or three pages or sections at once, apply labeled post-its to tab your favorite short cuts, or just to lay back and read a section till you fall asleep — and then wake up the next AM and remember it all!
Doug D
-
Sorry, yes this was in Safari. BTW I also opened FCPX on the store MBPR but noted that they had not installed the newly released FCPX 10.0.5 (in fact they were running 10.0.2)
Anyway, the full screen Vimeo looked great on the MBPR, and the “Scaled” version looked terrific.
I doubt anyone would WANT to see the Vimeo player displayed at actual size, resulting a very-small-but-sharp window on the MBPR.
But Jason’s question brings up a real issue. I would hope that any “captured” images are real pixels based on the native object, not scaled or doubled interpolations.
Shouldn’t Retina display simply behave a fullscreen “magnifying glass” without any effect on native pixels of an “object?”
Doug D
-
Rick, if I understand your explanation, a real-world example of this effect would be:
I called up a Vimeo clip, and clicked the “full screen” icon. As usual, Vimeo then scales the clip to the full size of your screen, and displays an icon “Scaling is On.” So I am watching my 1280×720 clip scaled up to 2880×1800 pixels on the MBPR.
When I clicked the icon to toggle it to “Scaling is Off” I did not see my clip at 1280×720, as I would on a standard MBP. Instead, the clip was clearly scaled for the MBPR, to a size that looked to me as approximately the same amount of screen real estate I would see if I was watching an unscaled 1280×720 clip on a standard MBP.
I didn’t see any option by which I could display my streaming clip at actual size of 1280×720 pixels on the MBPR.
Of course, I spent only a few minutes on the MBPR at an Apple store.
Doug D