Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Oliver Peters] “Generally the A/B-roll comparison in FCP X stems from editing news packages”
Oliver,
This is the sense in which I have always referred to an “A/B editing” model, and not the earlier film model. I did try to find more historical information but my initial search turned up very little.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/21027#21065
Your definition fits my own, and I think the way that A/B editing is commonly discussed, where the film practice is lesser known and thought of as more of a technical process than a conceptual approach.
Thanks for the Murch article.
I’m going to guess that that is his “final” (locked?) timeline before lab work and not his working timeline?
I note the issue of FCPX is very conspicuous by its absence, and yet I can’t imagine you didn’t ask about it …
Franz.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I am able to very quickly and easy swap things around when building the story.”
By “building the story” do you mean working in the primary storyline, or is it more than that?
[Jeremy Garchow] “Everything is available, nothing is lost.”
I am not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps a negative example might illustrate.
[Jeremy Garchow] “For Non Broll editing (like spots), I find editing in the primary extremely fast and fluid.”
From what you’ve described, I understand that you work with an A/B approach to your editing: a primary, structuring track with cutaways or secondary material used to hide edits or support the primary. So either I’ve misunderstood something or you’ve not explained it well enough.
Franz.
-
Jeremy,
We had Bill’s blessing, third post in, to talk about theory.
[Bill Davis] “You want to knock around theory ideas, have fun.”
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “It sounds like FCPX would not be a good conceptual fit for this kind of work.”
Walter,
It’s one of the reasons I’ve been shy of trying X to date.
On the other hand, David Lawrence‘s multiple primaries seem like an exciting idea to me …
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I think that we have horribly confused the situation by using A/B now in a way that’s inconsistent with the historical use of A/B in NLEs.”
… not to mention film negative.
Franz.
-
Jeremy,
I’d be interested to hear a response from you (about X) to this statement from Walter:
[Walter Soyka] “Speaking for myself, I don’t see it as A/B in the sense of a two-source, single M/E system. I see it as A/B in terms of the ENG or storytelling mental editorial model — you have A-roll which is primary to the story, and B-roll which is secondary to the story (and attached to the A-roll).
The thing I still don’t quite understand are real-world scenarios where you can’t think of an edit this way.”
In other words, if you don’t conceive of your edit as A/B, how do you conceive of it? How does X help you with this (in ways that tracked models don’t)?
Franz.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “You yourself says FCPX is the best there is for a/b.”
Having not worked with it, I would never make such a claim. You’re probably thinking of this quote:
[Franz] From what I’ve read, it seems X is probably quite good and maybe the best A/B model NLE there is.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Walter and I had a discussion about a/b earlier today.
David Lawrence mentioned it. Aindreas has alluded to it.
It has come up over the year more than twice.”
Discussing, mentioning, and alluding to A/B models is not the same thing as claiming this:
[Jeremy Garchow] “Why is FCPX an a/b editor only? I don’t understand this recurring comment.”
My point stands. No one, anywhere, as far as I can tell, has ever claimed that FCPX is an A/B editor only.
There is much discussion (and some agreement, including from FCPX editors) that FCPX seems designed with an A/B model in mind. That is not claiming you can only edit using an A/B model.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Then you said we shouldn’t think in terms of a/b”
You may be thinking of this passage:
[Franz] In general I avoid thinking about things in terms of A/B roll, and I proselytize against it, as I think it promotes a certain preconception of how to use shots. When given the opportunity, I actually urge directors specifically not to shoot B roll. Bring me A roll only.
However, you’ll note that unless you’re working with me as an editor, or you’re a director that’s asked me for shooting advice, this doesn’t apply to you.
There are many here who use A/B approaches with great success in their work. My theory of editing is likely not of interest to them. However, it may be of interest to Walter, for example, who was asking for examples of other conceptual models.
If you’re going to put words in people’s mouths, it tends to curb discussion, rather than promote it. Straw-man rhetoric is not used to further discussion.
I’ve not used Media 100, but I’d be interested to know more about its editing model.
For me the simple language (and mechanics) of “primary” and “secondary” in FCPX reveal an underlying A/B assumption. Probably not much would be lost in substituting “primary/secondary” for all instances of “A/B” in this discussion.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “The thing I still don’t quite understand are real-world scenarios where you can’t think of an edit this way.”
Walter,
In general I avoid thinking about things in terms of A/B roll, and I proselytize against it, as I think it promotes a certain preconception of how to use shots. When given the opportunity, I actually urge directors specifically not to shoot B roll. Bring me A roll only. Every shot as important as the next. I don’t want to be cutting “away” to anything … only cutting to the next important thing.
In other words – if you can carry a scene on a close up of the coffee cup, then it seems odd to think of that as “secondary” in any way.
But that is more how A/B conventions impact on shooting.
The primary task of editing is, indeed, finding or deciding the shape of the spine.
In terms of process, I find I am often cutting groups of “threads” independently first. When I bring maybe 3 threads together to create a scene, the edit is partially determining which thread will come to the foreground as the driver at any given moment – the thing that “drives” a scene, or structures it, is often shifting from one element to the next, or can often be the interaction of two or more threads. (A simple example – if there is complex interaction between voice-over and a sync shot, it is sort of pointless to think about which is “primary”, particularly if you have to edit both threads to maintain the tension or harmony of the interaction).
It seems to me that if the focus or driving element is constantly shifting, or if your constantly talking about only primaries, or more than one primary, then you’re not really talking about an A/B model anymore.
A/B editing is a useful way of describing the “radio edit” approach (in which visuals follow an edited audio structure) or describing a sync-and-cutaways approach to hiding visual edits.
It doesn’t really describe a lot of editing practice well.
Franz.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Dodging the question is an answer, I guess.”
Jeremy,
I don’t think so – you’ve not answered my question.
Franz.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Why is FCPX an a/b editor only? I don’t understand this recurring comment.”
Jeremy,
Who has said this and where has it recurred?
Franz.