Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “… you just don’t HAVE to use a sequence to string a large amount of selects together …”
[Jeremy Garchow] “… or lay them all in a sequence and watch them as a string out.”
[Jeremy Garchow] “… all of your selects in one playable selection is to string them out in a sequence.”
Jeremy,
The difference here being that, as far as I can tell, what I’m calling “clip based” editors don’t want “one playable selection”. They seem to use clips, subclips, and sometimes sequences in bins to organize. I don’t work that way so I can’t say much about it. I’ve seen it a lot, though never really discussed in detail their practices.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I copy and paste from my selects “sequences” to the “edit” sequence.”
While I do use copy and paste, it really isn’t the main tool. Generally I’m reducing from a raw sequence to selects, and the selects (duplicated) form the basis of the assembly (meaning a duplicate sequence). While this may involve copying and pasting all material from a few selects sequences to begin an assembly sequence (ie 3 or 4 select sequences for the basis of one assembly), generally all work is done within one sequence. I’m not really moving around tabs or double clicking a lot once I’ve started. It sounds like you move between sequences a lot, thus more tab clicking and double-clicking, as well as more copy and paste operations.
Franz.
-
[Herb Sevush] “I’ve asked for backup on that claim and I don’t think from what I’ve read that it is justified.”
Herb,
You didn’t see the chart.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/40043#40069
Franz.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Yes, it’s designed differently. Isn’t that what the backlash is about?”
Jeremy,
Was there “backlash” in my post?
I was trying to articulate an underlying design approach – quite beyond semantics. Are you suggesting there is no difference, or that my characterization was wrong? Your post seems to confirm that FCPX is designed around what I’m calling “clip-based” editing. Or I’m misinterpreting your post.
[Jeremy Garchow] “There’s really no way to sort a mass of selects with the FCP7 bin structure …”
I could introduce you to Avid and FCP editors who “sort a mass of selects” in bins every day. I don’t work that way, though.
[Jeremy Garchow] “You simply cannot do this in FCP7 without stringing everything out in a sequence and then double clicking that sequence or moving back to that tab, then finding what you want, copy, move back to the other tab, paste, rinse repeat”
I’m not sure what you’re doing here, but this isn’t the way I work. But if it works for you …
Franz.
-
[Herb Sevush] ” Furthermore I personally like to have the material laid out consecutively left to right, as in a timeline – probably habit from my old days cutting film …”
Herb,
One of my (many) realizations over the past year in this forum has been realizing the difference between what I call “sequence-based” editing practice versus what I call call “clip-based” editing practice.
Those names may not be the best way of delineating them, but I think you understand what I mean.
I am very much a sequence-based editor and FCPX looks to me designed around clip-based editing. (Not to say it can’t be used as a sequence-based editor, just that it was designed around a different practice.)
Franz.
-
Herb,
Similar thoughts on Cleopatra, though I haven’t seen it.
Frankly, I’ve been surprised by the return of long running times in theatrical films. In past where long times have tended to be the province of historical dramas and such sweeping epics, the current trend seems to favour pop culture and comic books.
It does seem to be based on the same idea of films as events though.
Franz.
-
-
[Herb Sevush] ” I don’t know of any theatrical feature that is longer than 4 hours.”
Herb,
It’ll hinge on what you consider a “theatrical feature”, but Our Hitler (Syberberg) is the first that comes to mind … over 7 hours. It received a small theatrical run in some American centres after it premiered, I think.
Edit: I should probably mention Shoah (Claude Lanzmann) as well (Edit, already mentioned above), over 10 hours originally, though I don’t know of its distribution history..
A couple of other long docs come to mind as well.
Franz.
(Did I just Godwin this thread?)
-
[Oliver Peters] ” I love the HP products, but I would contend that with the huge difference in price, a current MP is still the more cost-effective option.”
“Eh? A 2.66 12-core 2010 Mac Pro (the newest model) as specced with a Quadro 4000 and AppleCare is $6600, so it’s close to the same price. It doesn’t lose everywhere, but where it does it loses pretty badly, and it’s obvious it could do much better if it wasn’t stuck on ancient technology. Scores for 570s/580s in Mac Pros are plenty enough to show that. It uses more power. It has fewer, slower expansion slots.
It’s not like it’s useless, and if Apple ever dropped the price on ancient stuff ever then it might have a place, but at that price it’s absolutely a poor value. Remember too that going forward, compilers will improve, drivers will get fixed, programs will get updated and the OS will continue to evolve. There is a much higher potential performance ceiling on the E5 and newer cards vs old systems. The deltas aren’t going to get any better.”
– Xoa, arstechnica comments
-
[Bill Davis] “Obviously simply making arguments based on one’s own thinking – writing them in the open for everyone to read, judge and argue against – is inadequate.”
[Bill Davis] “Cut and paste logic instruction? Really? Well, perhaps this stuff is brand new to you, so you figure it’s also new to everyone else?”
[Bill Davis] “Yeah, I know. That’s takes effort and possibly even some original thinking … Unfortunately, that’s way harder than pasting a graphic.”
[Bill Davis] “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”
“Don’t talk unless you can improve the silence.” – Jorge Luis Borges
-
[alban egger] “…otherwise everyone I showed FCPX to was pretty much agreeing it is faster …”
Alban,
Now you can just show them Steve Connor‘s chart.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/40043#40049(You’ll still have to explain why you’re comparing X to 3 year old software, but charts are persuasive.)
Franz.
