Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “You can work around the absence of a mixer prettily easily – indeed there’s a good case to be made that using a mixer in an NLE is a slower more cumbersome way of working than the alternatives.”
Simon,
For some work, undoubtedly that is true. For other work the mixer is much better (complex real-time keyframing on more than one track at a time is a breeze with a mixer, particularly when you can leave the mouse behind and put your hands on faders).
It will depend on the editor and the work.
As to alternatives:
[Charlie Austin] “You can work around it, but you shouldn’t have to. It’s a basic feature and it’s missing.”
The point that gets lost every time these discussions come up is this – what is crucial for one person is trivial for the other. Insisting on one perspective or dismissing the other doesn’t do much to move the conversation forward.
Franz.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] ” There is no quick and easy way of executing a similar function as things stand and yet I need to be able to do this quickly and easily on a regular basis.”
[Charlie Austin] “However, there is no “different” way to do match frame replace. You can work around it, but you shouldn’t have to. It’s a basic feature and it’s missing.”
Simon, Charlie,
Yes, I would agree. It’s just that this measure is pretty subjective.
I suppose “most requested” and general popularity of feature applies.
I don’t use this function much, so it doesn’t have much impact on me. But others dismiss, for example, an audio mixing interface (outside the timeline) as essential – because they don’t use it. To me, it’s basic.
Franz.
-
[Charlie Austin] “It’s pretty basic function in any NLE, and there’s stuff in the guts of X that indicate it was/is a planned feature. A lot of stuff people “miss” does fall into the “stop trying to do it like (insert other NLE here). Not this. :-)”
[Simon Ubsdell] “Seconded.”
Charlie, Simon,
So, what’s the criteria for categorizing “basic, necessary functions” vs. “different priorities, different approaches”?
Franz.
-
[Richard Herd] “I don’t imply that.”
Richard,
I am not following then.
“not faster” than what?
Franz.
-
[James Ewart] “I think I like it”
James,
One school of editing can be described as “sequence-based” (in differentiation from “browser-based”). The distinction can be thought of in terms of the tool or place you do your main organizing.
We’ve discussed it before here – some references:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/71347Franz.
-
[tony west] “I thought you were asking for specific tasks that would make working with a 64 bit program faster than that of a non 64 bit program.”
Tony,
I’m not convinced the implementation of stills in FCP 7 is necessarily a result of 32 bit limits. I think it’s just a poor implementation. I’d be interested if you know otherwise (speculation aside).
Franz.
-
[tony west] “they are paying more because a editor is using a program that is not 64 bit”
[tony west] “In Legacy, if you were cutting, say a doc and just grab a photo and drug it into the timeline you would have to wait and render that.”
Tony,
Claiming that producers pay more for work done on 32 bit software is different from discussing what features you find better in one NLE vs. another.
I agree that stills are a bit of pain in FCP7.
But since we still seem to be stuck on the idea of speed, I’ll try to clarify further. The only “speed” that matters really is from shoot to picture lock (or others would say delivery). During that time there are many complex interrelated tasks. It’s one thing to discuss and compare certain tasks. It’s another to claim that you can get from day one to picture lock faster.
I have no doubt that for certain types of work, the difference in certain tasks makes a marked difference in overall “speed”. But it is pointless to talk about that unless you give the context. One size does not fit all.
It’s important to remember too that speed isn’t a priority in all work. Some will have other priorities.
It seems to need repeating that all editors do not do the same kind of work. All editors don’t work the same way. Editors have different needs. Those needs will be reflected in features and aspects they are attracted to in the tools they use.
For those interested in something other than scoring points, a discussion of the workflow and how software helps may be of benefit to others.
My intention wasn’t to convince anyone to use one NLE or another. It was simply to give a reflection on my own choices after three and a half years. That may be of use to some, and not to others.
Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] “Or perhaps 64 streams of full HD being run simultaneously isn’t “under load” in your thinking?”
Bill,
This is certainly one way of describing capabilities, and certainly you could call this “under load”.
Also, it is not what I was talking about. I thought it was clear, but my interest is in how it can handle many many sequences.
Franz.
-
[Bret Williams] “I’d definitely rather have skimming at my disposal when looking for a clip vs the old “load into viewer, scrub, repeat” method.”
Bret,
FCP X certainly seems to have streamlined certain processes for those who use browser-based editing.
One of the advantages of sequence-based editing is that it leaves behind the “load clip into view, scrub, repeat” action that browser-based editing relies on.
In that respect, it was possible to leave behind that process a long time ago, depending on your preferences.
[Bret Williams] “By far the slowest part about editing is decision making.”
I would agree in the sense that you can only think so fast. That’s why I think any discussion of “faster” editing needs to be qualified by a clear sense of what aspects you’re talking about. On the whole, editing involves a lot of processes.
Franz.
-
[Chris Harlan] “I felt an obligation to sing a bit.”
Chris,
In the spirit of soothing the hangover with narcotics, can you summarize the features or aspects of MC that you feel are strongest or that you miss while working in other software?
Franz.