[Franz Bieberkopf]

Thomas,

See first post link for a discussion of how I use tracks.

I don’t use the first track the way you do – that is why I am asking.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Thanks Jeremy. All slightly off topic but interesting.

Wasn’t there some issue with using compound clips in events? I’m probably getting that wrong but I do remember some warnings against using compound clips certain ways.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Jeremy Garchow] “As an aside, multicam is coming.”

I actually don’t use the multicam function in FCP – I have always built my timelines this way.

[Jeremy Garchow] “Of course, you might have to “Open in Timeline” to see the different stacked takes”

Right now, however, the tracks allow me to see at a glance which angle covers which section of the timeline – I think this would hard (though possible?) to achieve in X.

V2 and V3 are my wides – you can see where I like them. If I know that V6 was the best intimate handheld take (for dancers and camera) I can see pretty clearly where I can rely on that and where not. It’s also apparent by glancing at the timeline, for instance, that I’ve only selected one take to cover a section just after the midway point. In other words – looking at the timeline (and remembering these are my selects) I have an overview of coverage (strengths and weaknesses) – the timeline is giving me information.

I think you’re proposing a compound clip (with range selections?) as a possible way to replicate this? Can the one track per camera take be replicated somehow? with multiple small selects from one long clip?

[Jeremy Garchow] “you will probably have one long audio/guide track”

Yes – here V1 / A1A2 are my playback guide.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Thanks Jeremy – I think that’s interesting as it relates to how you would work in FCPX with the same material.

What I immediately react to, however, is the inability to see certain relationships in the browser (or “event”) that you can see in a timeline.

I have an example that is similar (I think) to your process of selection. Here is a timeline from a performance short (dance) that I did last year. It was a single camera shoot with playback, multiple takes. Note that this timeline is selects only (one iteration after raw sync).

What I have here is relationships of coverage that I think would be impossible to see in a browser.

I actually approach most material in a similar manner so what is true for me here (performance to playback) is also true for scripted performance and to a certain degree unscripted material.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Thomas,

Thanks, but it does lead to the question of how you treated V1 in FCP7.

Is it just another track (among many) or did you use it in ways you didn’t use other tracks?

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Yikes. I’m always surprised at how bad magazine writing can actually be. I’m trying to think of a buzzword for “vague assertions”.

But thanks for this, Steve, it does follow up on the brief discussion around your earlier post.

By way of introduction there is this statement:

“For the past sixty years, TV executives have been making the decisions about what we watch in our living rooms.”

… followed immediately by:

“[Youtube] has recruited producers, publishers, programmers, and performers from traditional media to create more than a hundred channels …”

… and if the irony was clear, later:

“Although most of the entertainment channels fall into the variety-show format (a staple of the early years of television), some creators are attempting long-form dramas.”

What I’m understanding here is that all of this will look an awful lot like television.

That aside, there is good stuff buried in there:

“Kamangar … told me … “Our data suggests TV watching is on the rise,” he said. “It seems to have increased from four to five hours in recent years, and we think it will keep increasing.”
…
“The average ’Tuber spends only fifteen minutes a day on the site—a paltry showing when compared with the four or five hours the average American spends in front of the TV each day. The standard block of programming on TV lasts twenty-two minutes; on YouTube, it’s three minutes.”

It isn’t until near the end that the model is actually laid out:

“Early in 2011, Kyncl began meeting content creators in a variety of media—film, TV, music, print—whiteboarding the future of television, and inviting them to participate in it by creating new YouTube channels. He offered several million dollars in funding, in the form of advances against future ad revenues, to be used as development money. Once the advances are earned back, YouTube will share ad revenues with the creators. YouTube will have an exclusive right to the content for a year, but the creators will retain ownership. YouTube will be responsible for selling ads but will not invest in promoting or marketing the channels in the way that traditional television channels do. (There will be no lavish premiere parties, and no billboards in Times Square.)”

… and finally the challenge:

“In its attempt to increase watch time, attract more viewers, and provide advertisers with as customized a customer as possible, YouTube risks alienating its core constituency.”

So the idea is for traditional producers to take the financial risk and share the revenue with the distributor. I would think this will lead to smaller budgets and fairly conservative decisions, but really, who knows? It’ll be interesting to see how it develops.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Jeremy Garchow] “There’s great keyboard shortcuts to move things in and out of the primary and leave a gap behind. The process is very fluid. … I am not thinking about “what needs to be in the primary now” anymore than I think about what video/audio track things needs to go on. If I need the magnets, it goes in there, if it’s a secondary cutaway, it goes above as it usually tied to a word/sentence/part of music.”

Jeremy,

Brilliant, thanks.

This sounds very fluid to me – more like the primary is a temporary work area where magnetism operates. Do you find you’re often moving sections in and out or is it more shot by shot?

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Tom Wolsky] “The primary is almost always audio driven, dialog, sound bites, narration, though by habit I don’t put narration on the primary …”

[Mark Morache] “My edits are generally driven by audio: narration, interviews and natural sound. … However, I don’t like to keep the narration in the primary storyline, …”

Interesting consistency, … Mark you talked about why you don’t like to have narration in the primary. Tom, are there other (practical reasons) or is it really just habit?

[Mark Morache] “Considering how easy it is supposed to be with the magnetic timeline, I frequently find myself pulling clips out of the primary and sticking them back in.”

Mark, do you feel like you’re going against the grain of the software here, or is it really just the mechanics of dealing with the assumed hierarchy?

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Jeremy Garchow] “As you said, it’s the process of editing.

Jeremy,

I think you’re sort of side-stepping the question. It actually isn’t a hypothetical question, I really want to know how people work and how they use the primary.

I gather from your post that you’re working largely with scripted material and you primarily use dialog to structure – so in the example you gave (hypothetically edited in FCPX) it would have been all dialog with audition alternatives.

(… if I’m understanding correctly.)

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Tom,

Thanks, but I think your post sort of begs the question.

Part of it seems clear enough – you primarily structure work based on audio, if I understand correctly, so the audio (and accompanying video, if any) are your primary story line.

But when you talk of building your primary narrative, I want to know what you mean. Master shots? with rough edits. Are you following a script? Are you doing a paper edit and then rough execution? When you start a project, or a scene, what do you identify as your primary or how do you arrive at that decision?

Franz.