[Jeff Markgraf]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “I am neatly gone stage left by god.
“

Please don’t go. Seriously.

Yours has been one of the most provocative and entertaining voices on this forum since it started. Lots of good thoughts and lots of challenging people to put up or shut up. I, for one, have always found your threads to be one of the main reasons to read this forum.

I’ve kind of assumed your absence of late has been a result of too much work to do or just wanting to spend time with your new Premiere/After Effects relationship and not enough time left for us. It was heartwarming to see you back. I mean, Charlie is entertaining and all, but no one quite has your way with words.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Shane –

Totally agree that marketing-speak is a pox upon our industry. No matter who spouts it. The crap I’ve waded through in articles and press releases and reviews of products from Avid to Adobe to Apple to makers of archive systems to raids is mind-numbing.

I tend to look at presentations like this one with a fair amount of skepticism. Somewhere underneath all the babble may be some good information. I still think Cioni is onto something really good and certainly evolutionary, if not revolutionary. But like Evan whats-his-name in New York, he’s doing a lot of marketing during his talks. I get it, and I’m happy to look beyond it to get to the good stuff.

It’s unfortunate that so much discussion of X is overlaid with the need to defend it against the “it’s not professional” meme. What a waste of time. So much more interesting to focus on HOW X can be integrated into a professional workflow that WHETHER it can or how great it is or whatever.

– Until 8.3, Avid really couldn’t deal with large frame sizes effectively. X and Premiere always could.
– Until X2Pro, X couldn’t really output audio in a modern industry standard format for mixing. Avid could for a very long time.
– Until Premiere got it done, no one could do an open-format timeline. Avid still can’t really do it effectively. X mostly does.
– Interchange of media and sequences between NLEs is a manufacturer-created and curated nightmare.

These are things worth talking about, without PR bullshit.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “FCPX users mystical notion of their own courage and genius for using a particular piece of software seems as strong as ever?”

Gee. Project much? Now you’re just making stuff up.

Anyone who chooses an NLE, or any other software, as a political or personal statement, is a moron. Period. Full stop, as you Europeans say.

Conversely, trashing or refusing to acknowledge new or different software for the same reasons is equally moronic.

I know the people who made the software decision at ABC. The choice for Premiere resulted from a long-considered and politically fraught process dominated by fear, personal preference, anger, internal politics, a certain amount of laziness, and not a little desire to make a statement.

But that decision says absolutely nothing about you or any others who have embraced Premiere over the last couple of years. Nor does it say anything about those who have embraced FCPX.

I love mockery, at least when it’s well-deserved. But the funny think about mockery is that it requires a firm foundation upon which to stand. Now might be a good time to check.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Tim-

I guess as one of those old men who remembers 300 baud modems, I generally strive for brevity on teh interwebz. Suffice it to say I edited a lot out as I was writing. 😉

[Tim Wilson] “the use of “inertia” as a negative value”

Meant to be descriptive, rather than negative, per se. A network promo operation has a significant investment in equipment and process. Especially with what was in the very recent past an expensive and mostly proprietary system: Avid/Unity or ISIS/Interplay. This is an investment from which one does not walk away lightly.

Inertia provides some protection from making ill-considered decisions. But it also provides refuge for small minds and vested interests. All of these things are at play at a network. We may disagree about the relative influence of small minds vs. rash decisions, etc. (Three guesses where I come down on this issue!)

[Jeff Markgraf]

Wow. Just, wow. Haven’t seen a derp-fest like this in some time. Thanks, Aindreas!

So many calm and reasonable replies — makes me want to jump right into the deep end (don’t panic, Tim).

Oliver, your question isn’t insulting. The premise and presumptions of the initial rant, however, are.
Been watching the videos. A couple of things stand out:

1. Michael Cioni is a really smart guy. With a really smart company. It’s not all that hard to look past a certain amount of marketing-speak to get to the important points. Most of the reflexive pearl clutchers on this forum would do well to pay attention to what he has to say.

2. Directors are…well, directors. They live in a different world from you and me. Outside of their particular skill sets, most of what they say (and especially HOW they say it) is not to be taken very seriously. Especially by people who don’t know them or their work or their working styles.

3. Bravo, Herb. Totally nailed the whole “auteur” thing. A widely misunderstood and misapplied concept – especially by directors and insecure editors. The real auteurs usually don’t present themselves as such. Still, it’s not wrong or uncommon to see directors who edit. Or directors who shoot.

4. Name one editor “auteur.” . . . . . . . . . . . . Didn’t think so. Films and television are group efforts. Always have been. Some film directors maintain a lot of control through post production. Others walk away. Only rarely does a TV director get anything more than a first cut (and often not even that). Instead, the producer runs the show. Editors are mostly hired hands. Their skills and contributions are important but mostly devalued. Only in motion pictures does an editor sometimes get to be a true collaborator. But it’s not his movie. Ever. Unfortunately, the lower on the ladder the director, the more he usually blathers on about the extent to which he guides and brings his special magic to the entire process of filmmaking. Whatever.

5. DITs talk about DIT stuff. AEs talk about AE stuff. Sound talks about mixing. Directors talk about directing and everything else. That’s why they’re at event like this. How could anyone think a DIT talking enthusiastically and broadly about DIT workflow in general and a specific workflow in particular is being aggressive? It’s his job. It’s what I want to know about. What was different or special or unique or groundbreaking about this movie? Go ahead and exaggerate a little. I’m a big boy – I can figure it out. Just tell me something new and exciting. That’s the point of the presentation.

6. It’s been said before, but some apparently didn’t get the memo: this is not about editing a feature on FCPX. It’s about -finishing and delivering- a feature on FCPX. It’s about demonstrating that FCPX can and does play nice with all the other departments. “They” said it wasn’t possible. “They” were wrong. Move on. If you prefer Avid or Lightworks, great. They like you, too. Move on. Nothing to see here.

Unrelated to the videos, but regarding old tropes being trotted out yet again:

1. No widespread adoption of X in Hollywood. True. But slowly gaining ground. Yes, there’s some wishful thinking going on here, but why so intent on pushing the NOBODY DOES OR WILL USE IT! meme? Why do you care so much? It’ll get there without you. You’re safe. Your job is safe. Take a deep breath.

2. Let’s be clear about something. Mark Raudonis and some others jumped to Avid for very good, very specific workflow reasons that couldn’t be addressed by X. Smart moves by smart people. On the other hand, NBC uses Avid out of inertia. So does CBS. ABC initially jumped to FCP because of cost and butthurt over Avid’s lousy attitude. Now they use Premiere out of a combination of fear and inertia. I know these people. I work with them. It’s not really about X’s professionalism or suitability. Seriously, let it go.

3. I kinda like Bill. Yes, he’s enthusiastic and sometimes hyperbolic. So what? Frankly, it’s probably hard not to overcompensate in the face of the near constant onslaught of vitriol and mocking from the self-appointed keepers of the flame. FFS, people – move on. Talk about something useful.

Where’s Bob Zellin when you need him?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Turns out trashing preferences fixed the problem for me. (Thanks Tom Wolsky via fop.co!)

[Jeff Markgraf]

Well color me gobsmacked! (Isn’t gob smack from Willy Wonka?) I found the freeze frame. Don’t know why I’ve never seen that before.

Found the drop shadow in the stylize category. Never would have thought to look for it there.

Thanks Bret. Sorry for the unnecessarily cumbersome advice, Mark.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Drop shadow is not included in the transform controls in X.

I downloaded a free “RT Drop Shadow” plugin. There’s also a drop shadow in the free “Simple 3D” plugin. Don’t remember where they came from, but they work fine. Just drop the effect on the clip.

One caveat: the shadow is applied to the raster boundaries, so if you crop, the cropped edge doesn’t take the shadow (because the technical “edge” of the frame has been hidden by the crop). Very annoying. To workaround, crop the clip, then make it a compound clip (just the one clip). Then apply the shadow or 3D filter to the compound. Silly, but it works.

But the shadow does respect the outline of keyable elements.

Freeze frame: Shift + H is for “hold,” the X equivalent of FF. Park on the point in the clip (in the timeline) you want to freeze, and Shift H. Then drag out the red portion of the retime bar at the top of the clip to the desired length. You need at least 2 frames edited into the timeline so the retime has something to freeze. Then you can trim the head and/or tail of any residual 1-frame bump of motion after you’ve dragged it out to duration.

[Jeff Markgraf]

As I think I mentioned earlier, I’d be happy with a simple “connect to timeline” or some such option that would let me lock a clip to the sequence timecode directly. It would behave like a primary clip, but it wouldn’t move unless I moved it on purpose. It could be an actual additional “track” or just an option to lock on a clip-by-clip basis.

Not sure of all the ramifications of such a scheme, but it would be useful in much of what I cut. Thank locking the start of music bed to the top of the piece. Or locking an end plate to :26 seconds for a promo. That sort of thing.

An additional option rather than a broader “trackification” of X.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi David.

Yes, I do a lot of dialogue cutting. Mostly in the promo world (massive cutting and franken-biting), but also some indie feature work and other stuff.

I didn’t mean to suggest that cutting isn’t a big part of audio. So add “cuts” to the “mix, process..” line.