[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Simon.

You may be surprised that I agree on all points.

Focus is certainly not X’s “Cold Mountain moment.” I don’t think such a moment will ever happen again.

As far as directors who make a big deal about being intimately involved in all aspects of the film process: that sort of statement usually puts me on guard. When the natural and appropriate involvement of a director has to be explicitly highlighted and pointed out as something unusual and/or tied to a particular system, it makes me wonder why? All good directors are involved in the entire process, unless they are kept away by the studio or for other reasons.

As for Kovac: yes, his apparent lack of mainstream feature experience made me curious as well. Not because of any doubts about his skills, but because of what I know to be true of the Hollywood process. Politics reigns supreme. It’s usually only in the indie world that non-big name people get their chance. All of which makes me wonder if the studio sees this as more of a vanity project for the star than a major release. Again, no implications as to the skill or artistry of all involved.

In the end, I agree with you and several here that this is less about editing a movie on X than about delivering a movie on X. In that sense, the real “hats off” and attention should be paid to Mike Matzdorff and his team.

[Jeff Markgraf]

David –

So far, your post is the only one I see addressing not “improvements” to the X approach, but the idea that the concept is fundamentally “broken” and in need of fixing. Interesting, though I don’t think I agree.

Here’s the biggest point of disagreement for me:

[David Lawrence] “In a traditional, track-based, open timeline, the temporal frame-of-reference is absolute and defined outside the media clips by the UI window.
In the magnetic timeline, the temporal frame-of-reference is relative and constantly shifting because it’s defined by the primary storyline inside the project.”

I don’t see a difference in the “absolute” time reference. The timecode (or frame count) of the sequence timeline in X is the reference. Just as in Avid or others. A clip exists at a particular linear time. The fact that a clip may be connected to another clip doesn’t change anything about its absolute position on the timeline – until you move it. Just like in Avid.

The marketing description “magnetic timeline” is just that – marketing. Personally, I think it’s silly. Unless one considers the magnetic property of repulsion. That’s what’s different.

“Magnetic” as a description for rippling is useless. Any NLE can ripple edits. “Magnetic” as a description for snapping to an adjacent clip is equally useless. Any NLE can snap. “Magnetic” as a description of clips automatically moving out of the way when rippling is useful. No other NLE does that. It’s a manual process with the others.

But a clip moving up or down to make room for another clip doesn’t affect it’s linear position in time.

Connecting a clip to another clip so that they move together isn’t magnetic. It’s just a kind of grouping, a more sophisticated and granular version of locking tracks. It minimizes the need to lasso a group to move it as a unit. It’s the magnetic repulsion of the clips in the vertical axis that makes X different.

Yes, the constantly (and sometimes unpredictable) changing of vertical position can be disconcerting. As others have discussed, some method for vertically locking a clip in place may be useful. Another useful tool would be the ability to connect a clip (especially audio) to the sequence time code, rather than to a primary clip or gap. But, again, I consider these improvements in the execution, rather than fixing something that is fundamentally broken.

[David Lawrence] “why haven’t we seen a trackless DAW yet?”

I think we sort of have. Doesn’t Fairlight allow multiple clips on the same “track,” layered on top of one another? A bit like the audition process in X?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Simon-

I re-read all the relevant posts in this thread to see if I may have been projecting or misunderstanding.

Here is a sample of my concerns addressed in my first two points:

The directors didn’t feel that an experienced feature film editor would have anything useful to offer. That’s a bit surprising.
Equally they didn’t feel that an experienced titles designer could bring anything of value. That too is interesting.

The presumption here that I find strange and revealing is that the editor’s skillset is less important that the kit he’s cutting on – which is a point that I think we’re agreeing on.

The reality us surely that Ficarra and Requa, whether rightly or wrongly, don’t believe that an experienced editor brings that much of value to the party.

I don’t see how can you be a great feature film editor without a reasonable amount of experience as a lead editor on drama even if it’s only TV … which is clearly not the case here.

I thinks there’s quite a leap here, for a couple of reasons:

1-The assumption that anyone is in fact valuing the equipment over the editor.
Conjecture, but we really don’t know that.

2-This guy is not an experienced editor, at least not an experienced feature editor.
Again, conjecture. Neither of the two features I’ve edited has, as fas as I know, made it on to iMDB. Don’t know if the one I’m currently cutting will, either. Nevertheless, after almost 30 years in postproduction, I do think of myself as experienced – albeit less so as a feature editor, I will grant you.

3-Lack of (credited) feature experience = not suitable for major studio feature editing.
Perhaps you’re right. Then again, I’ve seen plenty of truly horrible films edited by editors with plenty of Hollywood credits. Even then, I’m not prepared to assume it’s their fault. Way to many people are involved who have the power to ruin a film.

4-While I’ve not quoted the relevant posts here, the build up from “I’m curious” to apparently being truly astonished at this editorial choice seems a bit overwrought. Perhaps I’m reading too much into the near constant repetition of the surprise. Given the number pf people I know who have been hired because they are friends of the producer/director/exec. producer, etc. in both film and television, I’m very reluctant to presume to know why someone was hired or not hired. And, for what it’s worth, being a friend of the director is certainly not automatic grounds for suspicion or a presumption of incompetence.

I do think the overall tenor of these exchanges has been rather unfair to the editor in question and to the production team. I think a lot of assumptions have been made as to motivation and process, and the leap from assumption to what seem to be negative conclusions is all too short and unsupported by actual facts.

Now, I may be guilty of making my own assumptions based on these posts. If so, I do apologize if I’ve misrepresented your thoughts. It’s all too easy to come across as rigid and snarky in forum posts, whether intentional or not.

As for the other points, it’s the usual suspects with the usual agendas. Not something I’ve ever seen you be a part of, and off-topic for this thread, anyway.

Cheers, etc.

Jeff M.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Michael-

I completely agree with the need for proper audio bussing. Until recently, this ability has been missing from all NLEs. Avid implemented a form of bussing a couple of versions ago. Am I correct that Premiere has a similar feature? (Don’t really know Premiere.) X is overdue for this feature.

As far as the general discussion, I would quibble with describing the lack of this feature as evidence that the magnetic timeline is “broken.” Just as Avid wasn’t “broken” before, X’s magnetic timeline can be improved upon. Improving is different from fixing.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Yes, except for that “unnamed network” control over software. Shockingly difficult to just upgrade a piece of software that is vital to your workflow. Add in a bit of a deadline, and you can see the frustration…

Bottom line, though, is will CC2014 read Avid mfx files? Am I correct that pre-2014 CC will not? Or is there something else going on here?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Robin –

I feel your pain in this thread. Seriously. Let’s summarize:

1. Curiosity about an unknown and possibly inexperienced editor working on a major studio film quickly becomes a virtual attack on this guy’s skills and credibility.

2. The original subtext (yes, subtext carries over very well on the internet) that there’s something odd or shady going on with this project (producers who want to run every aspect of the process, etc.) morphs into clear evidence that “there mischief afoot!” and “he/it/this whole thing can’t possibly be professional, etc.”

3. It’s more fun to quote people out of context in order to support a weak premise.

4. It’s more fun to misunderstand or misrepresent points in order to fan the flames of very old arguments.

5. Any opportunity to bash Bill Davis must be taken, especially when presented in an “oh,so reasonable, just stating the facts, ma’m, why u mad?” fashion.

6. Anyone trying to both call the bs and cut through the bs is clearly a provocateur.

I applaud you for fighting the good fight.

I’m reading Mike Matzdorff’s e-book now. Perhaps we can have some useful discussions afterward (and after seeing the actual movie!) Pretty much everything else here is primarily speculation and agenda-promotion.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[David Lawrence] “fix the magnetic timeline “

Genuinely curious: what is it that is wrong with X’s magnetic timeline, and what would you do to fix it?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Don’t know about Avid’s GPU support, but I’ve watched the 8.3 demos with 4K footage. Between finally getting AMA to be useful and apparently generating R3D proxies in real time, Avid may finally be getting it’s act together for large frame video. Many of their new features seem to be taking a page from the X playbook. Assuming you have the equipment horsepower, of course.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Would like to see that recording. I certainly don’t doubt you’re having a problem…I just have no idea why.

Interestingly, I have the opposite problem. On the same system that has virtually no lag on FCP, I can’t get Resolve to play more than a few frames before stuttering. And that’s with DnX-145 mxf files or plain vanilla ProRes. Of course, I have an AJA video out, not a BMD out. Probably makes all the difference.

[Jeff Markgraf]

I’ve met a few. Hollywood folks can be pretty hide-bound. Most of these naysayers I’ve come across would be so obnoxious in showing their distaste/disapproval of X that they’d never be given the chance to learn X in order to get the gig. Who needs to work with somebody with such a bad attitude? Lots of editors in this town…