Marcus Moore
Forum Replies Created
-
I don’t think Ratner was ever on the list. The contenders from my understanding were Del Toro, Affleck, Bird, and Vaughn.
I love Del Toro, but I don’t think it would have been a good fit. I would have been happy with any of the other three. I think Joe Johnston was mentioned, but I don’t think he was ever a serious contender- but he might have been a good “workman” director like Kershner was.
The director needs to be good enough to become invisible to the proceedings, from my perspective. A great sense of pacing, and the ability to construct a good sequence, but not too overt in his stylings.
Agreed about the writer.
-
You absolutely can. That rumour was dispelled on Day 1. There are no major issues that I know of.
-
Abrams is actually the last of the big name choices I would have wanted.
I was sort of hoping for Affleck.
-
I honestly think it’s not about really forgetting tracks so much as it is about forgetting the traditional IDEA of tracks.
The parallel I would draw is that there’s no Bins in FCPX, but it’s easy to categorize your footage with keywords. I think audio [and video] in the timeline can be very neatly organized by Roles- while the organizing information is there, it hasn’t been put into effect in the timeline yet.
-
Agree completely. But I think the conversation above hints at the solution. With Roles data already assigned for each clip, the timeline should be able to sort these elements into horizontal “zones” which contain as many overlapping elements as exist in a single Role. Organized by user-set colour in a user-defined order. At the very least more like this:
https://www.hoverboy.com/Timeline.jpg
What I think would be even more amazing would be to be able to collapse and expand roles so you can concentrate on the sound elements you’re worried about, or as someone above theorized, step INTO a Role and only see those elements.
And with Roles, you’re not just restricted to DIALOGUE or SFX, you can have sub-Roles for DIA-MARY and DIA JIM, or SFX-GUNSHOTS, etc. etc… So you can create as many organizational layers as you like.
But those individual audio elements are still linked to their primary storyline elements [unlike when they’re inside a CC]
-
I don’t believe it. The NLE space isn’t Highlander. No one’s going to come together around 1 platform, or even 2. Everyone isn’t going to move to a Mac, and not everyone like some of the core concepts behind FCPX- and that’s fine. It’s great to have choice and competition in the space- otherwise no one is compelled to improve.
-
Agreed. It’s been quiet in here for a few days.
And just to counter Micheael- and I’m not saying you’re wrong or anything- just two different sets of anecdotal evidence.
With my client base. One of them is fully on FCPX now, another is in the process of moving over, and a 3rd is considering the FCPX switch after reviewing the Magic Feather videos.
The rest of my client base here in TO is hanging onto FCP7 for the time being.
-
Yeah. I think we’re going to be into a slower period for a few months- development-wise.
Though we might see another FCPX update in a month or so, I’m inclined to think it’s going to be another maintenance update, since they didn’t pre-announce any new features with 10.0.7 [which they did for 10.0.3 and 10.0.6]. It could be a ramp up to a substantial update at NAB in April. I’d like to think so since I’m going to be there this year…
-
Going back to what I said about 80%/80%, I think the primary definitely works for me in most cases, especially interview-based or narrative projects. As many have mentioned before me, music videos and promos are where the paradigm is perhaps less applicable
There’s no one editing methodology that I use for EVERY kind of job, so whether it was AVID, or MEDIA100, or FCP, or now FCPX, there are always workarounds for different kinds of videos. So even if the Primary storyline isn’t the best solution for every kind of project, I guess I have to say that overall it works for me way more than it works “against” me. I’m generally using less keystrokes to get jobs done.
As for improvements to the primary storyline (and I’ll be writing a blog about this as part of my FCPX 2013 series), I would like to see Apple add user-adressable behaviours to connected clips. By that I mean, if I have a connected title that I want to fade out 5 frames before the end of the Primary storyline shot, or if I have a sound effect that i want to always bleed 10 frames into the next shot, I can tell connected clips to follow the behaviour of the primary storyline clip.
In general I’d like to see Apple leverage all the metadata gathered in the Event much better in the project timeline- most specifically for visual organization. The timeline IS messy in it’s current form, but if you were able to group audio by Role, for example, and colour code them for easy identification- that would be the bees knees.
-
John is certainly not alone in his use of the primary in this way.
On a recent series of promos for a major Canadian retailer, I found that for the early part of the edit, it made the most sense to keep my footage as all connected clips. The “backbone” of the edit would have been a VO, but as a general rule I tend to avoid putting audio into the primary storyline.
But as the edit progressed and I became more sure of certain shot selections, I push them down into the primary- I guess you can say I’m “committing” to them (not that they can’t be removed or altered later).
In fact, I’ve sort of worked out a system wherein I’ll “check-in” and “check-out” material into the primary using the lift/replace primary storyline keys.
From a 1000ft perspective, I think much of Apple’s thinking on workflow is that old trope of what is going to work for 80% of people 80% of the time. It makes assumptions about the most common thing that you might want to have happen for any given action. And where those assumptions aren’t valid, there’s an override to negate it. Such as the “P” key to override the magnetic timeline, or the “~” key to override clip connections.
Undoubtably, this is going to drive some people nuts, and I can certainly speak from personal experience that you have to work with the software for a while before you realize you’re no longer working “against” the software. For myself, once I made that transition, the new workflow was faster for me in almost all cases than it was in Legacy. And in the rest of cases, it wasn’t any slower- so it was definitely a net benefit for me and my productivity.