Oliver Peters
2
Apple Final Cut Pro X Coins
6
Avid Coins
17
COW Coins
1
DaVinci Coin
1
Premiere Pro Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
PostLab update:
https://medium.hedgeformac.com/taking-the-re-out-of-relinking-2d983c5c839d
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Erik Lindahl] “It’s ironic that a lot of people moving to the Mac Pro 2019 says “it’s worth the cost since the system is up and running in a matter of hours” “
That’s been my experience now with several iMac Pros (not Catalina) at work and just yesterday again with a new, loaner 16″ MBP (with Catalina) that I have in for a review. But these have never been migrations. Only clean installs. Log in with my various account IDs and install the Apple App Store software, Adobe CC apps, FxFactory plug-ins, etc. Then a few extras, like Resolve, Chrome, and some plug-ins that require individual installations and authorization. Up and running in half a day.
But yes, Catalina is a major change that does require evaluation. For example, Media Composer editors shouldn’t go Catalina yet. All pertinent software must be updated if possible. Some simply won’t be compatible and you won’t be able to use them. Plus Catalina is different in lots of little way. I find its “do you want to allow..” prompts to be the most annoying of any OS to date (including Windows). But once these are set, they seem to stick.
Like many of these changes, we’ll grumble and complain, eventually adopt, and then move on.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “[Tony West] “The elephant in the thread is, is the future trend working in groups in the same building or remotely?”
There’s a kinda flippant, but easy answer, and the answer is, “yes”. ☺”
Well, as someone who works in that environment on a daily basis, I can firmly say that now and in the near future there will be a much greater need for on-premise collaboration (i.e. editing, etc) than remote collaboration (i.e. cloud-based editing).
Certainly the need to move assets around the globe via the “cloud” will increase, but this is typically a passive process. To have clients actively and interactively involved in the post-process via the cloud (excluding review & approval and pulling down deliverables) is a pure pipe dream. I can’t get the majority of clients to understand how to properly use Frame’s system or even send me a shareable DropBox link on the first attempt. So good luck with that remote part ☺
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Tony West] “I’m not.”
I didn’t say you were. It was a general comment to point out that one person’s collaborative needs may be different than others. Morrison’s needs are different than that of a feature film team, for example.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
Aindreas – such a breath of fresh air!
☺
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Tony West] ” but he doesn’t seem to be complaining about not being able to work in the same library”
We shouldn’t lump “collaboration” into a single workflow. There are a lot of different needs for ways to collaborate (on premises) depending on what you are doing. For example, in the “YouTube influencer” scenario, the workflow is about the same as multiple commercial or corporate video editors – and for that matter, broadcast news, too. You want to pull from a pool of media, but you aren’t all cutting on the same overall project. You may be cutting alternate versions, different videos from common sources, or something entirely unrelated. FCPX/Resolve/Premiere Pro/Media Composer can let you do that now and easily if everyone is connected to a shared storage system.
The next level is where you have different editors working on sub-projects that are interrelated to one larger campaign or production. There’s where FCPX falls short. For example, editor A has a cut of something that editor B can use within his edit – B-Roll stringouts for example. In the current version of Premiere (without any of the current or future sharing methods), editor B can open editor A’s project (while editor A is working on it) in a read-only mode and copy that stringout into his or her own project. That cannot be done in X today without using the workaround of a transfer library – or by editor A closing his library so editor B can briefly open it.
The third level is complete collaboration. Multiple editors/assistants/other artists all working within the same “master” project file. That’s where Avid excels and what Adobe is trying to attain. For example, the assistant editor syncing/organizing scene 2, while the editor is concurrently cutting scene 1.
It’s this third level that I suspect we will simply never see with FCPX. It was never attained in FCP7 either. I could be wrong, but it just doesn’t seem like a feature that Apple has interest in. In fact, the direction Catalina has taken the OS will make this much more difficult, so that’s a level of complexity that ProApps simply might not want to fight.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Brett Sherman] “I would consider it for a B or C-cam that’s always in my pocket.”
For sure. The one caveat here is that the cameras look good in isolation. However, when you cut them against “pro” video cameras – especially with similar scenes, like interview angles – the differences become quite apparent. Compression, sharpening, colorimetry, DOF, etc. But certainly no worse than any GoPro or DJI camera.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Tangier Clarke] “However Resolve has always been that app that is feature rich, but does’t perform as fluidly nor as intuitively as FCP X. There’s really a stark difference between FCP X and other NLEs in my opinion. Often to get similar performance on other NLEs, I’d have to have a more robust computer than FCP X requires.”
My experience as well.
[Tangier Clarke] ” I wish FCP X would incorporate many of Resolve’s features, not the other way around.”
Yes. For me that would be an audio mixer.
[Tangier Clarke] “At the end of the day FCP X just lets me work so fluidly that to date I haven’t gotten that experience on another NLE.”
And that is probably where Apple is coming from. I actually think the ProApps division is hampered by Apple’s overall marketing policies and priorities more so than actual product development.
On another note, please contact me off list (website in signature). Thanks.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Brad Hurley] “my impression then (and now) was that it’s very impressive footage from a phone but it doesn’t yet tempt me to give up my “real” cameras.”
I completely agree. Not to mention the other items not highlighted in the BTS, like lighting and sounds. I’d bet that hardware totals more than the phone. But, those are also items that an experimental filmmaker can improvise. It’s not that everyone “should” do this. Rather, it’s an example of the possible.
Then when you think of news and documentaries, especially with filming in conflict zones, “the camera that you have with you” is more important that no camera at all. So unobtrusive filming when you can’t have at least a video-enabled DSLR with you just gets so much better – especially when you round it out with a few pro apps and accessories.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Tangier Clarke] “Apple has make great strides, but these incremental improvements aren’t enough to quell my angst about it’s survival at times”
I think another thing to be on the lookout for is Resolve. Right now you can get a nearly full-featured version for free that’s good up to 4K UHD. For the one-man band shops, it will do just about everything. For $300, you get the full version, which is largely on par with a mix of FCPX, Motion, Compressor, and Logic Pro X. Plus it’s cross-platform.
For anyone without emotional attachments to any of the 3 “A” NLEs, Resolve is a no-brainer. Any working editor that I speak with, regardless of NLE, when asked, “Which other system are you interested in moving towards?” always points to Resolve. Even the biggest FCPX fans acknowledge BMD’s fast development pace compared with everyone else, especially Apple.
And if you hate tracks, there’s the Cut Page. Not quite as good for editing as FCPX, but it has some better features to compensate for its shortcomings. And you can start your rough cut there and then move to the Edit Page to finesse it.
Sundance now includes a couple of films creatively edited using Resolve. If you look at only finishing (i.e. “online editing”), then Resolve has a much bigger percentage. So they are clearly the “next big thing.”
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com