Phil Lowe
Forum Replies Created
-
When a have VO’s I can “see” where the breaks in the takes are and it’s faster to skim up to the next take visually.
As I record voice-overs (VOs) on the fly right to the timeline, I tap the F3 key at the beginning and end of each take, double or triple-tapping on restarts. This lays down markers that provide the visual cues I need for each take’s in and out. Unlike markers in FCP7, which are locked to the timeline and don’t change as extraneous material is deleted, or FCPX that provides no real-time marking of VOs at all, Avid’s markers are linked to the clip itself, so that when I eliminate extraneous material, the markers are either eliminated with it, or stay linked to the parts of the clip where I placed them, allowing me to find the next good take.
FCP7’s markers are utterly useless in that regard and, as noted, FCPX doesn’t even offer real-time marking. Using markers in Avid, I can clean up voice tracks extremely quickly without ever once having to look at a waveform.
I also want to see the video thumbnails to quickly see what’s what.
Avid also provides a filmstrip view. I’ve never used it because, again, it affects performance. As someone else noted, a large project in FCPX will also suffer from performance issues having to refresh all those thumbnails and waveforms in real-time, so this is not merely a track-based editing issue.
Those things are more important to me then seeing the length of a source clip when it comes to speed. That blank TL would slow my workflow down.
Different strokes. 😉
Again, I can reveal an insane amount of metadata associated with each clip, including clip frames and a filmstrip view, if I need it. Most of the time I don’t but, on occasion, I do. Being able to customize it for just the information I need when I need it, and then save those views as presets that I can recall with a click – if needed – means I can see what I need to see at the clip level, on the timeline, at a glance. Instant feedback for whatever information I need when I need it.
And yes, any individual track or all of them can be enlarged to accommodate all the extra information.
-
I can build from the middle out and even from the end back in Avid, too. I do this one of two ways: building these elements on separate timelines then dropping them into the final cut as needed (which is what I did on the church video I produced earlier), or build these elements on the same timeline with gaps where other elements will eventually go.
Dropping them into the final edit can be done one of two ways: copy and paste or by dragging the first edited sequence into the source monitor then inserting (or overwriting it) it into the second.
This was the method I used most often when editing half-hour news specials where I worked in Detroit. Each segment would be produced on its own sequence then dropped into a final timeline with all the commercial bumps. Cutting a single segment to hit a certain length on its own timeline was a lot easier than trying to cut it as part of a full half-hour show, then trying to adjust the timing of a single segment on the finished sequence.
Again, a workflow thing. 😉
-
I was only comparing the NLE in a standalone configuration…
Which brings us back to the point of my comparison of using both X and Avid on my small project. In a stand-alone configuration, using both X and MC on the same MBP (I also use MC on a PC), I saw no significant speed difference. I shot all the material for both cuts using my Canon XF-300 and used AMA linking of the source footage in Avid.
The source footage was shot at 1080/30p using the MPEG-2, 50Mbit codec in an MXF wrapper, with 422 color subsampling. MC had no issue when AMA linked to this footage right off a very fast CF card. (It doesn’t have any issue linking from other sources, either.)
I used the Canon XF Utility to back the card up to my external hard drive, then imported into X leaving files in place. The import was slower than AMA linking, and some of the files weren’t immediately ready for scrubbing, as there were some background tasks going on with them. I assume it was something akin to conforming in Premiere.
Editing was identical in both: one cut in the music to shorten it down to a minute, then a series of 3-point edits on the b-roll. In. Out. In. Overwrite. Repeat.
There was neither – nor would there have been – any advantage to pre-screening then keywording or favoriting and rejecting clips before editing them to the timeline. In fact, it would have slowed the entire process down on the X end of things. That simply leads me to conclude that the type of editing one does determines the type of workflow one uses.
If the argument – as it has been stated – is that X is only fast when used as designed, and it is designed to be used with all its organizational features in play, then I would argue, as you have also stated (in so many words), that such an argument is not true. Moreover, as I believe I have shown, in a standalone environment given the type of project I did, there is no significant speed advantage of using X over MC, and probably not over Premiere, Vegas, or Edius, either.
What my comparison settled for me (if no one else) was that I can do basic, news-style editing using my Avid keyboard settings in X in a way that incurs no time penalty on me, previously expressed misgivings from some notwithstanding. Being able to use almost identical keystrokes across two programs to achieve the same thing means I can continue to use both programs in a way that neither forces me to learn a whole new keyboard nor a whole new paradigm. And that for me is a good thing. 😉
-
Try learning something like After Effects if you’ve never touched it before!
Actually, I taught myself to use AE and found it to be fairly easy to use. Even cut a news package with it once (I mentioned that in another thread) because it required compositing which Avid doesn’t really do well (unless you count 3D PIP, then yes, Avid rocks!) 😉
My daughter tried teaching me Nuke once. My head still hurts from that experience!
[Phil Lowe] “And even after X is installed, everyone at the station is still going to have to be trained on it.”
Big deal.
My only point in mentioning training was that there are costs associated with it in terms of hiring trainers and lost productivity. Most stations think that they’re getting off cheap when they see that FCPX only costs $300 a seat. What they don’t often count on are all the other costs that come with it including integrating it into a collaborative workflow.
-
Assuming file-based camera media, I think you’d be hard-pressed to go from ingest to server as fast with any other NLE.
We were doing AMA linking and editing in news trucks with a Panasonic P2 workflow in Avid at last a year before FCPX had been released. It was every bit as fast and still is. For my work, I use a Canon XF-300 (MXF files) and edit using AMA linking in MC 7.05. The station where I currently work uses an XDCam workflow with FCP7. It is, by far, the slowest of the three workflows I’ve just described.
That’s one of the reasons that large broadcast operations are deploying FCPX in their news and satellite trucks.
Oh, I don’t have a problem using X for news. It’s what the boss wants, so I have no choice. I simply want to edit on it in a way that makes sense to me, which is why I originally came to this forum looking for answers. (I ultimately found them myself.) I suspect many of the early responders to my initial queries weren’t aware of the demands of high-pressure deadline editing. Most people who have never worked in news aren’t. The issue for the station at which I currently work (not going to name it as I am only a per diem), is that installing X means changing a whole lot of software at both the local and corporate server level because of incompatibility issues with X and our current software (this coming from our IT guy.)
People knock Avid, but its integrated newsroom is, by far, the best in the industry. To get X to work will probably cost as much – in terms of software engineering and man-hours – as simply installing an Avid newsroom system would cost. And even after X is installed, everyone at the station is still going to have to be trained on it. If early comments from our FCP7 editors are any indication, X is going to be about as popular with them as it is with me.
-
One of my many complaints bout FCPX, Bill, which is equally true of FCP7, I might add, is that I cannot see clip lengths associated with clips on the timeline. You either have to select the clip or look elsewhere on the screen for that information. I can customize – to a great extent – the information the Avid timeline presents me associated with each and every clip, so that this information is immediately available at a glance, without hovering over the clip or selecting it. In most cases, I prefer simply displaying the clip duration right on the clip, but I can also indicate the clip name and other metadata should I choose.
I can choose to display audio waveforms if I wish. I turn those off because they adversely affect performance.
I can customize the color of my tracks, so that I immediately know – at a glance – whether I’m looking at video or audio (yes, I know, this is true in X, too).
In short, what I know of both so far, is that the Avid timeline can be customized to meet my needs based on any type of edit I do, and that customization helps make me faster using it by presenting as much or as little information as I want.
And then there’s this:
Sitting immediately above my Avid timeline (where the timecode sits in X) is my timecode tool. While it is currently customized for only four timecode iterations, I can use up to eight lines, if needed, all available at a glance.
-
No need for air quotes, as that claim is also true. At least for folks who see that from X in their work. Eye of the beholder and all that, right? For those who don’t, there are plenty of other “modern” NLE’s from which to choose. 😉
Touche’. 😉
-
I thought this was a discussion about speed, not aesthetics. To get back on point, for a small project like the one I did, I didn’t notice any speed advantage of using X over Avid. I’m reasonably sure the same would be true for someone using Premiere vs. X. Or Vegas vs. X. Basic editing is basic editing no matter what software one uses.
Would X be faster on long form projects? I suppose that depends on whom you ask and what kind of project they’re doing. The Hobbit (all three) was edited on that “ugly” Media Composer, as have been any number of movies. I seriously doubt those who used Avid to cut films regret their decisions to do so, even in light of FCPX’s “world-beating” performance. O.o
-
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And while I don’t think the Avid timeline is “elegant”, if I want to look at something pretty, I’ll look at one of my still pics.
(This isn’t my best shot. Those are for sale on Shutterstock.)
-
Same small project. Same keyboard settings (Avid). Roughly same edit time (equally fast in both, X took a little longer because I reshot material and added more shots to its version). Using X, I worked mainly with the Position tool (OPT-A for me.) Nothing more than a series of 3-point b-roll edits in both cases.
The biggest thing for me – in looking at both – is how much more information the Avid timeline presents me without having to hover or click on anything.
Small projects, like these, are what I will be cutting in news. This shows me that I can be equally proficient in both using my Avid keyboard, and that’s good enough for me.
