[Richard Herd]

[Michael Gissing] “prosumers”

Do you editorgeeks remember when the HVX200 hit the market?
Do you EGs remember when red hit the market?
XDCAM?
How about the weird “rosetta” interregnum?
Does anyone, anywhere remember (Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?) AIC?

It’s a real question.

Follow up: Where are we now?

[Richard Herd]

[Joseph W. Bourke] “FCP8”

I didn’t 8. I needed 7.5.

I needed:
*Optical Flow
*Magnetism(^1)
*Compound Clips

I didn’t know it at the time.

1. By magnetism I mean video and audio embedded in the same GUI representation.

[Richard Herd]

And one should also research how long it took them to stop saying “horseless carriage.”

Seriously.

Why am I calling this iPhone a phone?

(Bill, I’d like to read your screenplay(s).)

[Richard Herd]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “(In less politicized times, they may have been called “professionals” – I think their referred to as “niche specialists” now.)
“

Standing ovation.
Thunderous applause.

You’re one smart dude, Franz — pithy too.

[Richard Herd]

Well said. You need to broaden your position, Aindreas. In epochs past, societies moved from speech to script, from script to press, from press to typewriter. Where are we now? From zoetrope to motion film, from film to video, from video to YouTube/vimeo/instagram?

This is a real question.

[Richard Herd]

I think you need a hug and a beer.

[Richard Herd]

Gracias!

To be sure, I read all your posts and you’ve already posted this. Thanks again!

I view the mouse as an improvement over DOS. Let’s hear it for Windows 3.1 and Apple IIe. Lode Runner anyone?

[Richard Herd]

Great subthread Franz, your tone and professionalism are top notch, so thanks! I always look forward to your posts, even if I don’t always comment. These are my reduced comments, not to be obtuse but this is all heard by google.

Although there are gaps in a lot of what I ought to mention about compounding, there is one thing that X is worth all of its weight in gold. (Okay it’s software and has no weight, so that’s a joke.) I did not mention it in the previous post because it has nothing to do with your question vis-a-vis compounds and sequences.

The Optical Flow slow motion is better than 7 and better than PPr and better than AE. I suggest the following very simple experiment:

1. Edit something in 7, Avid, or PPr (using APR422)
2. Export a clip that you think needs some retiming
3. Use X to Optical Flow the slow motion.
4. Export that as a stand alone APR422.
5. Import and cut in.
6. Compare as necessary.

I compared optical flow to s-s-s in 7, and the flow is better. In this metaphor, X is a plug in.

Rich😉

[Richard Herd]

funny.

I just read this today, by the Deuce.

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/donor_intent/henry_ford_2_letter_of_resignation

[Richard Herd]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “You can open sequences in the viewer if you wish. I don’t work that way, so I’m not sure what sorts of issues you may run into.

– click and drag any sequence to the viewer (if there’s a shortcut for this, I don’t know it)
– mark in and out, drag to sequence or otherwise edit as if you were working with a clip – this will give you nested material (which is probably less useful), so …
– mark in and out, command-drag to sequence will give you clips
“

What?! Been editing in FCP since 2003 and never thought to drag a sequence into the viewer. The ganging seems off, but I was just noodling around.

[Franz Bieberkopf] “re: FCPX

I’m interested in a comprehensive comparison of project timelines in the project library vs. compound clips in the event browser. Is the only (practical) difference the location where it is stored? Are their limitations on the compound clip compared to sequences?”

I cannot think of any limitations, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. I’m happy with how CCs work. I prefer CC to Sequences. One big practical difference for me — since you asked — is being able to apply entire audio effects and color correction to an entire CC. Those effects then follow the CC.

For example, a scene of matching singles (actor A and actor B). I select the A-camera footage and put them on top of the primary then compound them. B-camera stays underneath and compound clip that one too. Then I apply a first pass color correction and audio eq and compressor to the individual compound clips. Then I compound the whole thing so its one unit and I apply a color correction look to that roll-up (which is typically sitting in the spine). And the spine is the actual piece that will be delivered, so if you imagine there’s several compounds from each shooting location that have all been “first-passed.” Then I compound the whole thing and apply a color “look” to the spine. For me, (and I’m very good in color), this has been a practical application gain.

No one ought to work like that in 7: In comparison this would be like having a Sequence with V1 (B-camera) and V2 (A-camera) stacked on top of each other and then sending V1/V2 (stacked mind you) to Color. When they return, contain/nest those inside of a 3 Sequence that then rolls into a 4th Sequence that has more nested clips right next to each other in the sequence. All of those have been first pass cc’d and eq’d. Then send the whole thing to Color to apply the final look. That would be a lot of rendering and media storage time and space.

But is it really a practical advantage? I don’t know because that’s not the way to work in 7, of course. The workflow is totally different. I assume you know the proper workflow and won’t belabor that issue.

Narrowing the practical advantage even further is that the compound is keyword-able and available in the Event, which means it could be available to any subsequent project, but so what? I do not need Client-A’s stuff available to Client-X. Sometimes it could be useful if Client-Y had a giant 3 year project and they needed a sizzle reel or something and I did not need to cull through the stuff, but then culling through the stuff is how I find the stuff. It’s a creative intuitive process, for me, a feeling. So it’s all a little weird, to me, and a bit oversold by the X fanatic that keywords are better than putting it all on a sequence and actually watching all the footage because the obvious problem with a big 3 year project is the keyword lexicon. (Hope that makes sense.)

Here’s some audio explanation regarding practical advantage: The audio eq and compressor/limiter stuff is an actual practical advantage, for me, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with X because in 7 I always round trip audio into STP if I’m doing it or ProTools for an actual audio person. Anyway, in X, one practical advantage is a bussing-like technique gained via Compound Clips. By CMD-clicking clips, individual clips can be added to Compounds. Then entire effects, limiters, eqs, can be added.

In 7, to accomplish the same deliverable, I roundtrip to STP and apply fx to channels and bus the channels. Then send back to 7. Same outcome. Same deliverable. Is it an actual practical advantage? I don’t really know.

Although it’s not the compound clip v Sequence dialectic, cutting Js and Ls, for me, is the biggest practical advantage because the audio is embedded in the clip. CTRL-S and the audio shows up. Double-Click the “space between the clips” and the precision editor shows up. Then I either use the keyboard or mouse to adjust where the L or J is. WOW! That has been very accurate. In 7, to get the same deliverable there’s much more steps involved (unless I’m missing something, but I don’t think so). For me, X is superior to 7 in cutting dialogue coverage. It’s in the dialogue coverage editing where I use auditions the most because I use the cut-to to control the pacing. Audition are cool for structure of course, but for me that seems kind-of simpleton obvious. Pacing a dialogue edit is much more subtle. I count frames, 5, 6, 7, which frame in the close up does the actor’s pupil dilate for the emotion? Auditions allow me to make these subtle changes and watch them, for a feeling. I do not show these auditions to the producer. These are for me to make decisions.

I hope that answers some practical stuff. I tried not to talk about specific clients or projects even if I lose a bit of ethos. Maybe other posters will contribute their point of view.