Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
Great post!
[Mark Morache] “(I frequently connect clips, then use opt-cmd-down to overwrite them into the primary storyline.)”
I’m interested to see that someone with your experience is doing this too – I find it a really good way of working that definitely gets the best out of the magnetic timeline. A clip stays floating and connected, almost in a transitional state, until you decide it definitely belongs as part of the spine of the edit and then you can upgrade it to the primary.
I think generally the old 3-point editing paradigm is starting to look increasingly cumbersome and unnecessary for a lot of work. Doing a lot more editing in the timeline is a much quicker (and I think better) way of working and FCPX really moves this idea forward.
Conversely I can’t seem to get friendly with fine-tuning edit points in the browser. Something about the interface just doesn’t “feel” right. I think the major factors is not having a long linear representation of the clip which we’ve always had before – a visual aid which for me was far more “tactile” and intuitive. The “filmstrip” mode seems to mean a lot more constant scrolling and zooming in and out, at least for me – too many keystrokes or mouse clicks. And that’s despite the convenience of the skimmer.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Chris Harlan] ” It will probably be a long while before it can service my niche properly, but I am enjoying watching all you guys use it, and am looking forward to some time to actually play with it.”
I sense that like me you quite fancy jumping in and having a go, but that the barriers to entry are currently still way too many to even contemplate it.
The other non-negligible factor, which I am sure you would have to factor in, is your clients’ reactions to discovering you were working on FCPX – it took the studios an eternity to accept that Legacy FCP was a viable tool and even now there are many technical folk at the majors that I have met who still consider it not fit for purpose.
In fact, I have noticed over here that since the launch of FCPX there has been a definite retrenchment away from FCP generally and back to AVID in the feature film world, as though a lot of people (editors as well as technical heads generally) were seeing this as an opportunity to abandon something to which they were never fully committed in the first place.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
To change the default transition duration go to Preferences/Editing.
The default length is .5 seconds (because FCPX is timecode agnostic).
There is currently no way to customize more than one “favourite” transition length as you used to be able to do.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Chris Harlan] “What is your definition of a very large media company? Mine would be Warner Bros., Sony, Paramount.”
I’d say Jason is not talking about a movie studio or anything like it to judge from his description:
“a very large media company”
” have high-volume, rapid-turnaround environments with hundreds of editors in locations all over the world”
This sounds much more like a news outlet than an entertainment company and FCPX does fit the news editing model pretty well.
My point in starting this thread – and with your experience I think you will appreciate more than most what I’m saying – is that there are many, many requirements that trailer editing (and its associated disciplines) impose on the editor in terms of interfacing with the outside world, most particularly in terms of audio, that really fundamentally rule FCPX out of the equation as it stands.
Even for those like me who quite fancy giving it a go.
My work is now largely for independents who have far less exacting technical demands than the major studios and are lighter on their feet with new technology and trimmed-down delivery models. DCP finishing of trailers does change quite a bit of the post landscape and will continue to do so as film dies its sad and increasingly rapid death. All the same, the limitations are still very much there both in terms of what you need to get in and out of the NLE (and currently can’t) and what happens on the timeline.
The concurrent discussion about multi-track audio in FCPX definitely touches on this area. Most of the source audio we use is multi-track, where you are not simply cutting one “lane” of multiple tracks but several at once. I’m not at all sure that FCPX is capable of dealing with this to the required level as it stands.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Aindreas Gallagher] ” avid just feels nitrogen heavy – all you’re breathing in is extremely specific editing exclusive workflow conception and methodology”
Sorry to hear AVID is still giving you grief – you’re absolutely that it’s a very closed environment compared to FCP and I don’t think they’ve got AMA sorted yet enough to begin to start matching what you could do linking to external files in FCP.
And how about that the title tool is a separate app within the app, or rather two separate apps within the app if you can even begin to think of using the horror that is Marquee – if ever there was an app designed to repel anyone with a feeling for graphics design, that is the one! And you even have to launch a separate app to get a bleeding EDL out of the thing – after all this time. Why the AVID community stands for this sort of nonsense is anybody’s guess, but they’re generally a very docile sort of crowd who are happy for things to stagnate decade after decade.
But at least they don’t eat baby lobsters in Massachusetts.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Basically I am demanding a pithy communicable precis of altered habits and processes..”
Yikes, that’s not a big question at all, is it?!!!
I’ve only cut one trailer so far on this thing and even that wasn’t a start from scratch kind of job. It went much better than I thought it would, apart from a lot of stuff we all know about.
My problem is I’ve got a geeky attraction to anything new and shiny and I think that’s maybe why it feels quite interesting still.
The other factor is that I’ve been forced to work on Media Composer for the last five projects and anything, anything, anything at all is less irritating. Yup, MC works (though not nearly as solidly, if you drive it hard, as everyone will always tell you, and don’t get me started on AMA … but that’s another story.
By contrast, FCPX seems to have all the freedom and flexibility that drew me to FCP Legacy after many years on AVID – only it seems to have more of that freedom and flexibility. I’m not talking about the app in general which is absurdly constricted in terms of how can you do things, but rather in the “feel” of actually cutting on the timeline.
I absolutely hate all that metadata, keyword nonsense that we are meant to be getting so excited about, thought I wouldn’t dare voice that aloud around here … I just did? Oh shucks. It is of no value to me and acts only as a hindrance.
The magnetic timeline however is the ultimate creative scratchpad because of the speed with which you can throw stuff around and discover the shape you want for your material. Again, it’s a reaction to the clunkiness of the Media Composer model that I long ago abandoned the source/record model of editing, preferring even in Legacy to mould stuff on the timeline, which now to me feels much more natural and intuitive.
I like slapping stuff into the timeline and moving it around and trimming it and seeing where it will go and shuffling it around, and I love using cut and paste. I don’t like prepping my shots in the source monitor unless I have to – it just feels too clunky and methodical. And I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that the best editing gets done when you get down and dirty with the material and see what it throws up at you.
And it’s this model of editing that FCPX, even more than Legacy, lends itself to very well. The magnetic timeline is just made for this kind of working – it’s great just be be able to throw something in there without bothering about where you’re patching it and what effect it might have on the rest of the timeline. It’s especially brilliant to be able to edit music in secondary storylines – this is a huge plus for me, really huge, and music editing is a very big part of my kind of work.
So there you go. There’s stuff I really do like. At the same time there’s a whole mound of issues which mean it’s still just an amusing toy for now. Gotta have EDL, OMF, broadcast monitoring, deep and extensive timecode display, ganging, and so on and so on.
Put it this way – working on Media Composer, I’m wishing all the time I could be on FCPX instead. In fact, I’m finding I’m getting draw to it each time there’s a little “utility” job that needs doing because there are all sorts of little efficiencies that are big time-savers.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Shane Ross] “I know of no one in the professional LA market considering FCX for anything. Trailers, commercials, narrative shows, docs, corporate. I know several trailer and commercial editors who gave it a go, but because FCX lacks workflow options they rely on (EDL exporting, for example…as well as SOLID broadcast monitoring), it isn’t an option at this time.”
Thanks for the feedback – pretty much what I expected from my sources over there. As you say, there are some basic things that we absolutely have to have, whether we like them or not, or whether or not we believe them to be the best possible options, simply because this kind of work is so heavily dependent on being able to mesh seamlessly with what our clients deliver to us, our suppliers expect from us, and so on.
EDL, OMF, broadcast monitoring that actually works, multicam that actually works, and lots of smaller things (“gang” is a big one for me as I’m sure it is for you, as is simultaneous feedback about timecode from multiple sources, and so on) are really non-negotiable essentials as things currently stand. Even if the “next generation of editors” who will only ever distribute on the web don’t understand why could possibly still need them.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Jari Innanen] “I am cutting a feature with FCPX and loving it.”
How do you plan to get your audio out for finishing?
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Shane Ross] “I currently cut trailers, and yes, I get about 3 days for the rough cut.”
Yup, and it gets shorter all the time! And you talk about rough cuts – is anybody actually allowed to present a “rough cut” these days? It seems the sound needs to be fully mixed, the pictures graded, the graphics all done – the concept of the offline seems to have gone for good.
I know (not sure how!) that you’re not one of the biggest fans of FCPX, but do you know of anybody in LA who is even thinking about using it for trailers? I did hear that Trailer Park were among the very few beta testers – do you know if that’s true?
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Chris Harlan] ”
One of the lovely things in 7 is that timecode overlay that has color-matching for multitrack sync. A simple thing, but a pain to lose.”Couldn’t agree more. This was an absolutely brilliant idea that was so useful so much of the time – Media Composer’s timecode viewing options still feel so primitive by comparison. And FCPX is a very long way from getting back to this feature.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com