Tony West
Forum Replies Created
-
[andy patterson] “The original post was talking about things as of now not in the past.”
[andy patterson] “it used to be”
“it used to be” is a comparison of the past and present. So he is talking about the past, as it compares to the present.
[andy patterson] “I cannot comment about the past. “
Well you actually could (with more accuracy), if you followed his instructions here………
[andy patterson] “[Walter Soyka] “If you read the history of this forum before you arrived,”
-
[David Mathis] “What about Andreas? ????”
I miss his creative writing. Even though he was critical of X he did it in a witty way that I found amusing. He has talent.
To answer Simon’s question, I would like to see X add the ability to make a DCP file.
Many filmmakers are trying to get to the big screen and you need that file for your film to play in theaters and also for your trailer to play ahead a big money feature films. (for those of us that are not cutting a big money feature film in X)
-
[andy patterson] “Will the movie ask Randy questions like, why did it take FCPX so long to catch up to Fast/Pinnacle/Avid? Randy did not invent GPU acceleration for NLE. He also did not invent background rendering. “
I hope not, because when it comes to innovation the things you listed are not where I would start.
What makes X “innovative” for me is the concept of “connected clips”. I don’t know how this always gets left out of the X discussion. The entire concept of the timeline is based on this. As far as I know, the products you named did not have this function so there is no need for X to “catch up” to them in this core timeline functionality.
before X, you were making 2 decisions in the timeline for position placement of a clip. 1. Where you wanted the clip vertically (picking a track) and 2. where you wanted the clip Horizontally in the timeline.
With X you are only selecting the horizontal part (you have the option to change that in Lanes mode but it’s not required) So instead of doing 2 things you are doing 1.
Another thing that is “innovative” in X is the ability of clips to move on their own out of the way of a clip that you are moving into it’s area. Before X, you had to move the clip yourself out of the way.
Now X has other tools that are cool like the skimmer and background rendering and many more, but that’s not why most people decide to use X or not use X.
It’s that fundamental concept of how the timeline works through connected clips that people either like or don’t like. it’s what makes X different. Either for the better or worst.
I hope this helps.
-
[Neil Goodman] “Not to mention a kickstarter?, like i thought that was the whole point of the software, you can make videos now for cheaper than ever…but we still need your money to make this documentary afterall. “
Come on now, I know you know better than that.
Anybody that has ever worked on a documentary knows that the main cost for a doc is paying for “rights” to material like music, video clips, and photos. He even says that in the pitch. He doesn’t say anything about “I need this money to pay for a colorist”
What does a NLE have to do with CNN asking for 4k for a one minute clip of the president.
-
[Walter Soyka] “How much do you feel your NLE preferences influence your technique? Or, on the flip-side, how much do you feel your technique preferences influence your choice of NLE?”
It’s an excellent question Walter and I think it gets to the core of it for me.
The whole reason I am using X is because I like the “tools” in it. I like the way the organization tools work in the browser so I use them.
It would be like someone coming up with a theory of the “skimmer” being a distraction for them and that I should try turning it off. I’m not going to stop using the skimmer because someone else has a theory about it.
I don’t have a problem with them having a theory about it, I like theories, but I’m not turning it off unless I’m convinced of it.
What’s ironic about this record thread is Bill has been describing this cutting away from the very beginning. He is big on rejecting clips in the browser. Or rejecting parts of a clip. He always was. What’s left in his browser is all good stuff that he wants to use. I on the other hand almost never reject clips. By selecting what I want I am rejecting what I don’t want, but I see the value in what he is doing. Carter was working the same way.
Having read Herb’s recent comments on it, I feel like I can’t say it any better than he did.
-
[andy patterson] “There are editors that insist their NLE and technique are the best.”
I think I will disagree with your actual point here. There is a difference between “preferring” one NLE over another (we all do that) and a certain “technique” over the other (we all do that also).
I’m not claiming X is the best, I’m saying I prefer it.
[andy patterson] “Every time someone posts a link to Thomas Groove Carter editing people are in awe. I am not in awe because I know it is a dog and pony show he has done time and time again.”
That’s a good opportunity for your editing championship challenge. Carter is showing his efficiency cutting a spot in X. You could take sections of his video and make your own performing the same tasks and showing how your way is more efficient than his pony show.
-
[andy patterson] “The Ultimate Editing Championship might shed some light on what methods really work the best.”
This might shed some light also Andy.
Come on, you all were thinking it. It was just a matter of who would post it first : )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOW5hcbnxzk
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Joe Marler] “It would be nice if there was a dedicated tutorial which focused on conceptual-level paradigm issues and the workflow implications uniquely raised by FCPX. It could include the common pitfalls for an editor transitioning from a track-based product and explain how to do each one the “FCPX way”. It should also include the underlying philosophy and explanation for current FCPX behavior. IOW rather than say “do it THIS way not THAT way”, explain the design rationale and why FCPX behaves as it does in each specific case.”
This is spot on Joe. I couldn’t agree more.
Having worked with editors making their transitions to X what they really want to know is, “How do I do this in X”
They have been cutting for years in tracks and they’re really good at what they do, but they run into certain things that are unique to X and it frustrates them. They don’t get things like Gap clips and why they need them.Like you said, it’s more than just showing them where buttons are, it’s explaining the philosophy of why it’s that way.
-
[greg janza] “tony, sports is the weakest possible analogy”
It’s not an “analogy” it’s a job. it’s a job that’s pretty hard to make a credible argument for using this method.
So, as it can work in some cases (like the job I’m working on now) not so in others like this one.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “So it’s been demonstrated that at least some people who use timeline-based approaches can conceive of editing in other ways. On the other hand, there’s been real resistance to even considering timeline-based approaches from some posters who use browser-based methods. Here’s one example:
[Tony West] “The concept of dumping hours and hours of footage into the timeline that you know very little of is going to stay, is not an efficient way of going about your work.””
Oh yes, I certainly stand by that statement Franz.
I’m trying to imagine someone cutting the highlights of the baseball game and they drop the entire 3 hour game in the timeline. Knowing that the foul tips and guys stepping out of the box and back in the box and adjusting their batting gloves aren’t going to stay anyway. That works for them. Search up to the HR drop it down, RBI drop it down and so on works for me. They just haven’t done an effective job of selling it to me or some others. You aren’t sold on our way either so we are even.