Apple push to win back pro editors

[Sergio Perez]

I'm not sure about the upscaling but the De-interlace is found in the settings view and seems to work very well.

You could also use compressor to do your upscaling because it uses SHAKE's optical flow engine to do this.

In that scenario I might do the following.

1. Import a short clip and do a test to go from interlaced to progressive after setting up the preset in compressor.
2. When you have the quality/speed you like batch the footage you want to work with.
3. Import the footage into you event and edit/intercut it with everything else.

This might be front end render heavy but you have to decide if you want to be held back before or later. Any intercutting and scaling in the timeline is going to slow you down. if it is a few shots, maybe let FCP X do it, if it is a lot of material I would suggest batching it.

OR

Import the few shots directly into FCP, drop the shots in the timeline and let FCP do the work, as it will do what it has to to that footage to match the sequence settings.

David

Thank you Craig and David. For the upconvert bit, I notice there's an option on the software under "rate conform" that allows me to use Optical Flow. Would this help on the quality of the uprez? Would this do any sort of deinterlacing? The files are on DV Pal format and the option to Deinterlace doesn't show up, not on the info tab or on the video tab of the clip.

Thank you for your input,

Sergio

 

[David Battistella]

If you set up you compressor prest it will covert the files frames to a progressive frame. This way you combine both fields. Sometime a sime de interlace uses only one field and that means you are throwing out a lot of resolution.

Do a short test on one clip first and when you have it set run the batch.

Optical flow will use all the information available to create the new frames.

david

 

[Richard Luke]

Thank you Craig and David. For the upconvert bit, I notice there's an option on the software under "rate conform" that allows me to use Optical Flow. Would this help on the quality of the uprez? Would this do any sort of deinterlacing? The files are on DV Pal format and the option to Deinterlace doesn't show up, not on the info tab or on the video tab of the clip.

Thank you for your input,

Sergio

Hello Sergio
I've worked with a bit of SD PAL footage in FCPX

To De-Interlace
select the file in the timeline
click the info tab
select "extended view" from the pull down in the bottom left corner of the info window
There should be a "Video Field Dominance" pulldown now
Select Progressive
Hopefully that works


Rick

 

[Sergio Perez]

Hello Sergio
I've worked with a bit of SD PAL footage in FCPX

To De-Interlace
select the file in the timeline
click the info tab
select "extended view" from the pull down in the bottom left corner of the info window
There should be a "Video Field Dominance" pulldown now
Select Progressive
Hopefully that works


Rick

Thank you Richard and David.

David (and Richard) would me selecting "optical flow" in the "rate conform" option be the same as doing that "compressor" step? Just trying to know if it would mean a repeated step or if it has anything to do with it. Optimal quality is what I want, of course.

Cheers for your time and input

Sergio

 

[Richard Luke]

As far as I understand the FCPX Optical flow tool is the best option. The projects I worked on used old stock footage of various frame rates and sizes and seemed to worked best staying in FCPX. Best to experiment with one clip and find the best path.

Rick

 

[David Battistella]

Fcp x has optical flow built in so quality wise it should not make a difference, if you do it in fcp x bjust make sure you budget for the render times, as it can take a while to render if there are a lot of shots.

The reason I suggest compressor is if there is a lot of material then you can set up as a batch render then import as "normal material", also you can leave all of this unchecked in fcp x as you are working and then just check it on again for your final renders. This would allow you to work quickly and then get the best quality on the last pass.

id only consider compressor if like more than 25% of the shots make up your final cut but deadlines and things factor into this as well.

David

 

[David Rasberry]

Here is a different and bit scary look at Apple's problems regarding their rapidly declining support for their core pro user markets. my wife Suzy has been bitten by some of the serious OSX flaws outlined with regard to backing up to external or network drives.

Worth a read. It's from a programming engineer that provides support services to Mac pro users.
http://macperformanceguide.com/AppleCoreRot-intro.html

 

[David Battistella]

Yes. The man wants to stick it to us.

I am glad apple is thriving. It wasn't long ago windows and Microsoft were planning apples funeral, yet they are back and have now "sold out".

Everyone is a pro now, I'm over it.

David

 

[Scott Crawley]

Yes. The man wants to stick it to us. I am glad apple is thriving. It wasn't long ago windows and Microsoft were planning apples funeral, yet they are back and have now "sold out". Everyone is a pro now, I'm over it.David

:sarcasm:

It's an ironic thing, isn't it David? Apple helped many folks turn Pro and countless others feel Pro with their software. Throngs of established editors cried foul. This cheapens our profession they said. It is over simplified and too accessible. Now anyone can do it they said. There goes the neighborhood they said... and the new jacks held up their favored software like a shield, emblazoned with the title Pro.

Flash forward twelve years or so and Apple releases a newer, easier and less expensive version of the software and these same people (Now the New Old Pros) are crying foul. It is too cheap they say. It is automated they say. It is iMovie they say. It doesn't contain the tools we true professionals need... and the hypocrisy goes on and on as the once faithful throw their beloved, now spurned lover under the bus chanting It's not Pro enough.

What a load of shit. (Edit: Actually it's not a load, it's an avalanche of shit! Dirty shit. Fucking Shit. :emote_head_explode

I'm over it too.

I'm not saying that there are no valid complaints being made, or that everyone complaining is a hypocrite, but those who are know who they are... and they suck.

wow that feels better.

 

[David Battistella]

It seems that we editors/filmmakers are just rehashing (almost word for word) what printers cried about twenty years ago, but who would trade in their laser printer for a print bureau now? What about all those big mixing studios that all eventually went to protools or Logic Pro on macs? Yep, I'm sure there are a bunch of music artists we could have done without over the last decade or so, who took to using simple digital tools to make records. Who would delete their iTunes library now or refuse to buy music online?

What happens in audio follows in video, I'm sure I am not the only person to figure this out.

Id rather have free and open access to music (and eventually films) that digital tools (like red cameras) help bring to market than the current system that is in place for movies. Truly, we are artistically in dire need for new voices and new distribution models and that starts with simple tools and company's making them highly accessible.

Editing should be easier and more accessible for everyone, like photos or home video cameras, it's a natural evolution.

David

 

[Scott Crawley]

It seems that we editors/filmmakers are just rehashing (almost word for word) what printers cried about twenty years ago, but who would trade in their laser printer for a print bureau now? What about all those big mixing studios that all eventually went to protools or Logic Pro on macs? Yep, I'm sure there are a bunch of music artists we could have done without over the last decade or so, who took to using simple digital tools to make records. Who would delete their iTunes library now or refuse to buy music online?

What happens in audio follows in video, I'm sure I am not the only person to figure this out.

Id rather have free and open access to music (and eventually films) that digital tools (like red cameras) help bring to market than the current system that is in place for movies. Truly, we are artistically in dire need for new voices and new distribution models and that starts with simple tools and company's making them highly accessible.

Editing should be easier and more accessible for everyone, like photos or home video cameras, it's a natural evolution.

David

Vivre la Revolution!

 

[David Battistella]

Here is a link I just found about an Emmy Award winng TV show editing on FCP X.

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/new...he-rescue-gets-cut-on-final-cut-pro-x-for-nbc

David

 

[Sam Mestman - WMM]

:sarcasm:

It's an ironic thing, isn't it David? Apple helped many folks turn Pro and countless others feel Pro with their software. Throngs of established editors cried foul. This cheapens our profession they said. It is over simplified and too accessible. Now anyone can do it they said. There goes the neighborhood they said... and the new jacks held up their favored software like a shield, emblazoned with the title Pro.

Flash forward twelve years or so and Apple releases a newer, easier and less expensive version of the software and these same people (Now the New Old Pros) are crying foul. It is too cheap they say. It is automated they say. It is iMovie they say. It doesn't contain the tools we true professionals need... and the hypocrisy goes on and on as the once faithful throw their beloved, now spurned lover under the bus chanting It's not Pro enough.

What a load of shit. (Edit: Actually it's not a load, it's an avalanche of shit! Dirty shit. Fucking Shit. :emote_head_explode

I'm over it too.

I'm not saying that there are no valid complaints being made, or that everyone complaining is a hypocrite, but those who are know who they are... and they suck.

wow that feels better.

+1 to this (and your post too David).

FWIW... I just got an intern who has no previous post production experience, and absolutely no idea what anyone on this thread is talking about. On day 1, she was assembling and cutting hour long multicam clips by batch renaming them and syncing them by waveform so that 17 different clips all fit into 4 angles with no timecode or slate with footage from a couple 7d's and a crappy JVC. Not only was what she was doing completely impossible in any NLE just two years ago... she accomplished this on HER FIRST DAY AS AN EDITOR. And the funny thing is that she had absolutely no idea what she was doing was hard. She just thought it was cool.

Anyway, I look forward to the day where the tools, codecs, and tech specs simply don't matter, and the only thing that's important is what's on screen, and whether or not you know how to tell a story that people care about and can get lost in. Movies suck these days and the talent pool is thin, and it needs some fresh blood. At the end of the day, it should be about whether you're any good, not how much you spent on your gear or what brand of screwdriver you use to make a movie.

Most people are scared of the democratization of storytelliing. That's why this thread is so popular and there's so much back and forth. As a person who runs a film collective of talented people who just want to make cool movies, but don't have a clue what Prores or Avid is... honestly, this democratization is a long time coming. And, well, whether we like it or not, it's here to stay. Adapt or die.

 

[paul engstrom]

technical has obscured storage, sound and image for too long.

but not much longer.

 

[Scott Crawley]

+1 to this (and your post too David).

FWIW... I just got an intern who has no previous post production experience, and absolutely no idea what anyone on this thread is talking about. On day 1, she was assembling and cutting hour long multicam clips by batch renaming them and syncing them by waveform so that 17 different clips all fit into 4 angles with no timecode or slate with footage from a couple 7d's and a crappy JVC. Not only was what she was doing completely impossible in any NLE just two years ago... she accomplished this on HER FIRST DAY AS AN EDITOR. And the funny thing is that she had absolutely no idea what she was doing was hard. She just thought it was cool.

That's a great story Sam, thanks for sharing it. I wouldn't go so far as to say what you two are doing was impossible. It has been done... Not likely by an intern, but it was do-able. I have done it.

I would also like to add that there are many incredibly talented editors working today who are turning in some amazing work, and are deserving of my utmost respect. Some of them might never touch any NLE. I was simply adding my voice to what Sam, David, Steve and so many others have said; use what works for you. There is no need to go out of your way to shit upon the others, except maybe to make yourself feel superior. Let's keep the criticism constructive.

Here is a link I just found about an Emmy Award winng TV show editing on FCP X.

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/new...he-rescue-gets-cut-on-final-cut-pro-x-for-nbc

David

Cool. Well just look at that.

 

[Hendro Setyo Wibowo]

I didn't read the whole of this thread. But I was wondering what Walter Murch thinks of the Apple's plan for the new PowerMac or the FCPX. Any one has him on interview somewhere?

 

[Brad Webb]

+1 to this (and your post too David).

FWIW... I just got an intern who has no previous post production experience, and absolutely no idea what anyone on this thread is talking about. On day 1, she was assembling and cutting hour long multicam clips by batch renaming them and syncing them by waveform so that 17 different clips all fit into 4 angles with no timecode or slate with footage from a couple 7d's and a crappy JVC. Not only was what she was doing completely impossible in any NLE just two years ago... she accomplished this on HER FIRST DAY AS AN EDITOR. And the funny thing is that she had absolutely no idea what she was doing was hard. She just thought it was cool.

Anyway, I look forward to the day where the tools, codecs, and tech specs simply don't matter, and the only thing that's important is what's on screen, and whether or not you know how to tell a story that people care about and can get lost in. Movies suck these days and the talent pool is thin, and it needs some fresh blood. At the end of the day, it should be about whether you're any good, not how much you spent on your gear or what brand of screwdriver you use to make a movie.

Most people are scared of the democratization of storytelliing. That's why this thread is so popular and there's so much back and forth. As a person who runs a film collective of talented people who just want to make cool movies, but don't have a clue what Prores or Avid is... honestly, this democratization is a long time coming. And, well, whether we like it or not, it's here to stay. Adapt or die.

That's great. But why couldn't Apple just add this amazing feature, instead of throwing out all of the old features and reinventing the whole thing. I love adding new tools to the tool box. Sometimes you still need a plain old hammer to get the job done.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

That's great. But why couldn't Apple just add this amazing feature, instead of throwing out all of the old features and reinventing the whole thing. I love adding new tools to the tool box. Sometimes you still need a plain old hammer to get the job done.

And stay in the past? An OS9 app with an OS9 interface when they can do something new and exciting? I think not.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I didn't read the whole of this thread. But I was wondering what Walter Murch thinks of the Apple's plan for the new PowerMac or the FCPX. Any one has him on interview somewhere?

When it was released, he has mentioned in interviews it didn't work for him. Without tracks etc, he 'could not work'. I would be interested in seeing his views on Roles (which wasn't added to the software, when he gave the interview, I think), and what he thinks of the potential now.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

When it was released, he has mentioned in interviews it didn't work for him. Without tracks etc, he 'could not work'. I would be interested in seeing his views on Roles (which wasn't added to the software, when he gave the interview, I think), and what he thinks of the potential now.

I was at the user group event in Boston when Murch spoke about FCP X. Keep in mind this was 2011. But you should watch the entire talk. As usual with Walter, it's very fascinating. I would not be surprised to hear he has revisited the current versions to explore the new features. He is always thinking forward so it makes sense he would stay up to date with progres being made. Whether that translates into use on actual projects, I am not aware of any as of yet.
http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/new...-video-presentation-from-the-boston-supermeet