FCPX, on set post, and studio level workflows

[Mike Garrick]

I believe in todays age it pays to be a NLE agnostic. Depending on the job I will choose to edit with 3 NLEs, FCP7 , Avid , CS6. Avid wins in collaboration stakes hands down. FCP 7 & CS6 does it, but not as well. Each system has its strengths & weaknesses, the art is in matching the strengths to the job.

So given what happening with Adobe & FCP7 I'm now looking for another system. Hence me posting here & learning FCPX.

I have to agree with Mike P. about FCPX, the use of non industry standard terms is a pain in the arse....but Im just starting on the process of learning it (groan). The audio issue I haven't gotten far enough into yet but I'm some what alarmed at the lack of the control particularly due to an ON AIR compliance issue in my country called OP. 58. What also worries me is .......if grand editing Jedi masters like Mike P still aren't sure about "primary storyline' what hope is there for me !

Anyway, on another thread some people couldn't understand how editoral non transcoding workflows can work. In fact the inference being that unless you where not transcoding you where in fact creating "wedding videos' . IMO. this highlights the belief that there can only be one type of professional workflow , which is crap, plus it is also a carry over from the old Avid verses FCP wars of the early nought-ies. Which is still happening even today, witness this thread..... it is becoming a Avid Vs Apple once again.

So can we all please get over it and discuss workflows within FCPX strengths, weaknesses ...good or bad & not use it as yet another forum to raise the issue of just how great Avid is, because it isn't .......or else they would not be looking down the barrel of more unsustainable financial losses.

P.S It remains a total mystery how a company can create the gold standard in Audio post tools & still be loosing money ?

 

[M Most]

BTW, use the "v" key to disable a track, or right click-> disable. There is no need to go into the Audio Inspector. Edit: unless the track is nested.

I know how to do that. The problem is that I don't want to see all of those tracks in the "primary storyline" at all. The only way to do that is to disable them in the Audio Inspector.

 

[M Most]

P.S It remains a total mystery how a company can create the gold standard in Audio post tools & still be loosing money ?

It's pretty tough to make money in an industry in which competitors are coming along that are practically giving things away for free, or in some cases, actually giving it away for free. Ask Filmlight, Quantel, and Digital Vision how you stay in business and not lose money when a primary competitor has seen fit to reduce their price to 0. These days, at least in the post production business, it doesn't matter how good your product is or how deep your pedigree runs if you don't have a varied enough portfolio to afford to make a well known product and the bedrock of your company into a loss leader. It doesn't indicate bad business management so much as it reflects the world of technology as it has become, a world in which profitability is very, very hard to come by. Especially in a business where everybody wants a lot more for a lot less every year - and in which there always seems to be somebody willing to provide it, at least for a while.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Blair, to your point

Thinking of the primary storyline, metadata and Phillip Hodgetts' Lumberjack app consider this possibility:

Create a utility that converts a Final Draft script into a kind of XML that you import into the Primary Storyline. Using that spine, one could conceivably create a partner utility that will automatically conform all of your footage, complete with auditions of every take and multi clips of every applicable angle, directly to the script. This sounds like something you and MichaelP were previously eluding to, no?

Much more sophisticated script based editing already far down the development road

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Mike - seems your being very kind to Avid management. All of their financial woes aren't their fault? They are victims of predatory competition? They were blind-sided by sudden shifts in the landscape? Those poor guys. Perhaps we should consider them "too big to fail" and offer government assistance? lol

We should really chide Black Magic; Resolve Lite for FREE? What's that all about. (Except it probably sells more Resolve seats than any other marketing method.)

Avid has to take responsibility for their own survival... or they won't.

 

[M Most]

Mike - seems your being very kind to Avid management. All of their financial woes aren't their fault? They are victims of predatory competition? They were blind-sided by sudden shifts in the landscape? Those poor guys. Perhaps we should insider them "too big to fail" and offer government assistance? lol

We should really chide Black Magic; Resolve Lite for FREE? What's that all about. (Except it probably sells more Resolve seats than any other marketing method.)

Avid has to take responsibility for their own survival... or they won't.

I'm not being "kind." I'm pointing out that the landscape is what it is. I'm also pointing out that making a great product and making money are not the same thing, and they don't necessarily have a causal relationship. Aaton made some great products but now they're basically out of business. IBM was the gold standard for just about everything connected with computers, personal or otherwise, and today they're basically a services company, driven out of the PC hardware business by low priced competition. Even the seemingly "perfect" Apple has seen iPhone sales worldwide completely dwarfed by lower priced but still very capable Android based units. I would argue that free Resolve doesn't really sell Resolve seats, but it does sell lots of Decklink cards and miniconverters, not to mention scopes, image processors, and, yes, cameras. And that was my point. In order to survive in the software business in this industry today, you need to accept that software sales alone cannot sustain the business. You either need a diversified catalog (like Blackmagic has) or other primary products (like Apple has) because like everything else connected with software and the Internet, profitability is not achievable on the base product, regardless of how good it is or how wide an audience it has. Avid, although they have the Digidesign, M-Audio, and Isis/Unity hardware lines, needs to diversify and get more of those kind of products into their lineup, because Media Composer is very unlikely to be a profit center going forward. And yes, that is due in large part to things like Blackmagic giving software away, but it is also due to Apple's $299 price point, Adobe's subscription model (something I wouldn't be surprised to see Avid offer in the near future), new perceptions of the "value" of software borne out of the Internet/cheap stuff/piracy mindset, and other factors. As for "taking responsibility for their own survival," they don't need you or me to tell them that. All companies have to do that, and do, whether you see it or not.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

But IBM adapted. Apple very consciously places margins above volume. Aaton didn't adapt and they are dead.

Although I am not sure Avid has a "great product," we agree on one thing; it's adapt (quickly) or die for Avid. :smiley:

 

[M Most]

So we agree on one thing; it's adapt (quickly) or die for Avid. :smiley:

That's true for every company in this industry or just about any technology business. It's just as true for GM, Ford, Adobe, Sony, Deluxe, Technicolor, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Netflix, Amazon, HP, Samsung, LG, and, yes, Arri, Apple, and Red as it is for Avid.

And I don't understand why you and others here often seem to show such glee for the difficulties of companies that you have no real connection to, at least none that I know of. Healthy competition is good for any industry in a capitalist economy, and healthy competition drives innovation and improvement. In order for there to be healthy competition there have to be healthy companies as the competitors. The whole "with us or against us" mentality is really misguided when it comes to competition in a free market society. The attitude here often seems to be that any company that's been around for a while - well, longer than 7 years - is a dinosaur and should be put out to pasture while the "new" guys take over and gloat. I'll be interested to see how some of those people react 5 years from now when somebody other than Red comes along with something new. Probably about the same way that producers react now to someone saying "we're going to shoot this on the Red One.".....

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Not "glee" at all. I spent too many years in the investment business to give companies a free pass on having to be good. I hate those with a quarter to quarter stock price oriented management strategy but have no patience for this without a long term strategy. Avid seems to lack that. C'est la vie. Do I have vested interest in their survival, no. It's just a discussion here on RU.

As an aside, I was pretty close to abandoning Apple in the late '90s before they got their shit together again. :smiley:

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

http://vimeo.com/73797466

 

[Paul Harb]

Why does Terry seem to have glee about Avid's financial woes? Why would someone who doesnt make a living as an editor be so happy that the software he doesnt use editing might be in trouble as far as the developing company having money issues? Hmmm....lets see....it starts with F and ends with boy.....anyone? Terry's motivation is quite apparent to me.

I'm not being "kind." I'm pointing out that the landscape is what it is. I'm also pointing out that making a great product and making money are not the same thing, and they don't necessarily have a causal relationship. Aaton made some great products but now they're basically out of business. IBM was the gold standard for just about everything connected with computers, personal or otherwise, and today they're basically a services company, driven out of the PC hardware business by low priced competition. Even the seemingly "perfect" Apple has seen iPhone sales worldwide completely dwarfed by lower priced but still very capable Android based units. I would argue that free Resolve doesn't really sell Resolve seats, but it does sell lots of Decklink cards and miniconverters, not to mention scopes, image processors, and, yes, cameras. And that was my point. In order to survive in the software business in this industry today, you need to accept that software sales alone cannot sustain the business. You either need a diversified catalog (like Blackmagic has) or other primary products (like Apple has) because like everything else connected with software and the Internet, profitability is not achievable on the base product, regardless of how good it is or how wide an audience it has. Avid, although they have the Digidesign, M-Audio, and Isis/Unity hardware lines, needs to diversify and get more of those kind of products into their lineup, because Media Composer is very unlikely to be a profit center going forward. And yes, that is due in large part to things like Blackmagic giving software away, but it is also due to Apple's $299 price point, Adobe's subscription model (something I wouldn't be surprised to see Avid offer in the near future), new perceptions of the "value" of software borne out of the Internet/cheap stuff/piracy mindset, and other factors. As for "taking responsibility for their own survival," they don't need you or me to tell them that. All companies have to do that, and do, whether you see it or not.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Always good to hear your deeply considered and relevant thoughts, Paul.

 

[Mike Garrick]

Thanks Mathieu for the 'Iron Sky' link, very interesting, highlights the different NLE philosophies & IMO. where we are at right now.

 

[Stu Brannon]

And the fanboy goes on...LOL

Yeah. You nailed it Terry. There's always gotta be at least one of these "fanboi!" jeering types in every thread. Why use substantiated, grown-up arguments if there's the good ol' fanboy retort, right? :-D

Who else could this emoticon have been invented for?
osti:

Someone appears to be horribly threatened by anything outside of his own little world.

 

[Paul Harb]

Too funny. Im part of the editorial team for the feature Sam is talking about in his article and FCPX IS NOT being used to cut the feature. Avid is. FCPX is being used to cut EPK stuff. My issue is that the article is suggesting we are using it to cut the feature, we are not. I even saw Ripple Training repost the link on Twitter and say" FCPX on 100mil feature" Again, its NOT being used to cut the feature.

Im actually going through the Ripple training videos now for FCPX and while Ill admit there are some things that are really great, there are other things that feel extremely toyish and too simplistic. I am very curious to hear about the feature that is actually using it to cut the movie to see how they get around certain holes and limitations.

I am hardly threatened by FCPX, I actually hope it succeeds and as I said, Im going through a bunch of tutorials now. I as a professional editor have an obligation to learn them all as I always have. I think because I make my living editing I actually have a lot to offer this thread, more than most. Maybe you just dont want to hear what I have to say because you like Terry have some irrational love of a piece of software and a company.

Did you even read Terry's exchanges in this thread?? I dont have anything to offer this topic but he does?? My god man, maybe youre right...Maybe I do have nothing to offer this community. There is a great irony in the emoticon you are stating is made for me, take a look in the mirror buddy. You just posted in this thread a virtual pat on Terry's hairy back and said a person on the editorial team being talked about in the article has nothing to offer this topic...you sure added a lot with that post didnt you.

Yeah. You nailed it Terry. There's always gotta be at least one of these "fanboi!" jeering types in every thread. Why use substantiated, grown-up arguments if there's the good ol' fanboy retort, right? :-D

Who else could this emoticon have been invented for?
osti:

Someone appears to be horribly threatened by anything outside of his own little world.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Paul, in all sincerity, maybe it is just your arrogance that turns people off - it does me. I am sure you are knowledgable and talented. But your dismissal of others "professionalism" is inappropriate, no matter how smart you think you are. When it come to knowledgeable folks that I respect and to whom I listen, Michael Cioni and Sam Mestman come off as much more helpful and up lifting - and smarter. Mike Most is also, quite obviously quite knowledgeable and articulate, even though I don't agree with him much. I am not sure why you feel you needed to become his "attack dog" when he and I were disagreeing but its something he doesn't need and, I'd guess, doesn't really want.

No matter who you are or what you know, there will always be someone smarter and more talented. I am not an "A level" editor, partly becuase that's not how I choose to spend my time and efforts. I have also had a couple of lengthy and fruitful careers prior to my entry into "this business" so I bring some additional context and perspective. I am making an effort to become something of a workflow expert but mine won't be a workflow that will likely work for you. It's the nature of a diverse world.

So I am going to bow out of trading barbs with you as I don't see it furthering the discussion. That doesn't mean I will refrain from talking about FCP-X and RED. Glad to see you are open-minded enough (or being pushed to? lol) educate yourself about FCPX. It'll be an interesting journey, I am sure.

:smiley:

 

[Scott Crawley]

The article does state that they are using FCPX in EPK post, but there has apparently been some confusion, so the clarification is good. The disclosures of financial interest bear repeating as well, as I either forgot or overlooked them. I suppose it is possible that others have done the same. Those are important factors to keep in mind so thank you too Mike.

Apparently you are only just acquainting yourself with the app? As you begin to familiarize yourself with FCPX Paul, it will be interesting to hear your opinions and discoveries. I don't speak for Stu but I am looking for more objective substance in your criticisms and less personal jousting, since you seem to be in a position to offer some valuable insight that may be different from many of us here.

Too funny. Im part of the editorial team for the feature Sam is talking about in his article and FCPX IS NOT being used to cut the feature. Avid is. FCPX is being used to cut EPK stuff. My issue is that the article is suggesting we are using it to cut the feature, we are not. I even saw Ripple Training repost the link on Twitter and say" FCPX on 100mil feature" Again, its NOT being used to cut the feature.

Im actually going through the Ripple training videos now for FCPX and while Ill admit there are some things that are really great, there are other things that feel extremely toyish and too simplistic. I am very curious to hear about the feature that is actually using it to cut the movie to see how they get around certain holes and limitations.

I am hardly threatened by FCPX, I actually hope it succeeds and as I said, Im going through a bunch of tutorials now. I as a professional editor have an obligation to learn them all as I always have. I think because I make my living editing I actually have a lot to offer this thread, more than most. Maybe you just dont want to hear what I have to say because you like Terry have some irrational love of a piece of software and a company.

Did you even read Terry's exchanges in this thread?? I dont have anything to offer this topic but he does?? My god man, maybe youre right...Maybe I do have nothing to offer this community. There is a great irony in the emoticon you are stating is made for me, take a look in the mirror buddy. You just posted in this thread a virtual pat on Terry's hairy back and said a person on the editorial team being talked about in the article has nothing to offer this topic...you sure added a lot with that post didnt you.

So you are on the editorial team for the feature? I am confused by this post:

So FCPX was used for doing promotional spots for the feature, NOT actually cut the feature?

Was this a rhetorical question?

 

[Paul Harb]

Terry I will take this, the first semi substantial post from you towards me as a bridge.

I think you take my passion as arrogance, that may be my fault in my approach or maybe youre hyper sensitive or maybe both. Im hardly arrogant, I come from extremely humble beginnings and am not what I would call an "A" list editor in the slightest. Im just a working editor, thats all. I dont think Im particularly smart or clever or talented even...I do my best with passion, thats about it. Im your typical self loathing artist...so I say with all sincerity..Im not all that and have never claimed to be...this is something you conjured up because my opinions differed from yours. I never said anyone who uses FCPX isnt a professional...again you are the one who put is on me. From day one with your exchanges with me, when I put down FCPX for my work you took it as arrogance and took personal jabs to try and discredit my opinions. Ever since then you have gone out of your way to belittle anything Ive had to say on the subject of FCPX because its not how you feel.

Nobody is forcing me to learn FCPX, nobody in my world using it...yet. I have always tried to keep up on whats available, Im not one of these old timers who doesnt like change...truth be told I was inspired by my exchange with Sam to take some in depth training. Like I said, some stuff has been eureka moments, others have been WTF moments. I hope Apple continues its development and I hope they listen to people that complain about some glaring shortcomings. If people like me hadnt screamed, Apple would still be telling us we didnt need a source monitor.

Apple should be held accountable as should anyone selling their products if they are going to try and seduce higher end workflows with their tools. Hopefully knowing my intimate relationship with this particular article, maybe you can understand when everyone is saying "See, FCPX on big movie!" why I might have something to say about it since its false advertising.

Paul, in all sincerity, maybe it is just your arrogance that turns people off - it does me. I am sure you are knowledgable and talented. But your dismissal of others "professionalism" is inappropriate, no matter how smart you think you are. When it come to knowledgeable folks that I respect and to whom I listen, Michael Cioni and Sam Mestman come off as much more helpful and up lifting - and smarter. Mike Most is also, quite obviously quite knowledgeable and articulate, even though I don't agree with him much. I am not sure why you feel you needed to become his "attack dog" when he and I were disagreeing but its something he doesn't need and, I'd guess, doesn't really want.

No matter who you are or what you know, there will always be someone smarter and more talented. I am not an "A level" editor, partly becuase that's not how I choose to spend my time and efforts. I have also had a couple of lengthy and fruitful careers prior to my entry into "this business" so I bring some additional context and perspective. I am making an effort to become something of a workflow expert but mine won't be a workflow that will likely work for you. It's the nature of a diverse world.

So I am going to bow out of trading barbs with you as I don't see it furthering the discussion. That doesn't mean I will refrain from talking about FCP-X and RED. Glad to see you are open-minded enough (or being pushed to? lol) educate yourself about FCPX. It'll be an interesting journey, I am sure.

:smiley:

 

[Paul Harb]

As I dig deeper I will share my thoughts. I am familiar with FCPX but in all honesty its been a couple versions since I looked at it and I have never dug that deep because there are certain things like tracks that are extremely problematic in my workflows and basically a deal breaker. I actually want to like it, Im trying and my interactions with Sam and his article has peeked my interest to take the time to dig deeper.

Thank you for pointing out again there has been a lot of confusion with this article which was my problem with it. Sam makes money by this being adopted, is is not a jab at Sam...its just a fact that needs to be disclosed in the context of whats being claimed here. Its not being used to cut the feature...yet this article was flying around the internet with people saying, "see, FCPX is being used on a 100 mil movie" I was trying to give some truthful insight into this since the author left it ambiguous.

The article does state that they are using FCPX in EPK post, but there has apparently been some confusion, so the clarification is good. The disclosures of financial interest bear repeating as well, as I either forgot or overlooked them. I suppose it is possible that others have done the same. Those are important factors to keep in mind so thank you too Mike.

Apparently you are only just acquainting yourself with the app? As you begin to familiarize yourself with FCPX Paul, it will be interesting to hear your opinions and discoveries. I don't speak for Stu but I am looking for more objective substance in your criticisms and less personal jousting, since you seem to be in a position to offer some valuable insight that may be different from many of us here.



So you are on the editorial team for the feature? I am confused by this post:


Was this a rhetorical question?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I suppose there are 2 ways of looking at editorial in 2013.

1) If it ain't broke don't fix it - to me this is the core of the pro AVID argument. Better to have some legacy paradigms that stand in the way of maximum efficiency, than to mess up a proven, interdependent ecosystem full of experienced practitioners.

2) The current NLE paradigm is fundamentally handicapped by being based on analog editing modalities that are no longer relevant. FCP-X and Apple are introducing a new paradigm that will reward those willing to scale the learning curve with a modern metadata leveraging tool.

I came up physically cutting film on a flatbed, and (for example) find the FCP7 interface quite intuitive. That said, things evolve and I find the potential of the FCP-X approach compelling.

CHeers - #19