FCPX, on set post, and studio level workflows

[M Most]

Blair, you're missing the most significant point, one that both myself and Paul have tried to get across:

3) Studio level post production, be it features or television, is a collaborative discipline. It is accomplished by utilizing different groups of people with high levels of talent in specific areas of the process. The editor is only one of those people. There are also visual effects artists, sound editors, sound mixers, on-line finishing artists, a title designer, a composer, and others. All of these steps are interdependent and all of them require standard methods of information exchange to enable the other to proceed efficiently. Post production on large projects doesn't involve one editor on one system doing it all. That approach is well served by FCPX. The other is not. It's really that simple. I get the distinct impression that people here - including Sam - are so enamored with this program that they are ignoring the needs of the larger process and making it all about the editor in the cutting room. Except that in my world - and Paul's - it's not all about that. Apple clearly designed this program for the individual. That's not how studio level productions are done. They, along with third parties, are slowly coming to that realization and may or may not fully address it. But unless/until they do, you will likely not see a lot of uptake on studio level productions, regardless of how nice an editing environment it may be. Many here want to guise this as another instance of those who are experienced somehow fearing the future, or protecting their jobs, or clinging to dinosaur habits, or any number of things that seem to come up on Reduser with great regularity. But those who see it that way are the ones who are missing the point.

BTW, I don't include you in that group. I'm just pointing out what I see....

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Perhaps some of the other Final Cut Pro X editors chime in on this issue because it sounds to me like Mike is saying Final Cut Pro X editors don't collaborate with anyone or at the very least is saying that we don't have the ability to collaborate with others. I'm probably not the shining example of collaboration as I mostly work on my own but I have worked with a composer before and I certainly didn't have to bring him round to my house and have him compose the score in Final Cut Pro X to make it work.
Maybe the coveted studio level which I'm not even sure at what point you qualify for such a distinction is different but I'm sure Final Cut Pro X can accommodate a collaborative post production workflow.
I just keep getting this vibe of we're the big guys and your the little guys who don't understand what we do when it sounds as though the big guys barely understand what the little guys do either.

 

[M Most]

I just keep getting this vibe of we're the big guys and your the little guys who don't understand what we do when it sounds as though the big guys barely understand what the little guys do either.

I understand quite well what you and others do. And I specifically used the term "studio level" to describe an industry segment, not to make it seem any more or less important than any other industry segment. The truth is, however, that there are a lot of people involved in post production in that segment, which is a large part of the reason for its level of "slickness" (notice I didn't use the word quality), and that tools intended to serve that segment need to address its needs - at least one of which is support of industry standard exchange formats and support of industry standard metadata that is used as part of that exchange. So when I read how much "better" FCPX is, it's a bit difficult to reconcile the notion of a nicer editing program with the overall needs of a collaborative process that involves standard information exchange and formats - many of which are not supported in that program.

It doesn't matter how nice the car is if it doesn't get you where you need to go.

 

[Neil W. Smith]

Exchange formats .....

Exchange formats .....

..... support of industry standard exchange formats and support of industry standard metadata that is used as part of that exchange. ....

Valid concern, Mike ... could you list the exchange formats that are essential to studio level collaboration and identify which ones are missing in the current iteration of FCP X.

Neil

 

[MichaelP]

What is not mentioned here is the fact that for collaboration to happen for the many involved in "studio" production effeciently is change management. Waiting for one process to be locked off, approved and never changed again before the next process starts no longer happens. Overlapping processes that shorten schedule is due to change management. Editorial makes changes, VFX makes changes, sound editing makes changes but are all barreling towards the same goal. Exchange formats are the usual suspects: EDL, OMF, AAF, and XML. What is more important is the consistency and persistence of the metadata within the exchange formats that will streamline the different workflows. Some of it is nomenclature harmonization - for example Media Composer's START and END versus FCP(x) IN and OUT. So not only the exchange format, but the table to change these in order to be consistent. There are a lot of others. So it's not only the ability to track lots of metadata, it's what you can do with it that also makes an impact at the Studio Level.

Michael

 

[Oliver Peters]

There are some fundamental issues with X that pose interchange problems. Most applications reference clips against absolute time. X references clips in a parent-child linked relationship to each other. Therefore, sequence translations are a challenge at best. It's also not uncommon to see 1-frame offset errors in these XML-based roundtrips. This will improve but as yet there's no reliable consistency. While third-party utilities, Resolve and Smoke have pretty good translations, it's unrealistic to expect any of these to be the pro forma interchange method, since there is no real standard.

Oliver

 

[M Most]

Valid concern, Mike ... could you list the exchange formats that are essential to studio level collaboration and identify which ones are missing in the current iteration of FCP X.

Neil

Well, for starters, there is no way that I know of to either track or re-report CDL values, something that is very basic and often used by both visual effects and post color. And while there are third party solutions for moving a project to post sound and creating basic EDL's, they are external to the program itself, requiring more handshaking. MichaelP mentiones change management, a rather critical feature in big feature post production that is currently accomplished by a combination of change lists, audio EDL's, and a number of other things - none of which are directly available in FCPX. The use of EDL's is common not only because it is simple and universally supported, they are used because they are simple text files that can be searched, sorted, and reformatted using simple scripting to accomplish multiple tasks, like creating source lists, consolidated source file folders (using aliases or symlinks), finding discontinuities, "cutting up" preconformed material in color grading applications, and the like. Because FCPX relies completely on file names - like FCP before it - it is not difficult to "accidentally" change a file name, causing conform problems, something that would not have that impact in Avid or some other programs. Again, if you're working alone, and/or using FCPX for everything, the notion of a "one button" online (by switching from proxies to original files) is nice, but that also means you need to have all of those files still present on the editor's system. That's one of the design criteria for FCPX, but when you're shooting with big data formats and have 3TB of material a day for 40 or more days, that's not particularly practical, nor does it lead to efficient cutting. Not to mention that original footage isn't usually handled by editorial anyway, it's handled by the entity(s) that are finishing the picture and safeguarding those assets.

As I've said too many times here already, FCPX is a very nice editing program. But in the larger scheme of things, it's appropriate for some situations, and not particularly appropriate for others. That's fixable, but it's not there right now.

 

[Neil W. Smith]

Well, for starters, there is no way that I know of to either track or re-report CDL values, something that is very basic and often used by both visual effects and post color. And while there are third party solutions for moving a project to post sound and creating basic EDL's, they are external to the program itself, requiring more handshaking. MichaelP mentiones change management, a rather critical feature in big feature post production that is currently accomplished by a combination of change lists, audio EDL's, and a number of other things - none of which are directly available in FCPX. The use of EDL's is common not only because it is simple and universally supported, they are used because they are simple text files that can be searched, sorted, and reformatted using simple scripting to accomplish multiple tasks, like creating source lists, consolidated source file folders (using EDL's or symlinks), finding discontinuities, "cutting up" preconformed material in color grading applications, and the like. Because FCPX relies completely on file names - like FCP before it - it is not difficult to "accidentally" change a file name, causing conform problems, something that would not have that impact in Avid or some other programs. Again, if you're working alone, and/or using FCPX for everything, the notion of a "one button" online (by switching from proxies to original files) is nice, but that also means you need to have all of those files still present on the editor's system. That's one of the design criteria for FCPX, but when you're shooting with big data formats and have 3TB of material a day for 40 or more days, that's not particularly practical, nor does it lead to efficient cutting. Not to mention that original footage isn't usually handled by editorial anyway, it's handled by the entity(s) that are finishing the picture and safeguarding those assets.

As I've said too many times here already, FCPX is a very nice editing program. But in the larger scheme of things, it's appropriate for some situations, and not particularly appropriate for others. That's fixable, but it's not there right now.

Thanks MikeM and MikeP ... useful feedback.

Neil

 

[Scott Crawley]

Because FCPX relies completely on file names - like FCP before it - it is not difficult to "accidentally" change a file name, causing conform problems, something that would not have that impact in Avid or some other programs. ... Not to mention that original footage isn't usually handled by editorial anyway, it's handled by the entity(s) that are finishing the picture and safeguarding those assets.

Those are a couple major shortcomings to be certain and even a small collaborative circle will rub up against these issues. They are oppressive and nearly prohibitive, but I have been able to make it work on a small scale as have others. Hell, FCP is still isolated from prior iterations of itself. That sets the bar for collaboration pretty low. :-(

I hope Apple takes these things on with vigor, but we do understand that they are still just getting up to speed. We are only now getting to where FCPX should have been coming out of the gate. You can almost hear the collective sigh of relief if you listen closely enough.

This is why Sam's article is so heartening. It is evidence to us that someone is making it work on a larger scale. It is emboldening, and that is most welcome. Thanks Sam for all of that... not just the article.

Stay vocal Mike, and I will remain hopeful that some influential eyes inside Apple are watching.

Edit: Honestly though Mike and Paul, I think the only reason the recent push back has been so strong is because the fall has been so hard and we are finally seeing an orienting light at the end of the tunnel. (Just my opinion.)

 

[Neil W. Smith]

There are some fundamental issues with X that pose interchange problems. Most applications reference clips against absolute time. X references clips in a parent-child linked relationship to each other. Therefore, sequence translations are a challenge at best. It's also not uncommon to see 1-frame offset errors in these XML-based roundtrips. This will improve but as yet there's no reliable consistency. While third-party utilities, Resolve and Smoke have pretty good translations, it's unrealistic to expect any of these to be the pro forma interchange method, since there is no real standard.

Oliver

Valid point ... which is why we often show our end-to-end workflow integrating FCP X with Resolve and Smoke ... all have their place in an Apple based ecosystem ... we'll be covering FCP X and Resolve 10 round-tripping at our '4K Unplugged' monthly meeting this coming Saturday.

Neil

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Blair, you're missing the most significant point, one that both myself and Paul have tried to get across:
3) Studio level post production, be it features or television, is a collaborative discipline. It is accomplished by utilizing different groups of people with high levels of talent in specific areas of the process. The editor is only one of those people. (snip)

Actually, I thought I had noted just that in my post:

"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."

I had intended the phrase "interdependent ecosystem" to refer to the plethora of specialists involved in the collaborative process.

IAC, paradigm shifts are particularly painful to accomplish when the level of interdependence is so high. In the case of the FCP-X rollout, there is a core philosophical issue in terms of the degree to which Apple wants to conform their tool to existing practices - if you build out all the connectivity, you may not be able to drag an industry into a more modern topology. Hopefully the next iteration of FCP-X will enable essential collaborative pathways while still leading the post ecosystem into a new modality.

Cheers - #19

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

It occurred to me that in some ways FCP-X is like the electric car. In auto world, the gas/electric "hybrid" is the compromise that attempts to facilitate the transition - but by still having the weight of a gas engine, it falls short of the real potential of an electric vehicle.

Toyota managed to create a very successful transitional vehicle with the Prius and now has a pure plug-in variant. That said, it's no Tesla.

(Yes, I realize my analogy has flaws, just trying to reframe)

Cheers - Blair

 

[M Most]

It occurred to me that in some ways FCP-X is like the electric car. In auto world, the gas/electric "hybrid" is the compromise that attempts to facilitate the transition - but by still having the weight of a gas engine, it falls short of the real potential of an electric vehicle.

Toyota managed to create a very successful transitional vehicle with the Prius and now has a pure plug-in variant. That said, it's no Tesla.

(Yes, I realize my analogy has flaws, just trying to reframe)

No, your analogy makes sense. I think.....:001_unsure:

One thing I forgot to mention earlier - probably because this is Reduser, but it should be said anyway - is that while FCPX is pretty good at dealing with native formats, that only holds true if the native format is Quicktime or R3D. Try bringing in material from an F55 (you can't - if it's RAW, you need to transcode, and if it's SR File or XAVC you have to rewrap as Quicktime before FCPX will even see it). When you buy into Apple's world, you have to go all in, because they don't often support any other way. So because they don't believe in MXF, you have to transcode or rewrap many common camera files. Not good if you're trying to sell the notion of no transcoding.

And BTW, I drive a C-Max (hybrid, not Energi). But only because I currently live in an apartment and don't have electric vehicle charging capability,,,,

 

[Eric Santiago]

Isn't it the same for Avid as far as other formats?

 

[Terry VerHaar]

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.

A genuine and sincere thanks for your thoughts. Maybe we do have something in common, aside being from "humble roots" I am also driven by passion; perhaps to a fault. But I do respect that and appreciate you for it. Heck, we might even like each other if we had the chance to meet. :smiley:

One note on the "substance" of this thread is that I have absolutely zero experience with Avid but, to be sure, never claimed such. I take it as gospel that it meets the needs of most professional editors. I was only responding to a request for my opinion about the business side of Avid, an area which I do feel somewhat competent. Here's my prediction: As a little time passes, you will get much more familiar and comfortable with FCP-X, meanwhile Apple will add some additional functionality that makes the collaborative process in the "studio level" productions possible. As you come to embrace it wholeheartedly, you won't even notice if Avid is still in business. And, I am quite sure, you'll be ten times more competent and creative with it than I could ever hope to be. ;-)

 

[M Most]

Isn't it the same for Avid as far as other formats?

No. That's what AMA is for. There are AMA plugins for just about every format I know of, including the ones I mentioned. Accessing files via AMA does not require transcoding or rewrapping. Whether one wants to cut with the AMA imported clips is another matter. But I wasn't comparing the two. I was commenting on the fact that with any Apple product, support of formats Apple doesn't believe in is likely to be lacking, and not necessarily recoverable, even with third party add ons. And I was also commenting on some of the things Sam was saying about using native formats through the process, and using the "one click" method in FCPX to relink to the original files (which is not possible on the formats I mentioned). In my world, Red is not the only camera used, even on shows where it is the primary camera.

 

[M Most]

One note on the "substance" of this thread is that I have absolutely zero experience with Avid but, to be sure, never claimed such. I take it as gospel that it meets the needs of most professional editors. I was only responding to a request for my opinion about the business side of Avid, an area which I do feel somewhat competent. Here's my prediction: As a little time passes, you will get much more familiar and comfortable with FCP-X, meanwhile Apple will add some additional functionality that makes the collaborative process in the "studio level" productions possible...

Not if you're working on a production that is shooting with F55.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I understand quite well what you and others do. And I specifically used the term "studio level" to describe an industry segment, not to make it seem any more or less important than any other industry segment. The truth is, however, that there are a lot of people involved in post production in that segment, which is a large part of the reason for its level of "slickness" (notice I didn't use the word quality), and that tools intended to serve that segment need to address its needs - at least one of which is support of industry standard exchange formats and support of industry standard metadata that is used as part of that exchange. So when I read how much "better" FCPX is, it's a bit difficult to reconcile the notion of a nicer editing program with the overall needs of a collaborative process that involves standard information exchange and formats - many of which are not supported in that program.

It doesn't matter how nice the car is if it doesn't get you where you need to go.

Mike - again with all the respect due a successful and productive Hollywood post professional, the one point I would make is that all it really takes is one or two good examples to disprove the idea that FCP-X is "inappropriate " for the collaborative world of "studio level productions." I know that collaboration in FCP-X is quite easy with sound/music/foley artists because I have done it - and I am no post wizard. And, we all know FCP-X works well with Resolve, especially the new one. But the "proof" really lies in the fact that projects like Sam has cited - not just the Bulgarian one, but others - and, some projects that Michael Cioni has discussed, have been done in a fully collaborative mode. If you can find one TV show to "prove" that it works for television, then it does. And, all it takes is one feature length film to "prove" that it can work for film. If it can be done successfully and effectively once, then it has potential to become the norm; assuming, of course, that is indeed "a better way."

So here is my contention - like all businesses, anything disruptive rarely gets embraced right off the bat because an entire industry can't grind to a halt just to embrace the change, even if it represents an improvement (just saying this as a hypothetical). And the established players usually have little incentive to embrace change quickly. But, it has to be said that much of the resistance to - and defense of - this change is due to the "we have always done it this way, it works, why change?" mentality. And, there is merit to this because change takes time, effort and usually involves cost.

To be sure, there are times when something new proves to be a fluke. So, it can be prudent to "wait and see." That is why, so often, the change agents are the ones with no stake in the old game; those that have little or nothing to lose. So, we know FCP-X is sufficiently different to represent change. The question to be answered is, "Is it better?". Time will tell. The analogy that comes to mind is that of digital imaging vs. film. Film is very mature. like the methods and processes embedded within "traditional" NLEs like Avid. Digital is new and in a time of massive development. "Film guys" saw little need to change. Indie folks and others without the "establishment" behind them to afford film, embraced the "new way."

FCP-X is just one product. It is not the end-all to post production. The bigger question is whether other NLEs will move to embrace some of the changes introduced by it. Perhaps they'll even extend and improve them. I doubt there will be just one post pipeline when the dust clears. Itv will be interesting to see who remains and what that pipeline looks like.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

And BTW, I drive a C-Max (hybrid, not Energi). But only because I currently live in an apartment and don't have electric vehicle charging capability,,,,

See - I knew we had something in common. I drive a C-Max, too. I love it!!

 

[Sam Mestman - WMM]

Just when I thought I was out of this thread... It pulled me back in!

A couple clarifications on the article... the primary purpose of me being there was to set up the studio for a long term 4k workflow in a Mac based ecosystem. We decided to do the EPK as a test drive, and I had total access to the incoming footage from the movie for testing and training purposes, but because there had already been decisions made about post and an existing setup for editors to work from, the decision was made (rightly so), to let the people work on the platform they were most comfortable. It would have been insane to ask these guys to come in and cut a high level feature with a tool they didn't feel comfortable using. End of story. However, that doesn't mean I didn't have a chance to do my own tests and put things through their paces there. I stand behind everything I wrote.

In terms of whether it's ready for a studio workflow... well, I immediately went from Bulgaria to set up a US Studio feature for a completely FCPX based editorial workflow. They are currently working away on it. The world has not ended, and people are not running screaming from the edit trailer tearing their hair out over what they can't do. They're making a movie. It's going well. I'll have another article coming next week about some of the things we've been doing.

And in terms of all the things FCPX can't do on a studio level, if you knew the level of scrutiny we were under to even get to the point where they said yes and let us do this, you'd know that this was not a casual decision for the studio. They did their homework. We did extensive testing to make sure that we could deliver everything they needed for the studio to have this work in their ecosystem. We are currently delivering on our promise to them, and there are some very experienced people on the post team (some of whom also happen to come from a very heavy Avid background). Time will tell if this remains the case, but I'm completely confident in the team, the process, and the research we did to make this happen.

BTW, Paul, right on man! If you run into issues or problems, fire away. And if you ever want a demo of how I'm using the program, just ask. I'm happy to show you... and I'd be pretty interested in your feedback. Informed debate and constructive criticism are the things that will get the App where it should be in the eyes of the post community, and it is the best way to breed knowledge and awareness... and maybe even see that there were some ways to do things that you hadn't realized yet. And for those who are looking to dive in, my recommendation would be to start with something small and low stakes and work your way up from there. It takes a minute to get comfortable, and even longer to really get to the bottom of things, understand what works and what doesn't, and translate your previous editing experience to high level workflows with FCPX.

Also, it has been mentioned in a few places that I've got an agenda and something to sell. Ummm... of course I do! I make a living doing this like everyone else (although I find this argument a bit hilarious coming from some of these people as there's the whole pot, kettle, black analogy that I'd like to reference). That said... I will also say that I only sell clients gear that I would use myself if I was the client and their project was my project. I use all the gear I recommend, and contrary to popular belief, I'm not some tech nerd apple fanboy who picked up editing a couple years ago. I started editing video on a linear tape based setup that had a toaster, I've cut film on a flatbed, started out cutting on Avid, moved to Final Cut Studio, and spent the next few years there until I dove in with X... and as soon as something comes along that I feel will allow me to work faster, better, and more efficiently than I do now, I'll use that.

If you guys really want to know why I write this stuff, it's mostly because I think FCPX has gotten a bum rap, and the app is not what it was when it was released. Apple is doing some pretty interesting things that have really helped my day to do day editing experience, and have allowed me to spend more time on the story, and less time on the technical pissing contest that the post world has become. That's why I use it... and things are only going to get better. I really think they're just scratching the surface of what the app is going to become, and I think it's already ready for prime time even in its current version. Really, all I want is for the people that read all this stuff to take a minute, open it back up, give it a fair chance with an open mind, and decide for themselves if it's a tool they want to use in their workflows. I don't really think that's unreasonable.