That video shows that they shoot 30-40 hours/day of tape, 7 days per week while in production...
I suspect that the lack of native FCP X Tape Import has something to do with the decision...
They could have used a 3rd party tool or FCP 7 to load the tapes onto the XSan though - an editor won't pick up a tape and import directly into the bin. It might have been the initial lack of XSan support, edit to tape and still lack of multi-cam (due sometime this year):
-- any FCP X Project and its Events on the Share are available to one user at a time
-- the source media need never be copied, just referenced
-- edits can be recombined with the master Project and Events an any time, one editor at a time.
This is what I don't like about the Events setup. It acts like an intermediary between the edit and the footage and it hampers portability. The 10.0.1 update is an example of this - it seems as though it is necessary to update all your events and projects such that they are no longer usable on 10.0.0. They might do that going from 10.0 to 10.1 where the update isn't free. It's likely that the updates will be inexpensive but I don't like that in principle. Of course, you could say the same about any project update not being backwards compatible but reverting one project file is easier than all the footage events in your entire collection. The Bunim Murray company has an XSan with over 300TB of storage space for their footage. It doesn't seem practical to manage that amount of data using Apple's Events setup.
I also don't think FCP should put the render files in beside the projects. I think it should be:
Final Cut Events -> Event -> Original + transcode
Final Cut Projects -> Project -> FCP project database
Final Cut Renders -> Project -> temporary render files
This way you can easily have a dedicated drive for render files and hose it if you run out of space. Although you can delete render footage from the project view, it would make sharing projects much easier as you can just find the project file/folder, zip it up and email it.
Sharing edits via email is something that seems to be very difficult in FCPX. in FCP 7, you just do save as... zip up the file and ship it to someone else who might have an entirely different drive setup and even format of source footage - they could be on proxy footage where you have originals. All they do is open the file from any save location and relink a single file and FCP 7 just automagically ( that word is in Apple's dictionary) relinks everything. I'm using some sugar coating here as the relink doesn't always go smoothly but that process just seems incredibly difficult, if not impossible now.
The process of moving events and projects to other drives is not something that makes me feel safe either. Having a Move Event button that copies source footage over to another drive behind the scenes and then deletes it without you really seeing what's happening, is a bit worrying. You don't know what would happen if FCPX crashed during the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
First, you can do this by reimporting the media, essentially what you do in FCP 7 -- you just do it differently. The edits are preserved. In addition, the database of metadata, is preserved.
Is this new in the update? What are the steps you do to reimport media?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
You can encapsulate a Project and its Events if you desire. For example, it is trivial to duplicate a project (along with its events) and move that to another computer, say a laptop -- so you can continue working off site.
It's not quite the same encapsulation you had before on one computer though where the footage from one project is not even visible or accessible from another project. I think that's how it should be by default. Not in the way that FCP 7 does it but by using extra metadata - so assign events project tags and then allow you to only see events from a given set of project tags.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I get the feeling they have sacrificed usability for flexibility -- you can make it turn cart-wheels... if only you could get it to walk.
Maybe more later... I don't know if I want to know anymore about this.
Yeah, those kind of software packages tend to have really clumsy UIs. That's one element of what made Apple's professional software line so great - they managed to combine powerful software with usable interfaces. It takes more effort but it's worth it. An industry heavyweight 3D app called Houdini looks like this:
You almost feel like if you look at it the wrong way you're going to break something. Change a panel layout by accident and take weeks to figure out how to get it back the way it was. I don't think software should be like that and I really hate when Apple alienates groups of people like they did with Shake because it forces adoption of ugly software packages (the following at least had some legacy so it's not too bad):
I, however, DO know about some of those films (especially since I cut two of them) and state unequivocally that most were cut entirely in FCP, as are hundreds of other features and episodics.
But now we're dealing with FCPX, which excels in episodics but doesn't handle features as well. I would be very happy if you were to point out features currently being completely handled in FCPX (as I say I want Apple to succeed in with their pro apps and in fact have been unhappy with my last few years of Avid (Digidesign) audio products and support and have no love for Avid) but most editors I deal with who are FCPX users (and many have Avid as well) do not do long form films, love FCPX as a tool yet feel it bogs down on even their longer projects. All of the editors I know who use FCPX for short form and work fairly independently are very happy with it, the ones who do long form and work as part of larger intertwined groups are not using it for that.
How are you getting around this currently in feature length work, or are you not experiencing this? Do you feel you could have done those two features that you did in FCP in FCPX in its current state?
But now we're dealing with FCPX, which excels in episodics but doesn't handle features as well. I would be very happy if you were to point out features currently being completely handled in FCPX (as I say I want Apple to succeed in with their pro apps and in fact have been unhappy with my last few years of Avid (Digidesign) audio products and support and have no love for Avid) but most editors I deal with who are FCPX users (and many have Avid as well) do not do long form films, love FCPX as a tool yet feel it bogs down on even their longer projects. All of the editors I know who use FCPX for short form and work fairly independently are very happy with it, the ones who do long form and work as part of larger intertwined groups are not using it for that.
How are you getting around this currently in feature length work, or are you not experiencing this? Do you feel you could have done those two features that you did in FCP in FCPX in its current state?
Respectfully,
J
Absolutely not - FCPX is a disaster, not only in lack of professional features, but in bugginess as well. Also, several friend who have attempted short form work have the same issues with FCPX that feature cutters do. In spite of the amazing ability of the software to deal with certain forms of media efficiently on the fly, it lacks the most basic functionality inherent in FCP7 and several other packages.
It's an amateur software at best, and even then it would hobble most proficient editors.
For a big summer movie. Visual Effects will be the most expensive part of post production.
Read that chart again. Visual effects are a separate line from post production?so yes, editing represents a major cost of 'post production' on this chart.
Comments
Maybe:
http://www.lightworksbeta.com/
Well, I installed LightWorks on WinXP...
First impressions:
Kinda' retro...
Reminds me of PhotoShop -- where everything's a Windoid -- you have crap windows all over the place.
The Conbination of Windoids is fully configurable (there seems to be no main window)
Real bummer -- when you create a project you must specify fps -- then you cannot import any video into that project with a different fps.
I get the feeling they have sacrificed usability for flexibility -- you can make it turn cart-wheels... if only you could get it to walk.
Maybe more later... I don't know if I want to know anymore about this.
That video shows that they shoot 30-40 hours/day of tape, 7 days per week while in production...
I suspect that the lack of native FCP X Tape Import has something to do with the decision...
They could have used a 3rd party tool or FCP 7 to load the tapes onto the XSan though - an editor won't pick up a tape and import directly into the bin. It might have been the initial lack of XSan support, edit to tape and still lack of multi-cam (due sometime this year):
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/8/1150105
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/11786 (Raudonis added a 'like' to this message)
-- any FCP X Project and its Events on the Share are available to one user at a time
-- the source media need never be copied, just referenced
-- edits can be recombined with the master Project and Events an any time, one editor at a time.
This is what I don't like about the Events setup. It acts like an intermediary between the edit and the footage and it hampers portability. The 10.0.1 update is an example of this - it seems as though it is necessary to update all your events and projects such that they are no longer usable on 10.0.0. They might do that going from 10.0 to 10.1 where the update isn't free. It's likely that the updates will be inexpensive but I don't like that in principle. Of course, you could say the same about any project update not being backwards compatible but reverting one project file is easier than all the footage events in your entire collection. The Bunim Murray company has an XSan with over 300TB of storage space for their footage. It doesn't seem practical to manage that amount of data using Apple's Events setup.
I also don't think FCP should put the render files in beside the projects. I think it should be:
Final Cut Events -> Event -> Original + transcode
Final Cut Projects -> Project -> FCP project database
Final Cut Renders -> Project -> temporary render files
This way you can easily have a dedicated drive for render files and hose it if you run out of space. Although you can delete render footage from the project view, it would make sharing projects much easier as you can just find the project file/folder, zip it up and email it.
Sharing edits via email is something that seems to be very difficult in FCPX. in FCP 7, you just do save as... zip up the file and ship it to someone else who might have an entirely different drive setup and even format of source footage - they could be on proxy footage where you have originals. All they do is open the file from any save location and relink a single file and FCP 7 just automagically (
The process of moving events and projects to other drives is not something that makes me feel safe either. Having a Move Event button that copies source footage over to another drive behind the scenes and then deletes it without you really seeing what's happening, is a bit worrying. You don't know what would happen if FCPX crashed during the process.
First, you can do this by reimporting the media, essentially what you do in FCP 7 -- you just do it differently. The edits are preserved. In addition, the database of metadata, is preserved.
Is this new in the update? What are the steps you do to reimport media?
You can encapsulate a Project and its Events if you desire. For example, it is trivial to duplicate a project (along with its events) and move that to another computer, say a laptop -- so you can continue working off site.
It's not quite the same encapsulation you had before on one computer though where the footage from one project is not even visible or accessible from another project. I think that's how it should be by default. Not in the way that FCP 7 does it but by using extra metadata - so assign events project tags and then allow you to only see events from a given set of project tags.
I get the feeling they have sacrificed usability for flexibility -- you can make it turn cart-wheels... if only you could get it to walk.
Maybe more later... I don't know if I want to know anymore about this.
You almost feel like if you look at it the wrong way you're going to break something. Change a panel layout by accident and take weeks to figure out how to get it back the way it was. I don't think software should be like that and I really hate when Apple alienates groups of people like they did with Shake because it forces adoption of ugly software packages (the following at least had some legacy so it's not too bad):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSop7_Ljc9c
I, however, DO know about some of those films (especially since I cut two of them) and state unequivocally that most were cut entirely in FCP, as are hundreds of other features and episodics.
But now we're dealing with FCPX, which excels in episodics but doesn't handle features as well. I would be very happy if you were to point out features currently being completely handled in FCPX (as I say I want Apple to succeed in with their pro apps and in fact have been unhappy with my last few years of Avid (Digidesign) audio products and support and have no love for Avid) but most editors I deal with who are FCPX users (and many have Avid as well) do not do long form films, love FCPX as a tool yet feel it bogs down on even their longer projects. All of the editors I know who use FCPX for short form and work fairly independently are very happy with it, the ones who do long form and work as part of larger intertwined groups are not using it for that.
How are you getting around this currently in feature length work, or are you not experiencing this? Do you feel you could have done those two features that you did in FCP in FCPX in its current state?
Respectfully,
J
But now we're dealing with FCPX, which excels in episodics but doesn't handle features as well. I would be very happy if you were to point out features currently being completely handled in FCPX (as I say I want Apple to succeed in with their pro apps and in fact have been unhappy with my last few years of Avid (Digidesign) audio products and support and have no love for Avid) but most editors I deal with who are FCPX users (and many have Avid as well) do not do long form films, love FCPX as a tool yet feel it bogs down on even their longer projects. All of the editors I know who use FCPX for short form and work fairly independently are very happy with it, the ones who do long form and work as part of larger intertwined groups are not using it for that.
How are you getting around this currently in feature length work, or are you not experiencing this? Do you feel you could have done those two features that you did in FCP in FCPX in its current state?
Respectfully,
J
Absolutely not - FCPX is a disaster, not only in lack of professional features, but in bugginess as well. Also, several friend who have attempted short form work have the same issues with FCPX that feature cutters do. In spite of the amazing ability of the software to deal with certain forms of media efficiently on the fly, it lacks the most basic functionality inherent in FCP7 and several other packages.
It's an amateur software at best, and even then it would hobble most proficient editors.
For a big summer movie. Visual Effects will be the most expensive part of post production.
Read that chart again. Visual effects are a separate line from post production?so yes, editing represents a major cost of 'post production' on this chart.
The company produced by him is a better one . In a press release on Wednesday,he announced that reality TV giant and former that was the final result.
London television production companies