Someone should tell Eddi Hamilton (editor of Mission Impossible_Rogue Nation) the existence of FCPX

pretty sure, I'm megalomaniac here, to tell a topnotch Hollywood star what to do and what not...

but after watching todays frontpage story about Thomas G. Carter (awesome!) and how he edits, this article
www.provideocoalition.com/art-of-the-cut...ossible-rogue-nation

… frightens me:
bins? 'folders' for wide, narrow, close-up?? 'Tracks' for alternatives (auditions)?

… I have no problem keeping stuff in sync. …

wow, big deal, 2015 .....

yes, me hobbyist, no dailys, no 5 assistances, no 120Mio budget.
but the descriptions how this poor guy wrestles with limited (yeah, beat me! ) features, astonishes me. To say at least.-

If I would be in charge in some production, I would waste another Mio for a 'race' … 5min of a real movie project, on Avid vs. FCPX .... reliable workflows? yes. but habitual workflows .... ?

I've interviewed quite a few feature film editors and I've cut a number of features myself. Every editor has very different and often unique ways of working that often have very little to do with the software features. FCPX would be better for some and not for others. For most, who have developed their NLE skills around Media Composer, there's absolutely no reason to change. The keystrokes are so ingrained that the NLE simply falls away.

In addition, large films work in a collaborative environment, often with as many as 15 systems all working on the same project file simultaneously. Avid is a very robust solution here, so given the choice between Avid or anything else, most (though not all) studios, producers and A-list film editors will pick Avid each and every time.

Oliver

No reason an old pro can't learn new tricks. Just because it is ingrained doesn't make it efficient or justify it. "Old" does not equal "smart".

… For most, who have developed their NLE skills around Media Composer, there's absolutely no reason to change …

One word: Time & money.
… ok, that is three ...
When the habituaal workflow is more time-consuming, less efficient, more expensive, there is a reason. Or two. Faster. Cheaper.
… which are the main criteria for professional work.

I really recommend to read the first few paragraphs, and compare it to your knowledge of how FCPX allows metas and tags.

sure, you're absolutey right about criterias as stability, integration, 'muscle memory'... but that was not my point ........

I find it really old fashioned ... no, [strike]nuts[/strike] [strike]insane[/strike] weird , in times of DITs and various tools allowing tagging LIVE/while recording, that Mr H needs several (paid!) persons to put clips into folders, 'filtered' by focus length <smiley hammer on head>

… tell this Phil Hodgetts … :woohoo:


Even a 5€ app, Apogee Metarecorder, drops my on-set comments instantly into FCPX and creates automatically playlists - no assistant, no 'do it in post' needed. (yeah, I compare Apples with Lemons ... anyhow)

And that is just one example in this article, there are many other mentioned which let me shake my head in unbelieve.-

No, there is a reason to change …

"One word: Time & money.
… ok, that is three ...
I really recommend to read the first few paragraphs, and compare it to your knowledge of how FCPX allows metas and tags."

Speaking from personal experience, I've cut indie features on various Avid products, FCP "legacy", linear systems, and FCP X to date. All have their pros and cons. The browser-based selection tools in X are good - IF - you work that way. Not everyone does and to say one way is "smart" and the other way isn't, simply doesn't reflect reality. It's all relevant to your working style.

Now, how about tools that ONLY exit in Media Composer? Such as script-based editing, where takes are actually connected visually in a bin to the textual display of the script. Not all Avid editors use this, but those that do wouldn't want to work any other way.

None of this equates to time or money. A large feature film is typically in post for 9 months, so it really doesn't matter how fast the NLE is, because it's still going to take that long. Most good editors who are cutting in parallel with the production, will have a first cut within a couple of weeks of the production wrapping, regardless of the NLE. The director contractually has 10 weeks from that point to get to a "director's cut". Depending on producers, test screenings, VFX, etc. it can take additional months before you get to a "locked cut". So the process takes what it takes.

Also remember that with a large film, you have a team of lead editors, assistants, VFX editors and music editors and they all have to be on the same page.

- Oliver

It's horses for courses right, that article was biased for Avid workflow and plugged the authors Avid book in the conclusion.

"Focus" was edited with FCPX as forum members probably know. As an alternative Michael Matzdorff's e-book would make for good reading in saving time/money on a film project. Info and link below from Amazon about the book which is also available in Apple's bookstore.




Final Cut Pro X: Pro Workflow: Proven Techniques from the First Studio Film to Use FCP X by Michael Matzdorff and Brendan Boykin

www.amazon.com/Final-Cut-Pro-Workflow-Te...id=1448991915&sr=1-1

Apple's Final Cut Pro X was given a chilly reception by Hollywood, but the critics have been proven wrong. Focus, a 2015 Warner Bros. release, starring Will Smith and Margot Robbie, was edited on FCP X. Written by the film's First Assistant Editor, this book discusses tips, tricks and techniques used to navigate the complex world of feature film post-production.

This book is for professional film and video editors, post-production supervisors, students, editing enthusiasts and anyone who is interested in how a film is finished.


jonnyelwyn.co.uk/film-and-video-editing/...ature-film-workflow/

DigiGal wrote: that article was biased for Avid workflow and plugged the authors Avid book in the conclusion. ...As an alternative Michael Matzdorff's e-book would make for good reading in saving time/money on a film project.

FWIW - Steve (the author) is a strong Avid proponent, but he's also cut features on FCP7 and currently on Premiere Pro. In the past he was also a solid user of Sony Xpri. So he's not exclusively Avid. He also has written several very good books on color correction.

Mike's book is also good and he did a lot to pioneer (along with Sam Mestman) the workflows used in "Focus". This has subsequently impacted other films being cut with FCPX.

I would encourage you to read other interviews in Steve's Art of the Cut series. They are all worthwhile. In addition, here's a series of film editor interviews that I've done, including with the "Focus" team, if you want to get some other points-of-view.

digitalfilms.wordpress.com/film-stories/

- Oliver

"First Studio Film to Use FCP X "

Actually it wasn't the first, just the most popular. This was the first, film and edited in native 3D.
www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/detective-dee/

BenB wrote: Actually it wasn't the first, just the most popular.

The reference was to Hollywood studio films.

- Oliver

DigiGal wrote: that article was biased for Avid workflow

Steve asked me to pass along that it's hard to find any interesting projects to write about that were cut on FCPX or Premiere at this time. But if anyone has some suggestions he's quite interested.

By "interesting" he means big, recognizable films that any English-speaking reader would find interesting. This means mainstream Hollywood films for the most part. Those are largely Avid-edited films, while the number of Premiere/FCPX films you can pretty much count on one hand.

Remember that from a journalist's perspective, you won't get to interview any of these editors until the studio publicists are ready, so it's partially a timing issue. Right now, there's the next film from the same team as "Focus" (too early), Murch's next documentary (not close to done), and the Coens' newest (they rarely give interviews). Anything else someone would like to suggest?

- Oliver

It would be nice to see another interview with Michael and the team from "Focus" especially if they are working on another with FCPX. "digital VIDEO" magazine did a nice article on "Focus" which is available online link -> www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/news/edit/...nal-cut-pro-x/609084


"Cold Lights" was another independent film by Marcus Hardy who edited it with FCPX. It was really low budget but it could be interesting to read a real interview with him about it. No idea if he's a member here, watched his film but haven't read much about it, here's a blurb post at CC -> forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/26330

DigiGal wrote: It would be nice to see another interview with Michael and the team from "Focus" especially if they are working on another with FCPX. "digital VIDEO" magazine did a nice article on "Focus" which is available online link

I wrote the DV article. Mike is on an Avid film right now, but the directors and Jan are on an FCPX film. However, no one will speak until the film is close to a release date (within a few weeks of that date).

- Oliver

^ Small world, didn't notice it was written by you. :lol: Had remembered reading it in the print magazine and enjoyed reading it, just did a quick search to see if it was available online to add it to the thread.

No disrespect intended for other workflows just would like to read about more films being done with FCPX. Guess there aren't many at this point which could change with articles like yours on Focus and with Michaels book demonstrating the workflow/benefits of using FCPX.

DigiGal wrote: No disrespect intended for other workflows just would like to read about more films being done with FCPX.

Not a problem at all I'm actually working on another story for a film called "Voice from the Stone". It stars Emilia Clarke ("Game of Thrones") but it doesn't have a distribution deal yet. It's an indie, but should have a good chance as there are some really strong names attached. Stay tuned.

- Oliver

@Oliver:

Your site is in my bookmarklist, I'm reading regularely it, so, to grab the chance: THANKS for sharing/publishing!

Don't get me wrong here: Avid is the top-dog in 'Hollywood' movie making - as far as I can judge. And for sure, the lil' hobbyist from Munich has no clue, what's needed for projects that scale.

And one prefers tracks, the next folders, and one asks for 75mm on a Steenbeck... :lol:

... but that interview is an ecellent trigger to have a "look across your own plates border", as we phrase it here. The workflow, as Hamilton openfolds, could be … enhanced.

Plus, what I stated in any discussion about 'pro or not':
the making of Blockbusters is meanwhile just a fraction of movie-making; an urban legens tells, the number of blockbusters is constant for decades (!). An expanding market are those one-man-bands, anything at the GoPro chanel, any 'Staff Pick' at Vimeo, 100% of those (mostly terrible) vblogs ....

THAT is the future - not only in business terms, but in audience, ... my time-account is limited, and shifts to the 'smaller scaled' moving pictures - although I'm an old man, and although I love to watch blockbusters, my viewing habits should be old-fashioned, but they ain't, Hollywood is losing me. ... So, 95+% market share for Avid, why not - but tell me ONE 'maker' of those new, refreshing, eye-candy-ish, breathtaking, inspired&inspiring projects using this dinosaur .... ?

Which is a very old, nasty rhetoric trick: turn the question upside down.
Not "Which blockbuster uses FCPX?"
but "Which StaffPick uses Avid?"



again, Oilver, thanks for your your work!

I remember meeting Eddie Hamilton at the IBC, he seems a really cool guy.
I did feel a bit sorry when he suppose to demo Avid on stage showing a scene from Kick-Ass, but they technical problems. :huh:

You might find this interesting AVID vs FINAL CUT PRO in a feature film cutting room

Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you enjoy the blog. Certainly every editor has their own style of working and Hollywood films - or any feature films in any country - are a fraction of the media production that's out there. They are, however, the most visible and the most profitable - YouTube phenoms like Devon Supertramp notwithstanding. Therefore, they get media coverage that's out of proportion with their place in the greater media sphere. (But then why do people idolize movie stars? Same concept.) Because these workflows are very rigid for a reason, it's often unfair to extrapolate what they do to what others do and vice versa.

In addition, many A-list editors are not that technically savvy and are very dependent on their assistants when it comes to setting up the system and organizing the project. So the workflows of small independent film projects are more of a direct corelary to what most of us do, than are large films. But in the end, a film editor is hired for what they bring to the project creatively, not how well they perform software functions. So articles like these film editor interviews are probably best read with an eye towards how they solved creative challenges, since these problems and solutions are more universal.

As far as FCPX, Apple did not design the application with "Hollywood" in mind. They are glad when it gets used in that environment. They certainly built in tools that can add efficiency to those workflows. But if no mainstream film were ever to be edited with FCPX ever again, it wouldn't make much difference to Apple. I mean this in the sense of the company at large, not particularly any individual or group within ProApps. FWIW - according to my knowledge, Apple is generally less in direct contact with filmmakers (preferring to leave that up to third party workflow consultants) than is Adobe. Adobe seems to be directly involved, so they can observe and tweak the code in ways that benefit you and me. Apple tends to be a bit more "stealth" about it, as is their way. Avid, of course, maintains a lot of direct contact, but it's so established that they are long past needing to have any direct engineering support.

Hope that helps explain things.

Oliver

Oliver